Franklin Sport 4 engine

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,346
New technology manufacturing is now done using CNC machines to keep labor costs down.
Manufacturers have been using CNC machines since i was doing machine shop work 40 years ago. The aircraft engine factories will be full of the stuff. Did you thing they were still using manual lathes and mills?
 

Mflyer

Active Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
28
Sorry, I don't know. I've checked before, and it would probably be easier to find the nuclear launch codes on the internet before you'll find the price for a new O-200 engine there.
Van's has been a reliable place to find (their) price for Lycoming engines
I inquired about the price from Continental and the O-200 D4B was quoted to me for $55,800 sold through Air Power Inc, Arlington TX.
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
289
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
I inquired about the price from Continental and the O-200 D4B was quoted to me for $55,800 sold through Air Power Inc, Arlington TX.

Tulip Bulb Mania.

Rather hilarious: the C162 failed because at the stage of flying prototype senior management stepped in: "Thy Shall Use Our Engine" not that of a competitor (which may/may not refuse to be bought up). Easy to imagine top brass going for the script of the C177 while the unpainted C162 rotaxed over the office block on initial flight.

The extra weight of the "lightened" O-200d compared to the Rotax sank an airplane flight-schools and any "ain't no plane if ain't no Cessna"-pilot craved and deposited for in their 100's.

Lousy Chinese rivetbangers got officially to blame for the bunch of Wichita whitetails going into the scrapper, how dare they destroy an American icone by their incomptence... euh who asked them, gave them the job?
Your quoted engine may very well have been destined to one of those C162s that never were.

So O-200 D4B 55.8 kUS$, C172 over 500.000 US$.

I am off to Holland this Friday, retrieving an C90 in parts but will get me some tulipe bulbs. Gourmet food no doubt.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,649
Location
Memphis, TN
I think we are painting very messy pictures.

Yes I’m sure Cessna didn’t want to buy Continental engines, because of the parent company, but the parent company still does with Bonanzas. The 162 sucked. Cessna killed it because no market at the cost and the planes fell apart a lot. Cessna stopped production and waited for the warranties to run out to stop the bleeding. Issues were engine and airframe. The one I know had three engines and lots of odd airframe parts changed. Parts needed were always not in stock. First couple of months it was grounded right after delivery. That and the present Cessna CEO hates small planes and wants to get rid of any that don’t start with the word Citation. The world lived off of cheap used Cessna planes for thirty years and built the industry around it. Start making 172s and 162s and it was culture shock of what had moved on in aviation. The Biz jet world ate it the whole time watching $1m planes turn into $20m planes.

The days of China picking up small batch runs is coming to a close. In the beginning they would do anything. They will not now, and it’s looking like they can’t either. Their starting to run into internal and external forces that will stop this. They will go only for big easy projects like auto factories. The do anything, to get government money to start a factory, is over. I think China is going to start shedding these small companies if they can. The small aviation market does not fit their country right now. They bought technology, but they personally don’t have a use for it. To make parts for FAA or EASA aircraft in county, because of quality monitoring, is more than they want to do. Easier to make a bunch of Chevy parts and Harbor Freight tools.

CNC is necessary now because there are no skilled workers. Local machine shops have all but disappeared. Fix what? Go get another. It use to take jobs away. Now those jobs are in demand. Soon there won’t be enough people to fix the CNCs. They can’t fill those jobs right now. Supply chain disruptions tend to need fixers when new is not available and there are no fixers.

Every is driven by profit. No profit, no effort to make.
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
289
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
Yes I’m sure Cessna didn’t want to buy Continental engines, because of the parent company, but the parent company still does with Bonanzas.

=> Continental is not in the picture. The initial engine around which the C162 was designed is the Rotax.


The 162 sucked. Cessna killed it because no market at the cost and the planes fell apart a lot. Cessna stopped production and waited for the warranties to run out to stop the bleeding.

