Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
 

Has anyone actually ordered one of these, or know a Flying Club that has done so?

Been looking for a replacement for my 1976 (10+gal/hr) Cherokee. I know we're in the LSA category here, but biggest concern with the Cessna centres on the useable weight..... all 490 lbs of it. Cessna reckon they will sell 70% to Flight Training Establishments / Flying Clubs. (With a salad-dodging instructor and student and a couple of flight bags that should leave enough fuel for 2 or 3 circuits!)

Would be interested to hear any first-hand info from real-world purchasers.

Never take my flight bag with me......another circuit anybody?

Seriously though - that's not much different to the available weight in some 152's / 150's that are already in use.

My usual ride MTOW 1670, empty 1206 giving a usable 464lbs.

Admit it's down on a cherrytree, but then you're giving up an extra seat as well.

I'm afraid you're going to have rather a long wait for real world purchasers, as I don't think that Cessna have actually started manufacturing them yet.

I believe that Wycombe Air Centre (who are a Cessna agent in the UK) have ten on order, although whether that's for private owners or school use I don't know.

Brooklands

Of all the LSAs available (and that must be over 80), the Cessna has the reputation and looks to be almost the most expensive.

If you're looking for an LSA it is probably one of the last to join the party and has nothing much going for it apart from the nameplate and a network of agents who don't seem to know much about customer service. Whilst many of the others don't have much of dealer network the majority can be serviced by most A&Ps with Rotax experience.

Start here and enjoy Listing of Special Light-Sport Aircraft

I believe the Skycatcher has now been released. Wycombe Air Centre is a Cessna Dealership and Agent in the UK. I believe they have between 10-15 on order from Cessna. When they will arrive I am not sure or when you can get them I am also unsure of. But they look really nice inside and out. Smart aircraft.

I hope they have stopped spinning and crashing....

The Cessna web site only says they "expect deliveries before the year's end". Another press release dated September says that the first unit using production tooling was test flown in China.

QUOTE "I hope they have stopped spinning and crashing...."

I wonder how long it will take to shake off the unofficial name of "Cessna Groundcatcher" as a result of it's dramatic test history...? Rather like the Riley Pathfinder which, as a result of it's interesting handling, became known as the Riley Ditchfinder.:E

I am sure that Cessna will deliver a product which will do what it says on the label. They are normally pretty conservative. They are also not going bust anytime soon.

Whether it will be any good compared to the competition, I have no idea.

It is very difficult to see who this is going to appeal to, at least in Europe. An avgas burner with low useful load?? Perhaps some flying schools, but they would seem to be running against the number of LSA certified machines coming from eastern Europe running Rotax 912s and burning a few litres of mogas an hour! If you are a private buyer why would you go for certified as opposed to permit?

Can you ICAO-PPL train in an LSA?

Also, despite the steep decline in the IMCR numbers in recent years, IMHO schools will not want to lose the capability to fly IFR. Instrument training is a pretty lucrative business if you can get some. Even though most instrument training is done in actual VFR, the moment an instructor pops into a cloud and the student writes about it on some pilot forum, the school is going to be worried.

I see the LSA route will appeal to most owners, but not all because, currently, officially, getting out of the UK is not exactly simple, and some of the people spending this kind of money will want some instrument capability.

Especially if the IMCR survives and/or EASA introduces something like it elsewhere.

Why couldnt they make it equipped for IMC, it wouldnt cost them that much

The Groundcatcher is certainly an interesting project.

The original prototype had a Rotax 912 in the nose but then the Americans said they would prefer something proudly built in the USofA hence a lightened weight non-modern O-200 was put in and 25-50lbs of useful load was instantly thrown in the woods.

Arguably it looked prettier after it met the desert nose on. I note that the spin-fix tail (dorsal fin etc) doesn't appear to be on the first 'production' kit flown in China - wonder what the final look will be at the back end. How many sales did Cessna lose out on when they announced the manufacturing was to be done 'off-shore'?

