Skycatcher discontinued...

[AdamFrisch]

As feared, this is the end.

Skycatcher reaches inglorious end - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/February/10/Skycatcher.aspx?CMP=ADV:1)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Considering 2 prototypes wound up smashed into a field I always thought that "Ground Catcher" would have been a better name for this airplane

I think the whole LSA thing is a dead end and in retrospect Cessna wishes they never went there. If the FAA get rid of the 3rd class medical then the market for LSA's will instantly disappear.

[AdamFrisch]

Yeah, you're right.

Also, it was overpriced, it was overweight and it had an interior that looked at best semi-finished (or utilitarian if you want to be nice) and it had a carburetted Continental from the bronze age etc.

[Silvaire1]

I think the whole LSA thing is a dead end and in retrospect Cessna wishes they never went there. If the FAA get rid of the 3rd class medical then the market for LSA's will instantly disappear.

I agree, the current limited market for LSA aircraft in the US is largely people who can't get a Class 3 medical.

When you can otherwise build or buy an RV for half the price, fly as fast as anything going, climb faster, do aerobatics, fly VFR or IFR, travel thousands of miles all over the country, maintain it yourself and not be constrained to the airframe manufacturer for parts, it hugely limits factory built LSA marketability. The LSA Cub replicas seem to have some traction because they don't have that competition, the rest have no strong business case except the medical issue.

I'm not an RV owner but that seems to me to be the situation.

[fatmanmedia]

But wasent LSA's meant to be the saviour of the US GA scene.

Fats

[dera]

US GA scene doesn't need saving, it is by far the best GA "market" out there.
There is no market for LSA, because GA is so cheap. Apart from the people with difficulties obtaining a medical

In Europe things are different, a good ultralight/LSA costs less than half to operate per hr than even a 152. Europe is the bit needing saving, and that is where LSA's will have a huge market in the future.

[Fostex]

Why do Cessna not just start manufacturing the 152 again with a 912is up front, there is a market for it!

LSA in certified form like the Sportcruiser and Tecnam are great fun aircraft to fly and learn in but they lack the robustness of more traditional trainers like the 152. If you are doing 500-600hrs a year in an LSA in a training role it will have durability issues. Training aircraft are going to take a battering and the build needs to reflect that.

[xrayalpha]

You know, all that 150 stuff can't keep flying forever.

Why Cessna didn't just buy something like our C42 Ikaruses, I don't know.

Of course, they are a big, bloated and inefficient company, as regards the small aircraft market. Hard to be otherwise when you are geared up to the bigger stuff.

Companies like Comco Ikarus and the other "light sport" companies have simpler organisations, smaller overheads etc.

Europe is a good market. China is growing fast. (Comco Ikarus are selling there now and have a nine-month waiting list now).

Cessna has a great brand name.

For the right aircraft, at the right price (maybe even with a little more for the "brand") there is a market.

Yes, many will say the C42 is a tube and fabric aircraft. Cessna's are built to take the punishment, will last forever etc.

But look all around us at how people are reshaping products, and people's expectations. And succeeding.

Many flying schools don't outlive their aircraft. And capital is hard to find, so lower initial costs - perhaps at the expense of longevity, are maybe better for today's climate.

And as for running on Avgas! Get real. Even if it wasn't for cost, it is just becoming harder and harder to get.

If Cessna had achieved what they set out to do (which was with a Rotax 9 series initially), I would have been in the market.

But.......

So the news is no surprise.

[xrayalpha]

FX,

There are many "microlight" schools in the UK that do 500+ hours a year in, basically, light sport aircraft.

They are robust! We operate off one of the less-smooth grass runways in Scotland.

We have had two taken to 1,800 hours and going strong until a hangar fire three years ago

We have two more, now at 1800 hours each and are aiming for 3,000 hours before major work (and that includes 912 engines). Touching wood.

At 3,000 hours our thoughts are to keep one as a personal hack and rebuild the other in phases over a couple of winters while keeping it in service: new engine, new wings, new fabric etc.

Scottish Aero Club's newsletter raves about the success of their Eurostar too. So it is not just me!

