Cessna 162 SkyCatcher [Archive]

sternone

22nd Jul 2007, 15:43

Introducing Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft – The Model 162 SkyCatcher, making aviation very, very personal

Cessna Aircraft's LSA is here, it's the Model 162 SkyCatcher. To make the dream of learning to fly more accessible and affordable to thousands of new pilots, the SkyCatcher is being formally introduced today at the Experimental Aircraft Association's Air Venture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Cessna has incorporated a number of innovative features in its LSA, making the SkyCatcher the finest aircraft in the category. The Model 162 SkyCatcher comes with the extensive customer support networks of Cessna Pilot Centers and Service Centers – all at an attractive price.

A few weeks ago, Cessna reaffirmed its commitment to general aviation by announcing the company will proceed with its LSA program. The SkyCatcher takes flight as Cessna celebrates 80 years of business this year.

We've said it before and now the SkyCatcher says it again – Cessna teaches the world to fly. This industry-leading LSA will drive down the cost of flying, and learning to fly, stimulating new pilot starts and encouraging already-licensed pilots to continue to fly because their passion is much more affordable.

Cessna is scheduling the first SkyCatcher deliveries for mid-2009. Visit the Cessna SkyCatcher website to learn how you can become one of the first to own this exciting new Cessna aircraft.

More info on http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/ !!

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/stories/aircraft/skycatcher_unveiling.jpg

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/stories/Image_Gallery_Photos/skycatcher_interior.jpg

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/stories/Image_Gallery_Photos/skycatcher_panel.jpg

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/stories/Image_Gallery_Photos/skycatcher_03.jpg

sternone

22nd Jul 2007, 15:51

PRICE: $109,500 Applicable to units 0001 through 1000

J.A.F.O.

22nd Jul 2007, 19:14

Oh dear, I find myself quite liking it.

Now, with current exchange rates you could have a group of 20 operating a brand new aircraft for about £2,500 each, then £40 a month and £40 an hour should cover everything. Doesn't sound bad.

Oh no, I like a Cessna.

Why would the Americans these days make an aircraft that can carry just 160kg with full fuel? Seems a bit odd to me or is that to stay within whatever they define to be LSA?

DaveW

22nd Jul 2007, 19:54

Sticks! It's got sticks! Cessna, I didn't know you had it in you. :8 :D

J.A.F.O.

22nd Jul 2007, 20:00

Yeah, I'd have liked a left-hand throttle, though.

PPRuNe Towers

22nd Jul 2007, 20:48

It's got sticks + cupholders!

Where do I sign?

Regards
Starbucks Lloyd

ZK-Brock

23rd Jul 2007, 05:12

I can't say I like the skycatcher name, but I do like the interior, and the sticks:D

smarthawke

23rd Jul 2007, 07:01

And an engine to save the planet - an O-200.......

Say again s l o w l y

23rd Jul 2007, 12:40

It still has a carb for crying out loud. It's got a Stick-good, but where has it advanced GA in anyway.

The interior is awful as well.

Waste of time really. It looks like they've put at least 20 minutes thought into designing it......

Rod1

23rd Jul 2007, 14:15

Empty weight is 376.5kg
Useful load is 222kg
RofC is 890 fpm
Max S/L is only 118kn
Cruse at 77% (6000ft) is 112kn
Tank 90L
Range (as above) is 390 nm.

The numbers are on the poor side, so it will need the name if it is to sell in big numbers. Very nice to see a stick, shame the wing is in the wrong place…

Rod1

Slopey

23rd Jul 2007, 14:40

It seems to have a distinct lack of backup instruments - wonder where you'd put them with the 2 screens, not much real estate on there.

stiknruda

23rd Jul 2007, 14:47

Are they really sticks or are they single horn yokes?

Rod1

23rd Jul 2007, 14:48

Backup steam may not be required. There are a number of factory micros and PFA VLA types flying with no steam at all. I have no idea if LSA rules require steam backup, but I would think not.

Rod1

Kerosene Kraut

23rd Jul 2007, 15:09

New programs at Cessna seem to always start with straight back-fuselages first. Wonder when they will ad the late 150/172-style backwindows on this one.
Good they have a small single piston again.

FullyFlapped

24th Jul 2007, 09:54

This is obviously a 152 replacement, so the numbers are hardly likely to be exciting ... but - as big a Cessna fan as I undoubtedly am - to build a brand-new aeroplane and put a carb'd engine in it ... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Additionally, it appears to have stick-like protruberances emanating from the panel (unusual?) - not at all what one expects from Mr. Cessna's fine gentleman's aerial conveyances ... poor show .... :p

The numbers are on the poor side, so it will need the name if it is to sell in big numbers. Very nice to see a stick, shame the wing is in the wrong place…

Rod1
Yeah ... go tell it to the seagulls, Rod ... ;)

FF :ok:

Andy_RR

24th Jul 2007, 11:26

nothing wrong with a carb'd engine. Good, reliable and low-cost, although from what I hear from a person in-the-know, the carb is actually a long way from low-cost. If they had 'automatic' carb heat at anything less than full throttle, it could work very well and be very economical.

Anyway, Cessna have never been renowned for moving the pace of GA along - they are the Fiesta of the skies, so it would be wrong to expect a glass space-ship with optional teleporting. Nice name too - Cessna Skyscratcher! :}

A

Rod1

24th Jul 2007, 12:29

skydriller

24th Jul 2007, 16:53

OK, so it has a glass cockpit and looks sleek...(even has a stick!!)

....but why oh why does it have a 1940s technology engine in it?

Why carb heat, why a 0-200 etc... where is the slight sipping rotax or even dare I say it......Jet-A1/diesel engine?

sternone

25th Jul 2007, 06:52

Until today they sold 400 of them.. not bad at all if you ask me!

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jul 2007, 08:47

What's wrong with Carb'd engines?

Efficiency is the main reason. Emissions control another. If carbs were the best solution, why have car and motorcycle manufacturers dumped them and gone to EFI?

There are very few applications where a carb is a better solution than fuel injection. Flying certainly isn't one of them.

Andy_RR

25th Jul 2007, 09:42

I think you're wrong about carbs. They are the best technology for low-cost, low power aero engines. There is nothing inherently inefficient about them. Aero engines can and do run lean, which is where you gain your efficiency, so there is no need to have precise lambda-1 control that automotive engines require (only for three-way catalytic emissions control mind!)

Fuel injection systems require high pressure fuel pumps and, if electronically controlled, usually wind up having some kind of electrical dependence which requires redundancy. More weight and lots of complication. Then, once you've introduced software and electronic control, you have a bunch of serious QA issues you have to deal with.

I agree that FI can be made to run efficiently more of the time, but a carb can be just as efficient enough of the time. When you're burning 15L/h it doesn't make any sense to burden yourself with 15kg extra weight and complexity just to make it 14.5L/h.

Horses for courses.

A

Rod1

25th Jul 2007, 10:11

The use of carbs is not too much of a surprise. The Rotax injection system has been imminent for about 4 years and has still not surfaced. The two surprising things to me are the use of mags, which is crazy as solid state ignition is vastly better, and costs much less to maintain. Secondly, according to the figures on the cess pit site the engine will be burning 23.3lph which is 28% more than the Rotax for the same power.

