Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I had heard that is was going to be produced overseas. (China, huh, guess we'll be seeing them in Wal-Mart. Come to think of it, that might not be a bad thing for promoting GA!)
Datapoint - the overhaul manual for the O-200 says the basic engine weighs 170.18 lbs. Add carb, mags, starter, alternator, etc., and you're up to about 210 or so. With mufflers and baffling (supplied by the aircraft manufacturer, not Continental), the all-up weight of the engine assembly is somewhat less than 240 lbs (plus the prop).
(The "export shipping crate", btw, weighs in at 142 lbs empty . . . )
Price of a brand new O-200 from Continental is about $24,000, cost to rebuild is about $15K, but can be done for less if you get a deal on labor. TBO is 1800 hours, and if the airplane is flown regularly, it will make TBO. Most are not - and develop cylinder problems at about 1,100 hours.
O-200 runs quite happily on auto gas, too. It was originally designed to use 80-87 (the orange stuff), but that hasn't been around for years. Plain old regular 87 octane car gas works just fine, is fully legal (in the US) and costs between $1 and $2 a gallon less than avgas.
What does the Rotax power package weigh, including radiator, coolant, plumbing, and so forth?
As to the sales and service network, that is a definite advantage, and especially if the airplane is being operated to make money - if it sits, the owner is losing revenue! Ever try to find parts for an "orphan" car or motorcycle? I am willing to accept a slightly "sub-optimal" airplane if I can get the parts I need to keep it flying. If I insist on the latest and greatest stuff, no one will have the parts, and they will be expensive if they can be found at all. Any idea what a screen for a G1000 costs? (I don't know, but I'll bet it is expensive, like probably more than my entire airplane costs!) You can't fly your G1000/172 without it - same technology as laptop screens, and we know they NEVER break (smile).
Best Regards,
Echo Mike
Datapoint - the overhaul manual for the O-200 says the basic engine weighs 170.18 lbs. Add carb, mags, starter, alternator, etc., and you're up to about 210 or so. With mufflers and baffling (supplied by the aircraft manufacturer, not Continental), the all-up weight of the engine assembly is somewhat less than 240 lbs (plus the prop).
(The "export shipping crate", btw, weighs in at 142 lbs empty . . . )
Price of a brand new O-200 from Continental is about $24,000, cost to rebuild is about $15K, but can be done for less if you get a deal on labor. TBO is 1800 hours, and if the airplane is flown regularly, it will make TBO. Most are not - and develop cylinder problems at about 1,100 hours.
O-200 runs quite happily on auto gas, too. It was originally designed to use 80-87 (the orange stuff), but that hasn't been around for years. Plain old regular 87 octane car gas works just fine, is fully legal (in the US) and costs between $1 and $2 a gallon less than avgas.
What does the Rotax power package weigh, including radiator, coolant, plumbing, and so forth?
As to the sales and service network, that is a definite advantage, and especially if the airplane is being operated to make money - if it sits, the owner is losing revenue! Ever try to find parts for an "orphan" car or motorcycle? I am willing to accept a slightly "sub-optimal" airplane if I can get the parts I need to keep it flying. If I insist on the latest and greatest stuff, no one will have the parts, and they will be expensive if they can be found at all. Any idea what a screen for a G1000 costs? (I don't know, but I'll bet it is expensive, like probably more than my entire airplane costs!) You can't fly your G1000/172 without it - same technology as laptop screens, and we know they NEVER break (smile).
Best Regards,
Echo Mike
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
It's not a Cessna anymore, now that they are going to build it in China, they descided the new plane is called: "Chissna" ..
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'average' Rotax installation is 138 - 142 lbs. Then the propellers are typically 5 - 20 lbs lighter. The flycatcher will be hauling around approximately 100lbs more weight than it needs to.
It will be doing that because Cessna will get the engine for peanuts - 'cos actually that is about what it is worth.
I presently fly a zodiac 601 with an O-200 and I'm in the proccess of building a replacement with a 912S. Chalk annd cheese in nearly all aspects.
But on the positive side it menas that the LSA market is likely to be every bit as good as most people hoped. If only we had the Euro equivalent....
It will be doing that because Cessna will get the engine for peanuts - 'cos actually that is about what it is worth.
I presently fly a zodiac 601 with an O-200 and I'm in the proccess of building a replacement with a 912S. Chalk annd cheese in nearly all aspects.
But on the positive side it menas that the LSA market is likely to be every bit as good as most people hoped. If only we had the Euro equivalent....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been powered by a 0200, and now having a 912s, there is no comparison.
“O-200 runs quite happily on auto gas,”
So does the Rotax, it was designed to, but the Rotax uses a lot less, it is also a lot lighter, has a smaller frontal area and in the UK home built area it is more reliable. The support for the Rotax engine in the UK is also very very good. A 50 hour typically costs £25 all in, plugs at £2 each etc etc.
We will probably never see the 162 in Europe; it would be so inferior to the Euro wide VLA class that it would fail to sell to all except the most diehard Cessna fans, unless it had a big cost advantage. We are already shifting from the old 152 to the new VLA range of trainers, which use a mix of construction methods.
Rod1
“O-200 runs quite happily on auto gas,”
So does the Rotax, it was designed to, but the Rotax uses a lot less, it is also a lot lighter, has a smaller frontal area and in the UK home built area it is more reliable. The support for the Rotax engine in the UK is also very very good. A 50 hour typically costs £25 all in, plugs at £2 each etc etc.
We will probably never see the 162 in Europe; it would be so inferior to the Euro wide VLA class that it would fail to sell to all except the most diehard Cessna fans, unless it had a big cost advantage. We are already shifting from the old 152 to the new VLA range of trainers, which use a mix of construction methods.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: KS, USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna could build a plastic-fantastic-glass-panel turbo-wankel-diesel if they wanted to - but they don't because there's no REAL market for it other than wannabes.
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
We will probably never see the 162 in Europe;
If I could give my two pen'orth as a powertrain engineer, the current Lycoming / Continental engines with carburetors, magnetos, manual mixture and intake air temperature controls are ridiculously out of date.
If one could afford a clean sheet, the best compromise would seem to be:
compression ignition (less to go wrong, low speed torque characteristic, fuel consumption, no throttle icing because no throttle),
air cooled (less to go wrong),
current technology diesel fuel injection pump, injectors and control equipment (to give modern standards of starting, handling, consumption and emissions),
dual fuel (road diesel or jet fuel),
flat four (to fit the prevailing aircraft nose and nacelle shapes),
modern materials (you don't expect your road vehicle engine to break when it gets a shock cool as you drive through a ford)
If someone wants to front me the cash, I’ll run the design and development programme for you!
If one could afford a clean sheet, the best compromise would seem to be:
compression ignition (less to go wrong, low speed torque characteristic, fuel consumption, no throttle icing because no throttle),
air cooled (less to go wrong),
current technology diesel fuel injection pump, injectors and control equipment (to give modern standards of starting, handling, consumption and emissions),
dual fuel (road diesel or jet fuel),
flat four (to fit the prevailing aircraft nose and nacelle shapes),
modern materials (you don't expect your road vehicle engine to break when it gets a shock cool as you drive through a ford)
If someone wants to front me the cash, I’ll run the design and development programme for you!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“According to the January issue of Flyer i just received and read they say Cessna sold 10 of them to the UK, i guess by Europe you mean without the UK then ?”
I may be wrong, perhaps we will see them but;
The LSA cat is a restricted C of A which I did not think was allowed in Europe (EASA land). I was expecting the aircraft to require retesting to CS-VLA, which would be expensive and given the heavy competition from existing European specifically designed to CS-VLA (no 120kn speed limit etc), I thought it very unlikely it would happen.
Rod1
I may be wrong, perhaps we will see them but;
The LSA cat is a restricted C of A which I did not think was allowed in Europe (EASA land). I was expecting the aircraft to require retesting to CS-VLA, which would be expensive and given the heavy competition from existing European specifically designed to CS-VLA (no 120kn speed limit etc), I thought it very unlikely it would happen.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JOE-FBS - you'll need to get in line, there is nothing new under the sun. Bolts straight onto an O-200 mount, meets all your requirements save for not being air cooled. Is flying in fixed wing and airships and a company in the US is setting up for licence production.
http://ppdgemini.com/
http://ppdgemini.com/
Brian,
That looks a lot like the engine I have been designing (well fantasising about) in my head!
