Sport Pilot Talk

zaitcev wrote:

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:There is a certified version of the Rotax. It's the 912S. Costs maybe 10k more. One advantage is it can be IFR approved while the ULS is not.

Are you sure about that? It is my understanding that ASTM does not have a IFR standard, and until they do, no new SLSA can be IFR certified. Certified engine or not.

A builder of CH-750 can write proper limitations, I think.

I was speaking of factory built SLSA aircraft only. When you are talking experimental the engine does not need to be certified for the airplane to be flown in IMC.

Been researching the O-200 vs Rotax question. Wow! There's more online nastiness than Democrats vs Republicans!

It does seem like apples and oranges to me. Cost, efficiency, reliability, weight, etc... both engines seem to have their pros and cons.

I do like the simplicity of the O-200, but the more modern Rotax certainly has its advantages, too.

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:There is a certified version of the Rotax. It's the 912S. Costs maybe 10k more. One advantage is it can be IFR approved while the ULS is not.

Are you sure about that? It is my understanding that ASTM does not have a IFR standard, and until they do, no new SLSA can be IFR certified. Certified engine or not. Prior to 2010 whether the airplane could be flown IFR had to do with how the operating limitations were written, and approval or lack of prohibition from the manufacturer.

The engine can be used in airplanes other than LSA. A 912S could be installed by a manufacturer (or through STC) in Part 23 airplane and flown IFR.

Hambone wrote:Been researching the O-200 vs Rotax question. Wow! There's more online nastiness than Democrats vs Republicans!

It does seem like apples and oranges to me. Cost, efficiency, reliability, weight, etc... both engines seem to have their pros and cons.

I do like the simplicity of the O-200, but the more modern Rotax certainly has its advantages, too.

Don't forget weight! The "lightweight" O-200D weighs 199lb, about 55-60lb more than a typical 912 installation! The older versions of the O-200 are, well...even heavier. That's a lot of weight in a very lightweight airplane.

To me this is what killed the Cessna 162. It used an O-200D and could not compete on weight, and thus utility, of similar airplanes running a Rotax. A Skycatcher that weighed 60lb less and had a useful load of 550lb or so would have been a brilliant LSA.

The reduced weight of the Rotax is certainly a benefit.

Shame, then, that the CH-750 S-LSA is only offering the O-200. It would be nice to have an option for other engines.

MrMorden wrote:

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:There is a certified version of the Rotax. It's the 912S. Costs maybe 10k more. One advantage is it can be IFR approved while the ULS is not.

Are you sure about that? It is my understanding that ASTM does not have a IFR standard, and until they do, no new SLSA can be IFR certified. Certified engine or not. Prior to 2010 whether the airplane could be flown IFR had to do with how the operating limitations were written, and approval or lack of prohibition from the manufacturer.

The engine can be used in airplanes other than LSA. A 912S could be installed by a manufacturer (or through STC) in Part 23 airplane and flown IFR.

I feel like such a fool! I thought we were talking about a " Factory-built Zenith STOL CH750 SLSA", and their choice to install a 0-200 Continental.
BTW, I already addressed that I was speaking of SLSA aircraft only.

3Dreaming wrote:I feel like such a fool! I thought we were talking about a " Factory-built Zenith STOL CH750 SLSA", and their choice to install a 0-200 Continental.

No, it's fine... You just happened to quote Dr.Such's statement and went on how ASTM this and that. But the discussing before that segued into O-200 supposedly having an advantage of being certified (BTW, I'm not entirely sure it's true. O-200-A is certified, but what about O-200-D?). The answer to that was that 912 is certified too, in the 912S version. It is installed on the Tecnam P2006T, for example. So, a builder who desires his CH-750 flown IFR is not limited to O-200.

Not that anyone would want to fly CH-750 IFR, because why would you? Backcountry flying is only done in good weather, because clipping hills in the clouds is pure suicide. Operations into a forest strip in winds are extremely hazardous too, because of the rotors that the trees create.

But we may be talking about the Cruzer version, where it makes sense to consider a certified engine just for the peace of mind. A very expensive one

.......

SportPilot wrote:I fly 3 LSA's with 0-200 and 2 with Rotax. I prefer the 0-200, but maybe because I have limited experience with the Rotax. I'm flying a Remos GX from Hickory, NC to Williamsburg, VA in 2 weeks and certainly looking forward to that trip, weather permitting.

(saved)

MrMorden wrote:

Hambone wrote:How does the CH750's trike configuration limit its usefulness? It seems quite beefy, especially with tundra tires. And its STOL capability means that it doesn't spend much time on the ground anyway!

The main problem is prop clearance when landing on rough ground, gravel, dirt, etc. The CH750's gear is pretty short... That's the primary reason most bush planes are taildraggers. Plus if the nose wheel snags on rollout, over you go.

Wouldn't a smaller diameter 3-blade prop be preferable over the spec'd 2-blade?

"To me this is what killed the Cessna 162. It used an O-200D and could not compete on weight, and thus utility, of similar airplanes running a Rotax. A Skycatcher that weighed 60lb less and had a useful load of 550lb or so would have been a brilliant LSA."


That and it wasn't made in CHINA!

eyeflygps wrote:I flew a SkyCatcher this week and flying a Remos GX Monday. It's all good.

A famous test pilot who shall remain nameless (his initials are C.Y.) was once asked what his favorite plane is. "Whichever one I happen to be flying," he responded.

drseti wrote:A famous test pilot who shall remain nameless (his initials are C.Y.) was once asked what his favorite plane is. "Whichever one I happen to be flying," he responded.

It's so good to be a shorty. Every airplane is designed for you.

Skycatcher was an airplane where I smacked my head the worst, and it was on the ground. And yes, I include the time when crashed and destroyed Carlson. I had a helmet on at the time, so it didn't hurt as much as boarding Skycatcher.

I have a certain hope for CH-750, because of its "wing over cab" design. There is one at Barnstormers right now. It's in Utah and I could go have a look. Unfortunately, it's still somewhat expensive at $59k, especially for a plane with Jabiru engine.

MrMorden wrote:The 701/750 series has had every engine in the world hung on it, and I think that choice makes a big difference in how the airplane flies. My choice would be a Rotax 912 100hp over a heavier O-200, Jabiru, VW, etc.

I agree. I have a 601 with the Rotax 912 and the engine works great, relatively inexpensive to maintain and the plane has an excellent useful load.

I am interested in an SLSA CH750, and would prefer a modern engine.

The CH750 SLSA is being assembled by M-Squared Aircraft near Mobile, Alabama. Continental engines are built in Mobile, Alabama.

Coincidence?