It will be very interesting to see how the cost of ownership will compare between the Cirrus and the SkyCatcher. The main reasons given in the UK for switching to VLA’s for training is the fuel burn and the “new aircraft” image advantage to new potential pilots. The Fuel burn on this will be the same as a 150!

Rod1

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jul 2007, 17:00

Sorry but bo**ocks.

Carb'd engines went the way of the dinosaur in car design for a very good reason. Cost, complexity, tuneability, emissions and reliability.

Carbs are better only in particular circumstances. Rubbish EFI does exist, the original sytems could be snatchy and have poor throttle response, but the benefits outweigh the negatives by enormous factors.

I love carb engines on cars and bikes, because I can fiddle with them. I have twin webber DCOE 40's on my spitfire and they are wonderful.
They use fuel at an unholy rate and are rubbish a low engine speeds and talk about complex! But I think they are wonderful.

A well set up EFI system wallops carbs in nearly every respect, especially when combined with modern engine design.

Just chucking EFI on an old engine isn't likely to make it run better, but evolve the design together and you get a far better result.

Yes car and bike manufacturers play with revs etc to get around emissions testing, but we are talking about controls that a Lycoming couldn't get within a mile of even if it was straight out the box and working perfectly.

These engines are decript dinosaurs and should have gone extinct years ago, they are inefficient ditch pumps in comparison to the technology that is out there.

Lobbing a 60 year old engine design into a new a/c is taking the p**s to be honest. They'll probably sell by the thousand unfortunately and we'll be stuck with another generation of lo-tec rubbish.

Andy_RR

25th Jul 2007, 17:22

SAS, you have completely misread the beauty of the Lycosaurus. It is 'perfectly' designed for what it is trying to do. It is not old fashioned in any way at all. The fuel consumption can be better than any modern automotive engine.

Compare it to the Rotax, which is an abortion of a 'modern' engine with so many unnecessary points of failure that the Lycosaurus just doesn't have.

The carb-fed Lycosaurus is exactly the right amount of technology for the job.

If you disagree, which obviously you do, tell me the features that it is missing and how they will dramatically improve the end result?

A

sternone

25th Jul 2007, 18:05

They'll probably sell by the thousand unfortunately and we'll be stuck with another generation of lo-tec rubbish.

There is some guy telling me he wanted to order one at the Cessna booth at oskosh and they told him that the first 1000 units were already sold to distributors on the first day the price is now 10.000 usdollars up.

1000 units on 1 day ?? damn!!

Kerosene Kraut

26th Jul 2007, 07:47

If I'd be Cessna I'd fit some kerosene (not kraut) burning engine in my next basic trainer. Where will you get avgas from in twenty, thirty years time? The military doesn't keep the infrastructure anymore and other places seem to follow. Hope they'll offer several engines. There were at least rotax-rumors before.

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jul 2007, 09:45

Exactly my point. AVGAS is an outmoded fuel supply.

Does a Lycoming do the job? Well yes it does, but at what cost. Lycomings use old technology and that means money.

Lycomings cost a staggering amount of money for what they are, yes they are made in low numbers which skews the numbers, but are they really worth twice as much as a BMW M5 engine? For a little 100hp O-200? I know which I'd rather spend my money on!

Are Lycomings reliable? Not really, the ancillaries are usually the problem, but how many AD's do you see for things like crankshafts?

Rotax engines aren't the best solution either, but at least they are designed with MOGAS in mind.

JETA1 is the only real future fuel for GA a/c, especially in countries with a high tax burden like the U.K.

Why couldn't have Lycoming come up with a JET powered engine burning about 10l/hr. If they had, they'd sell thousands, combine that with a "new" Cessna and the 2 seat market would be theirs for the taking.

I just don't think they tried very hard with this and that is very disappointing.

Kerosene Kraut

26th Jul 2007, 10:05

There must be some modern 100hp diesel car engine readily available that could become flight certified if you can expect a Cessna production run later. There's no small Thielert AFAIK but Mercedes where the Thielert core-engines come from must have many small diesel engines to choose from.

Andy_RR

26th Jul 2007, 11:47

Exactly my point. AVGAS is an outmoded fuel supply.

agreed, no arguments here.

Does a Lycoming do the job? Well yes it does, but at what cost. Lycomings use old technology and that means money.

No, unfortunately, new technology means money. Old technology means profits, which, in the end is what Cessna and TCM are all about.

Lycomings cost a staggering amount of money for what they are, yes they are made in low numbers which skews the numbers, but are they really worth twice as much as a BMW M5 engine? For a little 100hp O-200? I know which I'd rather spend my money on!

Are you sure that an M5 engine is that cheap? I don't think so! Plus the 50% you are complaining about is mostly an insurance premium against nasty and ruthless product liability claims. As to which one you'd prefer to spend your money on, I know which one will actually fly!

Are Lycomings reliable? Not really, the ancillaries are usually the problem, but how many AD's do you see for things like crankshafts?

They are impressively reliable. There might be some durability concerns, some manufacturing issues from time to time, and there might be a few AD's, but you can't fault them for reliability. Not too many fall out of the sky for engine failure, where maintenance isn't a major factor.

JETA1 is the only real future fuel for GA a/c, especially in countries with a high tax burden like the U.K.

Disagree, except that AVGAS probably doesn't have a long-term future. UL-AVGAS will most likely be the replacement technology. I've read nothing to suggest the new O200 won't be capable of running on UL-AVGAS/MOGAS either.

Why couldn't have Lycoming come up with a JET powered engine burning about 10l/hr.

Do your sums! 10L/h is only about 50hp at realistically achievable fuel consumption targets (220g/kWh). A good engine delivering 100hp will be at least 20L/h unless you're hoping for magic.

I just don't think they tried very hard with this and that is very disappointing.

It is so very easy for people to cast this accusation. If it is so easy, you could have a go yourself. If it's such a money printing machine, you'll have no problem finding backers.

A

Rod1

26th Jul 2007, 14:53

The O200 is a very heavy engine, it burns more fuel, is NOT designed to run on 100LL or Mogas. It has a very bad reputation for falling out of the air due to carb ice, it cracks up due to shock cooling and it uses notoriously unreliable magnetos which is technology which was ok for a 1920’s tractor but has no place in a modern engine. Remember the mags will need maintenance every 500 hours.

The Rotax is a lot lighter; burns much less fuel, are almost immune from carb ice and do not suffer from shock cooling at all. The duel solid state ignition system is maintenance free, is 5% of the weight of magnetos and has a MTBF which is vastly better than a magneto. Because the Rotax is the dominant engine in terms of numbers there is a superb array of fixt pitch, ground adjustable and VP/CS props available at a fraction of the cost of the O200 equivalent. The generator on the engine is built in and does not require an elastic band to drive it.

Having flown behind both engines I find it hard to see why anyone would choose the O200. In the PFA fleet the most reliable engine is the Rotax 912 range.

Rod1

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jul 2007, 15:10

10L/hr is only 50hp. Yep, and do you cruise around all day on 100% power? I don't. 60% is more usual. Well within the realms of possibility.

You can buy and fit an M5 engine for close to £10k. And that's at Beemer dealer rates. How much is an O-200? A lot more than that.

Old technology after a while does cost a lot more than modern tech. Why? because of economies of scale. Try buying parts for old cars, it gets very expensive when supplies start to run low.

