Skycatcher par deux

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

Cub flyer
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:30 pm

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby Cub flyer » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:56 pm

That’s the simplest way to calculate empty weight but if you weigh with full tanks be sure to use the correct fuel per gallon weight

6.35 lbs gallon for 91 octane vs 6 lb gallon traditional for 100LL

If you hold 34 gallons that is almost 12 lbs difference in additional useful load available if you are subtracting the
fuel weight from the scale readings.

Ethanol content will change the weight per gallon also. There is some good info on the Belite website where I’ve taken the above
numbers from. Oil premix will change it also if 2 stroke without oil injection.

https://jameswiebe.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ink-it-is/
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5853
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby drseti » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:02 pm

Cub flyer wrote:6.35 lbs gallon for 91 octane vs 6 lb gallon traditional for 100LL


It's great to have those numbers. Thanks for posting them.
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
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

3Dreaming
Posts: 2388
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby 3Dreaming » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:17 pm

The new Swift fuel is also heavier.

ryoder
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby ryoder » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:12 am

I have owned my 162 for almost a year and it has made me a better pilot. The Mooney did also. Now I have the skills to fly a complex and fast airplane along with the skill to land a light airplane in slightly gusty conditions. The 162 demands more on landings and that helps to build stick Dan rudder skills.

The 162 useful load also inspired me to lose 25 lbs and now I don’t need blood pressure medicine.

It’s cheap to buy, gas up, maintain, and is very roomy inside. I am 6 foot tall and am super comfy. It gives me a great view of beautiful Florida and I feel safer flying it than I did my 65 Mooney with restricted visibility and longer and faster landing distances coupled with ancient avionics and useless gas gauges.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1962
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby MrMorden » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:32 am

3Dreaming wrote:The new Swift fuel is also heavier.


Do you know the weight? Just curious.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1962
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby MrMorden » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:36 am

ryoder wrote:I have owned my 162 for almost a year and it has made me a better pilot. The Mooney did also. Now I have the skills to fly a complex and fast airplane along with the skill to land a light airplane in slightly gusty conditions. The 162 demands more on landings and that helps to build stick Dan rudder skills.

The 162 useful load also inspired me to lose 25 lbs and now I don’t need blood pressure medicine.

It’s cheap to buy, gas up, maintain, and is very roomy inside. I am 6 foot tall and am super comfy. It gives me a great view of beautiful Florida and I feel safer flying it than I did my 65 Mooney with restricted visibility and longer and faster landing distances coupled with ancient avionics and useless gas gauges.


The 162 is a nice airplane. The only negative I see is the high weight due to Cessna's engine choice.

Question: How are the Skycatcher owners dealing with the lack of support and parts from Cessna? It seems that if spare parts are still available, they won't be for long since Cessna destroyed all the unsold airframes. :roll:
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

Warmi
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby Warmi » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:59 am

Cessna claims they have plenty of parts ...

Cessna told AVweb on Thursday that it "utilized the remaining inventory for spare parts to ensure the current fleet of fielded aircraft can receive ongoing support. The company did dispose of what remained after salvaging usable parts."
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois

User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby dstclair » Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:17 am

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:The new Swift fuel is also heavier.


Do you know the weight? Just curious.


From their website:
the fuel is typically 0.5 to 0.8 pounds per gallon heavier than 100LL, yet it achieves a 7 to 15% increased range (i.e. flight miles) per gallon due to its higher energy density.


Assuming the low end numbers, this means UL102 is 8% heavier and yields 7% more range. Pretty much a wash.
dave

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1962
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby MrMorden » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:07 am

dstclair wrote:
Assuming the low end numbers, this means UL102 is 8% heavier and yields 7% more range. Pretty much a wash.


If I understand my physics correctly, this would be more true for FADEC-style fuel injected engines like a 912iS which can constantly adjust fuel metering, than for carbed engines like a 912ULS.

The reason is that the fuel metering in a carb is fixed, and unless you changed it with a different float needle profile or other changes, the fuel burn for Swift will be the same as it is for 100LL. You might make slightly more power, but not enough to translate into a throttle setting low enough at the same power to equal a 7% range increase.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

ryoder
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby ryoder » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:11 am

I have no problem getting parts from yuengling or ebay.

Cub flyer
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:30 pm

Re: Skycatcher par deux

Postby Cub flyer » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:49 pm

"The company did dispose of what remained after salvaging usable parts.”

In the photos It looks like they crushed this airplane into dumpster with engine, wheels etc. still attached. Crushed flat with excavator

http://www.aero-news.net/images/content ... -1216b.JPG

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... db30dcd4c9

of course it’s from Aero News network so photos could be only one airframe and the others were stripped bare first.
Odd the engine was junked but I’ve seen odd things when stores move into bigger buildings and everything is thrown out so I am not surprised.

Maybe they only salvaged airframe specific parts?
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests