Sport Pilot Talk

There's been some discussion on other threads about the weights of various engines used in different LSAs. I found some interesting data in the Falcon 2.0 spec sheets. That particular aircraft is offered with four different engines (Lycoming O-235, Continental O-200, Jabiru 3300, and Rotax 912ULS). The useful loads with those different engines are cited at http://renegadelightsport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Falcon-Info..pdf?9d7bd4:

Rotax 552 lbs
Jabiru 544 lbs
Continental 532 lbs
Lycoming 492 lbs

From this, I conclude that the Rotax is the lightest engine out there, with the Jab weighing 8 pounds more, the Continental 20 pounds more, and the Lyco a whopping 60 pounds heavier than the Rotax! OK, I know there are other attributes and advantages to each engine option, but since LSAs are so severely weight limited, I can see why the Rotax is the most popular (powering something like 80% of the S-LSA fleet).

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Who's using Lycoming's outdated O-235 in an LSA anyway ? According to Mike Kraft of Lycoming their new IO-233 weighs nearly 40 lbs less than the O-235, so do the math. I'd gladly sacrifice alittle more weight for an extra 20 hp and greater serviceability of the Lycoming.

Apparently, Falcon is -- probably because the IO-233 is still vaporware, not yet available in production quantities.



Well, that's the goal. According to my sources at Lycoming, they're not quite there yet. The IO-233 is, after all, a modifed O-235, with lighter-weight accessories. Before they can go into quantity production, they'll have to meet that weight goal. When they do, they'll be competitive with the Continental O-200 (at least in weight. Nobody knows what the price is going to be yet.)



I'm sure that's what Textron is banking on. But I think of the penalty not just in terms of weight, but also in terms of fuel. 20 pounds equals 3 1/2 gallons of fuel, which is an extra 45 minutes of cruise. How much is that worth?

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Good Lord are you Rotax biased. NO drseti, the falcon is NOT using the O-235, get your facts straight.

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:

"The Falcon is done with testing, is in production, comes in two configurations, tricycle and taildragger, sells for $125,000 with a bunch of nice features.

The first production model Renegade Falcon with the Lycoming IO-233-LSA is owned by our dealer on Long Island, NY - Steve Norman.The engine is FAA Part 33 certified. "

We’re done with R&D, we’ve been through a year of testing with the 233."

“We’ve got five engines coming from Lycoming this month, we’ve sold six airplanes since we’ve been here at the show, we’re in full production here, everything is built in the U.S.

Sure sounds like it's available in production quanities to me.

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/

As far as the extra 40 lbs affecting payload and range, take a look at the Tecnam Eaglet which is offering the IO-233 as an option. According to their own figures its standard weight is 730 lbs. Lets be generous and add 50 lbs extra for the IO-233 for a total EW of 780 lbs.

It carries a full fuel load of 24 gallons so add 150 lbs bringing the total to 930 lbs. That leaves 390 lbs for two people and baggage with full fuel. According to Doc Bailey the IO-233 burns 4.6 gph yielding a range of well over FOUR hours, and over 500 miles, with an hour in reserve. How many people sit in their LSA for that long straight ( yeah I'm sure you do ).

Get rid of your "sources" and if you still don't believe it call up Doc, he'd be glad to set you straight.

I'm just citing what I found on their website. Follow the link in my initial post; my source of information was given there. (It may not be accurate, but it is the information they posted.)

I'm actually encouraged by the information you posted. I do hope Falcon will update their website, so others will have access to accurate specs.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

That's what Tecnam is saying, and it may even be correct. Just going by the numbers Falcon posted (whether accurate or not). If I am biased, it is because I tend to believe what manufacturers put on their websites.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Based upon 7900's encouraging post, I went to the Textron Lycoming website, in search of pricing and availability on the IO-233. The latest aftermarket engine price list is dated 5 July 2011, and does not even list the 233. The latest press release mentioning the 233 is dated 21 July 2010. So, I have to wonder how ready Lycoming really is to sell this engine. (Don't get me wrong; I'm anxious to see it on the market, just not up to my breath until they announce something on their website.)

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Boy you are not kidding. That www.renegadelighsport.com site is confusing. They're all over the place with which Lycoming engine is being used, O-235, O-233, IO-233.

The problem with that calculation is what constitutes "standard weight" Is that before avionics and instruments? If so, you might end up with quite a bit less useful load.

_________________
Roger Fane
N510RF - 2006 Flight Design CTsw
KRHV - Reid Hillview - San Jose, CA

From today's AOPA ePilot email:

"Kitfox Aircraft said it has become one of the first manufacturers to fly one of its aircraft powered by Lycoming's new O-233 engine, a 115-horsepower powerplant with a Champion electronic ignition system designed for the light sport market.

The Lycoming powered a Kitfox S7 Super Sport during test and performance-gathering flights. After about 20 hours of local flying, the aircraft flew from the Kitfox base in Homedale, Idaho, to EAA AirVenture 2011 in Oshkosh, Wis., where the aircraft was displayed in front of Lycoming's tent, said a Kitfox spokesman.

“We did not want to release information until we were sure we were ready,” said John McBean of Kitfox, who added that the aircraft's being on display “front row, center stage” at the Lycoming installation attracted a lot of attention from LSA pilots.