=> There were over 1000 deposits for the C162, the majority remained contractually active after several mayor price-increases. (from initial price of 100.000 US$ to 149.000 US$) It was only by the last increase (about 20kUS$) that the intial order could be cancelled. Those 20 kUS and the fact the delivery date was surpassed by over 3 yaers madi it rain cancellations.

The airframes were produced in China under Cessna-supervision which indicates that the airframes were production-wise cheap as chips. It is suggested that Cessna made *per airframe* around 71.000 US$ profit by moving duction to China. Not bad on a (initial) 100.000 US$-aircraft


Issues were engine and airframe.

=> The one and only issue is the weight difference between the Rotax and the O200. Those 40 odd kg made the plane legally unusable for the 2 median US-pilots if the plane was fully fueled.

The C15- ways (1 student pilot + 1 instructor + full fuel) = weight and balance of the charts was not allowed/ possible with the C162. Even flight schools and more so:lawyers get smart.



The one I know had three engines and lots of odd airframe parts changed. Parts needed were always not in stock. First couple of months it was grounded right after delivery. That and the present Cessna CEO hates small planes and wants to get rid of any that don’t start with the word Citation.

=> Does he really? Tell me : why did Cessna by Pipistrel?



The world lived off of cheap used Cessna planes for thirty years and built the industry around it. Start making 172s and 162s and it was culture shock of what had moved on in aviation. The Biz jet world ate it the whole time watching $1m planes turn into $20m planes.

=> there is close to no flight school who did/does not operated a C150 / C152.



The days of China picking up small batch runs is coming to a close. In the beginning they would do anything. They will not now, and it’s looking like they can’t either. Their starting to run into internal and external forces that will stop this. They will go only for big easy projects like auto factories. The do anything, to get government money to start a factory, is over. I think China is going to start shedding these small companies if they can. The small aviation market does not fit their country right now. They bought technology, but they personally don’t have a use for it. To make parts for FAA or EASA aircraft in county, because of quality monitoring, is more than they want to do. Easier to make a bunch of Chevy parts and Harbor Freight tools.

=> My friend, they days of China are but beginning.

First there was the UK, then Europe, from WOII the US picked up and for the foreseeable future China will rule.

China will shed no companies: what China gets, China keeps. They work "the world", they are used to long-time planning and "very hard work" is viewed as just normal. I like them, but they are hard as nails.




CNC is necessary now because there are no skilled workers. Local machine shops have all but disappeared. Fix what? Go get another. It use to take jobs away. Now those jobs are in demand. Soon there won’t be enough people to fix the CNCs. They can’t fill those jobs right now. Supply chain disruptions tend to need fixers when new is not available and there are no fixers.

=> CNC is about mass production


Every is driven by profit. No profit, no effort to make.

=> Not 100%... sometimes one invests, makes a market, then pounces. US-European companies giving their dirty works to the little Chinaman who doesn't know better. Move prodcution to there, we keep the profits.

Way to go. Look at Caltec, look at MIT: most laureates are Chinese and they are returning to China...
 

Aviacs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
414
See pictures: the blue one has the O-200 and the white one the J-3300?

(from the inside) that is one of the most interesting/good looking hangars i have ever seen.
When we built our group hangar, a round one was briefly considered for a lot of reasons.
But the funding member was not interested, and the construction details are horrific if contracted out.

For a full heated hangar (as opposed to individual T-hangars) the round configuration could have a lot of merit if factory built as modulars. OTOH, like the other things under discussion in the posts above, there's probably not enough market to pay back the initial investment.

smt
 

poormansairforce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
1,253
Location
Just an Ohioan
Yes I’m sure Cessna didn’t want to buy Continental engines, because of the parent company, but the parent company still does with Bonanzas.

=> Continental is not in the picture. The initial engine around which the C162 was designed is the Rotax.


The 162 sucked. Cessna killed it because no market at the cost and the planes fell apart a lot. Cessna stopped production and waited for the warranties to run out to stop the bleeding.

