Rotax in a Cessna 150

[pete8862]

Can anyone give me some advise, I was woundering if you had a Cessna 150 with a stuffed engine, @ repaced it with a rotax 100hp would the weight saving let it get into RAA or would you have to re engineer for further weight saving, if so how do you go about doing this.

 

Any ideas

 

Pete

 

 

[Spin]

I would suspect that you're going to have to pull a truck load of weight out of the back to keep W&B within limits, or extend the nose:oh yeah:, the O-200 installed is going to outweigh a 912 by a good 15kg from memory. Also, hasn't RAA done the old group punishment drill and stopped us from registering anything like a 150 as recreational ever again?

 

 

[pete8862]

What got me thinking was an article in the latest mag, about modifying aircraft, & i'm sure Steve talked about re engineering a Cessna to lighten it???

 

 

[winsor68]

I believe the article mentioned that more than 50% of the original C150 was changed thus satisfying the 51% rule... So probably possible with due care and attention.

 

 

[facthunter]

The nose would require a fair bit of extension. If you converted it to a Texas Taildragger and put fibreglass U/C legs instead of steel ones, you would have shed a lot of weight that way.( Smaller battery as well). perhaps clip the wings a bit too. Nev

 

 

[pete8862]

The nose would require a fair bit of extension. If you converted it to a Texas Taildragger and put fibreglass U/C legs instead of steel ones, you would have shed a lot of weight that way.( Smaller battery as well). perhaps clip the wings a bit too. Nev

Thanks Nev, thats exactly what I was thinking, who do I talk to to try to find out if this is possible?

Pete

 

 

[facthunter]

That's easy.. Steve Bell. Nev

 

 

[pete8862]

That's easy.. Steve Bell. Nev

I mean the engineering side so I know what to say to Steve

 

 

[pete8862]

I have just heard back from Steve & he said no way no how, end of story

 

 

[pete8862]

Comes under the heading once bitten . . .There was some bending over backwards to let some bottom end GA planes in to RA-Aus but those for whom things were stretched didn't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I think thats fair enough, it was only when i read that in the mag that i thought i would ask. He did say something about a STC or a CAR 35 approval, not sure what they are.

Pete

 

 

[pete8862]

Thanks Don

 

Pete

 

 

[facthunter]

With the problem aircraft it was straight out misrepresention of information. ( Lying). You could probably run it EXPerimental GA.( I think a lot of warbirds go that way). There's plenty of engine swaps etc and replica aircraft out there.. Nev

 

 

[pete8862]

Surely you could completely rebuild the 150 from the ground up hoping it would weigh under 400kg, to get it registered RAA?

That's what I thought.

 

 

[winsor68]

Surely you could completely rebuild the 150 from the ground up hoping it would weigh under 400kg, to get it registered RAA?

I think you would have to go the 51% experimental route...and even then.....?

 

 

[Spin]

Comes under the heading once bitten . . .There was some bending over backwards to let some bottom end GA planes in to RA-Aus but those for whom things were stretched didn't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I've gone on record often enough supporting RA-Aus, but in this instance the explanation offered by management stuck in my gullet. Then I've never had much time for collective punishment, seems like an admission that they are unable to police things adequately. By all means jump on those who don't play the game, but allowing some aircraft grandfather rights and preventing any further registrations of the same type is downright silly imo. The notorious RV-7 is a case in point, surely they could refuse to reissue a registration pending having it reweighed.

 

 

[Camel]

I was told by a Lame recently that there was a STC done in Europe for a Rotax 912 in a C150.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Whilst I agree RAA can not be everywhere and police everything.

 

I tend to think that essentially all of the rules and regs are there and are on the basis of trust.

 

We trust pilots are doing what is expected and if we find out they don't, they get a tap on the shoulder.

 

No amount rules and regs will stop someone who is determined to lie,cheat or ?

 

We should be aiming for the most possible flexibility to further the growth of Recreational Aviation.

 

We want the RAA to help us all soar like Eagles, not treat us as Turkeys.

 

 

[djpacro]

A few minutes with Google came up with an EASA STC for installation of the Rotax with a Hoffman propeller in a Cessna 150 - that should be transferable here (i.e. automatically accepted by CASA). Get a CAR 35 engineer (they don't exist any more but everyone knows what you mean) to tick the boxes and sign it off for you.

 

Perhaps an expensive solution to what I think your problem is though?

