Glasair Merlin Development Blog update

[MrMorden]

"If you meant the 912iS adds weight over the 912ULS, that is true."

Andy that is what I meant, probably didn't say it well.

Point being that IF Glasair are marketing the plane as "Skycatcher +" i.e.. 'fixed' some of the negative Cessna issues then one was getting the empty weight down and hence improve the useful load. Down from say 863 lbs ( I flew a C162 at this weight) to 790 is an improvement, but why not increase that using the 912ULS?
The improved fuel burn on a 24 gal tank doesn't provide a 'great' return, for me, over the higher weight and increased price of the engine. Offering an engine option might be better but Glasair are offering one version and only one option, the second screen, BRS, autopilot package.

I get your meaning now. There is no doubt that compared to the Skycatcher the Merlin is an attractive airplane. Similar speed and much better load capacity.

I get what you are saying about the 912ULS, but it seems to me that that engine is out of favor with manufacturers of "new" airplanes now that the injected engine is out there. I tend to agree with you, the 912ULS is proven and extremely reliable, so why not save some weight or at least have the option? Especially considering the $12k premium the injected engine commands.

24 gallons with a 912ULS is still nearly four hours even if you run at WOT; more than enough for decent range and more than the bladder capacity of most of us. At normal cruise that is going to be four hours plus a more-than-legal VFR reserve.

[CTLSi]

......

[Nomore767]

Andy,

Many manufacturers offer a choice in engines. Weight is the bane of LSAs. Every airplane that has a 912iS takes a weight hit. The Merlin could be lighter and cheaper with the 912ULS option.

The 912ULS is extremely reliable as you know. I've flown mine for 85 hours and the engine runs extremely well. I found a couple of bad floats in the carbs but in less than 10 mins we had them replaced, such a simple procedure, and logbook signed off.

I looked at an LSA with the 912iS engine and the seller was having problems with it. Electrical issues. I would also have had to had down time converting it to Sport standards, with extra cost involved. There's no free lunch.

In the end I bought USA made with a very reliable engine, low empty weight, and big cost savings. It meets my mission and then some.

[SportPilot]

.......

[Wm.Ince]

Need a basic reason to avoid he old engine? Just look at the guys having trouble with their carburetors on the 912ULS including Morden himself.

Who said anything about avoiding the old engine?
Since taking delivery of my CTSW, the carbs and engine have been perfect.

[MrMorden]

Andy,

Many manufacturers offer a choice in engines. Weight is the bane of LSAs. Every airplane that has one takes a weight hit. The Merlin could be lighter and cheaper with the 912ULS option.

The 912ULS is extremely reliable as you know. I've flown mine for 85 hours and the engine runs extremely well. I found a couple of bad floats in the carbs but in less than 10 mins we had them replaced, such a simple procedure, and logbook signed off.

I looked at an LSA with the 912iS engine and the seller was having problems with it. Electrical issues. I would also have had to had down time converting it to Sport standards, with extra cost involved. There's no free lunch.

In the end I bought USA made with a very reliable engine, low empty weight, and big cost savings. It meets my mission and then some.

We are in 100% agreement on this.

[MrMorden]

Need a basic reason to avoid he old engine? Just look at the guys having trouble with their carburetors on the 912ULS including Morden himself.

LOL...my "carb problems" consisted of a tiny fuel leak that was resolved in about 20 minutes. How long was your plane down for the Sport upgrade to get the power up to 912ULS levels?

[Nomore767]

In the future Rotax will no doubt make more engines with injection.

Right now the 912ULS is still remarkably efficient and cost effective compared to the 912 iS Sport.

My airplane has an empty weight of 765lbs, which is on the higher side compared to 'standard' models.
My wife and I can fly, full fuel (20 gals), and 50lbs bags, max weight. Add the 912iS and I have to take bags off to the tune of 12lbs, or reduce fuel. If I take off fuel that's almost a half hour less range.

I looked at a p2008 with injection and options and the empty weight was 892lbs.
Another less equipped but with the injected engine was still 878lbs.
With those weights I could fly a decent cross-country on my own but take my wife and bags and there was no way.

My Rotax 912ULS burns 4.9 gph. With a 20-30% fuel efficiency (Rotax numbers lets say 25% ) then I would save 1.2gph with the 912iS.
At $5.50 gal for 100LL in this region on average that saves me 1.2 x $5.50 per hour = $6.60.

The 912iS engine costs about $12k more than the 912ULS so I'd have to fly 1,818 hours to save that $12k compared to the 912ULS and start getting fuel efficiency. That's 12 to 18 years of typical LS flying at 100-150 hours per year for me.

At $4.50 for 93 non-ethanol auto-gas (from the pump at KBNL) that saves me 1.2 x $4.50 per hour = $4.95.
I'd have to fly 2,424 hours to save the $12k. 16 years of flying.
Local gas station 93non-ethanol is around $3 gallon or a $3.60 saving that's 3, 333 hours to save the $12k. That's 22 years.

Don't get me wrong, the 912iS engine is very good. But…for me….choosing the aircraft I did with the equally excellent 912ULS engine I get great performance, better mission capability and the cost saving as above.

[Wm.Ince]

In the future Rotax will no doubt make more engines with injection.

Right now the 912ULS is still remarkably efficient and cost effective compared to the 912 iS Sport.

My airplane has an empty weight of 765lbs, which is on the higher side compared to 'standard' models.
My wife and I can fly, full fuel (20 gals), and 50lbs bags, max weight. Add the 912iS and I have to take bags off to the tune of 12lbs, or reduce fuel. If I take off fuel that's almost a half hour less range.

I looked at a p2008 with injection and options and the empty weight was 892lbs.
Another less equipped but with the injected engine was still 878lbs.
With those weights I could fly a decent cross-country on my own but take my wife and bags and there was no way.

My Rotax 912ULS burns 4.9 gph. With a 20-30% fuel efficiency (Rotax numbers lets say 25% ) then I would save 1.2gph with the 912iS.
At $5.50 gal for 100LL in this region on average that saves me 1.2 x $5.50 per hour = $6.60.

The 912iS engine costs about $12k more than the 912ULS so I'd have to fly 1,818 hours to save that $12k compared to the 912ULS and start getting fuel efficiency. That's 12 to 18 years of typical LS flying at 100-150 hours per year for me.

At $4.50 for 93 non-ethanol auto-gas (from the pump at KBNL) that saves me 1.2 x $4.50 per hour = $4.95.
I'd have to fly 2,424 hours to save the $12k. 16 years of flying.
Local gas station 93non-ethanol is around $3 gallon or a $3.60 saving that's 3, 333 hours to save the $12k. That's 22 years.

Don't get me wrong, the 912iS engine is very good. But…for me….choosing the aircraft I did with the equally excellent 912ULS engine I get great performance, better mission capability and the cost saving as above.

You summed it up nicely.
It boils down to payload and value.
Don't get me wrong, the 912is is a great engine for sure, but for me, the 912 ULS makes more sense for my mission.
If they increased the MGW of the CTLSi to say, 1500 lbs., I would be the first in line for it. But at 1320 lbs., for this light sport pilot, it just isn't worth it.
I will not sacrifice payload and range for the sake of fuel injection, especially at a $13,000 premium.
80 lbs. is . . 80 lbs (CTSW vs. CTLSi)