Cessna 162 low price?

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,198
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
I have been interested at looking for an aircraft to own, i would like a 4 seater however i have looked at the 162's. Several on controller are well below 100k more in the 70k range +-. Why did these little airplanes stop being manufactured and why are the listing prices so cheap for a new plane? Anything to be concerned with?
 
Ryanb said:
Why did these little airplanes stop being manufactured
Click to expand...
Because nobody wants them.

and why are the listing prices so cheap for a new plane?
Click to expand...
Because nobody wants them.

Anything to be concerned with?
Click to expand...
They are rather fragile compared to the Standard certified options of the same capabilities, you can't put anything of any weight behind the seats, the limited pitch authority is annoying on short/soft field operations, the lateral stick control is bizarre, and probably a bunch of other things I'd know if I'd flown one more than once.
 
Ron Levy said:
Because nobody wants them.

Because nobody wants them.

They are rather fragile compared to the Standard certified options of the same capabilities, you can't put anything of any weight behind the seats, the limited pitch authority is annoying on short/soft field operations, the lateral stick control is bizarre, and probably a bunch of other things I'd know if I'd flown one more than once.
Click to expand...

How are they different than the Remos?
Walking by them on the ramp, they sorta look the same
 
Short story- Cessna was losing money at the introductory price, raised the price 30%, and no one would buy them at the new price. Relatively low useful load compared to Americans expanding waistline meant limited market as a training aircraft.

Cessna attempted to move the C162 to the primary category to escape the LSA weight restriction but encountered problems with the FAA and cancelled the move.

I own a C162 and don't lose any sleep over the fact that production has stopped. So far Cessna has supported the aircraft well. One nice option with an S-LSA is that the owner can convert to an E-LSA just with some paper work submitted to the FAA.

I really enjoy the aircraft and the G300 suite. I have taken long trips in the C162 and enjoyed those also. As far as LSA's are concerned, the C162 is the best value in the used market.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
How are they different than the Remos?
Walking by them on the ramp, they sorta look the same
Click to expand...

I've never seen a Remos to compare, but I looked over a 162 and was not impressed by fit and finish nor design detail. It struck me as a cheap amateur built plane where all the finish details are missing and raw edges are sticking out all over the place just waiting to scrape off a knuckle.
 
Henning said:
I've never seen a Remos to compare, but I looked over a 162 and was not impressed by fit and finish nor design detail. It struck me as a cheap amateur built plane where all the finish details are missing and raw edges are sticking out all over the place just waiting to scrape off a knuckle.
Click to expand...


Remos:

83008635.jpg
 
warthog1984 said:
1) Heavy-ass engine after Rotax backlash

2) fragile even compared to other LSAs

3) Chinese production

4) $$$$$
Click to expand...

Because the 162 flycatcher is a crappy plane.

If you have 70k to burn get a PA18, or a 7ECA and a bunch of avgas.
Or get a lancair or glasair if you want a trike
 
I've flown the Skycatcher, and really enjoyed it. But then, I've never flown an airplane I didn't enjoy.

Cessna had hundreds of orders for the 162 when the price was just over $100,000 or so.
When they raised the price to $150,000, hundreds of orders got cancelled.

Bottom line, they priced themselves out of the market, after proving a market exists for the airplane.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
I've flown the Skycatcher, and really enjoyed it. But then, I've never flown an airplane I didn't enjoy.

Cessna had hundreds of orders for the 162 when the price was just over $100,000 or so.
When they raised the price to $150,000, hundreds of orders got cancelled.

Bottom line, they priced themselves out of the market, after proving a market exists for the airplane.
Click to expand...

The 162 did not meet the quality standards people expected from Cessna either.
 
I've got a 100 hours in a 162. I wouldn't buy one at $70k. Get it down to $40k and I'd consider it. I don't have a problem renting one to punch holes in the sky. The useful load is so low it's basically solo only. Reliability has been an issue with the one I rent relative to the number of hours it flys. It just doesn't feel like it can take the beating students are gonna give it and last like a 150 or 152. That said, it's fun flying plane. I think of it as a 152 with some extra power and a touchier elevator. The G300 is really nice (the one I rent has PFD only). The seat starts to get uncomfortable at about 3 hours. I've done up to about 7 hours in a day and it'll wear you out (noise level even with ANR, seat padding, and low wing loading on a summer day).
 
The 162 is not a great load carrier,can't carry full fuel with two people aboard. Flys OK. Not all that nice in finish.wouldnt compare it to the Remos.
 
EXAMPLE:
MAULE MXT-7-180 tri gear or MX-7-180B conventional
Up to 1000 lb useful load....
Fun to fly, easy to own.

Mike5250 said:
A lot of options for 70k that can hold 4 people with a few hours of fuel.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I fly a Skycatcher and I'm not really bothered by any of the quibbles people seem to be having here. The fit and finish isn't spectacular, but it's not horrible, at least in the ones I fly. I would never ever buy one, because I'd much rather get a more capable older airplane for half the cost or less. That being said, if it fits your mission, it fits your mission and you shouldn't worry about the naysayers.

Also the stoke is fantastic. I wish all planes had it.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
How are they different than the Remos?
Walking by them on the ramp, they sorta look the same
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the useful load is:

650 lbs - 2010 Remos GX stripper before LTE
631 lbs - real W+B chart on N28GX (no BRS)
615 lbs - 2011 Remos GX book with BRS

aaaaaand....

481 lbs - 2012 book
426 lbs - real W+B chart on N60020

Interestingly enough, Ron Levy complained above that 162 are "more fragile than certified". Meanwhile, New Mexico Sport Aviation ran a fleet of Remos GX for years preparing SP/RP/PP. Heck they just had another checkride and solo yesterday. The only structural issue they ever encountered was a popping rear window early on their first Remos. And you can see that Remos is much lighter than 162. The heavy weight of the 162 was there to make it tough to begin with. But did it?

P.S. Okay Remos is a plastic plane and it's very expensive (about the same as 162 after the price hike). But Tecnam P-92 is a all-metal, it's a staple of fligth schools all over Europe, and yet N137LM (which I flew in Watsonville, CA) lifts 590 lbs.
 
Last edited:
jpower said:
I fly a Skycatcher and I'm not really bothered by any of the quibbles people seem to be having here. The fit and finish isn't spectacular, but it's not horrible, at least in the ones I fly. I would never ever buy one, because I'd much rather get a more capable older airplane for half the cost or less. That being said, if it fits your mission, it fits your mission and you shouldn't worry about the naysayers.

Also the stoke is fantastic. I wish all planes had it.
Click to expand...

The Robyn 2160 had it as well, I thought it was just fine.
 
Ron Levy said:
They are rather fragile compared to the Standard certified options of the same capabilities, you can't put anything of any weight behind the seats, the limited pitch authority is annoying on short/soft field operations, the lateral stick control is bizarre, and probably a bunch of other things I'd know if I'd flown one more than once.
Click to expand...

So...you really like the airplane? :D
 
zaitcev said:
Yeah, but the useful load is:

650 lbs - 2010 Remos GX stripper before LTE
631 lbs - real W+B chart on N28GX (no BRS)
615 lbs - 2011 Remos GX book with BRS

aaaaaand....

481 lbs - 2012 book
426 lbs - real W+B chart on N60020
Click to expand...

Peter's got it right. The primary failing of Cessna with this airplane, IMO, was the selection of a heavy powerplant, leading to pitiful useful load. As in you can't fill both seats with normal adults and still put fuel in it sufficient to perform *any* mission. Not to mention the O-200D burns about 20% more fuel in cruise than a Rotax 912ULS (~6gph vs ~5gph).

The exact same airplane with a Rotax 912ULS would have ~500lb useful load based on the above 426lb real world W&B number. That's two 200lb adults and 16+ gallons of fuel -- two hours plus over an hour reserve. Not best in class, but at least useful.

In comparison my CTSW has a real world W&B useful load of 585lb. I can take myself, a 200lb friend, 40lb of baggage, and 26 gallons of fuel, enough for 480nm legs with 45 minute reserves.

The 162 might be a decent airplane, a lot of people who have flown them seem to like them. But they just aren't useful enough for people to spend what they cost on them. Honestly, you can get more speed and utility out of a Sonex for around half the price.
 
I'm completely baffled by the O-200 choice, it made no sense. An O-235 would have at least made sense even if it would still have been the wrong choice. It should have been built for either the 912 or 914 Rotax.
 
Henning said:
I'm completely baffled by the O-200 choice, it made no sense. An O-235 would have at least made sense even if it would still have been the wrong choice. It should have been built for either the 912 or 914 Rotax.
Click to expand...

They seem to have bowed to the "The only decent airplane engines come from TCM or Lycoming...I'll never fly behind a snowmobile engine!" crowd.

Cessna had a really big opportunity to break with old school thinking a bit and be innovative, but took a pass and went with the "safe" option. It did not work out for them.
 
bullwinkle said:
They seem to have bowed to the "The only decent airplane engines come from TCM or Lycoming...I'll never fly behind a snowmobile engine!" crowd.

Cessna had a really big opportunity to break with old school thinking a bit and be innovative, but took a pass and went with the "safe" option. It did not work out for them.
Click to expand...

The mistake was appeasing a market that wasn't going to buy it anyway.
 
bullwinkle said:
Honestly, you can get more speed and utility out of a Sonex for around half the price.
Click to expand...

Probably true for many owners and I wanted to buy a Sonex real bad. You can have a decent one for $33k with some 150 hours on AeroVee. It's a heck of airplane. However, it turned out that I just plain cannot fit into Sonex, period. I seriously tried, but I can only fly it sitting on center.

Most importantly, you can't teach in Sonex without a LoDA from your local FSDO.
 
I really like the Skycatcher for what it is. I think the stoke is a great innovation and the plane is very responsive particularly on its lateral axis. It's a blast to fly and the G300 suite is solid.

That said, I'd rather rent it from the local FBO for $89 an hour than purchase one. Its mission is so limited. It is really a one-place aircraft if you're using it for transport and even then, it will barely compete with a 160hp C172 in cruise. But boy does she climb! On a low DA day with a max performance take-off she'll get close to a 1000 fpm climb rate.

Me, I'd rather have a 4-place for the same money. But it's all about your mission. If it's just you flying, it may work just fine.

Happy landings!
 
Henning said:
I'm completely baffled by the O-200 choice, it made no sense. An O-235 would have at least made sense even if it would still have been the wrong choice. It should have been built for either the 912 or 914 Rotax.
Click to expand...

None of the Cessna service centers wanted their mechanics gone for a couple weeks training or to pay the 20-mumble thousand for Rotax tooling and spares.
 
labbadabba said:
I really like the Skycatcher for what it is. I think the stoke is a great innovation and the plane is very responsive particularly on its lateral axis. It's a blast to fly and the G300 suite is solid.

That said, I'd rather rent it from the local FBO for $89 an hour than purchase one. Its mission is so limited. It is really a one-place aircraft if you're using it for transport and even then, it will barely compete with a 160hp C172 in cruise. But boy does she climb! On a low DA day with a max performance take-off she'll get close to a 1000 fpm climb rate.

Me, I'd rather have a 4-place for the same money. But it's all about your mission. If it's just you flying, it may work just fine.

Happy landings!
Click to expand...

The Stoke is not an innovation, it just isn't frequently used.
 
Old Geek said:
None of the Cessna service centers wanted their mechanics gone for a couple weeks training or to pay the 20-mumble thousand for Rotax tooling and spares.
Click to expand...

Well, that was pretty 'penny wise and pound foolish' wasn't it? They cheaped themselves right out of the market and their investment.
 
Old Geek said:
None of the Cessna service centers wanted their mechanics gone for a couple weeks training or to pay the 20-mumble thousand for Rotax tooling and spares.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "tooling and spares" you mean...the Rotax uses a generic metric toolset, mostly allen wrenches, socket wrenches, crescent wrenches. Very few Rotax-specific tools are required, and I bet any A&P already has 99% of what would be needed.

