Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Rotax powered Cessna

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Paul A. Franz, P.E.

Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 280
Location: Bellevue WA

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

On Mon, January 12, 2009 3:04 am, Lynn Matteson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Maybe because they were there first? How many of the Cessnas out

 there are Rotax-powered?


	


Years ago when at NSI in Arlington, I looked at a project Lance was doing with a

Subaru powered C150. It was almost complete at that time. Who knows, maybe someone has

put a 912 in one too. Sort of doubtful due to the cost of certification and I would

think the resale value would be hard hit with "EXPERIMENTAL" written above the entry

step.



-- 

Paul A. Franz

Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT

Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP

Bellevue WA

425.241.1618 Cell

_________________
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
425.440.9505 Office

gary.algate(at)sandvik.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:23 pm Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

The new Cessna 162 SLA started out with a Rotax 912S but it wasn't well accepted by the GA community so it was replaced with the new 100Hp Continental 

2000 hr TBO so no real benefit over the Jab  but GA is a conservative community. 

 Gary Algate

 Classic 4 jab2200

 Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655

 This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.

 “This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have made a contribution to [url=Arial]UNICEF Australia[/url]. We wish you a safe and happy Christmas". 

"Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul(at)eucleides.com> 

Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com 

13/01/2009 08:13 AM 

Please respond to

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com     To

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com   cc

    Subject

 Re: Rotax powered Cessna 

--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul(at)eucleides.com>

 On Mon, January 12, 2009 3:04 am, Lynn Matteson wrote:

 > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>

 >

 > Maybe because they were there first? How many of the Cessnas out

 > there are Rotax-powered?

 Years ago when at NSI in Arlington, I looked at a project Lance was doing with a

 Subaru powered C150. It was almost complete at that time. Who knows, maybe someone has

 put a 912 in one too. Sort of doubtful due to the cost of certification and I would

 think the resale value would be hard hit with "EXPERIMENTAL" written above the entry

 step.

 -- 

 Paul A. Franz

 Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT

 Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP

 Bellevue WA

 425.241.1618 Cell

clint_bazzill(at)hotmail.
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:43 pm Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

Yea C look at the payload.  2 200 pounders and no fuel.

  

 

 

   

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Re: Rotax powered Cessna

From: gary.algate(at)sandvik.com

Date: Tue C 13 Jan 2009 07:52:17 +0930

The new Cessna 162 SLA started out with a Rotax 912S but it wasn't well accepted by the GA community so it was replaced with the new 100Hp Continental 



2000 hr TBO so no real benefit over the Jab  but GA is a conservative community. 



Gary Algate

Classic 4 jab2200

Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655

This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees. Any review C dissemination C distribution C or copying of this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error C kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.

“This year C instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail C we have made a contribution to UNICEF Australia. We wish you a safe and happy Christmas". 





    



"Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul(at)eucleides.com>  Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com 

13/01/2009 08:13 AM 

Please respond to

kitfox-list(at)matronics.com 

      To

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com    cc

    Subject

 Re: Rotax powered Cessna

     



--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT" <paul(at)eucleides.com>



On Mon C January 12 C 2009 3:04 am C Lynn Matteson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



 Maybe because they were there first? How many of the Cessnas out

 there are Rotax-powered?


	


Years ago when at NSI in Arlington C I looked at a project Lance was doing with a

Subaru powered C150. It was almost complete at that time. Who knows C maybe someone has

put a 912 in one too. Sort of doubtful due to the cost of certification and I would

think the resale value would be hard hit with "EXPERIMENTAL" written above the entry

step.



-- 

Paul A. Franz

Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT

Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP

Bellevue WA

425.241.1618 Cell



_-========================nbsp;               &nbs===================





[quote]



 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List

ronics.com
	


ww.matronics.com/contribution



[b]

pwmac(at)sisna.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:00 pm Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

I think the real answer was business related and not having a product that was subject to currency fluctuations. Especially the Euro.  With Continental one can get a fixed price contract with no unknown currency issues. I don't blame them for  that, but they  had to source the airframe to China to make the product saleable. Now they have a new currency issue.  Its a tough business  -  Sigh.

