Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
I think you're wrong about carbs. They are the best technology for low-cost, low power aero engines. There is nothing inherently inefficient about them. Aero engines can and do run lean, which is where you gain your efficiency, so there is no need to have precise lambda-1 control that automotive engines require (only for three-way catalytic emissions control mind!)
Fuel injection systems require high pressure fuel pumps and, if electronically controlled, usually wind up having some kind of electrical dependence which requires redundancy. More weight and lots of complication. Then, once you've introduced software and electronic control, you have a bunch of serious QA issues you have to deal with.
I agree that FI can be made to run efficiently more of the time, but a carb can be just as efficient enough of the time. When you're burning 15L/h it doesn't make any sense to burden yourself with 15kg extra weight and complexity just to make it 14.5L/h.
Horses for courses.
A
Fuel injection systems require high pressure fuel pumps and, if electronically controlled, usually wind up having some kind of electrical dependence which requires redundancy. More weight and lots of complication. Then, once you've introduced software and electronic control, you have a bunch of serious QA issues you have to deal with.
I agree that FI can be made to run efficiently more of the time, but a carb can be just as efficient enough of the time. When you're burning 15L/h it doesn't make any sense to burden yourself with 15kg extra weight and complexity just to make it 14.5L/h.
Horses for courses.
A
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The use of carbs is not too much of a surprise. The Rotax injection system has been imminent for about 4 years and has still not surfaced. The two surprising things to me are the use of mags, which is crazy as solid state ignition is vastly better, and costs much less to maintain. Secondly, according to the figures on the cess pit site the engine will be burning 23.3lph which is 28% more than the Rotax for the same power.
It will be very interesting to see how the cost of ownership will compare between the Cirrus and the SkyCatcher. The main reasons given in the UK for switching to VLA’s for training is the fuel burn and the “new aircraft” image advantage to new potential pilots. The Fuel burn on this will be the same as a 150!
Rod1
It will be very interesting to see how the cost of ownership will compare between the Cirrus and the SkyCatcher. The main reasons given in the UK for switching to VLA’s for training is the fuel burn and the “new aircraft” image advantage to new potential pilots. The Fuel burn on this will be the same as a 150!
Rod1
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but bo**ocks.
Carb'd engines went the way of the dinosaur in car design for a very good reason. Cost, complexity, tuneability, emissions and reliability.
Carbs are better only in particular circumstances. Rubbish EFI does exist, the original sytems could be snatchy and have poor throttle response, but the benefits outweigh the negatives by enormous factors.
I love carb engines on cars and bikes, because I can fiddle with them. I have twin webber DCOE 40's on my spitfire and they are wonderful.
They use fuel at an unholy rate and are rubbish a low engine speeds and talk about complex! But I think they are wonderful.
A well set up EFI system wallops carbs in nearly every respect, especially when combined with modern engine design.
Just chucking EFI on an old engine isn't likely to make it run better, but evolve the design together and you get a far better result.
Yes car and bike manufacturers play with revs etc to get around emissions testing, but we are talking about controls that a Lycoming couldn't get within a mile of even if it was straight out the box and working perfectly.
These engines are decript dinosaurs and should have gone extinct years ago, they are inefficient ditch pumps in comparison to the technology that is out there.
Lobbing a 60 year old engine design into a new a/c is taking the p**s to be honest. They'll probably sell by the thousand unfortunately and we'll be stuck with another generation of lo-tec rubbish.
Carb'd engines went the way of the dinosaur in car design for a very good reason. Cost, complexity, tuneability, emissions and reliability.
Carbs are better only in particular circumstances. Rubbish EFI does exist, the original sytems could be snatchy and have poor throttle response, but the benefits outweigh the negatives by enormous factors.
I love carb engines on cars and bikes, because I can fiddle with them. I have twin webber DCOE 40's on my spitfire and they are wonderful.
They use fuel at an unholy rate and are rubbish a low engine speeds and talk about complex! But I think they are wonderful.
A well set up EFI system wallops carbs in nearly every respect, especially when combined with modern engine design.
Just chucking EFI on an old engine isn't likely to make it run better, but evolve the design together and you get a far better result.
