Cessna 162 Skycatcher Crashes
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown a few hours in the Boomerang.
1. It has serious range issues.
2. The airspeed figures in the flight manual are wrong...wrong wrong wrong.
3. The braking system is inadequate.
4. The basic aircraft is too heavy.
5. Finish and workmanship is poor, very amatuerish to say the least.
6. The aircraft is overpriced
7. In the flare, rudder authority disappears as does available stick back pressure.
Overall....a waste of money and I wouldn't recommend the design to anyone. Shame....was really looking forward to flying an Australian designed trainer.
So far over the last 30-40 years, only one training design has come up to the mark. The Victa.
If you think you can't tell a Kiwi anything...try telling an Australian in the aviation manufacturing arena!!!!.
1. It has serious range issues.
2. The airspeed figures in the flight manual are wrong...wrong wrong wrong.
3. The braking system is inadequate.
4. The basic aircraft is too heavy.
5. Finish and workmanship is poor, very amatuerish to say the least.
6. The aircraft is overpriced
7. In the flare, rudder authority disappears as does available stick back pressure.
Overall....a waste of money and I wouldn't recommend the design to anyone. Shame....was really looking forward to flying an Australian designed trainer.
So far over the last 30-40 years, only one training design has come up to the mark. The Victa.
If you think you can't tell a Kiwi anything...try telling an Australian in the aviation manufacturing arena!!!!.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JABIRU? Again.....shouldn't be used as a trainer at all. Just a bit of weekend fun.
Not really a serious aeroplane.
Badly designed.
Badly constructed.
Cruddy ergonomics.
The list goes on.
Thats why the aircraft is not taken seriously by professional organisations...they've had their fingers burnt with it!!
Any other suggestions ladies?
Not really a serious aeroplane.
Badly designed.
Badly constructed.
Cruddy ergonomics.
The list goes on.
Thats why the aircraft is not taken seriously by professional organisations...they've had their fingers burnt with it!!
Any other suggestions ladies?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Badly designed.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether its composite or metal is irrelevant. Flown Grobs....love them. Flown SR-20s, love them. Flown a few Lancairs(NOT a training aircraft)....interesting!
Nope....all I'm saying is this. The Australian manufacturing scene in regards to training aircraft, has done nothing of any real note in 30 odd years. Why?
Nope....all I'm saying is this. The Australian manufacturing scene in regards to training aircraft, has done nothing of any real note in 30 odd years. Why?
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons eagle X went to Malaysia. Not an economically viable option in Australia. I also note that the Explorer 350 (although not a trainer) went to North America........ then dwindled into oblivion.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When ignorance is bliss! #2
Youth is such a dangerous thing. After I got my PPL at age 21 and for another five years, I flew Cessna 120s and 140s and often did spins (self-taught from reading; they weren't taught then) in them without giving it a thought. Talk about fun! Full back control wheel until the stall, then full rudder and the nose pointed down and spun like a top. Opposite full rudder (still full back control wheel) and the spin stopped, then ease the control wheel forward to fly out of the dive. I had and still have no idea whether those planes had any spin-vices. I (maybe luckily) never encountered any.
Groundcatcher...?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops. By gosh if the aircraft's parachute "deployed successfully" I'm bailing out next time based on what this looks like! Apparently the ballistic chute may have pulled it over onto its' back, however it certainly looks like it went in nose first!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Old Chatham, NY, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornfusion...a yankee term
Fascinating thread.
One thing I'm not sure about is the discrepancy in reports. Some websites including Aviation Week and others cited above say the pilot bailed out after his BRS chute failed. But I think that was the first crash...also from an unrecoverable spin last year.
Many reports say he rode the airplane down.
Meanwhile the Cessna design team had approached the problem by modifying and enlarging the tail on the first production prototype out of the Shenyang, China plant...but it still got into a spin. Here's an excerpt from Cessna's official release a couple days ago:
In the most recent incident on March 19, Pelton said the aircraft was undergoing a very aggressive spin test regime - power on and cross-controlled - when it entered a spin that was not immediately recoverable. This spin test was one of more than 500 flown to date using various combinations of center-of-gravity positions, power settings, flap settings and control inputs. The pilot deployed the airframe parachute in accordance with the flight test procedure and emerged from the aircraft unhurt after it touched down.Also, according to a local Kansas newspaper, the airplane was dragged by the wind until it hit the fence in the picture posted above. Strong winds are routine in Kansas, but it begs the question whether a quick release after impact would be advisable, if not already included on the BRS systems...I don't know for sure that they aren't but haven't heard of any such thing.
