VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-12/RV-12iS
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-23-2007, 09:13 PM
mcsteatlh mcsteatlh is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kingwood
Posts: 80
Default Not impressed

I'm going to look at the Skycatcher this way; reputation and engine are going to carry this bird because performance sure isn't.

Here is my thinking on what will sell an LSA. I'm sure all LSA's are going to meet the max speed limits so you can't use speed to sell the plane. Stall? Same thing! Everyone will be at the mins and max for stall and the one that boasts slowest stall speed can't really use that to sell the plane. So what sells these planes? These four things, creative features, useful load, price, and looks, are what will sell the planes. My thoughts of these four points are thus:

Looks are subjective. We all know that someone will buy something just because it looks better to them, than to buy something else that is proven to be a better performer.

Price is supposed to be what LSA is all about, right? Cessna Skycatcher $115,000??????????)

Creative Features. Wow, with that plane, I can trailer it home and not pay high priced hanger fees. I can use 93 octane in this one, etc, etc, etc.

Usefull load. Every plane I have looked at can go 118mph, and all have six GPH advertised, and all stall at xx speed, and all have two seats, but this one can carry some baggage with full fuel, hmmmmmm!!

Just my humble opinion.

Comments welcome.

McStealth
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-23-2007, 11:47 PM
E. D. Eliot E. D. Eliot is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Pedro
Posts: 1,013
Default New C-162

Saw the earlier version last year and it sure looked sweet - this one looks even better. Did I miss it - stall speed? Also, if the new Contiental 200 installation is really lighter than the complete Rotax installation then someone (many of us) might install it in the 12 (if Contiental will sell one to us).

All that said, those of us who prefer a 'low wing' aircraft probably won't think twice about the new C-162. I really like Van's awesome pilot forward positioning in the 12. And the C-162 wings apparently aren't removable and the aircraft apparantly won't fit a trailer. Suppose that the flying schools will purchase tons of these though. Where's Piper?

And the price - that's about $120,000.00 here in California after the 'State Board of Equalization' finishes taxing the thing. Interesting name - 'State Board of Equalization'. Think that I could find a fairly nice C-182 somewhere for that money if I wanted a C-182. And when it's all said and done, its not an RV!!! To paraphraise the editor of Kit Planes Magazine, it's still just another Cessna. Patiently waiting for the 12.


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-24-2007, 12:45 AM
hngrflyr hngrflyr is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: eugene, oregon
Posts: 206
Default

Regarding the Rotax vs. Continental 0-200 debate.

I've flown behind the four cylinder continental engines for more than 50 years and have rebuilt several of them. There are some details of of the design that could be improved on, but the engines are easy to work on and service.

The Rotax on the other hand has The ignition system, the induction system, part of the cooling system and the part of the oil system all on the top of the engine where much of it must be dismantled to service individual systems. It rivals a modern automobile engine.
I did a condition inspection on a Rotax powered Kitfox IV, then flew it for two or three hours taking care of some rigging issues. The plane did perform well and it didn't take long to get used to cruising at 4800 RPM.

Modern ignition system, Starter and Alternator could minimize the weight penalty of the 0-200. I like "easy to work on". It makes for lower maintenance bills for those who don't do their own maintenance. Everything comes with a price. We choose which one we want to pay.
__________________
Bob Severns
Eugene, Oregon
RV-6
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-24-2007, 05:36 AM
Jamie's Avatar
Jamie Jamie is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,295
Default

Looking at this new Cessna bird simply reinforces for me what a great bargain building an RV really is
__________________
"What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all." - Charles A. Lindbergh
Jamie | RV-7A First Flight: 7/27/2007 (Sold)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-24-2007, 06:05 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,769
Default Concerning the weight of the O-200D

Until I see some solid numbers, I will be very skeptical about the Continental weighing less than the Rotax. There are many things that I don't like about the Rotax and will probably never own one, however it is at least 75 or 80 lbs lighter than the O-200A. I can't see any way they could knock this kind of weight off that engine.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-24-2007, 08:55 AM
X18 X18 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sulphur Springs, TX
Posts: 38
Default O-200D Weight

TCM doesn't plan to get the weight down to the same as a Rotax. The goal was a 30 to 35 pound weight reduction from the current O-200A weight. TCM did a LSA project engine last year that they displayed at Oshkosh 2006. It had the top mounted FI and electronic ignition. That engine was too complicated and probably weighed more than an O-200A. The new engine, the O-200D, was probably done for the Cessna LSA and TCM has probably come close to the weight reduction goal.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-24-2007, 07:31 PM
the_other_dougreeves the_other_dougreeves is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngrflyr
The Rotax on the other hand has The ignition system, the induction system, part of the cooling system and the part of the oil system all on the top of the engine where much of it must be dismantled to service individual systems.
I think this depends a lot on the particular installation. We can service the ignition system (helped a friend replace a EI module), oil system and cooling system by pretty much taking off the cowling only. Getting to the alternator is very involved.

As far as weight goes, the Rotax gets heavy if you add a second alternator or vacuum pump, but why do you need those for LSA? Evektor pushes the SD20 alternator for Night VFR approval, but I'm not sure that it's necessary.

Still, the O-200 isn't available with EI yet, a bummer.

TODR
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-27-2010, 11:18 PM
FlyinOBrien2's Avatar
FlyinOBrien2 FlyinOBrien2 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Murrieta, Ca.
Posts: 22
Default IO-200?

I know the O-200's have the option of Fuel Injection but has anyone seen one? I wonder what the fuel burn on something like that is.
__________________
RV-7 Build in progress.

Empennage done. Wings started!

http://www.therv-7project.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-28-2010, 05:16 AM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
Default Not for me...

...because it's built in China

Best,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga

It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132


Dues gladly paid!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-28-2010, 09:30 AM
Scrabo 62 Scrabo 62 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Co. Down
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pierre smith View Post
...because it's built in China

Best,
Yes, it does say something when Cessna, one of the shining lights in American manufacturing and global aviation influence, has decided it can meet exacting engineering standards and attractive prices in a country other than the USA. Maybe time for a bit more navel gazing.

PS. I personally think that Cessna will ultimately regret putting the O-200 in the 162.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.