As in industrial terms there aren't that many Lycomings and Continentals, the parts cost per units are very expensive compared to more mass produced stuff.

Lycomings aren't reliable. Whilst they don't completely fail that often, how much gets spent on maintenance over their life span? I can think of numerous top-end overhauls, new starter motors, Mags, cracked cylinders and the like.

They are rubbish really from an engineering stand point. The materials aren't that good, the designs are poor and the output is awful.

If you think the as good as an engine could possibly be, then you are deluding yourself.

Just listen to someone trying start a cold lycoming on a damp, cold morning. If you don't get the fuelling just right, it'll flood or not catch properly. Tell me there isn't a better way........ Oh right there is, it's called EFI and Electronic engine management. Silly me.

As to the "well do it yourself then..." argument, if I was as lacksadaisical in my working life as they seem to be, then I would be rightly hounded out. They are engine manufacturers. It's their job to do it as well as possible. I do it in my working life, why shouldn't they?

Andy_RR

26th Jul 2007, 16:08

10L/hr is only 50hp. Yep, and do you cruise around all day on 100% power? I don't. 60% is more usual. Well within the realms of possibility.

For a diesel, sure. For even a Rotax, 50hp is still 15L/h or more, realistically. 50hp will either not be enough to keep your aeroplane in the sky, or you'll be cruising at a GS of 5.4kt whenever there is a breath of wind.

You can buy and fit an M5 engine for close to £10k. And that's at Beemer dealer rates. How much is an O-200? A lot more than that.
Old technology after a while does cost a lot more than modern tech. Why? because of economies of scale. Try buying parts for old cars, it gets very expensive when supplies start to run low.

I don't know what your point is here. Sure, they must have made 10x the number of M5 engines as O-200's. ...and if you think that parts suppliers to the automotive industry are even remotely interested in supplying for an aero engine, you are definitely deluding yourself.

Oh right there is, it's called EFI and Electronic engine management. Silly me.

Tell me, who is going to supply the fuel injectors, regulators fuel pumps, electronics? I will tell you now, Bosch, Delphi, Sagem, Siemens, Visteon et al are all NOT INTERESTED in this market in the slightest.

A

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jul 2007, 19:24

Bosch etc. will supply to any market they can make money out of. Having worked as an automotive engineer if there is spare capacity and a market, they'll have a look. We would have.

There are plenty of specialist suppliers in the states, there is no need to only use car OEM's. If boat manufacturers can do it, why can't Lycoming?

My point about cars, is that it is ridiculous that an engine of such technology can be made and fitted for so much less than the over priced piece of junk that is a Lycoming.

How can a company make an engine of such power and reliability for a lower price than something that has had seemingly no development for nearly 40 years? Economies of scale are obviously in place, but that can't account for everything.

Why would anyone defend Lycoming? We are the ones who allow them to charge such ridiculous prices for outmoded technology.

ANW

26th Jul 2007, 20:54

When Cessna unveiled their POC LSA aircraft last year it reminded me of this Italian design. (a) Italian site (http://www.tecnam.com/ing/echosuper.cfm) (b) US site. (http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/P92_Echo_Super_Options.htm) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Cessna LSA has a lot of catching up to do with European LSA/VLA aircraft designs.
Given the straight bolt-on 0-200 swap, seems like a candidate for this (www.howells-aeroengines.co.uk) engine.

smarthawke

26th Jul 2007, 22:28

Whilst not wishing to defend Cessna's use of the O-200 in any way, to correct Rod1 on a couple of points: the O-200 alternator isn't belt driven, it's gear driven off the back of the engine and mags aren't that unreliable and the 500hr inspection is a non-mandatory Service Bulletin.

Why Continental haven't done some advancements like the Liberty IO-240F which is injected and FADEC beats me unless it's purely down to cost.

As for the Dieselair/Howell engine, there is now a very similar engine by Jade/Weslake which was seen at the Wycombe AeroExpo and now at Oshkosh.

If Cessna didn't want to be too radical then go for the Rotax - Americans will soon accept it as a viable powerplant given the use of it in the RV-12, Cirrus/Funk Polaris, Sport Cruiser, Eurostar etc etc.

An O-200...? Barking!

Andy_RR

27th Jul 2007, 08:02

Bosch etc. will supply to any market they can make money out of. Having worked as an automotive engineer if there is spare capacity and a market, they'll have a look.

If you can find a willing OEM supplier of fuel injection components to the aero engine industry, you can be my supplier. My professional career is actually developing electronic engine control systems (for cars, motorcycles and boats so far) and so I have discussed in some detail, a FADEC product with some people 'in-the-know'. The first leading question they ask me is where am I going to source sensors, injectors, regulators and pumps.

The first problem is that the volumes are never going to be enormous. 2000-5000 units p.a. is the most you'll see even with very good market penetration. One vehicle project I worked on for a major OEM was a total volume of 5000 units and even then the suppliers had to be beaten up regularly by the multi-national OEM on our behalf to get some action on the project.

The next problem to consider is one of product liability and where in some US states this is a case of strict liability. If you don't understand anything about this, you really need to do some research. It is a very scary area and arguably the reason that aviation has been 'stuck in the dark ages'. Even if OEM suppliers are happy to let aviation lunch off existing component designs and specifications, the volumes are so low and the profit is so miniscule it does not cover the risk of them being taken to the cleaners over someone's CFIT or fuel management-related accident, for example. Anyone with a sniff of a few dollars in their bank and in any way related to the product will get named in a lawsuit by the grieving widow.

I would agree with you that technically, a FADEC might be made a more useable and reliable fuel system, especially for larger engines. Commercially, this just isn't the case.

At the low power end of the market, the fuel consumption savings that FADEC can offer are simply not that significant. A carb and mags can do as much as a FADEC can for most of the operating regimes, with perhaps starting being the major exception.

A

stickandrudderman

13th Aug 2007, 20:16

I have twin webber DCOE 40's on my spitfire and they are wonderful.

Shouldn't you have six of them?;)
I wouldn't like to have to set that little lot up!

Say again s l o w l y

14th Aug 2007, 07:32

I wish!! Not sure they would be able to push enough juice for around a thousand HP! One day I'll have a "real" spitfire.............

jabberwok

14th Aug 2007, 12:02

Powered flight has been going for just over 100 years and the O-200 has been in service for almost half this period.

If you think it's a good choice for a new aircraft design then it shows bloody pathetic thinking where innovation has been destroyed by fear of Public Liability. I don't care how real this is - if it stifles development then we've got into a very sad state in this industry. The rest of the transport world must be having a really good laugh at us.

gasax

15th Aug 2007, 12:05

I'd largely agree with Jabberwork.

Cessna are a company for who R&D would best be described as 'this year's paint scheme'. They are not just conservative but completely devoted to re-hashing and re-using existing designs for as long as Textron think the business is viable. Think of the 172 - an OK aircraft when first introduced but that was over 45 years ago - can you image any supplier of consumable durables hoping to keep a old design in production fro that long (BMC, BLMC and Rover excepted!!)

Add in the issue that many in Us aviation have largely the same viewpoint. Mechanics hate the Rotax 'funny little foreign engine that needs silly little tools and is just pernickety about settings' is an exact quote I got!

