Comparing LSA engine weights

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Post by 3Dreaming »

Jack, very well said.
User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by zaitcev »

So in the end Rotax is still the lightest even with all the water, and after Lyc trashed all the accessories and the ignition equipment.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

zaitcev wrote:So in the end Rotax is still the lightest even with all the water
Pete, we won't know that for sure until Lycoming comes up with a final design (and final weight) for the IO-233. But, at the moment this certainly seems to be the case. Remember that the Rotax cooling system capacity is just under a gallon, so we're only talking 8 pounds of water -- and that those water-cooled heads allow for much lighter jugs, since they don't need such large cooling fins.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Post by dstclair »

Can't figure out how to upload a file but I did find a Lycoming published brochure with a 2011 copyright for the 233 that lists the dry weight at 213lbs. Hopefully the link works: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/news-an ... engine.pdf

I found a builder reference of 196 lbs in one of the various EAB forums as well.

Fuel consumption is 6.0 at 75% power and 5.2 at 65% power. Not certified for E10. There's a series of Lycoming blogs on fuel over at avweb stating their position.
dave
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

dstclair wrote:I did find a Lycoming published brochure with a 2011 copyright for the 233
Thanks, Dave. That brochure is very informative (and the link works just fine). I find it interesting that they state "FAA certification pending." That means they plan to make this a certified engine! Now, if only they'd publish a price...
that lists the dry weight at 213lbs.
As I suspected, it's still pretty heavy. The installed weight of the Rotax 912ULS is listed as 140.6 lbs (my reference is http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_engin ... 12ULSs.htm).
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

"I find it interesting that they state "FAA certification pending." "

That sounds consistent with Lycoming's normal practice as described on their website. They have their (uncertified) Thunderbolt series, which offers a mix of option choices for each engine as spec'd by the customer, and they have the 'certified' version of the same engine (with only certified options). One wonders where they see the market for that type/size/hp engine in a certified form. But then, there appear to be a lot of things we're all wondering about WRT that engine. E.g. it's very interesting to read that it is not intended for use with E10 fuel. Do they permit use of E0 mogas? What part of the engine's fuel or other systems is inconsistent with E10 fuel? Lots of Q's...
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
7900
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:07 am
Location: GA

Post by 7900 »

Amazes me how some of you keyboard cowboys would rather rely on outdated info you dug up on the web than accept what the owner of the company that actually tested the IO-233 for over 100 hours found. Your comments make it obvious not one of you has ever spoken with Chris Bailey, the man who has actual flight time testing and developing this engine.

You're all so worried about the extra weight of this engine adversly affecting range, tell me how many of you routinely sit in your lsa's for over four hours straight and fly greater than 500 miles without a stop ??? Do you really think of lsa's as being used mostly for serious cross country trips when most lsa pilots readily admit they use them mostly just for fun and short trips. If payload and range are that important to you then go buy a used GA plane for the same money.

You lsa CFI's, tell me are your flight lessons with new students longer than four hours straight ? Don't you find that awful long for a new student to sit in the cockpit without any break and not allow them time to assimilate what they just learned ? Is landing after three hours for a fuel stop that much an inconvenience ??

When you balance how most lsa pilots actually use their ac vs what some of you are saying is most important, well they don't match up very well. Makes it very easy to see those who most likely have a financial conflict of interest from being Rotax owners and mechanics here.

Having 390 lbs of fuel fuel ( 24 gal ) payload in a Tecnam Eaglet available to me is perfect, I'm not as overweight as some of you must be ( or you wouldn't be worrying about weight so much ). Plus I love the extra 20 + hp the IO-233 gives me and will enjoy the greater service access that Lycoming affords as well.
Last edited by 7900 on Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

7900 wrote:Amazes me how some of you keyboard cowboys would rather rely on outdated info you dug up on the web
Outdated? The document Dave pointed us to is dated March 2011 (that's five months old; pretty current for a manufacturer's spec sheet). And, it comes directly from the engine's manufacturer. If you can't believe what the manufacturer tells the public, what can you believe? (Or do you think that the installed weight for the Rotax I cited is maybe wrong, because it too came off its manufacturer's website? You can't have it both ways...)
You're all so worried about the extra weight of this engine adversly affecting range
Where in that post did I say anything about range? All I said was:
As I suspected, it's still pretty heavy.
I made no value judgment about that; just stated an indisputable fact.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
7900
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:07 am
Location: GA

Post by 7900 »

drseti wrote:
7900 wrote:Amazes me how some of you keyboard cowboys would rather rely on outdated info you dug up on the web
Outdated? The document Dave pointed us to is dated March 2011 (that's five months old; pretty current for a manufacturer's spec sheet). And, it comes directly from the engine's manufacturer. If you can't believe what the manufacturer tells the public, what can you believe? (Or do you think that the installed weight for the Rotax I cited is maybe wrong, because it too came off its manufacturer's website? You can't have it both ways...)
You're all so worried about the extra weight of this engine adversly affecting range
Where in that post did I say anything about range? All I said was:
As I suspected, it's still pretty heavy.
I made no value judgment about that; just stated an indisputable fact.
Doc B's specs are the most up to date info available. The engine was in development so 5 month old data is old news compared to the finished product. Talk to him if you really want the truth or just keep rehashing this over and over and going nowhere.
Last edited by 7900 on Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