As for spares, you can order most anything you need from Lockwood or CPS and have it shipped to you in a few days, sooner if you pay for overnight shipping. I bet you could keep less than $2000 in parts like oil filters and hose clamps on hand and never have a client complain.
 
bullwinkle said:
I'm not sure what "tooling and spares" you mean...the Rotax uses a generic metric toolset, mostly allen wrenches, socket wrenches, crescent wrenches. Very few Rotax-specific tools are required, and I bet any A&P already has 99% of what would be needed.

As for spares, you can order most anything you need from Lockwood or CPS and have it shipped to you in a few days, sooner if you pay for overnight shipping. I bet you could keep less than $2000 in parts like oil filters and hose clamps on hand and never have a client complain.
Click to expand...

I've heard that the special tools you need to do what Rotax calls "heavy Maintenance" are about 20k.
 
bullwinkle said:
I'm not sure what "tooling and spares" you mean...the Rotax uses a generic metric toolset, mostly allen wrenches, socket wrenches, crescent wrenches. Very few Rotax-specific tools are required, and I bet any A&P already has 99% of what would be needed.

As for spares, you can order most anything you need from Lockwood or CPS and have it shipped to you in a few days, sooner if you pay for overnight shipping. I bet you could keep less than $2000 in parts like oil filters and hose clamps on hand and never have a client complain.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many aircraft shops have metric sets.
 
bullwinkle said:
They seem to have bowed to the "The only decent airplane engines come from TCM or Lycoming...I'll never fly behind a snowmobile engine!" crowd...
Click to expand...

I suppose you could look at it that way but I recall when Cessna was making these decisions and although the Rotax proponents were making these sorts of claims I didn't see it as being so simple. I'll admit that my own experience with Rotax is limited, doing maintenance on a 914 powered Diamond HK36 but I see them as a bit overly complex and somewhat difficult to work on, at least compared to an O-200. So personally at least I don't see the choice as a slam dunk for Rotax, they certainly do come with their own set of issues.
 
Old Geek said:
I've heard that the special tools you need to do what Rotax calls "heavy Maintenance" are about 20k.
Click to expand...

Rotax heavy maintenance involves cracking open the case. There is exactly one shop in the USA authorized by Rotax to do that -- Lockwood Aviation. That is outside the scope of field maintenance on a Rotax 912; there are not going to be "field overhauls" done on one of these engines.

The maintenance department of a flight school or A&P shop is not going to be doing this, so that large expense won't apply.
 
Henning said:
You have the you're shaft come out of the panel, but rather than a yoke on it, it just has a vertical handle on the end to rotate or pull.
Click to expand...
Doesn't rotate on the FlySkycatcher -- moves side to side, and I found that a very weird feeling to which I felt no adaptation developing in half an hour of flying the plane. By contrast, I found I adapted to the Cirrus side-stick almost immediately (same for the side-stick in the F-16 in my three flights in that type). FWIW, I have a lot of experience with all sorts of sticks and yokes, and this was the only one I've tried that did not feel at all natural in any way even in the short time I had with it.
 
Last edited:
Never knew much about them, besides i liked the avionics suite and the price of a new aircraft. Thanks for the insight!
 
Ron Levy said:
Doesn't rotate on the FlySkycatcher -- moves side to side, and I found that a very weird feeling to which I felt no adaptation developing in half an hour of flying the plane. By contrast, I found I adapted to the Cirrus side-stick almost immediately (same for the side-stick in the F-16 in my three flights in that type). FWIW, I have a lot of experience with all sorts of sticks and yokes, and this was the only one I've tried that did not feel at all natural in any way even in the short time I had with it.
Click to expand...

And I had the exact opposite experience. Sure, it felt really weird on the ground, but the second I was in the air it felt as natural as could be. It's a personal thing, I guess.
 
No problems with the stoke here, either.

One year later, the 162 still checks the "bore holes in the sky economically" box for me as a weekend warrior renter. Not sure I'd want to own one, though. I agree that the seats get uncomfortable after about three hours. I maintain that the G300 is overkill.

In the short term, for the solo/day VFR/hamburger run type mission, I too am finding the Sonex interesting in terms of minimizing cost of acquisition, operation, maintenance, and perhaps most importantly, cost of regulatory compliance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top