Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: EGHP
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stone age airplanes
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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
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
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
"........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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna doesnt build engines?
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...
Strange...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Skycatcher.. even though it is far from a technological triumph
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: north
Age: 50
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I´m a bit confused as far as, can you use a LSA for PPL(A) training in EASA land?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 162
Hi guys. Anyone knows what aircraft group is cessna 162 skycatcher?
I would like to build my hours on this aircraft in us but not sure if hours build on that aircraft will be counted towards my cpl requirements. I know that in us this aircraft is light sport aircraft. Could you help please?i
I would like to build my hours on this aircraft in us but not sure if hours build on that aircraft will be counted towards my cpl requirements. I know that in us this aircraft is light sport aircraft. Could you help please?i
Is there a flying and certified one in your area? Where?Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't say I like the sky catcher name,
pace
Hi guys. Anyone knows what aircraft group is cessna 162 skycatcher?
I would like to build my hours on this aircraft in us but not sure if hours build on that aircraft will be counted towards my cpl requirements. I know that in us this aircraft is light sport aircraft. Could you help please?i
I would like to build my hours on this aircraft in us but not sure if hours build on that aircraft will be counted towards my cpl requirements. I know that in us this aircraft is light sport aircraft. Could you help please?i
So the hours will count towards your CPL.
LSA is an airworthiness category, it has no impact upon pilot licencing.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 7th Mar 2014 at 17:09. Reason: Added a bit. Then came back and corrected a spelling mistake.