 

 

[old man emu]

Can anyone give me some advise, I was woundering if you had a Cessna 150 with a stuffed engine, @ repaced it with a rotax 100hp would the weight saving let it get into RAA or would you have to re engineer for further weight saving,

It appears that the answer is: RAA rules prohibit the registration of C-150 airplanes on a number of grounds, including weight.

 

Any ideas. Pete

 

 

The answer to this appears to be: There is an STC which would enable the fitting of a Rotax engine to a C-150 airframe. However, it is most likely that the airplane would have to be registered as an Experimental.

 

My question: Is it economically feasible:

 

No. To make this economically feasible, you would have to find a C-150 airframe. This is going to be about 40 years old, and not likely to have been treated well in the past 15 - 20 years. The costs of thoroughly inspecting the airframe for corrosion, wear of fontrol systems, completing any airframe ADs and repairing any faults found would be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Then there is the costs involved in complying with the STC and redesigning engine mounts etc.

 

After that there are the costs of the cosmetic work, because who hasn't got pride in their project? Add to that updates and inspections of instruments, replacing seatbelts and son on and so forth.

 

Better that you put your Rotax on an engine stand and start building a plane tailwards from there.

 

OME

 

 

[Bandit12]

Following from what OME said, I was about to suggest that the economics of doing the rebuild/conversion, and the fight with RAA to get it passed may just end up with an aircraft worth about a third to half of what you have spent on it. Far better to buy an RV12 kit or something similar for the Rotax, at least that will be easily saleable.

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

I've gone on record often enough supporting RA-Aus, but in this instance the explanation offered by management stuck in my gullet. Then I've never had much time for collective punishment, seems like an admission that they are unable to police things adequately. By all means jump on those who don't play the game, but allowing some aircraft grandfather rights and preventing any further registrations of the same type is downright silly imo. The notorious RV-7 is a case in point, surely they could refuse to reissue a registration pending having it reweighed.

When I first called Steve Bell to let him know our intent to apply for RAA registration for our RV9a, Steve read me the riot act (and rightly so because of the RV7a etc).

 

Steve told me that was what they were doing with the RV7a. Refusing reissue of registration until it could be proved it was legal. He also told me any certified aircraft, like the Cessna 150, he would now only except the factory's certified weight of that aircraft.

 

Our 9a being a kit built. He would not except our 9a for registration, that was until we supplied a letter from Van's Aircraft, stating they know of some of their 9/9a kit's, being built down around the 900 lb (409 kg) empty weight, and being registered in the 1320 lb (600 kg) LSA class. We also supplied a LAMI's weight certificate of our 9a.

 

In the end there are limits to what you can do and bigger ones on what you can undo.

This is true !!! And with the spotlight on us, I'm going to be making sure if I add anything at all, I'll be removing the equivalent weight from else were in the aircraft first.

 

On this subject. It is a lot of hard work to get an aircraft down in weight while you are building it, but very easy to increase it's weight (much like if you yourself was overweight, and spent months getting your weight down. only to stop at the bakery and blow all, or most of that hard work). Vans Aircraft lists the expected empty weight of an assembled kit RV9a as being 1028 lb (465). There are more RV9a's registered over this weight than under. Some of these more than a 200 lb (90 kg) over this weight. Which shows how easy it is, if your not careful, to build a kit or plan's built, and finish up over the manufactures listed empty weight. This is the same for an aircraft designed to meet the 544 kg or 600 kg classes. If your not careful how you design and manufacture the component's and bracket's for it while you are building it, or what you buy and bolt onto it before or after you have it into the air, you will soon push it past it's legal weight. And more concerning, its designed weight.

 

Bob Dennis

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not surprised at Steve's response, because it his head on the line. People have let him down, and that is really poor form.

 

Old Al skinned aircraft can be in bad shape, ( I doubt that many of our Al skinned planes will make anything like 40 years of age as they are made out of thinner sheet than the C-150, so corrosion and fatigue are likely to be more rapid.).

 

I still believe that the texas taildragger version/ conversion, with the rotax is doable even if you go EXP GA. I wouldn't start out with a bad ar*e plane though. If you are a sheet metal type something that has blown over and a bit creased that has had the engine sold off, wouldn't cost much. You need jigs to get the plane straight but they are around. If you don't rig it right it won't ever fly well, but the result is up to you and how much you are prepared to put into the project. I'm not suggesting that you ignore the advice you have, but don't necessarily give up the idea completely. The Rotax has a reduction gear and can have a Variable pitch prop too, so the end result wouldn't be a complete dog, if it is done right Most of these projects take about 4 times the effort you think they wiil though...Nev

 

 

[Chris Callow]

Not possible.

 

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=da&id=16541&cor=y