=> There were over 1000 deposits for the C162, the majority remained contractually active after several mayor price-increases. (from initial price of 100.000 US$ to 149.000 US$) It was only by the last increase (about 20kUS$) that the intial order could be cancelled. Those 20 kUS and the fact the delivery date was surpassed by over 3 yaers madi it rain cancellations.

The airframes were produced in China under Cessna-supervision which indicates that the airframes were production-wise cheap as chips. It is suggested that Cessna made *per airframe* around 71.000 US$ profit by moving duction to China. Not bad on a (initial) 100.000 US$-aircraft


Issues were engine and airframe.

=> The one and only issue is the weight difference between the Rotax and the O200. Those 40 odd kg made the plane legally unusable for the 2 median US-pilots if the plane was fully fueled.

The C15- ways (1 student pilot + 1 instructor + full fuel) = weight and balance of the charts was not allowed/ possible with the C162. Even flight schools and more so:lawyers get smart.



The one I know had three engines and lots of odd airframe parts changed. Parts needed were always not in stock. First couple of months it was grounded right after delivery. That and the present Cessna CEO hates small planes and wants to get rid of any that don’t start with the word Citation.

=> Does he really? Tell me : why did Cessna by Pipistrel?



The world lived off of cheap used Cessna planes for thirty years and built the industry around it. Start making 172s and 162s and it was culture shock of what had moved on in aviation. The Biz jet world ate it the whole time watching $1m planes turn into $20m planes.

=> there is close to no flight school who did/does not operated a C150 / C152.



The days of China picking up small batch runs is coming to a close. In the beginning they would do anything. They will not now, and it’s looking like they can’t either. Their starting to run into internal and external forces that will stop this. They will go only for big easy projects like auto factories. The do anything, to get government money to start a factory, is over. I think China is going to start shedding these small companies if they can. The small aviation market does not fit their country right now. They bought technology, but they personally don’t have a use for it. To make parts for FAA or EASA aircraft in county, because of quality monitoring, is more than they want to do. Easier to make a bunch of Chevy parts and Harbor Freight tools.

=> My friend, they days of China are but beginning.

First there was the UK, then Europe, from WOII the US picked up and for the foreseeable future China will rule.

China will shed no companies: what China gets, China keeps. They work "the world", they are used to long-time planning and "very hard work" is viewed as just normal. I like them, but they are hard as nails.




CNC is necessary now because there are no skilled workers. Local machine shops have all but disappeared. Fix what? Go get another. It use to take jobs away. Now those jobs are in demand. Soon there won’t be enough people to fix the CNCs. They can’t fill those jobs right now. Supply chain disruptions tend to need fixers when new is not available and there are no fixers.

=> CNC is about mass production


Every is driven by profit. No profit, no effort to make.

=> Not 100%... sometimes one invests, makes a market, then pounces. US-European companies giving their dirty works to the little Chinaman who doesn't know better. Move prodcution to there, we keep the profits.

Way to go. Look at Caltec, look at MIT: most laureates are Chinese and they are returning to China...
Please learn to use the quote functions as it is difficult to follow your posts. Thanks
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,346
No but that's how they were made in the pre CNC days!
Of course. A lot of stuff was made that way. I produced short runs of bushings, bearings and fittings like that, when CNC was too expensive to make sense and to have a screw machine, with the need to create all the cams for it, also made no sense.

Before CNC, screw machines made all the hardware and fittings we've taken for granted all our lives. No electronics at all, just rotating cams.

Basic:


More complex:
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,346
Yes I’m sure Cessna didn’t want to buy Continental engines, because of the parent company, but the parent company still does with Bonanzas.
Textron wanted Cessna to use the Lycoming in the 162, but Cessna balked at that because of ongoing crankshaft hassles at Lycoming. The contractors making the cranks were screwing up the metallurgy. The O-235 from the 152 would have been a better choice otherwise, though it weighs more. More HP.
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
289
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
Textron wanted Cessna to use the Lycoming in the 162, but Cessna balked at that because of ongoing crankshaft hassles at Lycoming. The contractors making the cranks were screwing up the metallurgy. The O-235 from the 152 would have been a better choice otherwise, though it weighs more. More HP.

