Sport Pilot Talk

Looks like a Skycatcher Mark II, complete with Continental O200 Engine, except for the wing struts......

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... nIlJiOZPOQ
http://vashonaircraft.com

Why Continental ? Nothing to be gained over Rotax except lower useful load..

With 50 k Rotax engines out there and relatively decent support in terms of servicing etc , why even bother with 1940s technology ?

I prefer Continental over Rotax any day. That's one reason I prefer the SkyCatcher over the Remos GX. Do you have a lot of experience flying airplanes with Continental or Lycoming engines?

TimTaylor wrote:I prefer Continental over Rotax any day.

Is there any particular reason why more than just cause that’s the only thing you re used to ?

Warmi wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:I prefer Continental over Rotax any day.

Is there any particular reason why more than just cause that’s the only thing you re used to ?

I'm used to both.

I’ve owned planes with Continentals, Lycomings, and now a ROTAX.

I think reliability in comparable sizes is comparable. Each has strong and weak points. The ROTAX can come across as quirky if most of your prior experience is in the “legacy” brands.

Personally, I’ve come to slightly prefer the ROTAX. A large part is if you’re paying for the maintenance, I think the ROTAX is more economical.

But there’s no accounting for taste!

Of course I don’t have lot of experience .. but I don’t need to, now do I ?

Even If i were to have 5000 problem free hours in each it would still be statistically irrelevant given the number of engines/decades of experience out there.

FastEddieB wrote:I’ve owned planes with Continentals, Lycomings, and now a ROTAX.

I think reliability in comparable sizes is comparable. Each has strong and weak points. The ROTAX can come across as quirky if most of your prior experience is in the “legacy” brands.

Personally, I’ve come to slightly prefer the ROTAX. A large part is if you’re paying for the maintenance, I think the ROTAX is more economical.

But there’s no accounting for taste!

It is clear to me that both engines are just as reliable if maintained well. My “40s technology” comment was based on the fact that rotax has certain undeniable advantages due to being more modern design and as such is much better fit for small and light planes.
Frankly, the only reason I would even consider Continental 200 for an LSA if there was no rotax expertise available within reasonable travel distance.

The only disadvantage I see to a Continental in an LSA is the fact that it weighs more and probably burns a little more fuel.

Interesting that the Ranger is (for now) priced under $100k which is what many aspiring LSA customers originally wanted.

The Feb issue of Flying has a cover picture and an article about the Glasair SLSA Merlin a model almost identical to the SkyCatcher but with all the “fixes” such as Rotax, Dynon SkyView, composite structure, BRS option etc
Having flown the SkyCatcher and at one time was looking at buying one the Merlin intrigued me and I’ve followed its developmental progress.
The base price of $150k is comparable with the SkyCatcher but the BRS option adds $10k and 35lbs and IFR another$10k. I think the Merlin is aimed at flight school fleets as well as individual owners.
Comparing the SLSA I own now it doesn’t offer any real beneficial difference and is somewhat heavier and a lot more $$ as well as being a few it’s slower, according to the article. Vans is also offering the RV-12iS SLSA at a similar price point.The extra weight of the Rotax Sport engine (iS) still gives a lower empty weight.

Interesting to compare the Merlin to the Ranger. Less expensive, all metal, and no strut. Don’t know if it has a “stoke” control stick.
Also interesting that the design is similar to the SkyCatcher so Cessna must have done something right. I could never figure out why the didn’t do what Glasair have done which is basically upgrade the design and “fix” some things some people complained about. I guess they wanted to focus on biz-jets.

A stoke control stick is a non-issue. It's actually preferable over a regular stick to me because it's easier to get in and out of the airplane. Another reason I prefer the SkyCatcher over the Remos GX. I also prefer metal over plastic.

Nomore767 wrote:Interesting that the Ranger is (for now) priced under $100k which is what many aspiring LSA customers originally wanted.

I guess I was naive, but back in 2006 when I first began contemplating the new Light Sport classification, I was envisioning entry-level LSA’s closer to $50k or $60k. I thought if the price was comparable to a new Lexus, let’s say, it would open up a whole new market of “impulse buyers”. Lots of recreational vehicles, power boats and the like selling in that bracket with little price resistance.

My nicely but not extravagantly equipped 2007 Sky Arrow was $75.5k, and pushed the limits on what I wanted to spend at the time. A new one now is about twice that.



But the market spoke. I thought things like 3 panel glass displays, 3-axis trims, autopilots and the like all took away from the simplicity Light Sport promised. But that’s apparently what sells.

Maybe we need a new Light Light Sport category!

TimTaylor wrote:A stoke control stick is a non-issue. It's actually preferable over a regular stick to me because it's easier to get in and out of the airplane. Another reason I prefer the SkyCatcher over the Remos GX. I also prefer metal over plastic.

Agree. Just think it’s interesting that the Merlin is almost identical to the SkyCatcher in most respects (including the stoke) but with many “refinements” over the Cessna. Their SLSA could have been much different but it’s almost like they got a SkyCatcher and thought how can we improve this really nice SLSA, and they did.

The !ight Sport ‘market’ is quite fickle. Folks say what they want but buy what they think they need. They say they want it all for $60k but then choose it and jack it up with all sorts of options and accessories. Then they complain about the weight increase and the price increase.

FastEddieB wrote:
Maybe we need a new Light Light Sport category!

We have that, Eddie. It's called Part 103.