Thielert / Centurion looks more like it as well allthough only at 130hp plus.
So the engines are out there, the problem is the US manufacturers saying "We don't want any of that new fangled European technology here"?
Looking at the Luddite comments about structures as well as engines, I can imagine them saying to the Wright brothers that the Flyer was too hi-tech and that we should stick with Lillienthal hang gliders.
Incidentally, I love old stuff, I just don't think it should still be in production. Even with just a few hours training I am already fantasising that I would spend the big premium bond win on a Puss Moth not a Diamond Star.
Cheers
Joe
That looks a lot like the engine I have been designing (well fantasising about) in my head!
Thielert / Centurion looks more like it as well allthough only at 130hp plus.
So the engines are out there, the problem is the US manufacturers saying "We don't want any of that new fangled European technology here"?
Looking at the Luddite comments about structures as well as engines, I can imagine them saying to the Wright brothers that the Flyer was too hi-tech and that we should stick with Lillienthal hang gliders.
Incidentally, I love old stuff, I just don't think it should still be in production. Even with just a few hours training I am already fantasising that I would spend the big premium bond win on a Puss Moth not a Diamond Star.
Cheers
Joe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 74
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points relating to previous posts. One guy asked why we can't have clockwork instruments instead of glass cockpit. I've been flying professionally for 40 years and I prefer round instruments in many ways but, unfortunately, no one is being trained in manufacture & maintenance of steam clocks anymore - we live in the digital age.
With regard to the stick coming out of the panel, it's nothing new. We had that in the Buccaneer - that's the strike jet, not the Lake amphibian - and it handles like any other stick when you're not thinking about it being unconventional.
With regard to the stick coming out of the panel, it's nothing new. We had that in the Buccaneer - that's the strike jet, not the Lake amphibian - and it handles like any other stick when you're not thinking about it being unconventional.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: KS, USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the engines are out there, the problem is the US manufacturers saying "We don't want any of that new fangled European technology here"?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Abraham
Off subject topic: the proposed Gemini engine has NOT flown in any aircraft nor airships as you state. When announced earlier this year it was only a model with nothing inside! Nice though it looks!
It is the DAIR engine which has been flying both in airships and aircraft. Refer here That English company has invested over £1M in their diesel project so far. They own the IPR, having paid for the development and production costs of the engines over the years.
Off subject topic: the proposed Gemini engine has NOT flown in any aircraft nor airships as you state. When announced earlier this year it was only a model with nothing inside! Nice though it looks!
It is the DAIR engine which has been flying both in airships and aircraft. Refer here That English company has invested over £1M in their diesel project so far. They own the IPR, having paid for the development and production costs of the engines over the years.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANW - You are quite correct. It was the DAIR web site I should have included and is indeed the engine I was referring to. Less haste, more speed (in copying and pasting). Nice to know there is competition out there tho isn't it, and a longer line that JOE has to go to the end of. 
Edited to add - I see Weslake (who specialise in piston engine prototyping, testing, design & development) are involved with both engines (building the DAIR and is the proposed builder of the Gemini) so I wonder what is going on there, are they then two distinct and seperate commercial enterprises (competitors) or is there a bit of smoke and mirrors. See the DAIR is being licence manufactured by Howells Aero Engines as the HAE-100 in Manchester also.
Edited to add - I see Weslake (who specialise in piston engine prototyping, testing, design & development) are involved with both engines (building the DAIR and is the proposed builder of the Gemini) so I wonder what is going on there, are they then two distinct and seperate commercial enterprises (competitors) or is there a bit of smoke and mirrors. See the DAIR is being licence manufactured by Howells Aero Engines as the HAE-100 in Manchester also.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 13th Dec 2007 at 15:05.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Iceland
Age: 34
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new Cirrus LSA looks much better, has the wing in the right place and at 120kn cruse is ok compared with European VLA’s. It is based on a Euro VLA (German) and has the Rotax so if it can compete on price Cessna may have a problem.