So Cessna have produced an LSA that looks like a Cessna - they have carefully costed making it - because this is a market sector that is potentially so big in the States that thy have to be in it. Then they do a deal with Continental - a company with a similar mind set to buy their old design engine. How much will they be paying for the O-200 - probably very little, very likely under half what the retail cost is. That makes it very cheap versus a Rotax and as fuel costs are so low it does not cause they a disadvantage in the US market.

It al makes sense financially - but it's certainly depressing that their approach is so cynical.

The sooner Cirrus etc kill their SEP market the better.

Andy_RR

15th Aug 2007, 13:59

Product liability issues are also prevalent in all the other industries. It's not like the aviation industry is labouring under a completely different legal burden that the automotive, whitegoods or other manufacturers don't have to face.

The issue comes down to product volumes. In aviation, the volumes are pretty marginal to support radical development of new aircraft and to cover liability costs, especially in the US market.

The fact that a conservative company like Cessna has come out with a couple of potential new products is more indicative of two things - the LSA market might be big enough to support a clean sheet product, and the US Aviation Revitalisation Act probably gave them a helping hand with the sums for their New Generation GA aircraft.

Neither have actually seen the production light of day yet mind, and from what I hear, the O-200 isn't yet a dead cert for the Skyscratcher anyway.

A

balsa model

15th Aug 2007, 18:05

If there is demand for a Rotax variant, then, I expect, there will be a Rotax option. Dozens of kit designs have multiple firewall forward options. It's doable.
Did Cessna give some exclusive supplier deal to Continental?

pprfhf

17th Aug 2007, 00:48

Yawn - old technology in new purple color.

I am one the bigger guys (325 lbs.) so it's really a single seater for me and many more people fed by McDonalds etc. The engines are plain junk and heavy, expensive and overhauls are expensive too. But since Cessna bought them, that's what they use for as long as they can sell the crap. I am surprised that they have over 700 contracts for this bird. Just look at the old round throttle control. For $110,000 plus tax, I expect something nicer than a round handle. Everything looks cheap and it is. Just like a GM product. Well, as long as there are idiots buying it... Not me.

The plane is too slow, the range is very limited, the payload sucks and the engine technology is outdated. And who wants a stick anyways? No room for a portable GPS or maps etc. The seats look uncomfortable, but who cares, it doesn't go very far anyhow.

For the same money I can retrofit a 1970s 172 with a Thielert turbo Diesel and I have a 4 seater that flies high and fast and carries my bikes with room to spare. It would even include new paint, interior and new glass and some nice avionics. I figure it will fly for about half the cost.

I will look for a 1976 172 now!

Pitts2112

17th Aug 2007, 21:27

I got a chance to sit in the beast at Oshkosh. About the only cool thing was the stick because it's not a stick as we know it. It's a new development and, at the time of the show, hadn't actually flown yet. All the test aircraft have conventional yokes in them. The stick comes out from under the instrument panel on a horizontal pole. Normal yoke-like back and forth is the elevator control but as you move the stick side to side for roll inputs, the stick kind of rolls in your wrist - they're trying to replicate the motion tracing of a floor-mounted stick but with it coming at you horizontally instead of vertically. Kinda cool but I don't see it as a worthwhile area for innovative investment.

The whole rest of the aircraft is not much more than a 150 with a glass panel. The engine's the same, the performance numbers are about the same, and even the build technology is the same - riveted metal. There was no FADEC, nothing new on the engine technology, nothing new in the build structure or materials used, absolutely no gains from technology that has been developed in the last 50 years (other than the glass panel and they bought that in!). The glass panel is good but in this day and age I just cannot understand why we're still mucking about with manual mixture controls and carb heat. I understand the economics of scale and whatnot, but jeez, if you don't start somewhere, we'll still be having this same argument in another 80 years and still friggin' about with mixture and carb heat.

So, overall, I think Cessna will sell a lot of them to people that want a C150 made in this century and want to pay $120K for it, but that's all the customers are going to get. I think it's a waste of time and energy and would much rather have seen at least some tipping of the hat to the kinds of things that are coming out of good modern kits and certificated aircraft like Europas, Jabirus, and the slew of stuff coming out of Eastern Europe. I think Cessna have tanked on this one.

As they say, no pain, no gain, and it doesn't look like Cessna really made much of an effort on this one.

Pitts2112

jabberwok

19th Aug 2007, 04:18

The stick comes out from under the instrument panel on a horizontal pole. Normal yoke-like back and forth is the elevator control but as you move the stick side to side for roll inputs, the stick kind of rolls in your wrist - they're trying to replicate the motion tracing of a floor-mounted stick but with it coming at you horizontally instead of vertically.

So basically it's a yoke still but with the steering wheel taken off and replaced by an upright bit of metal.. :8

Pitts2112

19th Aug 2007, 12:30

Not quite, but not far off, either. It's really neither one nor the other. It's only on the extreme ends of the throw that it tilts to the side at all. It felt more like an arcade-game controller than an aircraft control stick.

I suppose it'd be easy to get used to but it's unlike anything else in the world, so I don't really see the point. I think Cessna wasted their innovation budget on something that doesn't really gain any ground.

Pitts2112

bjornhall

19th Aug 2007, 16:11

Powered flight has been going for just over 100 years and the O-200 has been in service for almost half this period.

But "O-200" is just an engine size, not an engine model... Me thinks it'd be better to have some O-200-D specs at hand when discussing the merits of the engine choice; they're not fitting an O-200-B in there... Tried to find some info on the -D but wasn't too succesful except that it'll be "lighter"... Anyone knows more?

Personally I prefer to have an "old-fashioned" engine, rather than a brand new not yet mature bells n' whistles unit. I don't like the numerous single point failure modes and lack of redundancy of, say, the Thielert contraptions. Reliability is what matters most, IMHO!

smarthawke

19th Aug 2007, 19:22

Be it an O-200A or a D isn't nearly as good as if it was an IOF-200D! Continental managed to produce the IOF-240 for the Liberty XL to satisfy the American non-believers in a Rotax (and an IO-240 in the Katana).

What a missed opportunity not to put in an injected, FADEC engine in the nose of the Cessna. Can't be that difficult to mod the software and hardware etc for 40 cu in less!

gasax

19th Aug 2007, 20:40

Nice try bjornhall!

However any real attempt to update the O-2oo will mean a change to the specification of the type cetificate - that effectively makes it a different engine and means the approvals have to be re-run.

This is definitiely something that Continental will not do. So if there is a D model it might have a different type of magneto but nothing more. Lighter, more efficent,FADEC, absolutely not.

This is an engine that costs virtually nothing to produce (in comparison to anything modern) and that is much of its attraction to Cessna - they know that and will be paying what it is worth - my guess would be less than $6k. At that price it is an obvious choice. Of course at the retail price you would have to be brain dead to select it!

sternone

20th Aug 2007, 04:29

Almost everybody is unhappy with this follow up of the 152.. but why in the hell do they get already 700 orders after 1 month of sale ? The plane will be deliverd in only 2 years and already more than 1 year production sold out ??!!!??

smarthawke

20th Aug 2007, 07:27

People will always buy Cessnas, that's why they have 700 orders for them - but I wonder how many of those are end-user orders and how many are Cessna dealers advance orders.

Remember there are plenty of people buying 40 year old airframes out there (172/182/206) with an injected engine, modern avionics (which are probably cheaper to produce than analogue instruments anyway) and posh seats....

