Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:38 am
Jack, very well said.
The discussion forum for Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft
https://sportpilottalk.com/
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.zaitcev wrote:So in the end Rotax is still the lightest even with all the water
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...dstclair wrote:I did find a Lycoming published brochure with a 2011 copyright for the 233
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_engin ... 12ULSs.htm).that lists the dry weight at 213lbs.
Outdated?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 You can't have it both ways...)7900 wrote:Amazes me how some of you keyboard cowboys would rather rely on outdated info you dug up on the web
Where in that post did I say anything about range? All I said was:You're all so worried about the extra weight of this engine adversly affecting range
I made no value judgment about that; just stated an indisputable fact.As I suspected, it's still pretty heavy.
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 Talk to him if you really want the truth or just keep rehashing this over and over and going nowhere.drseti wrote:Outdated?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...)7900 wrote:Amazes me how some of you keyboard cowboys would rather rely on outdated info you dug up on the web
Where in that post did I say anything about range? All I said was:You're all so worried about the extra weight of this engine adversly affecting range
I made no value judgment about that; just stated an indisputable fact.As I suspected, it's still pretty heavy.
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).7900 wrote:You lsa CFI's, tell me are your flight lessons with new students longer than four hours straight ?
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.)7900 wrote:Doc B's specs are the most up to date info available.
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.drseti wrote: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).7900 wrote:You lsa CFI's, tell me are your flight lessons with new students longer than four hours straight ?
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.Lycoming's 233 Makes Its LSA Debut!!!
In the US Light Sport Aircraft marketplace, how does a manufacturer differentiate an airplane from more than 100 competing models? Given the market dominance of the high-revving Rotax 900-series four-strokes in LSA, one sure way to stand out from the crowd is to build your plane with an air-cooled, direct-drive, traditional aircraft engine.
At the 2011 US Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida, Renegade Light Sport was showing its Falcon 2.0 with the long-awaited Lycoming "233 Series" engine, which claims a dry weight of 211 pounds and takeoff power of 115 HP @ 2,800 RPM. After a conspicuous introduction at Oshkosh in 2008 featuring electronic ignition and throttle-body fuel injection, the new engine languished, all but disappearing from the Lycoming website for apparent lack of a committed OEM development partner.
Renegade Light Sport has stepped into that role. Christopher "Doc" Bailey, owner and president, says the base weight of the aircraft he showed us at Sebring was kept light enough to allow the use of what he calls "a real aircraft engine."
In this interview with ANN's Tom Patton, when asked why he chose to break from the Rotax crowd, Bailey explained, "Well, we listened to our clients. The guys with the gray hair who have a little aviation experience...are used to Lycoming/Continental. When you tell a gentleman he wants to take off with 5,900 RPM, he gets a little twitchy! The guys have a good comfort level with the name, 'Lycoming.' When you can cruise at 2,200 RPM and do 120 knots, they like that. It's just something that they're very comfortable with."
Copyright 2011, Aero-News Network, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
I wonder if the engine also meets FAR 23.903(a) [type certificate]?7900 wrote: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:
<snip> "The engine is FAA Part 33 certified. "
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!Bailey explained, "Well, we listened to our clients. The guys with the gray hair who have a little aviation experience...are used to Lycoming/Continental."