 Paul

 =============

 At 02:22 PM 1/12/2009, you wrote:



 [quote]The new Cessna 162 SLA started out with a Rotax 912S but it wasn't well accepted by the GA community so it was replaced with the new 100Hp Continental 



 2000 hr TBO so no real benefit over the Jab  but GA is a conservative community. 

 

 Gary Algate

 Classic 4 jab2200

 Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655

 [b]

gary.algate(at)sandvik.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

Nope Paul - I just received the latest issue of Australian aviation and they had an article on the Cessna LSA with input from the Cessna design team. The engine decision was purely commercial and based on potential customer surveys. The feedback they received from the GA community and also flight schools etc was that a conventional air-cooled  engine was preferred. Once they announced the engine change they received 1,000 firm orders based on a US$ price if $115,000. 

 

The first model crashed during spin tests but the pilot was able to bailout safely. 

 

The decision to assemble the 162 in China was based on reduced labor costs but the majority of components are sourced out of China and the final fit out is done in the USA. 

 

Cessna announced that the only reason they decided to assemble the aircraft in China was because the LSA market needed a price in the US$100K range which could not be achieved with a US build. 

 



 

 Gary Algate

 Classic 4 Jab 2200

 Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655

 

 

 This e-mail is confidential and it is intended only for the addressees. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a result of the e-mail transmission.

 “This year, instead of sending you a Christmas card in the mail, we have made a contribution to [url=Arial]UNICEF Australia[/url]. We wish you a safe and happy Christmas". 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> 

Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com 

13/01/2009 09:06 AM 

Please respond to

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com     To

 kitfox-list(at)matronics.com   cc

    Subject

 Re: Rotax powered Cessna 

     

 

 

 

I think the real answer was business related and not having a product that was subject to currency fluctuations. Especially the Euro.  With Continental one can get a fixed price contract with no unknown currency issues. I don't blame them for  that, but they  had to source the airframe to China to make the product saleable. Now they have a new currency issue.  Its a tough business  -  Sigh.

 Paul

 =============

 At 02:22 PM 1/12/2009, you wrote:

  

The new Cessna 162 SLA started out with a Rotax 912S but it wasn't well accepted by the GA community so it was replaced with the new 100Hp Continental 

 

 2000 hr TBO so no real benefit over the Jab  but GA is a conservative community. 

 

 Gary Algate

 Classic 4 jab2200

 Office Phone: +61 8 8276 7655 

[b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:36 am Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

So I guess it's not just me that prefers air-cooled.



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 600.2 hrs

Sensenich 62x46

flying again after engine rebuild, and new Electroair direct-fire  

ignition system;

also building a new pair of snow skis

do not archive



On Jan 12, 2009, at 6:43 PM, gary.algate(at)sandvik.com wrote:



The engine decision was purely commercial and based on potential  

customer surveys. The feedback they received from the GA community  

and also flight schools etc was that a conventional air-cooled   

engine was preferred. Once they announced the engine change they  

received 1,000 firm orders based on a US$ price if $115,000.

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Rotax powered Cessna

 	  Lynn Matteson wrote: 	
		  So I guess it's not just me that prefers air-cooled.



	




It was not an issue of the engine being " Air Cooled " or not, the GA training community wanted a proven and certified GA type engine, not some new experimental engine.  That is why they used a Continental 0200 instead of a Jabiru 3300 or anything else, it is what the flight school operators wanted.



When a company is willing to use an experimental type engine for a light sport aircraft, they chose the Rotax 912 8 out of 10 times... Its pretty hard to get an 80 % consensus on anything, but that is the fact.  There are a lot more important things in the design and reliability of an engine other than just comparing air cooled compared to water cooled.   The Air Cooled advantage has not been enough to outweigh the other problems that the Jabiru engines have had.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

'Oh Lord forgive them for they know not what they do' (the 'GA' survey group).  Just to save a little $ up front they have compromised everything related to overall performance and cost of operation and safety.  Cessna knows better than to do this, but obviously have caved in to the whims of a non educated 'survey group'. 