7900 wrote:You lsa CFI's, tell me are your flight lessons with new students longer than four hours straight ?
Of course not; my lessons run 2 hours at the outside. I typically fill my tanks 10 gallons each, 20 gallons total. That's enough for a two hour lesson with 5 gals reserve in each wing (which I know is way more than the totally unrealistic 30 min FAA reserve requirement, but I'm trying to teach my students, by example, the value of time in the tanks). With 120 pounds of fuel taken out of a 550 pound useful load, I get 430 pounds of payload. I weigh 170, and the heaviest student I will allow is 250#. That leaves us 10# for emergency equipment, headsets, fire extinguisher, and flight bags. If my engine were 72 pounds heavier (the apparent difference in weight between the Lycoming and the Rotax, based upon manufacturer's data), not only might it shift my CG forward of the envelope, but my student weight limit would then be 178 pounds, which would cost me quite a few students. (And before you tell me that my weight limits are unrealistic, I should tell you that I had to turn away a 285 pound student the other day -- and one of the local DPEs weighs 300#, so will not do checkrides in LSAs).
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

7900 wrote:Doc B's specs are the most up to date info available.
No disrespect to Doc B. intended, but he isn't Textron. I'd rather wait to get the correct information direct from the horse's mouth. (And, if Textron wants to sell engines, they should have a strong incentive to make the latest information available via their website.)
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
7900
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:07 am
Location: GA

Post by 7900 »

drseti wrote:
7900 wrote:You lsa CFI's, tell me are your flight lessons with new students longer than four hours straight ?
Of course not; my lessons run 2 hours at the outside. I typically fill my tanks 10 gallons each, 20 gallons total. That's enough for a two hour lesson with 5 gals reserve in each wing (which I know is way more than the totally unrealistic 30 min FAA reserve requirement, but I'm trying to teach my students, by example, the value of time in the tanks). With 120 pounds of fuel taken out of a 550 pound useful load, I get 430 pounds of payload. I weigh 170, and the heaviest student I will allow is 250#. That leaves us 10# for emergency equipment, headsets, fire extinguisher, and flight bags. If my engine were 72 pounds heavier (the apparent difference in weight between the Lycoming and the Rotax, based upon manufacturer's data), not only might it shift my CG forward of the envelope, but my student weight limit would then be 178 pounds, which would cost me quite a few students. (And before you tell me that my weight limits are unrealistic, I should tell you that I had to turn away a 285 pound student the other day -- and one of the local DPEs weighs 300#, so will not do checkrides in LSAs).
Yeah that's why, according to YOUR own "sources", Cessna's 162 will soon switch to the IO-233. Guess with nearly 1,000 Skycatchers yet to come the biggest GA builder is putting in the wrong engine. They use the ac as it was designed, not for your pie in the sky cross countries that most pilots don't take that often.
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Post by dstclair »

Probably going down the non-productive route but Doc Bailey stated that the IO-233 goes 211 lbs in an interview in July 1, 2011. YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMBJ0sAMPk

Summary:
Lycoming's 233 Makes Its LSA Debut!!!
In the US Light Sport Aircraft marketplace, how does a manufacturer differentiate an airplane from more than 100 competing models? Given the market dominance of the high-revving Rotax 900-series four-strokes in LSA, one sure way to stand out from the crowd is to build your plane with an air-cooled, direct-drive, traditional aircraft engine.
At the 2011 US Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida, Renegade Light Sport was showing its Falcon 2.0 with the long-awaited Lycoming "233 Series" engine, which claims a dry weight of 211 pounds and takeoff power of 115 HP @ 2,800 RPM. After a conspicuous introduction at Oshkosh in 2008 featuring electronic ignition and throttle-body fuel injection, the new engine languished, all but disappearing from the Lycoming website for apparent lack of a committed OEM development partner.
Renegade Light Sport has stepped into that role. Christopher "Doc" Bailey, owner and president, says the base weight of the aircraft he showed us at Sebring was kept light enough to allow the use of what he calls "a real aircraft engine."
In this interview with ANN's Tom Patton, when asked why he chose to break from the Rotax crowd, Bailey explained, "Well, we listened to our clients. The guys with the gray hair who have a little aviation experience...are used to Lycoming/Continental. When you tell a gentleman he wants to take off with 5,900 RPM, he gets a little twitchy! The guys have a good comfort level with the name, 'Lycoming.' When you can cruise at 2,200 RPM and do 120 knots, they like that. It's just something that they're very comfortable with."
Copyright 2011, Aero-News Network, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
The Falcon II looks and sounds like a nice and high-performing aircraft. Probably fits the mission of many buyers. This doesn't change the weight of the engine, though, which may affect the applicability of the engine in other designs. Time will tell.

BTW - talk about bias :D A "real aircraft engine"? :shock:
dave
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

7900 wrote:Here's what the owner of Renegade Light Sport, Christopher 'Doc' Bailey, who was the principal company that tested the IO-233 had to say:

<snip> "The engine is FAA Part 33 certified. "
I wonder if the engine also meets FAR 23.903(a) [type certificate]?
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

Bailey explained, "Well, we listened to our clients. The guys with the gray hair who have a little aviation experience...are used to Lycoming/Continental."
Yes, it's true, those of us with gray hair who've been flying 50 years or so are indeed used to Lycoming and Continental. That doesn't mean we're so far over the hill that we can't learn about other engines as well. This old dog likes learning new tricks! :wink:
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Post Reply