No more Cessna Skycatcher 162

[VH-XXX]

Reported recently by Avweb, the 162 is over and out.

They still have 100 in stock that aren't moving.

I enjoyed my trips in the 162 despite the nay-sayers.

"No Future" For Cessna Skycatcher: CEO Scott Ernest - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna-SkyCatchers-Run-Is-Over220834-1.html)

[Jabawocky]

And I suspect the 182 Diesel too. :suspect:

Both apparently swept under the carpet and qustions avoided there after.

The answers were something like ....has no future.......

Be interesting to see what actually happens.

On another note, I wonder how Beech are actually thinking about their "sub contract" manufacture to Mexico. Recent oops's in Australia have cost a fortune, and that has not been talked about much.

Offshoring has its attractions.....but not forever.

[Capt Fathom]

When it comes to the C182, the Cessna.com website only shows the Diesel 182 (Turbo Skylane JT-A).

The classic 182 disappeared a couple of months back. Don't know whether that means its no longer available new from Cessna?

I couldn't find any news on the website re the Classic 182 going out of production!

[bankrunner]

The diesel 182 isn't even in production yet; all the photos on the website are of the prototype that had an engine failure and landing in a paddock a month or two ago, so I'd be curious to hear what's going on with the classic 182 as well.

Was there anything especially wrong with the 162? Seemed like an alright aeroplane for what it was, though certainly on the pricy side given the heavy competition in that market.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The Cessna "Groundcatcher" (2 crashed in development) was doomed from the start. The LSA certification stipulated an unrealistically low MGTOW of 1320 lbs. There is IMO no way that you can build a rugged trainer with a useful useful load inside the LSA envelope.

[Shredder6]

Too much of the purchase price going towards liability insurance!:ugh:

[gassed budgie]

Was there anything especially wrong with the 162

Yep, it wasn't a 152. The 150/152 series will soldier on for decades training new pilots while the 162 will be the briefest of notes in aviation history.
For an LSA it was an OK aeroplane and Cessna did a good job of it. But when you park it alongside the 150/152 (also the 140A) and the reputation that those aircraft have built up and established over the last six and a bit decades, it just doesn't stack up for a whole variety of reasons.

[VH-XXX]

I doubt flying schools would have got any benefit from the LSA component of the 162, which is in theory a ligher aircraft that is cheaper to run and cheaper to buy, but that didn't really work out. The same mechanics look after them with the same techniques and hourly rate. It still has a continental engine, is all metal, the same basic structure just a lot lighter, but the purchase price was in excess of $130-140k AUD.

You can't compete with a $30k C152 as the engines cost a similar amount to overhaul and you have an essentially similar airframe. The only advantage on operational costs in would be in the short term where corrosion wouldn't be an issue, but that will eventually catch up as the fleet of 162's gets older. The only problem therefore is that the 152's won't be around for ever and there needs to be an aircraft to replace them with.

The CASA LSA working paper when first introduced cited that LSA's would "Level the playing field between GA and RA-Aus schools" mainly due to the reduced maintenance costs and availbility particularly of Australian made aircraft.

Unfortunately none of that really happened :{

[Jabawocky]

When it comes to the C182, the Cessna.com website only shows the Diesel 182 (Turbo Skylane JT-A).

The classic 182 disappeared a couple of months back. Don't know whether that means its no longer available new from Cessna?

I couldn't find any news on the website re the Classic 182 going out of production!

CF

You noticed too huh?

Well may be that the Lycoming rep is getting ready for IO540 orders again soon. I have a strong feeling, and I may be proven wrong, but the Townsville Refueller did hear things said recently in texas at a large event, that suggest the 182 JetA might be like the 162.

Time will tell. My money is on them being forced by customers to bring back the IO540 powered units.

As for the technical merit of the diesel 182, nobody I know will fly one if I have my 20c worth about it. Some fundamental issues that I cant get over. Simple but serious. I certainly would not fly one IFR or at night or over anything other than good country by day. I know, a big call but when you know a little about what makes them tick :uhoh:

And while I am on my soapbox, the investment by CMI in Diesel engine development will mean a ROI over 300 years or some rally huge prices for an engine, plus an installation and STC if you want to convert, or just small quantities in new aircraft with even higher price tags. I can't see it working as much as i try.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

We have a few 162s which I've clocked up a few hundred hours in - they are serving us reasonably well and are actually quite pleasant to fly when it's not too windy. They've survived plenty of mishandling by students too - they aren't nearly as flimsy as they look although I do admit they're not likely to survive 30+ years in a training environment like a 152 or Tomahawk will. Payload is not as bad as people make out - better than an aerobatic 152 that's for sure. However, we also got them early on before they put the purchase price up considerably. For the price they offer them for now there is no reason you would buy one instead of one of the European LSAs which offers similar or in many cases better level of equipment fit and performance for $40,000 or more cheaper.

[27/09]

there is no reason you would buy one instead of one of the European LSAs which offers similar or in many cases better level of equipment fit and performance for $40,000 or more cheaper

There in lies the answer as to why the 162 isn't selling. The likes of the Tecnam P2008 are a superior product at a cheaper price.