	I strongly suspect that the survey group consists mostly of newby maybes (who said in the survey that they will be purchasers) and reflects a great deal of inexperience with aviation.  Cessna has to know better than to do this, but is apparently over driven by their 'survey'.  

	I really had the hope that their (Cessna's) entry into foray would result in a major improvement of the quality of power plants used in the sport category, but I guess not.  Instead, I predict that some years down the line from now we will be reading about how it will be a new discovery by some writer of an article that real aircraft engines that are designed for flight from the crankshaft out to fly are actually the best choice for aircraft use, and low and behold are even less costly as a result of this when the data is all in.  Guess what, car engines seem to be the best choice for use in cars, and snow mobile engines seem also to work best in snow mobiles, and on and on.  This is not surprising since the reciprocating engine is so mature in its development, with scores of talented designers working to refine them now for more than 100 years. 

	Some time ago Moony aircraft and Porsche worked cooperatively to adapt the 911 (air cooled) engine to use in the Moony, and after it was all done, guess what was 'discovered'?  By the time all of modifications to the car engine were made, it was not advantageous in any way to the engines that had been used in the airplane before.  OK, so the power per displacement was higher.  Who cares what the displacement is in an airplane?  It's the weight and reliability that count.  The car engine is sized displacement wise for tax considerations, and due to all of the development made for class racing, works very well in cars.  

	I doubt that an aircraft engine would be a good choice for use in a Porsche 911 

	We will read how that engines that are capable of direct drive, having ac single cooling system and only one carburetor, or a single point of distribution fuel injection, (that never falls off) and that do not have the capability of 'blowing a head gasket' because their larger single piece cylinders are strongly fastened to the also very strong crankcase don't have a head gasket.  How good it is to have mixture control and on and on, and how much all of this can contribute to peace of mind and safety.  Safety really should be more up front in Cessna's mind since many of their sales will likely be to newby innocents who do not know much (yet) about aircraft and flight and all of the factors that impinge on the activity of piloting one's own craft in that great ocean of air that we call the sky. 

	My concern here is NOT for the qualified experimenters whom are knowledgeable and quite aware of the tradeoffs that they make when they try things.  And I do appreciate fully the benefits of their trials to the development of many good ideas.  

	I do, however, have a concern for the newbys that will innocently assume the they are purchasing a craft that will not only represent good value, but will represent the best overall choice of power plant for simplicity, safety, and operating cost.  An engine with two cooling systems, two carburetors (that can get out of sync), a puny alternator that has issues with its wiring, cannot be leaned for best power, but is supposed to do so automatically does not represent the best possible choice for these new pilots, and I am sure that Cessna also knows it, but is trading this for a purchase price point that might help their sales initially, but in the long run I suspect many of their purchasers will want to up-grade their engine to one that is simpler, more robust and overall less expensive.  



Duane Rueb, N24ZM  



 



--

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

Just goes to show the operators of flight schools are pilots not engineers.

As pilots I don't blame them at all.  As engineers they missed the boat.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

Did anybody put it to Cessna to offer the Rotax engine as an option?  Then

we could find out how the resale values  go.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:28 am Post subject: Re: Rotax powered Cessna

 	  ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu wrote: 	
		  



I do, however, have a concern for the newbys that will innocently assume the they are purchasing a craft that will not only represent good value, but will represent the best overall choice of power plant for simplicity, safety, and operating cost.  An engine with two cooling systems, two carburetors (that can get out of sync), a puny alternator that has issues with its wiring, cannot be leaned for best power, but is supposed to do so automatically does not represent the best possible choice for these new pilots, and I am sure that Cessna also knows it, but is trading this for a purchase price point that might help their sales initially, but in the long run I suspect many of their purchasers will want to up-grade their engine to one that is simpler, more robust and overall less expensive.  