Yes car and bike manufacturers play with revs etc to get around emissions testing, but we are talking about controls that a Lycoming couldn't get within a mile of even if it was straight out the box and working perfectly.
These engines are decript dinosaurs and should have gone extinct years ago, they are inefficient ditch pumps in comparison to the technology that is out there.
Lobbing a 60 year old engine design into a new a/c is taking the p**s to be honest. They'll probably sell by the thousand unfortunately and we'll be stuck with another generation of lo-tec rubbish.
old engine designs?
SAS, you have completely misread the beauty of the Lycosaurus. It is 'perfectly' designed for what it is trying to do. It is not old fashioned in any way at all. The fuel consumption can be better than any modern automotive engine.
Compare it to the Rotax, which is an abortion of a 'modern' engine with so many unnecessary points of failure that the Lycosaurus just doesn't have.
The carb-fed Lycosaurus is exactly the right amount of technology for the job.
If you disagree, which obviously you do, tell me the features that it is missing and how they will dramatically improve the end result?
A
Compare it to the Rotax, which is an abortion of a 'modern' engine with so many unnecessary points of failure that the Lycosaurus just doesn't have.
The carb-fed Lycosaurus is exactly the right amount of technology for the job.
If you disagree, which obviously you do, tell me the features that it is missing and how they will dramatically improve the end result?
A
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'll probably sell by the thousand unfortunately and we'll be stuck with another generation of lo-tec rubbish.
1000 units on 1 day ?? damn!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'd be Cessna I'd fit some kerosene (not kraut) burning engine in my next basic trainer. Where will you get avgas from in twenty, thirty years time? The military doesn't keep the infrastructure anymore and other places seem to follow. Hope they'll offer several engines. There were at least rotax-rumors before.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly my point. AVGAS is an outmoded fuel supply.
Does a Lycoming do the job? Well yes it does, but at what cost. Lycomings use old technology and that means money.
Lycomings cost a staggering amount of money for what they are, yes they are made in low numbers which skews the numbers, but are they really worth twice as much as a BMW M5 engine? For a little 100hp O-200? I know which I'd rather spend my money on!
Are Lycomings reliable? Not really, the ancillaries are usually the problem, but how many AD's do you see for things like crankshafts?
Rotax engines aren't the best solution either, but at least they are designed with MOGAS in mind.
JETA1 is the only real future fuel for GA a/c, especially in countries with a high tax burden like the U.K.
Why couldn't have Lycoming come up with a JET powered engine burning about 10l/hr. If they had, they'd sell thousands, combine that with a "new" Cessna and the 2 seat market would be theirs for the taking.
I just don't think they tried very hard with this and that is very disappointing.
Does a Lycoming do the job? Well yes it does, but at what cost. Lycomings use old technology and that means money.
Lycomings cost a staggering amount of money for what they are, yes they are made in low numbers which skews the numbers, but are they really worth twice as much as a BMW M5 engine? For a little 100hp O-200? I know which I'd rather spend my money on!
Are Lycomings reliable? Not really, the ancillaries are usually the problem, but how many AD's do you see for things like crankshafts?
Rotax engines aren't the best solution either, but at least they are designed with MOGAS in mind.
JETA1 is the only real future fuel for GA a/c, especially in countries with a high tax burden like the U.K.
Why couldn't have Lycoming come up with a JET powered engine burning about 10l/hr. If they had, they'd sell thousands, combine that with a "new" Cessna and the 2 seat market would be theirs for the taking.
I just don't think they tried very hard with this and that is very disappointing.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be some modern 100hp diesel car engine readily available that could become flight certified if you can expect a Cessna production run later. There's no small Thielert AFAIK but Mercedes where the Thielert core-engines come from must have many small diesel engines to choose from.
Ha ha! - get real!
agreed, no arguments here.
No, unfortunately, new technology means money. Old technology means profits, which, in the end is what Cessna and TCM are all about.
Are you sure that an M5 engine is that cheap? I don't think so! Plus the 50% you are complaining about is mostly an insurance premium against nasty and ruthless product liability claims. As to which one you'd prefer to spend your money on, I know which one will actually fly!