Rod1
Rod1
Am I the only one thinking the Skycatcher look is ugly?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flat four (to fit the prevailing aircraft nose and nacelle shapes)
air cooled (less to go wrong)
air cooled (less to go wrong)
As far as I can see, the original reason for having a flat four (or six) is, indirect, because gearboxes simply were not strong enough to deal with the horsepowers and the harmonics involved. So you have to have a direct drive engine.
In most GA aircraft, you will want the prop shaft to be as high as possible, partly to give the prop the greatest ground clearance, and partly to align the thrust line with the drag. If you were to use an upright line or V engine, the cylinders would block the pilots view. An inverted line or V engine has been done, but has problems with hydraulic lock and plugs fouling. So a flat four or six was the best solution at that time.
Today gearboxes are strong enough. At least, Rotax and Thielert think so. This means that the crankshaft can be lower than the prop shaft and having an upright line or V engine is not causing sight problems for the pilot anymore. Plus, the crankshaft can now run at 2.5 to 3 times the speed of the propshaft, so the internal displacement of the engine can be much smaller while still producing the same amount of horsepower. So the engines external dimensions will be smaller as well.
This means that you can fit a modern upright line engine in approximately the same space as a traditional flat four. Take a look, for instance, at the Thielert retrofits (or even factory-standard) for the Robin DR200, the PA-28 and C172. The cowling is almost exactly the same size/volume. It just has air intakes at different locations.
As far as water vs. air cooling is concerned, yes, air cooling is far simpler. But air is a lousy coolant and equally doesn't retain heat very well. Also, unless you start adding cowl flaps, you don't have much influence on cooling effectiveness other than by flying faster or slower.
Water cooling is more complex and there are more things that can go wrong, but it is also more efficient (less surface area required transfer the heat, so no cooling fins and a smaller engine) and by retaining the heat longer, makes the engine far less susceptible to shock cooling. And you can mount the radiator at the location that aerodynamically optimal, instead of having to force air into whatever location the cylinders happen to be. Add a thermostat and you've virtually guaranteed that the engine always runs at its optimal temperature. (My VW Diesel is something like six years old now and I have never seen the temperature needle NOT on 90 degrees, other than while warming the engine up. Regardless of how fast I drive, how warm or cold it is, how much load I carry. It just never moves. Try that with air cooling.)
BackPacker,
I will bow to your superior on the packaging / layout point. Your points sound good to me (assuming the weight of gears is offset by the smaller engine giving equal or lower overall weight to ungeared).
I totally agree about cooling, the thought on air cooling was as much to placate the luddites as anything else! They seem to not believe (despite the evidence of the road vehicles they almost certainly drive) that materials and processes have so improved since the fifities that reliability and durability can be maintained (even improved) while functionality is improved.
Interesting one on the temperature gauge in your car. When I ran my own sports car company (the clue is in my forum name), the prototypes had conventional instruments and the temperature gauge would move with the conditions. The production cars had instruments driven by the digital CANBUS signal and behave exactly as you describe. I have long suspected that this is the instrument pack logic being programmed to keep the needle in the mid position unless the coolant is either very hot or very cold.
Cheers
Joe
I will bow to your superior on the packaging / layout point. Your points sound good to me (assuming the weight of gears is offset by the smaller engine giving equal or lower overall weight to ungeared).
I totally agree about cooling, the thought on air cooling was as much to placate the luddites as anything else! They seem to not believe (despite the evidence of the road vehicles they almost certainly drive) that materials and processes have so improved since the fifities that reliability and durability can be maintained (even improved) while functionality is improved.
Interesting one on the temperature gauge in your car. When I ran my own sports car company (the clue is in my forum name), the prototypes had conventional instruments and the temperature gauge would move with the conditions. The production cars had instruments driven by the digital CANBUS signal and behave exactly as you describe. I have long suspected that this is the instrument pack logic being programmed to keep the needle in the mid position unless the coolant is either very hot or very cold.
Cheers
Joe