Rotax 912S 100 Hp 57 kg
O-200d 100 Hp 90 kg

Nuff said. Rocket science.
 

KAF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
49
Location
Missouri
If that's the measurement stick, why even bother with figures or logic.

"Handmade" shoes will set you back between 3000-4000 US$ per set, initial measuring not included.
You will get however a free 15 minutes explication why those shoes are of utter importance to you.

Quite strange how 95.95% (my guess) of the earth population can even survive without having laid eyes on a handmade shoe. I did ... but it struck me that the wearer was human. He proved that less than 3 months later: his private jet took off at Moscow, collided with a snowplow operated by a drunk.
No idea where you're going with the shoe thing--I was just trying to make the point that if an airplane engine cost the same as a decent car in 1971, it's likely going to be roughly the same in 2022 since there's been no huge technological breakthroughs that would make them much cheaper.

The London suit, priced in gold, may have been a poor analogy and I denounce myself.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,346
Rotax 912S 100 Hp 57 kg
O-200d 100 Hp 90 kg

Nuff said. Rocket science.
No. Not 'nuff said. This is 'nuff said:

A friend of ours is about to install a Rotax 912 ULS in his Zenith CH750 STOL. The firewall forward kit is the standard package from Zenith. We measured the weight of the engine itself, plus all the related components. While I was surprised about how all the small stuff adds up, I believe that it is overall still the lightest engine on the market:

ComponentsWeight, lb
Engine mount12.2
Exhaust, muffler6.2
Exhaust, pipes3.8
Radiator2.4
Heater hose, throttle cable, etc.4.8
Mounting hardware, oil cooler and tank, water cooling components, air filter, miscellaneous parts19
Total parts48.4
Oil
Engine 0.8 gal5.44
Oil tank 0.8 gal5.44
Oil radiator, hoses 0.3 quarts (assumption)0.51
Total oil11.39
Coolant
Cylinder heads, water pump, expansion tanks, coolant hose. 1.5 liters / 0.4 gallons as per Rotax installation manual.3.3
Total coolant3.3
Engine, dry131.6
Total fwf, minus cowling194.69


From Rotax 912 ULS Installed Weight

See, the O-200 doesn't have a separate oil tank, or a radiator, or separate oil cooler, or coolant. Some of the stuff above will apply to the O-200, like the oil, exhaust piping, throttle cable, and engine mount. But that little stuff needed for a dry-sump, liquid-cooled engine does add to the engine's net weight.

I also don't see an alternator included in the Rotax's dry weight specs elsewhere. The carb and starter are, though. So what's with that? The internal alternator only produces 15 amps, so if you want more for lighting and and other stuff, you have to add an external alternator. The O-200 carries a 60-amp alternator as part of its dry weight. Take that off and install the tiny B&C 12-amp alternator at 3.4 pounds and lose a bunch of weight.

Apples to apples. Yes, the Rotax is a nice, light engine, but fudging the numbers through omission is just nonsense.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,147
Location
US
Textron wanted Cessna to use the Lycoming in the 162, but Cessna balked at that because of ongoing crankshaft hassles at Lycoming. The contractors making the cranks were screwing up the metallurgy. The O-235 from the 152 would have been a better choice otherwise, though it weighs more. More HP.
With the O-200, the C-162 had an empty weight of 830 lbs and an MTOW of 1320 lbs, so the useful load was just 490 lbs. Very marginal, and another reason for lost sales. Add the ELT, wheel pants, primer system, and other stuff not included in the official EW and the real useful load was really about 455. Add just 20 gal of fuel and there's just 335 (legal) pounds for people headphones, coats, kneeboards, iPads, luggage etc. Ridiculous. With the heavier O-235 the situation would have been even worse (unless they had enough structural strength to go with a higher MTOW and just forget about meeting LSA limits. Or just buy, err "get", an LSA waiver like Icon and others have done).
 
Last edited:
Top