[dera]

This is the problem between US vs Europe. Your opinion would be completely moot in the US, which is by far the biggest market at the moment for aircraft like that.

In the US AVGAS is what you want to burn because it is cheap and available. A plane only accepting MOGAS without penalties to the service interval is a non-starter from the get-go. MOGAS simply isn't available in most airports in the US.

C42 is a nice little plane which is unsuitable for heavy-duty training (nosewheel!).

C152, Rotax for Europe, O235 for the US. Perfecto.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is a common opinion that the C42 is unsuitable for heavy training use. I've however never heard that opinion from anybody who has used those aircraft in a training environment.

G

[Mickey Kaye]

The skycather failed because its wasn't any cheaper to run that the current heavy metal. The industry is crying out for a two seat training aircraft but no flight training organisation in the right mind would have bought the 162.

[xrayalpha]

dera,

Students - and qualified pilots - bend aircraft so they are beyond economic repair.

And then there are other incidents - like our hangar fire.

If no-one builds new "Cessnas", this discussion will become more than "moot".

And, for someone who operates light sport, I still have a fondness for the Cessna brand.

In my opinion, they are a "world" brand, not just an American one. Their market is worldwide, not just the USA. I think they have made a big mistake in this market sector with the Skycatcher.

Hopefully they have not just dumped it, they have also gone back to the drawing board.

ps. For fans of Nevil Shute, like Genghis and me, his biography and the discussion of whether or not Airspeed would introduce retractable undercarriage in the 1930s, is similar to where I think Cessna and its rivals are.

Shute states that one - now very well known designer - was totally against the extra weight and complexity of retractable gear. Full stop. Yet within a few years it was obvious that this was the only way ahead.

In every market, it is obvious that we need lower capital, lower running costs and generally increased efficiency.

Cessna are failing to delivery that for GA, and anyone who thinks that a 1950s airframe cannot be improved upon has missed out on an awful lot - including plastic Boeings! - and the use of unleaded fuel.

[IFMU]

You know, all that 150 stuff can't keep flying forever.
Depends if people want to restore them. There is a large international Cessna 120/140 association. Those folks have collectively rebuilt a lot of the type. Mechanically very similar to the 150. Early 150's were nosewheel 140's. Of course they scoff at the 140's progeny, the 150, unless converted to tailwheel. The association membership was not overly enthralled with the 162.
Bryan

[Mickey Kaye]

But the airframe wasn't the problem. Its the engine its too expensive to run.

If it had a 912 in it I would have been interested

[Desert185]

A shop near me is overhauling a 206 for Civil Air Patrol. New engine, cleaned up with zinc chromate, new glass, new interior, new paint and new avionics suite. Much cheaper than buying a new 206...and considerably lighter, which is good given summertime DA's. They have a new, glass 182 that weighs the same as that older 206, BTW. I'll take the old 206, please. :ok:

California Highway Patrol put 10,000-14,000 hrs on their 185's before buying new 206's. There were a lot of folks who wished the 185's stayed, BTW.

This method of "recycling" older aircraft either with good maintenance along the way or via a complete overhaul seems to be a reasonable path given the need for good training aircraft and/or the cost of replacement with appropriate new aircraft that might not exist.

My corrosion-free, 1971 185, with only 3,600 hrs, will outlive me by a wide margin.

[Fostex]

But the airframe wasn't the problem. Its the engine its too expensive to run.

The airframe may well still have been a problem. If the Skycatcher was used at an ATO in a teaching role then it would be on a Public CofA/ARC. One would be surprised how many CAMOs in the UK cannot even touch composite aircraft, so it important to consider maintenance availability during fleet selection.

[gasax]

Classic example of two nations separated by a common language!

In the US LSA as a category sells a few hundred aircraft per year. Being tied to the manufacturer even for the experimental versions means the only real advantage is the medical.

Given that the requirements for certified aircraft are quite sensible, with numerous parts supplies, other than the manufacturer (PMA's parts) and Avgas cheap, then better fuel economy but a frail-er airframe does not make a paticularly attractive option.