Ah, the wonders of cyberspace: here's something I just found, from AvWeb:
As was the case with the first Skycatcher prototype crash, an unrecoverable spin led to the loss of the second and last flying Cessna 162 last week. The second airplane had been fitted with a larger tail as a result of the first crash. And, as in the first crash, there were complications with the parachute recovery system that led to the aircraft being wrecked, according to preliminary report issued Tuesday by the NTSB. The report says the test pilot set up an unspecified "planned test condition" and the aircraft entered a "rapid and disorienting spin" from which the pilot couldn't recover. Unlike the previous accident, in which the ballistic parachute recovery system failed to deploy, the chute opened this time but caused further problems in the rest of the accident sequence.
According to the report, the parachute had been modified to be jettisoned by the pilot in flight. After the aircraft stabilized, the pilot tried several times to release the chute but couldn't. Possibly concerned that his actions would unpredictably cause the chute to release, he considered taking his chances with his personal parachute but had run out of altitude and elected to ride the airplane down instead of bailing out. Initially, damage to the airplane was limited mostly to the landing gear but because the pilot was unable to release the parachute on the ground, the wind caught it and the airplane was dragged more than half a mile until it caught in a fence. It ended up inverted and heavily damaged.
In hang gliding, we routinely carry a hook knife to cut away shroud lines should we ride the canopy into the water or trees, or just to cut loose from our harness in similar situations where we need to separate from our wings.
They cost about $10. Maybe someone should get one to Cessna's next SkyCatcher test pilot.
One thing I'm not sure about is the discrepancy in reports. Some websites including Aviation Week and others cited above say the pilot bailed out after his BRS chute failed. But I think that was the first crash...also from an unrecoverable spin last year.
Many reports say he rode the airplane down.
Meanwhile the Cessna design team had approached the problem by modifying and enlarging the tail on the first production prototype out of the Shenyang, China plant...but it still got into a spin. Here's an excerpt from Cessna's official release a couple days ago:
In the most recent incident on March 19, Pelton said the aircraft was undergoing a very aggressive spin test regime - power on and cross-controlled - when it entered a spin that was not immediately recoverable. This spin test was one of more than 500 flown to date using various combinations of center-of-gravity positions, power settings, flap settings and control inputs. The pilot deployed the airframe parachute in accordance with the flight test procedure and emerged from the aircraft unhurt after it touched down.Also, according to a local Kansas newspaper, the airplane was dragged by the wind until it hit the fence in the picture posted above. Strong winds are routine in Kansas, but it begs the question whether a quick release after impact would be advisable, if not already included on the BRS systems...I don't know for sure that they aren't but haven't heard of any such thing.
Ah, the wonders of cyberspace: here's something I just found, from AvWeb:
As was the case with the first Skycatcher prototype crash, an unrecoverable spin led to the loss of the second and last flying Cessna 162 last week. The second airplane had been fitted with a larger tail as a result of the first crash. And, as in the first crash, there were complications with the parachute recovery system that led to the aircraft being wrecked, according to preliminary report issued Tuesday by the NTSB. The report says the test pilot set up an unspecified "planned test condition" and the aircraft entered a "rapid and disorienting spin" from which the pilot couldn't recover. Unlike the previous accident, in which the ballistic parachute recovery system failed to deploy, the chute opened this time but caused further problems in the rest of the accident sequence.
According to the report, the parachute had been modified to be jettisoned by the pilot in flight. After the aircraft stabilized, the pilot tried several times to release the chute but couldn't. Possibly concerned that his actions would unpredictably cause the chute to release, he considered taking his chances with his personal parachute but had run out of altitude and elected to ride the airplane down instead of bailing out. Initially, damage to the airplane was limited mostly to the landing gear but because the pilot was unable to release the parachute on the ground, the wind caught it and the airplane was dragged more than half a mile until it caught in a fence. It ended up inverted and heavily damaged.
In hang gliding, we routinely carry a hook knife to cut away shroud lines should we ride the canopy into the water or trees, or just to cut loose from our harness in similar situations where we need to separate from our wings.
They cost about $10. Maybe someone should get one to Cessna's next SkyCatcher test pilot.
