My engine is not worth overhauling..its junk. I noticed not too many used O-200A's on teh market but a fair amount of O-200D engines.

I know the TDCS says O200A. What would it take to mount a O-200D? 337? STC? is it possible? lots of skycatcher engines on the market right now.

Yes lots of paperwork and expense if available. All that to go with a lighter built engine that is unproven. New engines have glitches that are worked out over time, if the airframe types they are attached to stay around long enough. If Cessna's LSA stays around in large enough numbers, the engine will be tweaked and proven. With the new recreational rules won't they just stay with 152 and 172. The D engine could become an expensive to maintain orphan.

To the OP, not sure about the difficulties of a -A to -D swap but my experience with the -D has been great, but it is my only O-200 flight experience. Although, I would think if your -A case is salvagable, it would probably be more cost effective to stick w/ overhauling the -A and adding new lightweight accessories.

contactflying wrote:Yes lots of paperwork and expense if available. All that to go with a lighter built engine that is unproven. New engines have glitches that are worked out over time, if the airframe types they are attached to stay around long enough. If Cessna's LSA stays around in large enough numbers, the engine will be tweaked and proven. With the new recreational rules won't they just stay with 152 and 172. The D engine could become an expensive to maintain orphan.

I would hardly say the -D is unproven, it's essentially the same as an -A that comes stock with lighter accessories. I believe there are slight changes on the case and cylinder fins, but the big savings come from a new style oil sump, slick mags, and lightweight starter/alternator. The -D is just tweaked and improved from the old O-200s that have been around for so long... And the 162 isn't really (or ever was) around in large numbers, especially w/ Cessna scrapping a bunch of the unsold airframes. The 162s are a good source for these engines (we got ours from a 162) but these engines are also being used on other aircraft.

Coloradokevbot,

Good to hear. I just haven't been out there enough to see the 162s.

Contact

contactflying wrote:....With the new recreational rules won't they just stay with 152 and 172......

"New recreational rules"?
The recreational pilot certificate has been around 10 or more years.
It requires a 3rd class medical just like private pilot.
Are you talking about Basic Med? Still requires an exam, to roughly the same standards.
Sport pilot / LSA doesn't require a medical but limits you to 1320 gross weight aircraft.

Yes, I mean the new go to local doctor for medical rule for non-commercial flying. No need to limit type of aircraft.

The LSA thing resulted in some safety of design issues at not enough reduction in price. There are still lots of good old manufactured and same basic design as manufactured homebuild airplanes on the market at reasonable prices. Cessna stayed with the 162 to make it right, but all new airplanes are too expensive for most wage earners with any family to support. If they are reasonably maintained, old airplanes do the job just fine.