Interestingly I was reading (albeit badly), a french flying mag, where they argued than the EASA LSA category was effectively dead - killed by dis-proporationate EASA regulation in comparison to most of the European microlight or ultralight regulations. Certainly in France why would you fly a slightly heavier aircraft, with the same engine and a surfit of rules and restrictions compared to a ULM?

The majority of LSA type aircraft in the UK are actually microlights or permit types enjoying very different rules - naturally.

But petrol here is massively more expensive than the US and that alone is enough to drive people to efficient airframes, allowing that they are more frail.

But back to the 'Ground Catcher' - too frail and tied to the manufacturer in the US - which makes it more expensive, too heavy and thirsty (and expensive) in the UK and the rest of Europe. Then you have the 'choice' of building it in China, which by itself would alienate many of the medically challenged US LSA buying public. It would not take much analysis to see its potential market as limited.

[Silvaire1]

This method of "recycling" older aircraft either with good maintenance along the way or via a complete overhaul seems to be a reasonable path given the need for good training aircraft and/or the cost of replacement with appropriate new aircraft that might not exist.

Yes, I think 'recycling' plus new experimental amateur built kit aircraft is going to be the situation in the US for quite a while, perhaps indefinitely. Cirrus and like will sell a few too but not many in relation to the size of the existing fleet.

50 years ago you'd have seen RVs being sold in factory built form but today's certification cost and (more so) inflexibility for both manufacturer and owner make that relatively unattractive. Since most people in the US choose sole ownership, the FAA limitations on training with amateur built airframes do not appear significant to the market.

In Europe it's a combination of heavy aircraft regulation, bureaucracy & complexity associated with long distance travel by aircraft and outrageous fuel taxation that drives the market to low power engines and LSA type aircraft. Man made stuff all, at least as long as the actual untaxed cost of fuel isn't the limiting factor.

[Chris1012]

Hilarious. I recall hearing that they switched production to China (saving some 70,000$ per aircraft) and then when asked if the price will go down saying something along the lines of "but we've got mouths to feed...."

[porterhouse]

Don't care about the fate of the Skycatcher but rejoice that Mooney is restarting production. :D

Mooney Restarts Production in Kerrville | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/mooney-restarts-production-kerrville?cmpid=enews021114&spPodID=030&spMailingID=19549966&spUserID=NDc4NjE5MzkyNgS2&spJobID=260708478&spReportId=MjYwNzA4NDc4S0http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/mooney-restarts-production-kerrville?cmpid=enews021114&spPodID=030&spMailingID=19549966&spUserID=NDc4NjE5MzkyNgS2&spJobID=260708478&spReportId=MjYwNzA4NDc4S0)

[A and C]

The real truth of the matter is that for European flight training there is only one game in town and that is the Cessna 152 it is economically the best in terms of robustness and and day to day maintenance and is not too bad on fuel economy.

The 152 would of course be far better if the Rotax was fitted or even a FADEC controlled Lycoming.

The Idea that there is an alternative is almost laughable, all the VLA's that are robust enough for the job give much the same performance as the 152 and those that have very good performance are likely to fall apart very quickly, on one of these types we are seeing the same sort of airframe problems on 300 hour aircraft that we are seeing on 13,000 hour C152,s.

There is a reason that Cessna have come up with the SID's checks.......... It is because they know the aircraft will continue to be the market leader for some time as long as the airframe is properly maintained.

Oh ! I wish the guys restarting Mooney the very best..... A great aircraft.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I think the whole LSA thing is a dead end and in retrospect Cessna wishes they never went there. If the FAA get rid of the 3rd class medical then the market for LSA's will instantly disappear. So you'd deny those of us who can no longer maintain a medical for a PPL the privilege of flying, would you ? Well done, I hope you go to your grave still holding a Class II

The likes of the Tecnam, originally, (and still possible,) registered as Microlights in New Zealand - MAUW 1200 lbs. - certainly saved the recreational flying scene around 14 years ago, and definitely ensured that I have kept flying since that time. The medical standard is that of the "aged" driver, i.e. from the age of 70 I have to have a medical every 5 years to maintain my drivers' licence, so if the doctor allows me to drive home alone, then I can fly a Tecnam, with the requirement to undergo the same medical every 2 years to continue flying.

NZ has recently introduced the LSA class, and pushed the weight of these same aeroplanes, i.e. Tecnam, Alpi, Sportcruiser etc. up to 1300 lbs, and they can be flown as regular G.A. aircraft if registered as such, but they need PPL protocols with regard to training and maintenance, unlike "microlights" which can be owner mainained, and flown on a "Microlight certificate"

The CAA have also introduced a RPL ( Recreational PL) for which the training and licensing standard is that of the PPL, but the medical standard is one notch higher than the microlight, viz. Commercial Driver with passenger rating, effectively a bus driver standard. This licence also allows me to fly the G.A. aircraft up to 4400 lbs, single engine, but restricted to microlight rules, i.e. only one pax. no IFR or night flying, not over urban areas etc. but it allows Grandad to continue to fly the family Cessna off the farm strip.

Very enlightened, and long may it be so.

[Silvaire1]

ExSp33db1rd - The FAA 3rd Class medical is what's currently required for private flying of normally certified aircraft in the US. LSA aircraft require no medical exam or declaration at all. You need a US (state) drivers license but that requires no medical exam at any age. If and when the FAA get rid of the 3rd class medical you will likewise need no medical at all to fly many or most light certified types privately, with no added limitations. That will reduce the motivation for some people to buy an LSA aircraft.

People often conjecture that the main political purpose of FAA Sport Pilot/LSA regulations was to provide a safety database in support of eliminating the FAA medical requirement for private operation of existing single engined certified aircraft under a certain weight, power and number of seats. And its true that the proposal is making some headway.

[tmmorris]

Genghis,

Confirmation bias?

[AdamFrisch]

Silvaire - the conditions for the dropped 3rd class medical are for now:

No IFR
Max 14000ft
up to 6000lbs aircraft.

So anything else will still require a 3rd class. Now, that would probably go away over time, but it's how it's worded now to get through congress.

[Cows getting bigger]

LSA (600kg) was always going to be tricky for a robust training aircraft. VLA (750kg) makes far greater sense. Unfortunately you're then competing directly against a C152 (758kg) and you can get five 152s for the price of one VLA.

[Silvaire1]

Silvaire - the conditions for the dropped 3rd class medical are for now:

No IFR
Max 14000ft
up to 6000lbs aircraft.

So anything else will still require a 3rd class. Now, that would probably go away over time, but it's how it's worded now to get through congress. Yep, and consistent with what I wrote above most private light aircraft in the certified FAA fleet are operated now within those constraints - because they aren't physically capable of exceeding them, or equipped to fly in IMC. Only a few of them are Aerostars that require astronaut pilots ;) :)

The situation seems to me analogous to that in the 70s when the archaic FAA requirements for domestic aircraft and pilot radio licenses were dropped. Another step in adapting aviation regulation to an evolving and more modern world. Hope it passes into law.

[ExSp33db1rd]

So you'd deny those of us who can no longer maintain a medical for a PPL the privilege of flying, would you ? Well done, I hope you go to your grave still holding a Class IIExSp33db1rd - The FAA 3rd Class medical is what's currently required for private flying of normally certified aircraft in the US. LSA aircraft require no medical exam or declaration at all. You need a US (state) drivers license but that requires no medical exam at any age. My apologies, I didn't fully realise the situation ( When In Doubt Read The Instructions ! )

However, I'm not sure that I agree to a totally medical free environment, if that is what is envisaged, pilots generally benefit from an occasional monitoring that the general public don't get, my own medical problem, which now precludes my holding an ATPL, ( no age limit in NZ, only an enhanced medical standard ) was only discovered because I presented myself for an aircrew medical, otherwise I might have had no inkling of any problem until I woke up dead one morning ! as is a possibilty for some of the car drivers hurtling towards me at a closing speed approaching 150 mph - and they may hit me just before they die.

Originally our CAA ( aka FAA ) agreed to keep out of the medical arena when agreeing to our sub - G.A. prototcols, but couldn't help themselves when it came to the point, however, recently they have conceded and withdrawn, leaving the medical standards for our Microlight and RPL licences in the hands of the Land Transport Agency, i.e. bus driver licences as initially envisaged.

Our Microlight rules have been extended to the new RPL licence, so although I can fly the Heavy Iron Cessnas I'm restricted to only 1 passenger, not over towns or public events in the open, no IFR, aerobatics or night flying, but Hey ! I can still fly, and most of NZ is Class G deserted territory with no ATC. Magic !

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis,

Confirmation bias?

I've never owned a C42 and have no desire to - it's quite a boring aeroplane, as is a C152, which I don't want to own either. I'd be very happy to instruct on either and have flown both.

But I defy anybody to find hard evidence to prove that the C42 can't take continuous training use, as opposed to "opinion". What evidence I've seen shows that properly maintained, both will take years of hard use.

G

[dera]

Just look at the nose strut. It collapses if you say boo! to it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is that your inexpert opinion, the result of going through detailed stress analysis, or have you actually seen evidence of lots of failed nose struts in service?

G

[Fostex]

One can search the ASN database ( Aviation Safety Network > (http://aviation-safety.net/index.php) ) for C42 incidents. While there are instances of the mains and nose wheel being damaged on landing, these are down to poor handling more than anything else and there is nothing to suggest the type is more susceptible to such failures than another.

[A and C]

I said that the VLA 's that ARE robust don't offer any performance advantage over a C152 and the VLA's that give very good performance ARE NOT robust enough to handle the training market.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I was talking about the C42 - a C152 clone using microlight technology to achieve similar performance at half the running cost. But you are still wrong as evidenced by several schools happily training on the CT for over a decade.

Of course definitions matter here as well. A Piper Cub would qualify as a VLA, and some might regard fuel burn and running cost as performance figures.

G

[EDMJ]

A local flying school here has an EV97 in the microlight version with more that 5,000 hours on it, and it still looks as if it were new. On a day with nice weather, it's essentially in the air from dawn to dusk, mainly for training.

My local flying school had a Remos G3/600 and then an FK9 (both microlights). In the Remos it was things like door latches (cf. Cessna door latches...?) and various knobs failing, not the undercarriage or anything major. The FK9 landed nose wheel first one day and broke it. However, it is designed such that it folds back against the lower fuselage in such a case, without damaging the firewall or the engine mount. The propeller was smashed too, but it was a carbon fibre propeller and there is a friction clutch between that and the engine, so no schock-loading. The aircraft was flying again within a week. They now have a Tecnam P92, which to me seems just as solid as a C152, and withstands the rigours of training very well.

I hear that the manufacturer of the C42 has a very good reputation for customer service, spare parts being delivered very, very quickly (in Germany allegedly within 24-48 hours). Now if only they would put the throttle in the proper place....

In Europe, I think it is mainly the costs which are holding back the change to VLA or EASA RTC aircraft, as you can still get at least two C152 for the price of a new aircraft of this type.

As far as the Skycatcher is concerned, another thing which hasn't been mentioned is that it didn't arrive until the US LSA market was firmly in the hands - and partially saturated - by e.g. Flight Design and Remos. Although Cessna intensively tried to make everyone believe that the invented the LSA. I wonder what it would have been like if they had been quicker off the mark?

[xrayalpha]

4,000 training hours on our C42s and one nose leg collapse - student solo just before he got his licence after 140 hours of training.

Yep, I am more tempted to blame the student than the aircraft.

Prop undamaged, nose gear back on withing a week - parts from Germany.

Bumpy grass runway, but soft ground saves props!

[gordon field]

GtE I find it very sad and somewhat disingenuous of you as a flying instructor to post on an open forum that you find both the C42 and the C152 boring.

There are 173 C42 and 251 C152s on the UK register and I don't think that any of their owners or others who do enjoy flying them gives a to$$ about your finding them boring.

People who are thinking of learning to fly really want their instructors to show a level of maturity and encouragement and have some passion about aviation.

These days it is hard enough to get new students in through the front door but if they are confronted by self opinionated part time instructors then they might well walk out again.

You do yourself no good making just comments.

[EDMJ]

If you read his post carefully, he wrote that he considers them too boring for him to want to own one but that he'd be happy instructing on them. Fair opinion imho, what's your problem with that?

[Dr Jekyll]

The real truth of the matter is that for European flight training there is only one game in town and that is the Cessna 152 it is economically the best in terms of robustness and and day to day maintenance and is not too bad on fuel economy.

But ridiculously cramped and somewhat restricted on payload. The problem with a 152 or an LSA for training is that you either need small students or small instructors.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you read his post carefully, he wrote that he considers them too boring for him to want to own one but that he'd be happy instructing on them. Fair opinion imho, what's your problem with that?

Yep, that's what I said.

I'd go so far as to say that both are superb training aeroplanes.

G

[The Fenland Flyer]

I learnt on a C-42, owned a share in an ex flying school C-42 that had done over 3000 hours of successful training and now teach on a C-42. They are an excellent all rounder and because of that never going to be that exciting or exotic.

They are perfectly strong enough for training. They may not be able to take the levels of abuse that a C150 can but it is easy enough to get students to treat them with a little bit care right from the beginning which I think is a good thing, whatever they go on to fly afterwards.

[cockney steve]

making just comments. Gordon Bennett!....You're advocating posters should start making unjust comments?

tut tut, It.s already been refuted.....GtE's remarks were even-handed and objective.....Perhaps you're one of those eople who refuse to accept that the Ford Mondeo is not the pinnacle of automotive engineering and driver-satisfaction.?
IMHO, the way forward for Cessna would to have been building the Rotax under license.....creates American jobs (offsets the loss in lycosaurus sales by expanding the market) so, the punter gets a better donk, Cessna get a bigger margin , the objection to Chinese airframe sub-contracting is partly defused and everyone's a winner!

If my reading of history is correct, the original RR Merlin was a triumph of individual hand-fitting and building... The Packard (USA) version was far more consistent,precise and less labour-intensive I suspect it was vastly cheaper to produce as well.....the downside was that parts were incompatible with a RR version.
I'm sure it's not beyond the vast manufacturing resources of the USA to produce a licensed Rotax, or even, as they did, scratch-design a 21st. century engine for GA. Jabiru had that opportunity and blew it. That A maker of Microlight 2-strokes can reach respected Certified status in ~10 years, shows it can be done.
A properly thought-out "skycatcher" could still find a market....the fact that this one didn't, points to inept management.

[multycpl]

What killed the Skycatcher and will kill all the others is simply value for the money.....When announced we were all told that the would be around the $50' to 60' mark, the price of a nice luxury car. Not the $120' to 170' that they became.
A Trabant for the price of an Aston martin !!!


Cessna has now put a life limit on its older aircraft. hmmmmmm wonder why ?


What has killed the low cost aircraft are the lawyers and the stupid outrageous claims that the have filed over the years. I believe that more than half the cost of the new aircraft is liability insurance.

[Tinstaafl]

Instead of Cessna mucking around with the Skycatcher, I wish they'd restarted the C152 line. Improve it by widening the cabin a few inches and the seats to go back further. Add a bit more useful load eg use a climb prop to maintain cert. climb gradients. If it's 5 kts slower it doesn't matter.

I like a six pack instrument arrangement for training. Ditto manual trim to a trim tab - the feel for how much trim is needed to relieve the load is important, and the rate of trimming is controlled by the user, unlike electric trim.

[BPA]

+1 for Tinstaafi post.

If Cessna just used a shortened C172 airframe with 2 seats, it would solve the small cockpit issues of the C152.

[Desert185]

...or a C170B. Terrific little airplane.

[Dr Jekyll]

If Cessna just used a shortened C172 airframe with 2 seats, it would solve the small cockpit issues of the C152.


Would it be noticeably cheaper to build than a 172 though?

[Fostex]

I am 6'1" with long legs and have no problems when I occasionally fly a 152. It is cramped getting in and out but once you are 'installed' it is fine.

Completely agree with Tinstaafl, bring back the 152 with a Rotax up front and a six pack of steam instruments, it would be an excellent training aircraft. Agree with the comments on electric trim as well, one gets a certain feedback with the mechanical trim wheel that a push button cannot replicate.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The economics of building an aeroplane are that, with perhaps the exception of the engine, there's virtually no difference in the cost of building a C152 and a C172. They are about the same, shape, materials, and most importantly number of parts. Take the back seats, seatbelts, etc. out of the C172 and you'll probably break even.