EDMJ

28th Nov 2007, 20:47

Why has Cessna taken so many orders for the Skycatcher by now? Because it is an LSA in market where there are not that many American players yet, because it's built by Cessna (a name which rings a bell with most people previously unrelated to aviation) and because owners will benefit from Cessna's huge sales, maintenance and flying school network!

As such, European LSA manufacturers will need to dress up warmly if they want to enter or stay in the American LSA market, even though their products are superior in terms of performance and economy (remember how "succesful" Diamond were with their Rotax-powered Katana in the US?)!

Have a look in the latest issues of Flying to understand the average US pilot's perception and understanding of that type aircraft. Its editor essentially recently stated that it was invented by Cessna, thereby totally neglecting the thousands of Tecnams, C42 and CT's flying elsewhere in the world.

It is not a 150/152 replacement, because it is an LSA and not a fully certified aircraft!

By the same token I doubt that we will ever see the Skycatcher in Europe. It's too heavy to qualify as a microlight and Cessna would not bother with the costs and trouble involved in certifying it as (e.g.) a JAR-VLA just to sell a couple of dozens per year in Europe when they sell hundreds each year in the US (I believe they currently have orders for almost 800). Even if a European LSA category (1:1 comparable with the US one) appears one day, who would want one? A Remos G3/600 costs about the same, has much better performance and useful load, and uses less fuel!

Great marketing move by Cessna, but not of interest for European pilots.

philipnz

28th Nov 2007, 21:14

My new Remos arrives in January.

eltonioni

29th Nov 2007, 00:23

"but why in the hell do they get already 700 orders after 1 month of sale "
Because if you ran a flying school you would have people lining up to learn in it and to rent it. Be honest... faced with a clapped out 150 / 152 / PA28/ Skycatcher... wouldn't you?

"By the same token I doubt that we will ever see the Skycatcher in Europe. "

I'd buy one tomorrow and rent it back to a school. (looks up Cessna phone number)

draccent

29th Nov 2007, 06:49

Why can't it just have instruments????

That glass panel sucks. :( I mean its a little "bang around" plane...wtf?

jonkil

29th Nov 2007, 08:04

As such, European LSA manufacturers will need to dress up warmly if they want to enter or stay in the American LSA market, even though their products are superior in terms of performance and economy (remember how "succesful" Diamond were with their Rotax-powered Katana in the US?)!
Agreed,
but the Yanks wouldn't know a good product anyway, remember to a yank the world begins in San Fran and ends somewhere about NY.... look at their cars for Christ sake... big heavy wallowing beasts.....
Simple , they will buy the Cessna/Piper product... why ?... because they don't know any better, they have never flew anything else.. and it's "yankee" product.

sternone

29th Nov 2007, 14:58

Because if you ran a flying school you would have people lining up to learn in it and to rent it. Be honest... faced with a clapped out 150 / 152 / PA28/ Skycatcher... wouldn't you?

Could be true.. BUT, they were planning to raise the price at 1000 planes ? But they can't seem to manage that level.. i think the descision to make the planes outside of the USA is because Cessna had more expectations on this plane and saw it didn't succeed... i can have no other explenation for the 1000 plane mark limit to make an urgency for people to order one, while you can't seem to get the 1000 mark. Why would you make a plane outside of the usa while the usdollar is still over-valued and dropped so big in value ?? Because you know it's no use to invest in a descent production line, that's what the order status remaining on 700 planes means. (i find 700 HUGE, but i'm pritty sure Cessna doesn't for their 162...)

smarthawke

29th Nov 2007, 18:18

700 sales? Can anyone confirm that they are individual customer orders or orders by Cessna dealers....?

EchoMike

29th Nov 2007, 20:03

Here's another possible reason the Skycatcher has an O-200 instead of a Rotax. In 1999, the Euro was 80 US cents, so the 10,000 Euro Rotax cost $8,000. Currently, the Euro is at about $1.50, so the SAME engine now costs $15,000, almost double. If this keeps up, people will be refitting Rotax engined airplanes with O-200s because the O-200 will be much less expensive.

Incidentally, the O-200 is far from a "bad, antique, inefficient" engine. If you've ever had one apart, you'd see that quite a bit of engineering talent went into it, and it is quite carefully made. Just because it wasn't designed on a computer doesn't mean it is junk - there's an awful lot of very good equipment running around that was originally designed with slide rules.

Dual magnetos, while an "old fashioned" solution to the problem are quite dependable. Carburetors work, too. One of the big advantages of these "archaic" systems is that you can get them fixed almost anywhere your airplane will take you. When electronic ignitions and fuel injection systems stop working, you are STUCK.

Certification by the FAA (or CAA or whoever) is the guarantee that this aircraft is "safe" to ride in. Cost is not part of the equation here, no one is offering "half safe" airplanes for lower cost. The old technology is proven to be safe. Eventually, newer stuff will be certified, proven as safe, but remember that "new" cuts no mustard - it is "safe" that is the goal here.

Aluminum panels and rivets are also a more cost effective system for airplanes of this type. Sure, plastic airplanes go faster because they are smoother, but do you buy a trainer to go fast? Why spend extra money for features not needed? In addition, trainers often have hard lives - any shop can fix crinkled aluminum, but composites are not as easy yet.

Cessna isn't stupid, they have been around a long time by carefully defining their market and providing products as needed. The Skycatcher is alleged to have 700 orders to date - if that's correct, please consider that the entire population of certified aircraft in the whole UK - according to FTN - is only about 10,000! Cessna has orders in hand equaling almost 10% of the entire UK fleet, and the Skycatcher isn't even available for delivery yet.

Cessna could build a plastic-fantastic-glass-panel turbo-wankel-diesel if they wanted to - but they don't because there's no REAL market for it other than wannabes. In the real world, the people who actually BUY AIRPLANES keep Cessna (and everyone else) in business. They have to sell what people will actually buy, not what enthusiasts like to endlessly talk about but never manage to stump up the cash to place an order.

Get used to the Skycatcher, you'll be seeing a lot of them.

Best Regards,

Echo Mike
(with an antique aluminum and rivets C150, with a paleolithic O-200 and steam gauges, but it is PAID FOR and it is MINE and it FLIES.)

EDMJ

29th Nov 2007, 20:17

If this keeps up, people will be refitting Rotax engined airplanes with O-200s because the O-200 will be much less expensive.

Not an easy proposition, the O-200 is much heavier.

Dual magnetos, while an "old fashioned" solution to the problem are quite dependable. Carburetors work, too.

The Rotax 912 has both, it I'm not mistaken.

Cessna could build a plastic-fantastic-glass-panel turbo-wankel-diesel if they wanted to - but they don't because there's no REAL market for it other than wannabes.

I wouldn't argue with you that an aluminium airplane is easier to repair, but as to the "market" there are more than 200 (plastic) Flight Design CT in the US...

It's probably a fine aircraft, but in my opinion the Skycatcher is a big seller primarily because it is built by Cessna (known name, huge maintenance and sales network).

Get used to the Skycatcher, you'll be seeing a lot of them.

Not in my part of the world, I fear...

EDMJ

29th Nov 2007, 20:22

And by the way, I just read today that it's going to be built by Nanchang in China for Cessna :eek:

EchoMike

29th Nov 2007, 20:41

Yes, I had heard that is was going to be produced overseas. (China, huh, guess we'll be seeing them in Wal-Mart. Come to think of it, that might not be a bad thing for promoting GA!)

