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/
Skycatcher par deux
Moderator: drseti
Re: Skycatcher par deux
"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
Re: Skycatcher par deux
It's great to have those numbers. Thanks for posting them.Cub flyer wrote:6.35 lbs gallon for 91 octane vs 6 lb gallon traditional for 100LL
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
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Re: Skycatcher par deux
The new Swift fuel is also heavier.
Re: Skycatcher par deux
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 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.
Re: Skycatcher par deux
Do you know the weight? Just curious.3Dreaming wrote:The new Swift fuel is also heavier.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Re: Skycatcher par deux
The 162 is a nice airplane. The only negative I see is the high weight due to Cessna's engine choice.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.
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.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Re: Skycatcher par deux
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
Re: Skycatcher par deux
From their website:MrMorden wrote:Do you know the weight? Just curious.3Dreaming wrote:The new Swift fuel is also heavier.
Assuming the low end numbers, this means UL102 is 8% heavier and yields 7% more range. Pretty much a wash.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.
dave
Re: Skycatcher par deux
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.dstclair wrote:
Assuming the low end numbers, this means UL102 is 8% heavier and yields 7% more range. Pretty much a wash.
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
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Re: Skycatcher par deux
I have no problem getting parts from yuengling or ebay.
Re: Skycatcher par deux
"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?
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