Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
 

Introducing Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft – The Model 162 SkyCatcher, making aviation very, very personal


Cessna Aircraft's LSA is here, it's the Model 162 SkyCatcher. To make the dream of learning to fly more accessible and affordable to thousands of new pilots, the SkyCatcher is being formally introduced today at the Experimental Aircraft Association's Air Venture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Cessna has incorporated a number of innovative features in its LSA, making the SkyCatcher the finest aircraft in the category. The Model 162 SkyCatcher comes with the extensive customer support networks of Cessna Pilot Centers and Service Centers – all at an attractive price.

A few weeks ago, Cessna reaffirmed its commitment to general aviation by announcing the company will proceed with its LSA program. The SkyCatcher takes flight as Cessna celebrates 80 years of business this year.

We've said it before and now the SkyCatcher says it again – Cessna teaches the world to fly. This industry-leading LSA will drive down the cost of flying, and learning to fly, stimulating new pilot starts and encouraging already-licensed pilots to continue to fly because their passion is much more affordable.

Cessna is scheduling the first SkyCatcher deliveries for mid-2009. Visit the Cessna SkyCatcher website to learn how you can become one of the first to own this exciting new Cessna aircraft.

More info on http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/ !!

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag..._unveiling.jpg

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...r_interior.jpg

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...cher_panel.jpg

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...catcher_03.jpg

PRICE: $109,500 Applicable to units 0001 through 1000

Oh dear, I find myself quite liking it.

Now, with current exchange rates you could have a group of 20 operating a brand new aircraft for about £2,500 each, then £40 a month and £40 an hour should cover everything. Doesn't sound bad.

Oh no, I like a Cessna.

Why would the Americans these days make an aircraft that can carry just 160kg with full fuel? Seems a bit odd to me or is that to stay within whatever they define to be LSA?

Sticks! It's got sticks! Cessna, I didn't know you had it in you. :8 :D

Yeah, I'd have liked a left-hand throttle, though.

It's got sticks + cupholders!

Where do I sign?

Regards
Starbucks Lloyd

I can't say I like the skycatcher name, but I do like the interior, and the sticks:D

And an engine to save the planet - an O-200.......

It still has a carb for crying out loud. It's got a Stick-good, but where has it advanced GA in anyway.

The interior is awful as well.

Waste of time really. It looks like they've put at least 20 minutes thought into designing it......

Empty weight is 376.5kg
Useful load is 222kg
RofC is 890 fpm
Max S/L is only 118kn
Cruse at 77% (6000ft) is 112kn
Tank 90L
Range (as above) is 390 nm.

The numbers are on the poor side, so it will need the name if it is to sell in big numbers. Very nice to see a stick, shame the wing is in the wrong place…

Rod1

It seems to have a distinct lack of backup instruments - wonder where you'd put them with the 2 screens, not much real estate on there.

Are they really sticks or are they single horn yokes?

Backup steam may not be required. There are a number of factory micros and PFA VLA types flying with no steam at all. I have no idea if LSA rules require steam backup, but I would think not.

Rod1

New programs at Cessna seem to always start with straight back-fuselages first. Wonder when they will ad the late 150/172-style backwindows on this one.
Good they have a small single piston again.

This is obviously a 152 replacement, so the numbers are hardly likely to be exciting ... but - as big a Cessna fan as I undoubtedly am - to build a brand-new aeroplane and put a carb'd engine in it ... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Additionally, it appears to have stick-like protruberances emanating from the panel (unusual?) - not at all what one expects from Mr. Cessna's fine gentleman's aerial conveyances ... poor show .... :p

Yeah ... go tell it to the seagulls, Rod ... ;)

FF :ok:

nothing wrong with a carb'd engine. Good, reliable and low-cost, although from what I hear from a person in-the-know, the carb is actually a long way from low-cost. If they had 'automatic' carb heat at anything less than full throttle, it could work very well and be very economical.

Anyway, Cessna have never been renowned for moving the pace of GA along - they are the Fiesta of the skies, so it would be wrong to expect a glass space-ship with optional teleporting. Nice name too - Cessna Skyscratcher! :}

A

The new Cirrus LSA looks much better, has the wing in the right place and at 120kn cruse is ok compared with European VLA’s. It is based on a Euro VLA (German) and has the Rotax so if it can compete on price Cessna may have a problem.

Rod1

OK, so it has a glass cockpit and looks sleek...(even has a stick!!)

....but why oh why does it have a 1940s technology engine in it?

Why carb heat, why a 0-200 etc... where is the slight sipping rotax or even dare I say it......Jet-A1/diesel engine?

Until today they sold 400 of them.. not bad at all if you ask me!

What's wrong with Carb'd engines?

Efficiency is the main reason. Emissions control another. If carbs were the best solution, why have car and motorcycle manufacturers dumped them and gone to EFI?

There are very few applications where a carb is a better solution than fuel injection. Flying certainly isn't one of them.