They are impressively reliable. There might be some durability concerns, some manufacturing issues from time to time, and there might be a few AD's, but you can't fault them for reliability. Not too many fall out of the sky for engine failure, where maintenance isn't a major factor.
Disagree, except that AVGAS probably doesn't have a long-term future. UL-AVGAS will most likely be the replacement technology. I've read nothing to suggest the new O200 won't be capable of running on UL-AVGAS/MOGAS either.
Do your sums! 10L/h is only about 50hp at realistically achievable fuel consumption targets (220g/kWh). A good engine delivering 100hp will be at least 20L/h unless you're hoping for magic.
It is so very easy for people to cast this accusation. If it is so easy, you could have a go yourself. If it's such a money printing machine, you'll have no problem finding backers.
A
A
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The O200 is a very heavy engine, it burns more fuel, is NOT designed to run on 100LL or Mogas. It has a very bad reputation for falling out of the air due to carb ice, it cracks up due to shock cooling and it uses notoriously unreliable magnetos which is technology which was ok for a 1920’s tractor but has no place in a modern engine. Remember the mags will need maintenance every 500 hours.
The Rotax is a lot lighter; burns much less fuel, are almost immune from carb ice and do not suffer from shock cooling at all. The duel solid state ignition system is maintenance free, is 5% of the weight of magnetos and has a MTBF which is vastly better than a magneto. Because the Rotax is the dominant engine in terms of numbers there is a superb array of fixt pitch, ground adjustable and VP/CS props available at a fraction of the cost of the O200 equivalent. The generator on the engine is built in and does not require an elastic band to drive it.
Having flown behind both engines I find it hard to see why anyone would choose the O200. In the PFA fleet the most reliable engine is the Rotax 912 range.
Rod1
The Rotax is a lot lighter; burns much less fuel, are almost immune from carb ice and do not suffer from shock cooling at all. The duel solid state ignition system is maintenance free, is 5% of the weight of magnetos and has a MTBF which is vastly better than a magneto. Because the Rotax is the dominant engine in terms of numbers there is a superb array of fixt pitch, ground adjustable and VP/CS props available at a fraction of the cost of the O200 equivalent. The generator on the engine is built in and does not require an elastic band to drive it.
Having flown behind both engines I find it hard to see why anyone would choose the O200. In the PFA fleet the most reliable engine is the Rotax 912 range.
Rod1
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10L/hr is only 50hp. Yep, and do you cruise around all day on 100% power? I don't. 60% is more usual. Well within the realms of possibility.
You can buy and fit an M5 engine for close to £10k. And that's at Beemer dealer rates. How much is an O-200? A lot more than that.
Old technology after a while does cost a lot more than modern tech. Why? because of economies of scale. Try buying parts for old cars, it gets very expensive when supplies start to run low.
As in industrial terms there aren't that many Lycomings and Continentals, the parts cost per units are very expensive compared to more mass produced stuff.
Lycomings aren't reliable. Whilst they don't completely fail that often, how much gets spent on maintenance over their life span? I can think of numerous top-end overhauls, new starter motors, Mags, cracked cylinders and the like.
They are rubbish really from an engineering stand point. The materials aren't that good, the designs are poor and the output is awful.
If you think the as good as an engine could possibly be, then you are deluding yourself.
Just listen to someone trying start a cold lycoming on a damp, cold morning. If you don't get the fuelling just right, it'll flood or not catch properly. Tell me there isn't a better way........ Oh right there is, it's called EFI and Electronic engine management. Silly me.
As to the "well do it yourself then..." argument, if I was as lacksadaisical in my working life as they seem to be, then I would be rightly hounded out. They are engine manufacturers. It's their job to do it as well as possible. I do it in my working life, why shouldn't they?
You can buy and fit an M5 engine for close to £10k. And that's at Beemer dealer rates. How much is an O-200? A lot more than that.
Old technology after a while does cost a lot more than modern tech. Why? because of economies of scale. Try buying parts for old cars, it gets very expensive when supplies start to run low.