Duane Rueb, N24ZM  



 



-- 	




Duane,



You have not been paying attention  ....  Cessna is putting the Continental 0200 in their new LSA airplane, NOT the Rotax 912-S. 



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: Rotax powered Cessna

OK, I missed the fact that it was the 'other way around' and I am a little embarrassed at that, but I did read something that caused me to think that maybe they had backed away from their first decision.  

Please accept my apology, but now I must hope that some learning might have resulted from my mistaken reasoning, and I also apologize to Cessna and applaud their choice.  It should result in some excellent value to their clients because it will likely be a very robust product designed for the relatively new market of a factory built plane aimed at the Sport Pilot category.  Heck, as nice a package as it will be, I bet they will sell em to private pilots as well. 



p.s.  If I didn't have what I have, I might be trying to talk my wife into letting me order one. 



Duane Rueb N24ZM



--

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Rotax powered Cessna

Paul,



I agree with you, I like the Continental 0200, it is a great and reliable engine.  The Rotax 912 is light and very efficient, but it does take a lot more skill to maintain properly, I don't think the average flight school is up to it...    I have a Rotax 912-S and I like it a lot, but if I had about 20,000 dollars instead of the 912-S, I would buy the new experimental fuel injected Lycoming engine to put in my Kitfox SS, then the Continental-0200 after that.  As good as the 912-S is, it does have more problems and required maintenance than a certified aircraft engine. I dont weigh much, so my Kitfox with a standard aircraft engine would not be much heaver than the average kitfox with a 912-S and a heavier pilot.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

darinh

Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 327
Location: Utah

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: Rotax powered Cessna

The O-200 is a great engine but heavy when compared with the 912S...In the new Cessna Flea Catcher that shouldn't be a problem but on the Kitfox I think the 912S is a much better choice.  Kitfoxes fly much better when they are light.



By the way Mike, you keep speaking of the O-200 as a certified engine and the 912S as an "Experimental" which of course is correct. However, add the Letter "A" to the end of 912 and you will get the exact same engine as the "S" but.........yes, certified.  Diamond put them in the Katana for a while then I think switched to the IO-240 which is another great engine by the way.  I do agree though, the continental is easier to maintain and everyone and their dog knows the engine inside an out...it is a little tougher to find an A&P that knows the Rotax very well but that will change with time and all the LSA flying them.

_________________
Darin Hawkes
Series 7
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah

av8rps

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 33
Location: Central Wisconsin

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: Rotax powered Cessna

Back in the 90's Reiner Hoffman, the designer of the Stratus Subaru conversions put a Stratus Sube in a C150 and flew it across the country alongside an 0-200 C-150 for comparison.  In all regards, the Stratus outperformed the 0-200.  It was never certified, so the test was truly nothing more than an experiment.  But it sure was interesting.



There also is a flying club outside the US (Italy or France I believe) that has a 912ul powered C-150 that has been in operation now for quite a few years.  I don't recall the complete details, but as I recall the 80 hp 912 performs pretty much on par with the original o-200, but burns less fuel.  



In my opinion Cessna's new 'made in China", 0-200 powered LSA resulted in nothing more than a glorified remake of the old C-150 trainer.  Due to using essentially the same technologies they used in the 60's and 70's, the performance of their newest little Cessna is going to reflect that.  I'm sure it will provide someone with a good little trainer, but as a personal airplane it does little or nothing for me.  If I wanted a C-150, I'll find a really nice used one and will save myself 80-100 grand.   



But with all that said, I really can't understand anyone wanting a new (or even an old) Cessna when they could have a really nice, high performance Kitfox instead.  The Kitfox will not only be a whole bunch more fun to fly, but will also provide one with a much more capable, cost effective, and better performing aircraft.  Old technology is old technology.  I'll put my 80 hp 912 Kitfox amphibian up against any similar horsepower, old engine technology amphibian.  That is if you can find one...



Paul S

Central Wisconsin

_________________
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer Sn#1 and Sn#26
Highlander 912s taildragger
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum