Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Cessna LSA

Jeff,

I think you missed the word "no" in Kirk's post.

Did I read where the TCM O-200D is a new designation? Wonder what the difference is?

oh......no......

Sorry Kirk...thanks Hung. I guess I did miss it.

A few differences, all designed to save weight to better compete with the Rotax. Lightweight starter, generator, etc. But the most visible difference is the lack of fins on the cylinder barrels. The cylinder heads still have fins, but the barrels are smooth. Continental found that the fins simply weren't needed for cooling. Last I read there was some question as to whether or not the fins provided any structural rigidity, but that was 6+ months ago so that question appears to have been answered.

The oil sump is a boxy cast piece, not the football-shaped sump on our O-200s.

The engine is still slightly heavier than a Rotax, but the higher TBO and the well-established maintenance and parts chain means a ready acceptance by the marketplace. Plus, the simpler design (no water cooling or reduction drive) makes for easier service. I think Cessna saved all their daring for the design of the plane, and then (rightfully so) got conservative with their construction materials and powerplant. The result is an aircraft that will fit right in at any airport with any A&P.

cESSNA IS NOT THE ONLY lsa TO GO WITH THE O-200. American Legend, Cub Crafters and AMD (that I know of) have gone with the o-200 for various reasons. Mostly, I think, for the ease of maintenance and availability of parts and service personnel.

And with the Cub lookalikes, it looks better to have o-200 cylendars hanging outside the cowling than a Rotax.

I wonder if Continental has fixed the 100LL fuel problems? Have they done some redesign on the valve/combustion chamber/head to alliviate the leading problems?

They claim to have fixed the problems.

I am personally disappointed to see the this engine in the plane that is representing the "Future of Aviation in LSA" I can see why they did though, like others said, it will be very servicable, affordable parts, well understood, and keeps the price of the plane down but we are still stuck with carbeurated technology from decades ago. I hope they at least had the insight to make CHT/EGT and fuel flow built in standard. Looking at the panel, there is NO room for any additional instuments. But boy is that PFD/MFD sweet! Anyway just my thoughts. And Keith will be getting #005!! Nice!

Max gross: 1320 lbs; plane empty 830; payload 490
pilot 170, passenger 170, fuel (24 gal) 144, luggage 40 = 524
or about 34 lbs overgross.

But climb is 895 fpm.

My 150G at standard conditions is suppose to do 667 fpm. So, does that mean that Cessna has already built the non-sport version. All they would have to do is raise the max gross until the climb falls to 667 fpm.

Interesting question, John!

It's a little more complex than this, but I think the normal/utility category only requires a 500 fpm climb at sea level under standard day conditions (I need to review). I'd think the 162 could probably do that at our 150's 1600 lbs gross (or heavier?), and perhaps could be certificated as such, if Cessna decides to pursue it!

Following the improvements to the 162 should prove to be quite interesting!