As in industrial terms there aren't that many Lycomings and Continentals, the parts cost per units are very expensive compared to more mass produced stuff.
Lycomings aren't reliable. Whilst they don't completely fail that often, how much gets spent on maintenance over their life span? I can think of numerous top-end overhauls, new starter motors, Mags, cracked cylinders and the like.
They are rubbish really from an engineering stand point. The materials aren't that good, the designs are poor and the output is awful.
If you think the as good as an engine could possibly be, then you are deluding yourself.
Just listen to someone trying start a cold lycoming on a damp, cold morning. If you don't get the fuelling just right, it'll flood or not catch properly. Tell me there isn't a better way........ Oh right there is, it's called EFI and Electronic engine management. Silly me.
As to the "well do it yourself then..." argument, if I was as lacksadaisical in my working life as they seem to be, then I would be rightly hounded out. They are engine manufacturers. It's their job to do it as well as possible. I do it in my working life, why shouldn't they?
You can buy and fit an M5 engine for close to £10k. And that's at Beemer dealer rates. How much is an O-200? A lot more than that.
Old technology after a while does cost a lot more than modern tech. Why? because of economies of scale. Try buying parts for old cars, it gets very expensive when supplies start to run low.
Old technology after a while does cost a lot more than modern tech. Why? because of economies of scale. Try buying parts for old cars, it gets very expensive when supplies start to run low.
A
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bosch etc. will supply to any market they can make money out of. Having worked as an automotive engineer if there is spare capacity and a market, they'll have a look. We would have.
There are plenty of specialist suppliers in the states, there is no need to only use car OEM's. If boat manufacturers can do it, why can't Lycoming?
My point about cars, is that it is ridiculous that an engine of such technology can be made and fitted for so much less than the over priced piece of junk that is a Lycoming.
How can a company make an engine of such power and reliability for a lower price than something that has had seemingly no development for nearly 40 years? Economies of scale are obviously in place, but that can't account for everything.
Why would anyone defend Lycoming? We are the ones who allow them to charge such ridiculous prices for outmoded technology.
There are plenty of specialist suppliers in the states, there is no need to only use car OEM's. If boat manufacturers can do it, why can't Lycoming?
My point about cars, is that it is ridiculous that an engine of such technology can be made and fitted for so much less than the over priced piece of junk that is a Lycoming.
How can a company make an engine of such power and reliability for a lower price than something that has had seemingly no development for nearly 40 years? Economies of scale are obviously in place, but that can't account for everything.
Why would anyone defend Lycoming? We are the ones who allow them to charge such ridiculous prices for outmoded technology.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Cessna unveiled their POC LSA aircraft last year it reminded me of this Italian design. (a) Italian site (b) US site. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Cessna LSA has a lot of catching up to do with European LSA/VLA aircraft designs.
Given the straight bolt-on 0-200 swap, seems like a candidate for this engine.
Given the straight bolt-on 0-200 swap, seems like a candidate for this engine.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not wishing to defend Cessna's use of the O-200 in any way, to correct Rod1 on a couple of points: the O-200 alternator isn't belt driven, it's gear driven off the back of the engine and mags aren't that unreliable and the 500hr inspection is a non-mandatory Service Bulletin.
Why Continental haven't done some advancements like the Liberty IO-240F which is injected and FADEC beats me unless it's purely down to cost.
As for the Dieselair/Howell engine, there is now a very similar engine by Jade/Weslake which was seen at the Wycombe AeroExpo and now at Oshkosh.
If Cessna didn't want to be too radical then go for the Rotax - Americans will soon accept it as a viable powerplant given the use of it in the RV-12, Cirrus/Funk Polaris, Sport Cruiser, Eurostar etc etc.
An O-200...? Barking!
Why Continental haven't done some advancements like the Liberty IO-240F which is injected and FADEC beats me unless it's purely down to cost.
As for the Dieselair/Howell engine, there is now a very similar engine by Jade/Weslake which was seen at the Wycombe AeroExpo and now at Oshkosh.
If Cessna didn't want to be too radical then go for the Rotax - Americans will soon accept it as a viable powerplant given the use of it in the RV-12, Cirrus/Funk Polaris, Sport Cruiser, Eurostar etc etc.
An O-200...? Barking!
The first problem is that the volumes are never going to be enormous. 2000-5000 units p.a. is the most you'll see even with very good market penetration. One vehicle project I worked on for a major OEM was a total volume of 5000 units and even then the suppliers had to be beaten up regularly by the multi-national OEM on our behalf to get some action on the project.
The next problem to consider is one of product liability and where in some US states this is a case of strict liability. If you don't understand anything about this, you really need to do some research. It is a very scary area and arguably the reason that aviation has been 'stuck in the dark ages'. Even if OEM suppliers are happy to let aviation lunch off existing component designs and specifications, the volumes are so low and the profit is so miniscule it does not cover the risk of them being taken to the cleaners over someone's CFIT or fuel management-related accident, for example. Anyone with a sniff of a few dollars in their bank and in any way related to the product will get named in a lawsuit by the grieving widow.
I would agree with you that technically, a FADEC might be made a more useable and reliable fuel system, especially for larger engines. Commercially, this just isn't the case.
At the low power end of the market, the fuel consumption savings that FADEC can offer are simply not that significant. A carb and mags can do as much as a FADEC can for most of the operating regimes, with perhaps starting being the major exception.
A
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Powered flight has been going for just over 100 years and the O-200 has been in service for almost half this period.
If you think it's a good choice for a new aircraft design then it shows bloody pathetic thinking where innovation has been destroyed by fear of Public Liability. I don't care how real this is - if it stifles development then we've got into a very sad state in this industry. The rest of the transport world must be having a really good laugh at us.
If you think it's a good choice for a new aircraft design then it shows bloody pathetic thinking where innovation has been destroyed by fear of Public Liability. I don't care how real this is - if it stifles development then we've got into a very sad state in this industry. The rest of the transport world must be having a really good laugh at us.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd largely agree with Jabberwork.
Cessna are a company for who R&D would best be described as 'this year's paint scheme'. They are not just conservative but completely devoted to re-hashing and re-using existing designs for as long as Textron think the business is viable. Think of the 172 - an OK aircraft when first introduced but that was over 45 years ago - can you image any supplier of consumable durables hoping to keep a old design in production fro that long (BMC, BLMC and Rover excepted!!)
Add in the issue that many in Us aviation have largely the same viewpoint. Mechanics hate the Rotax 'funny little foreign engine that needs silly little tools and is just pernickety about settings' is an exact quote I got!
So Cessna have produced an LSA that looks like a Cessna - they have carefully costed making it - because this is a market sector that is potentially so big in the States that thy have to be in it. Then they do a deal with Continental - a company with a similar mind set to buy their old design engine. How much will they be paying for the O-200 - probably very little, very likely under half what the retail cost is. That makes it very cheap versus a Rotax and as fuel costs are so low it does not cause they a disadvantage in the US market.
It al makes sense financially - but it's certainly depressing that their approach is so cynical.
The sooner Cirrus etc kill their SEP market the better.
Cessna are a company for who R&D would best be described as 'this year's paint scheme'. They are not just conservative but completely devoted to re-hashing and re-using existing designs for as long as Textron think the business is viable. Think of the 172 - an OK aircraft when first introduced but that was over 45 years ago - can you image any supplier of consumable durables hoping to keep a old design in production fro that long (BMC, BLMC and Rover excepted!!)
Add in the issue that many in Us aviation have largely the same viewpoint. Mechanics hate the Rotax 'funny little foreign engine that needs silly little tools and is just pernickety about settings' is an exact quote I got!
So Cessna have produced an LSA that looks like a Cessna - they have carefully costed making it - because this is a market sector that is potentially so big in the States that thy have to be in it. Then they do a deal with Continental - a company with a similar mind set to buy their old design engine. How much will they be paying for the O-200 - probably very little, very likely under half what the retail cost is. That makes it very cheap versus a Rotax and as fuel costs are so low it does not cause they a disadvantage in the US market.
It al makes sense financially - but it's certainly depressing that their approach is so cynical.
The sooner Cirrus etc kill their SEP market the better.