Another Cessna SkyCatcher bites the dust

[KiloMikePapa]

New Cessna plane crashes during Kan. test flight | State & Regional - Wire | Wichita Eagle (http://www.kansas.com/457/story/740506.html)

Difficult times for the C-162. Perhaps we should start naming it the SkyCrasher :E

I think I'll stick to the PA-26 for now.

[cessna-kevin]

I suggest its these guys pushing the aircraft to its limits will make it safer in the future for the rest of us including students.Lets not forget litigation is the life blood of plenty of lawyers.

[stepwilk]

Doesn't matter how safe they make it. Cessna is dropping the project.

[gordon field]

Stepwilk do you have inside info or are you just stiring up sh** for the sake of getting attention. Cessna have always based their business strategy on student starts, they kit started it in the mid 60s by building 5000 C150s a year and they kick started it again after the product liabilty issue (greedy lawyers).

In these tough times we can do without wild speculation.

[Sir George Cayley]

They're really selling it to me:eek:

Not:{

I'd be happy with a new build C150 with 40 deg flaps, a Rotax 914S and wobbly prop:ok:

Sir George Cayley

[Mickey Kaye]

Well it's performance and engine isn't my cup of tea. However lots of people have placed orders for it and well frankly its got to be better than the 30 plus year old rubbish we use at present. I for one very much hope they don't drop it and would be surprised if that is the case due to the number of orders that have already been placed.

[stepwilk]

Gordon Field, Flight Int'l says Cessna is "considering" dropping the project, and my guess is they will. I don't have time to bother "stirring up scheiss."

[KiloMikePapa]

It seems a Cessna spokesman confirmed the company is reviewing the future of the project.

Might Cessna be looking for a way out of the project given the current economic downturn? The second crash is certainly an argument to get out now. Test flights push the plane beyond the certification limits but crashing the thing is never a good outcome.

I'm afraid to us current circumstances simply mean a further stagnation of the evolution of GA planes. So it's back to the gas-guzzling Continental and Lycoming powered Pipers and Cessnas. I have had to start some of these this winter after a week in the unheated hangar and it was not fun but rather black magic if you ask me :yuk:

[IO540]

I don't think the Cessna Skycatcher was exactly going to end the "stagnation" in certified GA R&D. It was a modernised version of the C152, or similar, not a lot more. The buyers would have been traditional Cessna customers.

The thing which would really benefit more people than anything else, and it is available right now, is the wholesale dumping of carbs for fuel injection. My IO540 starts perfectly from cold; only hot starts require the different procedure but those work every time as well.

People go for glass cockpits, and at the same time have the carb heat lever to fiddle with every so often :ugh:

Mind you, a commonly deployed training plane fitted with a big GPS (one so big and obvious that no instructor will turn it off except for special backup-instrument training) would do wonders for the UK GA scene, which for the most part is still in the 19th century when it comes to navigation :)

But even this is a bit moot since America has moved on quite a while ago, and the UK training scene would not be upgrading for many years anyway.

[KiloMikePapa]

I don't think the Cessna Skycatcher was exactly going to end the "stagnation" in certified GA R&D. It was a modernised version of the C152, or similar, not a lot more. The buyers would have been traditional Cessna customers.

You are right of course but at the time I hoped Cessna would do something brave when designing the 162 and selecting the engine. What a disappointment it was when the SkyCatcher was presented!

Concerning engines: too bad the Thielert effort ended (or isn't it?) in tears. Any ideas what is happening with the Austro engine? Let's hope they get that one right. We really need to get rid of the Avgas engines.

[IO540]

The Austro engine is progressing, with AFAIK Diamond being their principal customer.

Diamond are quoting USD 140,000 to retrofit a DA42 with these engines, which is a huge bundle considering they will get the old Thielerts back and can use them as cores in the exchange market.

Taking half that figure, I don't think it is competitive for something like a Skycatcher. The OEM (volume) price for an engine which would interest Cessna would have to be much nearer to USD 10,000.

Cessna are IMHO not going to get involved with another Diesel, having escaped the Thielert debacle by the skin of their teeth due to fortunate timing (nobody actually took delivery of their Thielert option by the time T went bust). Especially one from Europe, where doing due diligence is pretty difficult for them. Whereas Diamond are far closer to the actual goings-on at Austro than any arms-length customer of theirs will ever be. Also, if I was Cessna, I would not touch Austro because of their close association with Diamond (a competitor of Cessna).

