Sport Pilot Talk

Jack, very well said.

So in the end Rotax is still the lightest even with all the water, and after Lyc trashed all the accessories and the ignition equipment.

Pete, we won't know that for sure until Lycoming comes up with a final design (and final weight) for the IO-233. But, at the moment this certainly seems to be the case. Remember that the Rotax cooling system capacity is just under a gallon, so we're only talking 8 pounds of water -- and that those water-cooled heads allow for much lighter jugs, since they don't need such large cooling fins.

_________________
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

Can't figure out how to upload a file but I did find a Lycoming published brochure with a 2011 copyright for the 233 that lists the dry weight at 213lbs. Hopefully the link works: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/news-an ... engine.pdf

I found a builder reference of 196 lbs in one of the various EAB forums as well.

Fuel consumption is 6.0 at 75% power and 5.2 at 65% power. Not certified for E10. There's a series of Lycoming blogs on fuel over at avweb stating their position.

_________________
dave

Thanks, Dave. That brochure is very informative (and the link works just fine). I find it interesting that they state "FAA certification pending." That means they plan to make this a certified engine! Now, if only they'd publish a price...



As I suspected, it's still pretty heavy. The installed weight of the Rotax 912ULS is listed as 140.6 lbs (my reference is http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_engines/rotax_912ULSs.htm).

_________________
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

"I find it interesting that they state "FAA certification pending." "

That sounds consistent with Lycoming's normal practice as described on their website. They have their (uncertified) Thunderbolt series, which offers a mix of option choices for each engine as spec'd by the customer, and they have the 'certified' version of the same engine (with only certified options). One wonders where they see the market for that type/size/hp engine in a certified form. But then, there appear to be a lot of things we're all wondering about WRT that engine. E.g. it's very interesting to read that it is not intended for use with E10 fuel. Do they permit use of E0 mogas? What part of the engine's fuel or other systems is inconsistent with E10 fuel? Lots of Q's...

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

Amazes me how some of you keyboard cowboys would rather rely on outdated info you dug up on the web than accept what the owner of the company that actually tested the IO-233 for over 100 hours found. Your comments make it obvious not one of you has ever spoken with Chris Bailey, the man who has actual flight time testing and developing this engine.

You're all so worried about the extra weight of this engine adversly affecting range, tell me how many of you routinely sit in your lsa's for over four hours straight and fly greater than 500 miles without a stop ??? Do you really think of lsa's as being used mostly for serious cross country trips when most lsa pilots readily admit they use them mostly just for fun and short trips. If payload and range are that important to you then go buy a used GA plane for the same money.

You lsa CFI's, tell me are your flight lessons with new students longer than four hours straight ? Don't you find that awful long for a new student to sit in the cockpit without any break and not allow them time to assimilate what they just learned ? Is landing after three hours for a fuel stop that much an inconvenience ??

When you balance how most lsa pilots actually use their ac vs what some of you are saying is most important, well they don't match up very well. Makes it very easy to see those who most likely have a financial conflict of interest from being Rotax owners and mechanics here.

Having 390 lbs of fuel fuel ( 24 gal ) payload in a Tecnam Eaglet available to me is perfect, I'm not as overweight as some of you must be ( or you wouldn't be worrying about weight so much ). Plus I love the extra 20 + hp the IO-233 gives me and will enjoy the greater service access that Lycoming affords as well.

Outdated? The document Dave pointed us to is dated March 2011 (that's five months old; pretty current for a manufacturer's spec sheet). And, it comes directly from the engine's manufacturer. If you can't believe what the manufacturer tells the public, what can you believe? (Or do you think that the installed weight for the Rotax I cited is maybe wrong, because it too came off its manufacturer's website? You can't have it both ways...)



Where in that post did I say anything about range? All I said was:



I made no value judgment about that; just stated an indisputable fact.

_________________
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

Doc B's specs are the most up to date info available. The engine was in development so 5 month old data is old news compared to the finished product. Talk to him if you really want the truth or just keep rehashing this over and over and going nowhere.

Of course not; my lessons run 2 hours at the outside. I typically fill my tanks 10 gallons each, 20 gallons total. That's enough for a two hour lesson with 5 gals reserve in each wing (which I know is way more than the totally unrealistic 30 min FAA reserve requirement, but I'm trying to teach my students, by example, the value of time in the tanks). With 120 pounds of fuel taken out of a 550 pound useful load, I get 430 pounds of payload. I weigh 170, and the heaviest student I will allow is 250#. That leaves us 10# for emergency equipment, headsets, fire extinguisher, and flight bags. If my engine were 72 pounds heavier (the apparent difference in weight between the Lycoming and the Rotax, based upon manufacturer's data), not only might it shift my CG forward of the envelope, but my student weight limit would then be 178 pounds, which would cost me quite a few students. (And before you tell me that my weight limits are unrealistic, I should tell you that I had to turn away a 285 pound student the other day -- and one of the local DPEs weighs 300#, so will not do checkrides in LSAs).

_________________
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

No disrespect to Doc B. intended, but he isn't Textron. I'd rather wait to get the correct information direct from the horse's mouth. (And, if Textron wants to sell engines, they should have a strong incentive to make the latest information available via 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

Yeah that's why, according to YOUR own "sources", Cessna's 162 will soon switch to the IO-233. Guess with nearly 1,000 Skycatchers yet to come the biggest GA builder is putting in the wrong engine. They use the ac as it was designed, not for your pie in the sky cross countries that most pilots don't take that often.

Probably going down the non-productive route but Doc Bailey stated that the IO-233 goes 211 lbs in an interview in July 1, 2011. YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMBJ0sAMPk

Summary:


The Falcon II looks and sounds like a nice and high-performing aircraft. Probably fits the mission of many buyers. This doesn't change the weight of the engine, though, which may affect the applicability of the engine in other designs. Time will tell.

BTW - talk about bias A "real aircraft engine"?

_________________
dave

I wonder if the engine also meets FAR 23.903(a) [type certificate]?

_________________
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

Yes, it's true, those of us with gray hair who've been flying 50 years or so are indeed used to Lycoming and Continental. That doesn't mean we're so far over the hill that we can't learn about other engines as well. This old dog likes learning new tricks!

_________________
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