Peter wrote:
After a year’s storage there is a mandatory return to Lyco for an overhaul
I am not so sure on this? I do know for example with Bendix mangeto’s which need 4 year overhaul, have a shelflife of 1 year, before the 4 year starts counting.
So you can have a Bendix Mangeto on stock for 3 years, and then install it. This will result in 2 years usefull time before you need to overhaul.
I think it works with Lycoming as well. Correct storage for longer then one year is possible, but after one year, the 12 years starts counting, installed or not.
Having two prototypes crash and an MSB to deal with cracked wing attachments probably didn’t help sales, either
Archie wrote:
So what exactly caused the demise?
All in all a lesser performing and less practical aircraft than the C-150/152. It cannot even start to compare with LSAs from Europe. That, and the fact that the LSA marked turned out to be only a renaissance for the Cub in various incarnations, instead of a blooming market like the microlight market in Europe. The only good thing about it is a very well built airframe of high quality (almost over engineered), but it was built in China, thus very politically in-correct for US customers. A simpler/lighter built airframe made of carbon composites and a Rotax engine, and it would sell much better, and perform much better in all respects.
I suggest a search on
Skycatcher
So what exactly caused the demise?
At the time it seemed Cessna were on the ball with getting into that market so early.
Payload?
Price?
Maintenance?
Build quality?
Late deliveries?
scrapping the engines, if that is what they really did, would be a horrible waste of brand new material. especcially as they claim to have taken off all the available spare parts, the engine would be the biggest one I suppose.
of course, we don´t know what happened after the pics were taken. Maybe it was indeed disassembled right in the bin or this particular one had a good reason that the engine was not taken off.
Peter wrote:
how many Exp aircraft use the O-200?
There’s a huge market that would have sucked them up instantly: lots of Cub type aircraft, Formula 1 racers (for which the O-200 is mandated), Wittman Tailwind, Varieze, Zenairs, Quickie Q200, little antiquey types like the Parakeet and Pietenpol.
The liability issue is understandable, but even if they couldn’t sell them direct to the user I’m surprised they couldn’t sell them back to Continental who would then ‘launder’ the liability issue. It’s easier to make like new than build all new.
Sure, though how many Exp aircraft use the O-200? Also there is still a liability. I don’t think being an Exp owner renders your estate incapable of litigation.
So I think there is some subtle reason why Cessna didn’t just dump these into the market, via an independent engine shop. If even a single washer inside that doesn’t have the full certified paper trail would greatly reduce the value of the engine. I don’t suppose they will tell Avweb what it was, however…
That’s why selling them to the “experimental” market would have been the obvious choice, when looking from the sidelines. I guess they made too much money and needed to take a loss somewhere ;)
I agree, but the mandatory overhaul (not a mandatory return to the mfg, sorry) requirement is still very expensive. Also, they would have to weigh up the (presumably) heavily discounted price they paid for them (given the projected “telephone numbers” of sales) against the (presumably not so heavily discounted) overhaul cost… Socata got caught with this in the early 2000s and installed a load of corroded engines in TB GTs. They were “installed” just days before the 365 days elapsed 
The other thing is liability. If they sold the engines, there would be some sort of liability unless they were overhauled and resold by a 3rd party.
Another possible factor is that if the engine was “less than certified” (and bought extra cheap) then to resell it into the certified market would mean an even bigger cost hill to climb.