The real economics are in running costs - and a huge part of that is fuel burn.

Let's say you buy a new aeroplane at say £120k (class and type irrelevant) and amortise that on a 10 year loan - with some interest, say £15k.pa.


Now fly it about 200 hours per year, with the major running cost being fuel.

C172: say 35 litres/hr at £2/litre of AVGAS, that's £14k.pa
C152: say 25 litres/hr at £2/litre of AVGAS, that's £10k.pa
C42: say 20 litres/hr at £1.40/litre of MOGAS, that's £5.6k.pa

And all of that saving really comes down to two things - the aeroplane weight, which with current technology be roughly proportional to the fuel burn, and the tax regime of the fuel it's burning.

Now put it up to school useage of 500hrs.pa, and the purchase cost of the aeroplane is relatively irrelevant - it's all massively dominated by fuel.


Comparing these three aeroplanes again - well the load on the structure is directly proportional to the weight. And so the (very rough numbers) 1 tonne C172 needs to have twice the amount of structure as the half tonne C42. So it needs half the amount of structure in the undercarriage, and half the amount of structure in the wing. The C152 is about halfway between.

So to anybody who is used to the appearance of the Cessnas, the C42 looks flimsy and under-engineered. In reality, it's designed to virtually identical structural requirements as the other two aeroplanes, and thus just about as easy, or difficult, to break. Because those requirements are phrased in terms of g-loadings.

But that low weight (and apparent flimsiness) is what keeps the running costs low.

In that light, the Skycatcher would have offered significant advantages over both the C172 and C152, including economic ones. But, not as great as the advantage of a C42 which is lighter again and runs on MOGAS. That the C42 is 2/3 the price to buy is another bonus, but when you analyse it, a relatively small one.

G

[Silvaire1]

Completely agree with Tinstaafl, bring back the 152 with a Rotax up front

The Rotax conversion already exists for the Cessna but needs a Hoffman constant speed propeller to make enough power for climb, and in combination with the engine itself would be an expensive package.

Typically small displacement engines making the same rated power as larger displacement engines have a narrower rpm range over which they make that power. In an automotive context that means you use the gearbox more, and in the context of a heavy aircraft with a fixed pitch propeller, it means that it won't climb because the engine rpm is loaded down below the power band at best climb speed. The solution (other than a bigger, torquier engine with a wider rpm power band) is a constant speed prop that I think many would consider unsuitable for a basic trainer.

Auto leaning fuel injection and self contained electronic ignition would improve the 152s Lycoming fuel economy in a training role, where manual leaning is not typically used. I think that would be a better overall solution.

So to anybody who is used to the appearance of the Cessnas, the C42 looks flimsy and under-engineered. In reality, it's designed to virtually identical structural requirements as the other two aeroplanes, and thus just about as easy, or difficult, to break. Because those requirements are phrased in terms of g-loadings.

The issue with light weight construction is that not all stresses on an aircraft are generated by g-loads. They can also get broken being pushed around the hangar or when people are climbing in and out. Training aircraft do not operate in a laboratory environment.

I learned this lesson running design studies and building experimental hardware for Army customers. They tend to take your carefully designed structure, matched perfectly to its theoretical loads, and run it into a tree! And they need it to work afterward.

[The Fenland Flyer]

Recently a PA28 share owner thinking of converting to microlights was at Chatteris. He had a sit in our school aircraft and liked it. When he got out he slammed the door shut hard, the door didn't shut so he brought it out further and slammed it down really hard. The door still didn't shut so he brought it out very far to give it an extremely hard slam.

Luckily I was able to stop him in time, the seat belt was caught in the door, that's the only reason it didn't shut. If that's the way Cessna and Piper pilots treat their aircraft then no wonder they have to be built like tanks, I honestly wouldn't treat my car like that and certainly not an aircraft of any type.

It is no problem to teach students to treat the aircraft with a bit of respect from the start, most microlight instructors own the aircraft they train on so will get the students to treat them with at least a small amount of care from the beginning.