Lycoming, of Williamsport, Pa., announced in July 2010 that it had begun taking orders for the O-233 engine. Lycoming described the engine, with a 2,400 time before overhaul and capability to run on auto fuel or avgas, an important new engine to meet the needs of “a whole new segment of the flying public.”

The link offered in the report (represented by the bolded text) was:
http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events ... 6-10b.html
As mentioned above: old news

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

In dreseti's defense defense. He is quoting specs from the Renegade website.

You should be ashamed of yourself for hurling accusations at another member with out checking his source. Did you bother to check his link?

I suppose that is what happens when a person just lurks around looking for an opportunity to insult someone or hurl accusations.

I think a number of pilots and owners would like the opportunity to fly behind a modernized version of an american classic. Now that the Chinese own Continental, I have lost interest in them.
http://www.teledyne.com/news/tdy_12142010.asp
Feel free to check my link.

Relax, his facts were wrong and needed to be corrected. He's a big boy and if he took any offense he can speak for himself and doesn't need you to defend him and take things personal.

Good news is lsa buyers now have more engine choices and the modernized IO-233 finally offers state of the art engine technology from an American manufacturer.

Indeed, my facts (garnered from the aircraft manufacturer's own website) appear to have been wrong, and I appreciate the correction. The take-home message is that we can't always believe what we read on the Web (or in forums ).



No, I didn't take offense (although I must say I was gratified by Theo's supportive comments).



I'm disappointed that I can still find no pricing or availability information on the Textron Lycoming website for the IO-233, and that their latest press release on the engine is well over a year old. So, I guess we'll all have to wait just a little longer for this much-anticipated engine choice.

As for prior suggestions that I harbor a "pro-Rotax bias," I'll be the first to stipulate that! When I started researching the LSA offerings over two years ago, and planning my business, engines were of course a major consideration. My first flight, fifty years ago, was in a Continental 65-powered Champ. The last plane I owned, for 30 years and 3100 hours, was Lycoming powered. In between, I instructed behind everything from Lyco and Continental engines to Franklins. The first LSA I test-flew ran a Jabiru. All fine engines, to be sure. But, I quickly gravitated toward the Rotax as being the best suited to my intended mission. Having decided that, flying a bunch of different Rotax-powered models merely reinforced that decision. So, I bought a Rotax-powered trainer for my new flight school, enrolled in a couple of Rotax maintenance courses (just as I had taken the Avco courses back when I owned a Lycoming engine), and ultimately got myself qualified as a factory-authorized Rotax independent maintenance technician. I must say that I've really enjoyed working on the 912ULS (once I learned its peculiarities), and it flies great, meeting all of my expectations.

That said, there are no wrong engines for LSAs. Every design is a series of compromises, and every engine in an ASTM-approved S-LSA will meet the pilot's needs. Each of us has a personal preference (I make no bones about mine), and each of us is free to choose whatever engine we feel is most appropriate to our needs. I welcome Lycoming into the LSA fold, wish them well, and respect any pilot whose preferences lead him or her to choose that engine.

But, yes, I do have a pro-Rotax bias.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

We knew that but thanks for the confirmation anyway

I've had a tough time following the 'facts' in this thread. First, it seems the "truth "(about the availability of Lycoming's IO-233 engine) is a mix of 7900's and Paul's comments. That engine is not generally available to the retail market at this time nor is a price list available; Lycoming is only accepting orders for it (true for more than a year now). It is slowly being introduced via a very few specific S-LSA models - talk about 'Experimental'! - and the operative word seems to be 'slowly'. Whether as an a/c manufacturer or an E-AB builder, it remains close to 'vaporware' as best I can determine rather than a 'released' product. So if someone can provide pricing, delivery sked, authorized service and other related details for the IO-233, it would be very helpful to discussions like this one.

Another example of this 'interim' status has to do with authorized service. I note in this discussion the assumption that one of the benefits of this new Lycoming engine is that it will have access to all those A&P mechanics already out there. But I read in one of the most recent (if now dated) Lycoming press releases that this may in fact not be the direction they will take with their newer engines. They apparently are going to designate specific repair facilities where these new products may be serviced, and relative to the IO-233 they state:

"Lycoming will support its Authorized Service Centers with online training programs and by making them the exclusive source for service and support of Lycomings soon-to-be available advanced technology - the new iE2 (integrated electronic engine) and the new IO-233-LSA Light Sport Engine."
Note the word "exclusive". You'll find the full release at: http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events ... 7-09c.html

So...along with an absence of specific info about delivery dates and pricing, we have a still-evolving plan for access to authorized service. And very, very little publicly released info by Lyconing on the product itself.

From what I'm seeing, Lycoming is still in the process of releasing this product and it is far from actually being 'released' in a commercial sense. Describing it as some kind of readily available, 'known' entity as it relates to price, service, parts availability, etc. is no more accurate than saying it doesn't exist at all.

A personal note: I find the use of the term 'bias' to be too easily applied in discussions like this one. I've seen several posts on this forum in the past where it's applied to Paul's comments about Rotax engines as tho' his 'bias' is nothing more than 'prejudice'. Patiently, he always replies with the details of his past training, past hands-on experience, and his current experience in working on the Rotax engine in his a/c - all in all, a background that probably far exceeds most of us here, including those who allege the 'bias'. To me, terms like 'preference' or 'informed bias' fit better. And they improve the tone of the discussion here, as well.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org