Datapoint - the overhaul manual for the O-200 says the basic engine weighs 170.18 lbs. Add carb, mags, starter, alternator, etc., and you're up to about 210 or so. With mufflers and baffling (supplied by the aircraft manufacturer, not Continental), the all-up weight of the engine assembly is somewhat less than 240 lbs (plus the prop).

(The "export shipping crate", btw, weighs in at 142 lbs empty . . . )

Price of a brand new O-200 from Continental is about $24,000, cost to rebuild is about $15K, but can be done for less if you get a deal on labor. TBO is 1800 hours, and if the airplane is flown regularly, it will make TBO. Most are not - and develop cylinder problems at about 1,100 hours.

O-200 runs quite happily on auto gas, too. It was originally designed to use 80-87 (the orange stuff), but that hasn't been around for years. Plain old regular 87 octane car gas works just fine, is fully legal (in the US) and costs between $1 and $2 a gallon less than avgas.

What does the Rotax power package weigh, including radiator, coolant, plumbing, and so forth?

As to the sales and service network, that is a definite advantage, and especially if the airplane is being operated to make money - if it sits, the owner is losing revenue! Ever try to find parts for an "orphan" car or motorcycle? I am willing to accept a slightly "sub-optimal" airplane if I can get the parts I need to keep it flying. If I insist on the latest and greatest stuff, no one will have the parts, and they will be expensive if they can be found at all. Any idea what a screen for a G1000 costs? (I don't know, but I'll bet it is expensive, like probably more than my entire airplane costs!) You can't fly your G1000/172 without it - same technology as laptop screens, and we know they NEVER break (smile).

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

sternone

30th Nov 2007, 10:05

It's not a Cessna anymore, now that they are going to build it in China, they descided the new plane is called: "Chissna" ..

gasax

30th Nov 2007, 10:53

The 'average' Rotax installation is 138 - 142 lbs. Then the propellers are typically 5 - 20 lbs lighter. The flycatcher will be hauling around approximately 100lbs more weight than it needs to.

It will be doing that because Cessna will get the engine for peanuts - 'cos actually that is about what it is worth.

I presently fly a zodiac 601 with an O-200 and I'm in the proccess of building a replacement with a 912S. Chalk annd cheese in nearly all aspects.

But on the positive side it menas that the LSA market is likely to be every bit as good as most people hoped. If only we had the Euro equivalent....

Rod1

30th Nov 2007, 12:03

Having been powered by a 0200, and now having a 912s, there is no comparison.

“O-200 runs quite happily on auto gas,”

So does the Rotax, it was designed to, but the Rotax uses a lot less, it is also a lot lighter, has a smaller frontal area and in the UK home built area it is more reliable. The support for the Rotax engine in the UK is also very very good. A 50 hour typically costs £25 all in, plugs at £2 each etc etc.

We will probably never see the 162 in Europe; it would be so inferior to the Euro wide VLA class that it would fail to sell to all except the most diehard Cessna fans, unless it had a big cost advantage. We are already shifting from the old 152 to the new VLA range of trainers, which use a mix of construction methods.

Rod1

owenstrawn

10th Dec 2007, 17:54

Cessna could build a plastic-fantastic-glass-panel turbo-wankel-diesel if they wanted to - but they don't because there's no REAL market for it other than wannabes.

Cessna builds airframes, not engines. Until a turbo-wankel-diesel engine is designed, certified, and available in quantity, there's not a whole heckuva lot Cessna can do about it.

sternone

10th Dec 2007, 19:09

We will probably never see the 162 in Europe;

According to the January issue of Flyer i just received and read they say Cessna sold 10 of them to the UK, i guess by Europe you mean without the UK then ?

JOE-FBS

11th Dec 2007, 15:44

If I could give my two pen'orth as a powertrain engineer, the current Lycoming / Continental engines with carburetors, magnetos, manual mixture and intake air temperature controls are ridiculously out of date.

If one could afford a clean sheet, the best compromise would seem to be:

compression ignition (less to go wrong, low speed torque characteristic, fuel consumption, no throttle icing because no throttle),

air cooled (less to go wrong),

current technology diesel fuel injection pump, injectors and control equipment (to give modern standards of starting, handling, consumption and emissions),

dual fuel (road diesel or jet fuel),

flat four (to fit the prevailing aircraft nose and nacelle shapes),

modern materials (you don't expect your road vehicle engine to break when it gets a shock cool as you drive through a ford)

If someone wants to front me the cash, I’ll run the design and development programme for you!

smarthawke

12th Dec 2007, 07:18

And those ten 'sold' to the UK are actually orders placed by a UK Cessna dealer... Anyone met a private owner who has ordered one yet?

Rod1

12th Dec 2007, 07:49

“According to the January issue of Flyer i just received and read they say Cessna sold 10 of them to the UK, i guess by Europe you mean without the UK then ?”

I may be wrong, perhaps we will see them but;

The LSA cat is a restricted C of A which I did not think was allowed in Europe (EASA land). I was expecting the aircraft to require retesting to CS-VLA, which would be expensive and given the heavy competition from existing European specifically designed to CS-VLA (no 120kn speed limit etc), I thought it very unlikely it would happen.

Rod1

Brian Abraham

12th Dec 2007, 22:42

JOE-FBS - you'll need to get in line, there is nothing new under the sun. Bolts straight onto an O-200 mount, meets all your requirements save for not being air cooled. Is flying in fixed wing and airships and a company in the US is setting up for licence production.
http://ppdgemini.com/

JOE-FBS

13th Dec 2007, 10:03

Brian,

That looks a lot like the engine I have been designing (well fantasising about) in my head!

Thielert / Centurion looks more like it as well allthough only at 130hp plus.

So the engines are out there, the problem is the US manufacturers saying "We don't want any of that new fangled European technology here"?

Looking at the Luddite comments about structures as well as engines, I can imagine them saying to the Wright brothers that the Flyer was too hi-tech and that we should stick with Lillienthal hang gliders.

Incidentally, I love old stuff, I just don't think it should still be in production. Even with just a few hours training I am already fantasising that I would spend the big premium bond win on a Puss Moth not a Diamond Star.

Cheers

Joe

BristolScout

13th Dec 2007, 10:28

A couple of points relating to previous posts. One guy asked why we can't have clockwork instruments instead of glass cockpit. I've been flying professionally for 40 years and I prefer round instruments in many ways but, unfortunately, no one is being trained in manufacture & maintenance of steam clocks anymore - we live in the digital age.

With regard to the stick coming out of the panel, it's nothing new. We had that in the Buccaneer - that's the strike jet, not the Lake amphibian - and it handles like any other stick when you're not thinking about it being unconventional.:)

owenstrawn

13th Dec 2007, 12:32

So the engines are out there, the problem is the US manufacturers saying "We don't want any of that new fangled European technology here"?

What part of "not ASTM certified" and "not available in quantity production" are you missing, Joe? Skycatchers already won't be delivered until 2Q '08, and that's with a minor development of an already proven engine, from a proven mfr.

JOE-FBS

13th Dec 2007, 12:53

It's a fair cop, I didn't read that far.

ANW

13th Dec 2007, 13:24

Brian Abraham

Off subject topic: the proposed Gemini engine has NOT flown in any aircraft nor airships as you state. When announced earlier this year it was only a model with nothing inside! Nice though it looks!