My guess is that Cessna will wait to see how the avgas situation in the USA pans out, and Lyco/Conti are absolutely not just going to sit there and watch their empires wiped out .

[KiloMikePapa]

Are Lyco/Conti doing anything on the diesel engine front?

[IO540]

Don't know.

I think it will depend on the security of avgas in the USA.

Diesels have the great advantage - for those European pilots who do serious touring - of burning avtur, but they are not spectacularly more efficient in SFC than avgas engines running LOP. And avtur is heavier so there would be no gain in aircraft range.

BTW, does anybody know how the self-declared avtur tax is supposed to work?

[Nibbler]

BTW, does anybody know how the self-declared avtur tax is supposed to work?

In the UK the organisation hiring the A/C to you should charge you 0.55p per litre on the total fuel used as a fuel duty which is then paid direct to HMRC.

If the flight is a training flight then there is no duty to pay.

I am not sure how private owners are supposed to pay this, perhaps the fuel retailer puts it on the invoice.

[KiloMikePapa]

Prelim report is out:

CEN09FA220 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090319X54357&key=1)

Yet another unrecoverable spin :eek:. Not the best platform for a basic flight training aircraft it seems to me.

[BeechNut]

Glad the pilot walked away.

They should call this thing the "Cowcatcher"

A N. American railway enthusiast will understand that term :)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just revive the 152, a good solid, proven design, and update it with modern instruments and avionics?

Beech

[733driver]

I think the C152 is too heavy for the LSA category (600kg MTOM).

Regarding the spin, I read a company statement saying that it was a cross controlled power on spin he couln't recover from. I am not familiar with certification requirements, but I don't think that's usually a requirement. So it might well be a problem that would not normally be encountered, even when spinning the aircraft intentionally or accidently.

[bjornhall]

If it is going to be FAR 23 certified, it must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or during the spin.

[balsa model]

... within certified range of CG and weight, I would add.
Our good old C152 will also be unrecoverable if you are heavy and have CG too far forward, as I recall.

[smarthawke]

"Our good old C152 will also be unrecoverable if you are heavy and have CG too far forward, as I recall."

- or perhaps aft...

So people claim that the 2 spin accidents on the C162 flight test programme are possible because it is being operated well outside the normal flight regime.

How many other aircraft have spun in during their flight testing? Twice....

[fernytickles]

EAA News - Cessna: SkyCatcher LSA Remains Priority (http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-03-25_skycatcher.asp)

Cessna: SkyCatcher LSA Remains Priority
March 25, 2009 — Cessna Aircraft Company reaffirmed its full commitment to its LSA program today, responding to the aftermath of last week’s crash of Cessna’s second prototype Model 162 SkyCatcher light-sport aircraft during flight-testing,

“The need for a modern, cost-effective two-seat trainer aircraft has never been greater, and we believe we are well positioned to meet that need,” said Jack Pelton, Cessna chairman, president and CEO, in a company news release on Wednesday, March 25. “The SkyCatcher program is an important part of our strategy.” He added the company is making every effort to minimize the impact on deliveries to customers, but did not state an amended planned delivery time frame, originally slated for the second half of this year. The March 19 crash occurred while the airplane was undergoing “a very aggressive spin test regime - power on and cross-controlled - when it entered a spin that was not immediately recoverable,” Pelton said. Cessna reports it has flown the SkyCatcher in more than 500 spin tests using various combinations of center-of-gravity positions, power settings, flap settings, and control inputs. In September 2008, a different test aircraft crashed when the pilot parachuted to safety after being unable to recover during aggressive spin testing.

“We test all our aircraft well beyond the limits of what is expected in normal operation,” Pelton added. “By the time a Cessna aircraft enters service we have the highest degree of confidence in the design, flight characteristics, manufacture and quality of the aircraft.”

Engineers have obtained valuable data on the crashworthiness of the aircraft and the operation of the optional Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) airframe parachute as a result of the two incidents, the company stated.

The SkyCatcher is a two-seat LSA powered by a 100 hp Continental O-200 engine.