Ab-initios climbing into it (and that's a laugh in itself trying to do that) won't know any better but the stick moves very unnaturally from side to side - bit like a car heater slider control.

It will sell because it's a Cessna. Will it be the best two seater/LSA on the market? Nope...

To be fair, Rotax did not achieve an exactly spotless reliability record in the USA, and you just can't do that over there and get away with it. I am talking of perception - the actual reliability data for the present product may well differ. Or, may not differ if used in the training market...

Will this plane be better than a clapped out 1970 C150 or C152? Can it be worse?

I am not in the market myself, obviously, but how would a school see it?

Look at the ALPI Aviation Pioneer -300, various variants.

www.alpiaviation.com

I have one of the early 'cooking standard' models, low wing, like the Cherokee, 2 'normal' adults, overnight gear ( male ! ) 4 hrs fuel, retractable gear, variable prop. ( not CSU ) 130 kts.

The Tecnam range are good too, also the Czech SportCruiser, but the ALPI looks and flies like a ' real' aeroplane.

The SportCruiser might now be my choice, but it is built for the U.S. LSA market of 600 Kg AUW, so is a bit restricted in our NZ 544 Kg environment.

Trouble with the Microlight / Rotax market in NZ is that it is largely populated by the engineering 'enthusiast' market, whereas there are plenty of opportunities to get Cessna, Piper, Lycoming work done, so the Skycatcher might have an edge if you just want to fly the beast and not pull it apart yourself.

IO540
 

Some of us look after our C152's and prevent them from becoming "clapped out" with regular maintenance.

The problem is the average prospecteve pilot thinks that aviation is tightly regulated and that all aircraft are maintaned to a satisfactory standard.
This results in the market being totaly price driven in a downwards direction.

The C162 won't do very well because the market just wants to fly the cheapest aircraft it can get it's hands on regardless of ant other issues.

I don't have a problem with a market that is driven by price and thats the area that concerns me with the skycather. Ok you can save a few quid over the 150 cause its TBO is 2000 hours and it runs on MOGAS rather than AVGAS but I'm not convienced that offsets the 60 plus grand you have paid to buy the aircraft.

I really do hope that it is a success however as the present training fleet is too expensive to run. I'm also not convienced by most of the new "eastern european" stuff its too flimsy and so called designers don't seem to have any idea how to desin a training aircraft eg no toe brakes, wing storage panels WTF. At least on that front Cessna does at least have it right.

One thing Cessna didn't suss is that it's nice if you can see out - something that is certainly no better in the 162 than a 150/152.

At Oshkosh it was parked in front of a refurbished C150 and that fair towered over the 162...

Cessna may be banking on the replacement of the ageing C150/152 fleet, in the USA.

The purchase cost is less an issue than might appear, because a 30 year old plane has a massive operating cost, through airframe parts constantly going. One C150 I know about was costing the group £8000 on every Annual - that is 3 times what I pay on the TB20. With a new plane, you get some 10-15 years of very low "unscheuled maintenance" costs. This also translates to big benefits to a business operator - look how badly the Thielert downtime debacle has hit schools operating Diamonds. I know from my PPL training that planes going "tech" (the expression used when there is a bunch of people queuing up for a pleasure flight) are a major lesson cancellation factor.

The only way to operate the old metal profitably is to be a CAA LAME yourself, do your own maintenance, and regard the business profit as your salary for doing that job. Preferably, have more than one plane so you can buy stuff like gaskets in bulk, possibly from the USA.

The other way is to let it fall apart gradually, doing dodgy maintenance for as long as possible.

Will Cessna start to push up the price of spares further for 152?

I'm sort of in the market for a 152, but have been told the running costs are high, so think i will continue to lease an aircraft because i have no control over what maintenance want to charge.

I've seen so many aircraft belonging to private owners come back from maintenance with hugh bills, half expecting the aircraft to come back with new paint jobs and completly new sets of bolts, tyres, wheels, etc only to find simple things like undercarriages not lubricated and door catches smeared in grease to give the impression some work as been done.