It is the DAIR engine which has been flying both in airships and aircraft. Refer here (http://www.dair.co.uk) That English company has invested over £1M in their diesel project so far. They own the IPR, having paid for the development and production costs of the engines over the years.

Brian Abraham

13th Dec 2007, 14:31

ANW - You are quite correct. It was the DAIR web site I should have included and is indeed the engine I was referring to. Less haste, more speed (in copying and pasting). Nice to know there is competition out there tho isn't it, and a longer line that JOE has to go to the end of. ;)

Edited to add - I see Weslake (who specialise in piston engine prototyping, testing, design & development) are involved with both engines (building the DAIR and is the proposed builder of the Gemini) so I wonder what is going on there, are they then two distinct and seperate commercial enterprises (competitors) or is there a bit of smoke and mirrors. See the DAIR is being licence manufactured by Howells Aero Engines as the HAE-100 in Manchester also.

Cpt.Petursson

15th Dec 2007, 04:14

The new Cirrus LSA looks much better, has the wing in the right place and at 120kn cruse is ok compared with European VLA’s. It is based on a Euro VLA (German) and has the Rotax so if it can compete on price Cessna may have a problem.

Rod1I heard the Cirrus LSA should be a round 110.000$. That's a plane I would much rather buy.

Am I the only one thinking the Skycatcher look is ugly?

BackPacker

17th Dec 2007, 23:29

flat four (to fit the prevailing aircraft nose and nacelle shapes)
air cooled (less to go wrong)

Agree with the rest of your design points, but not with these ones.

As far as I can see, the original reason for having a flat four (or six) is, indirect, because gearboxes simply were not strong enough to deal with the horsepowers and the harmonics involved. So you have to have a direct drive engine.

In most GA aircraft, you will want the prop shaft to be as high as possible, partly to give the prop the greatest ground clearance, and partly to align the thrust line with the drag. If you were to use an upright line or V engine, the cylinders would block the pilots view. An inverted line or V engine has been done, but has problems with hydraulic lock and plugs fouling. So a flat four or six was the best solution at that time.

Today gearboxes are strong enough. At least, Rotax and Thielert think so. This means that the crankshaft can be lower than the prop shaft and having an upright line or V engine is not causing sight problems for the pilot anymore. Plus, the crankshaft can now run at 2.5 to 3 times the speed of the propshaft, so the internal displacement of the engine can be much smaller while still producing the same amount of horsepower. So the engines external dimensions will be smaller as well.

This means that you can fit a modern upright line engine in approximately the same space as a traditional flat four. Take a look, for instance, at the Thielert retrofits (or even factory-standard) for the Robin DR200, the PA-28 and C172. The cowling is almost exactly the same size/volume. It just has air intakes at different locations.

As far as water vs. air cooling is concerned, yes, air cooling is far simpler. But air is a lousy coolant and equally doesn't retain heat very well. Also, unless you start adding cowl flaps, you don't have much influence on cooling effectiveness other than by flying faster or slower.

Water cooling is more complex and there are more things that can go wrong, but it is also more efficient (less surface area required transfer the heat, so no cooling fins and a smaller engine) and by retaining the heat longer, makes the engine far less susceptible to shock cooling. And you can mount the radiator at the location that aerodynamically optimal, instead of having to force air into whatever location the cylinders happen to be. Add a thermostat and you've virtually guaranteed that the engine always runs at its optimal temperature. (My VW Diesel is something like six years old now and I have never seen the temperature needle NOT on 90 degrees, other than while warming the engine up. Regardless of how fast I drive, how warm or cold it is, how much load I carry. It just never moves. Try that with air cooling.)

JOE-FBS

18th Dec 2007, 08:22

BackPacker,

I will bow to your superior on the packaging / layout point. Your points sound good to me (assuming the weight of gears is offset by the smaller engine giving equal or lower overall weight to ungeared).

I totally agree about cooling, the thought on air cooling was as much to placate the luddites as anything else! They seem to not believe (despite the evidence of the road vehicles they almost certainly drive) that materials and processes have so improved since the fifities that reliability and durability can be maintained (even improved) while functionality is improved.

Interesting one on the temperature gauge in your car. When I ran my own sports car company (the clue is in my forum name), the prototypes had conventional instruments and the temperature gauge would move with the conditions. The production cars had instruments driven by the digital CANBUS signal and behave exactly as you describe. I have long suspected that this is the instrument pack logic being programmed to keep the needle in the mid position unless the coolant is either very hot or very cold.

Cheers

Joe

AirScrew

18th Dec 2007, 11:35

Its a while since I've been in a flying school, but I imageine they will look at a cost balance of

a) capital outlay
b) running and maintenance costs (including the availability of trained staff)
c) availability (U/S rate plus time to repair)

I'm very confident that on that financial basis, the Cessna looks good.

But more.
I guess that the f/school needs to ensure that new pilots (esp PPL's) ARE trained on leaning (a carb) and thereofer the use of carb heat. Because most of the rental fleet, and most a/c purchases will be equiped with O-series and carbs.

There's little benefit learning on a modern a/c, and then having to do a type conversion...

I do not like this a/c one bit.
But I bet Cessna have done their homework very well....

MSP Aviation

18th Dec 2007, 12:20

But more.
I guess that the f/school needs to ensure that new pilots (esp PPL's) ARE trained on leaning (a carb) and thereofer the use of carb heat. Because most of the rental fleet, and most a/c purchases will be equiped with O-series and carbs.

There's little benefit learning on a modern a/c, and then having to do a type conversion...

And therein lies the rub. We're stuck in the stone age and will continue to be as people consider the difficulty of learning in a house before being dragged back to a cave.

EchoMike

18th Dec 2007, 17:02

FADEC, flat panels and water cooled engines are indeed the wave of the future, but as we know, things happen very slowly in general aviation.

Sure, the Skycatcher should have X and Y, and Z to be a contemporary airplane . . . but remember that the Skycatcher is a TRAINER - and if you go out to the local airport and look at most of what is already out there, you'll see mostly air cooled direct drive engines, with carb heat and mixture controls, and with round steam gauges.

If the goal is to train people to fly "most" GA airplanes, the Skycatcher is right on the money.

I'd love to see all these neat toys, whistles and bells in my new airplane, but most of the GA fleet is very nicely mired in the 1960s (as I tell my students, we are flying around in the best technology 1940 has to offer). When they get out into the REAL WORLD, they are going to be flying the installed and existing fleet of old stuff. That fleet is going to be around for many years to come, too.

From a personal viewpoint, I'm not particularly a fan of the Skycatcher, even though I am a happy Cessna 150 owner. Aesthetically, I find it "strange", but I suppose I could get used to it. My problem is that the airframe will be made in China, and that bothers me. "Quality" and "Safety" are not words that instantly come to mind when one says "China". There's currently quite a bit of apprehension in the US about Chinese products, and fighting that mind-set and perception will be an uphill battle for Cessna.

In addition, if you look at the blog on Cessna's own website, the comments are running 99% against and 1% for making the airplane in China - and that's only the ones they've posted. I can say that they are not posting all of the comments because I've made two and neither have appeared.

The people who will BUY this airplane tend to be a little older and a little wealthier than the beginning flight student. They also hold very strong opinions, some of which are justified and some of which are (to be honest) little more than flag-waving jingo-ism. The problem Cessna has with sourcing the airframes in China is that most potential BUYERS won't write checks for a Chinese airplane. Whether their reasons or opinions make sense or not, in the final analysis that is all that counts - it could be the greatest thing since beer in cans, but if the buyers don't want it (for whatever reason) they WON'T write the checks.

A comment on geared engines - the loads a gearbox has to handle are surprising. The torque output of a single cylinder piston engine ranges from -100% to +350% depending on where we are in the cycle. Now multiply that by four (cylinders) times the number of RPM the engine is turning and again by 60 (minutes in an hour) and again by 1,800 (overhaul interval in hours) - does this sound like a gear reduction is going to be heavy and expensive? (We already know the answer.)

Like it or hate it, the Skycatcher is highly likely to be a commercial success, even though it is far from a technological triumph.

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

BackPacker

18th Dec 2007, 19:12

A comment on geared engines - the loads a gearbox has to handle are surprising. The torque output of a single cylinder piston engine ranges from -100% to +350% depending on where we are in the cycle. Now multiply that by four (cylinders) times the number of RPM the engine is turning and again by 60 (minutes in an hour) and again by 1,800 (overhaul interval in hours) - does this sound like a gear reduction is going to be heavy and expensive? (We already know the answer.)

Obviously you've got to halve that number if you're using a four stroke, since a full cycle takes two revolutions. But it's still an impressive number.

Having said that, and taking my pedantic hat off, car gearboxes handle, as far as I know, the same variable loads throughout the cycle (although car engines in the cruise need to produce only about 20% or so continuous power instead of the 60-70% we see in aircraft). Why do car gearboxes, who are arguably more complex than (fixed ratio) airplane gearboxes, cause no problems, but aviation gearboxes do? Something to do with harmonics caused by the propellor or something?

EchoMike

18th Dec 2007, 19:37

(The -100%/+350% figure is for a four stroke engine and is over two full rotations of the crank, one "cycle"= 720 degrees.)

Car gearboxes DO give trouble - standard shift gearboxes often need sychros (not a problem with a single speed reduction gearbox), and they do wear, shedding slivers of very hard steel, just what you don't want in engine bearings, so you now need a separate lubrication system for the gearbox (more weight, more complexity, more money). Automatic transmissions are longer-lived because they do benefit from a slight cushioning effect from non-lockup torque converters, however when they DO go bad, repairs are very expensive.

Biggest problem is weight - lifted an automobile gearbox lately? All that Detroit Wonder Metal (cast iron) which makes it durable also makes it amazingly heavy. The aluminum case ZF transmission on my Audi V8 (240 hp) weighs a stunning 600 pounds. No, that doesn't include the engine!

Then we have the problem of selecting the optimum gearbox - and it isn't going to be off the shelf. That means it will be expensive, because you're only making a few of them (in automotive numbers), or it will be sub-optimal, and no one will be happy.

Continental had a geared engine some years back, the O-346 (I think) - four cylinders, engine ran 4,000 rpm, prop ran 2,100 rpm, everyone happy until overhaul time - the quill gears cost as much to replace as the rest of the engine, and TBO was only 1,400 hours.

Airplanes are a collection of compromises flying in formation.

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

Say again s l o w l y

18th Dec 2007, 20:14

Motor Bike gear boxes usually have the same lubrication system as the rest of the engine, so it isn't an insurmountable problem.

I can lift the gearbox on my Duke with one hand, it puts up with over 100 bhp, 75lbs/ft torque and 13,500 rpm input. Reliably too.

EchoMike

18th Dec 2007, 20:58

SAS, you're correct, it is not insurmountable. Motorcycles also have a much shorter overhaul interval than airplanes, they are stressed harder and do not last as long. Figure an 1800 hour TBO (as in a Continental O-200), at 100 miles an hour that's the equivalent of 150,000 to 180,000 miles. NO motorcycle will do that without overhauls along the way, not even BMW (and I've owned several, still have three).

Nothing is insurmountable given enough money - I could put a PT-6 out of a Caravan into my 150 if cost were not a consideration ;-) but unfortunately, it is.

Remember we have multiple conflicting constraints in aircraft design - maximize performance and reliability with minimum cost, maximum repairability, lowest parts count, lightest weight, simplicity of operation, tolerance to abuse and on and on and on.

Remember, we are ALL in AGREEMENT that we'd like to see something more advanced than the 1940's stuff we're flying around in, but unfortunately, we're also all in agreement that no one can afford the "ultimate" airplane except maybe Bill Gates, so where does that leave us? Personally, I'm quite willing to fly an "old tech" airplane if the alternative is to take the bus.

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

maxter

19th Dec 2007, 01:47

"........Like it or hate it, the Skycatcher is highly likely to be a commercial success, even though it is far from a technological triumph."

This statement form E.M. sums it up neatly I think. Cessna sell aircraft to make money not to win the enthusiasts suport. That is the 5% of sales that are left for the specialist plane makers.

When the market moves they will be there riding on the back of others testing. Seems sensible to my 'capitilist' brain.:}

mbsevans

27th Feb 2008, 11:48

Hmmm...Cessna is a wholly owned subsidiary of Textron. Textron owns Lycoming...so in a sense Cessna does build engines. What I dont understand is how a company like Textron would let Cessna put a competitors engine in their new design. Why not the Lycoming 0-235?
Strange...

IFollowRailways

27th Feb 2008, 15:43

the Skycatcher.. even though it is far from a technological triumph

A major motor manufacturer spends more on the design of the cup-holders fitted to a modern car, than Cessna spent (Or were able to spend) on the design of any GA aircraft. The same I'm sure holds true of Lycoming, Continental and probably Theilert and Rotax as well. Volume is everything.

j42h

2nd Feb 2009, 16:14

Does anyone know if the rumours of 162 Skycatcher to be certified according to the FAR23 are true?

I´m a bit confused as far as, can you use a LSA for PPL(A) training in EASA land?

Rod1

2nd Feb 2009, 17:22

At the moment the LSA cat is not recognised at all in Euroland.

Rod1

cockney steve

3rd Feb 2009, 17:38

The DAIR engine is intrigueing, however , it seems a retrograde step to have 2 crankshafts geared together. the extra weight must be offset by the efficiencies of the common cylinder, though, again, it would seem the strokes would have to be halved ,compared to conventional, in order to maintain power .....as previously posted,-compromises.

WRT the "efficiency in volume" argument, this is largely fallacious.

although there are obviously "state of art" machines which spit out a component every few seconds, the sheer capital cost of the machine makes it unviable.
The development costs divide into the return of capital (and interest
spread across the number of units made in that period
You then need to ascertain how quickly you need to "call-off" that production and that ultimately determines which manufacturer/subcontractor/machine-shop can make the item at an economic price.

Once a specific machine is working flat out, it's producing items at maximum rate FOR THAT METHOD OF PRODUCTION.....cost -savings become progressively smaller as you ramp-up production at this end of the market.

Many mentions of ROTAX here, they were unheard of in the Aero-engine field,25 years ago, yet they're now a mainstream player.

Honda's small recip engines for constant-speed generators, pumps ,industrial equipment, Etc. are of legendary reliability and longevity....Heaven help Continental and Lycoming, if they ever go into that market.