Can a Skycatcher be a good time-builder?

Salty said:
far superior
Click to expand...
I guess it depends what someone wants to do with a plane. The 152 is certified utility and can do (some) aerobatic flight and has (if I recall correctly) a greater useful load. Plus there are thousands of them out there and it's a well know plane and frame

But horses for courses
 
Tantalum said:
I guess it depends what someone wants to do with a plane. The 152 is certified utility and can do (some) aerobatic flight and has (if I recall correctly) a greater useful load. Plus there are thousands of them out there and it's a well know plane and frame

But horses for courses
Click to expand...

True about utility on some 152's. 162 is a much more comfortable plane. With another guy in a 152, I have to sit sideways with my arm in the back not to sweat all over them. In the 162, I get good airflow, and I'm 6" away from the guy on the other side. It climbs way better than a stock 152 also. If you like glass panel, then of course the 162 crushes the 152 there, the G300 is a very feature rich panel, but frankly, that doesn't impress me in that sort of plane.

I felt just like you did before I flew it for awhile and realized most of the bad things were just talk, not coming from experience with the plane.
 
Salty said:
162 is a much more comfortable plane
Click to expand...
True.. comfort is a big part of it, especially when you're bringing people up. How do you find it compares to the Mooney on comfort?
 
I have no definite source, but have heard also that Cessna is orphaning them. Hard to get LOA, etc. They also have one of the lowest usable weights of the LSA's. If you want a good time builder, look at an RV12. Great on gas, will probably be a good market for it when you want to sell. Might not be for the Sky Catcher.
 
Other than shoulder room, what will a Skycatcher do for you that a 150/152 or Cherokee 140 won’t at a fraction of the purchase price?
 
Salty said:
I've flown a lot in both. The 162 is far superior to the 152. The price is the only thing worse.
Click to expand...
And the useful load. And comfort.

Otherwise I agree with you.
 
ateamer said:
Other than shoulder room, what will a Skycatcher do for you that a 150/152 or Cherokee 140 won’t at a fraction of the purchase price?
Click to expand...
The 152s that I fly won't cruise at 110 knots. (Don't know about the 140s.)
 
Tantalum said:
True.. comfort is a big part of it, especially when you're bringing people up. How do you find it compares to the Mooney on comfort?
Click to expand...
It's much roomier than the Mooney, but the seats are made for short flights. After 1.5 hrs I'm ready to stretch my back. But it's rare you fly it for that long. The big reason I fly it a lot in the summer in Florida is that it's soooo much cooler than any other plane with a closed cockpit. When it's really warm it still climbs well at gross weight and isn't unpleasant to do pattern work in. I hated pattern work in the 152 in the summer.
 
Oh, and I can fly the 162 until I'm bored and barely notice the fill-up, but same is true of the 152.
 
I'm considering doing a long cross country and overnight with the 162 just to see how far I can go in it in a day without suffering too much.
 
Salty said:
I'm considering doing a long cross country and overnight with the 162 just to see how far I can go in it in a day without suffering too much.
Click to expand...

For me the seats never looked very comfortable, but did seem roomier then a 150. Subjective view.
 
Actually, I started sitting an office chair cushion and I can go a lot longer now. Still doesn't have great back support though.
 
Tantalum said:
It's an awful plane. Flimsy, feels very cheaply built.
Click to expand...

Not a huge fan, but it did not strike me as either awful or cheaply built.

Cessna scrapping them really rubbed me the wrong way. That one going into the compactor looked to have gear legs and wheels that could have been salvaged. What a shame.
 
FastEddieB said:
Cessna scrapping them really rubbed me the wrong way. That one going into the compactor looked to have gear legs and wheels that could have been salvaged. What a shame.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you guys on this. At the very least that lowered the value of all the ones they already sold. Just look at the attitudes it spawned by those posting on this thread as proof.
 
ateamer said:
Other than shoulder room, what will a Skycatcher do for you that a 150/152 or Cherokee 140 won’t at a fraction of the purchase price?
Click to expand...
It may not matter to most, but LSA.
 
Flyxaos said:
It may not matter to most, but LSA.
Click to expand...
True, you can fly it with a drivers license and no medical. Can't a 152.

Are there some 150's light enough to meet the rules?
 
FastEddieB said:
Cessna
Click to expand...
At the risk of thread drift (it wouldn't be PoA without it), I think Cessna's corporate actions are a big part of the reason I have such a visceral reaction to Skyhawks. Cessna, er, Textron, has done just about everything but give the GA community a literal middle finger

They eliminated the competition from Beech and have let the Bonanza and Baron slowly die on the vine out there, blamed the market (instead of their own failed sales/marketing strategy) over the TTx, and kept the 172 line open basically to satiate the needs of flight schools. In fact, Cessna, as a (piston) GA entity, really only exists to serve the flight schools. When the Bo and Baron lines eventually close they'll again blame the market. Hard to believe the Cessna of today is the same as the Cessna that was cranking out the family planes up until the 1980s

The SkyCourier and the Denali (basically knockoffs of existing designs, PC-12 and Twin Otter) and the corporate market is all they are interested in serving

I get it, people want to make money, but you also want to feel like there's passion in what you do and your original "fanbase". If Toyota really only cared about sales/money they'd only offer the Prius and Corolla.. but they realize that there are people out there who like to offroad/race hence the TRD line stays alive. In the same light, Piper could shutter everything but the PA-28, but they don't

Speaking of, I give mad props to Piper.. they never "sold out" and still offer an honest range of products to the GA pilot. I'm in the minority, but I actually liked their jet design.. it was like a baby DC-10.. there was something utilitarian about it that I liked.

Mooney's issues were management related, and that's a topic for a whole other thread

But honestly, Cessna's treatment of the GA piston world is offensive, and the Skycatcher thing is a reminder of that

As a tribute:
upload_2020-6-10_16-53-5.png
^imho parts of this plane are sexier than the SF50
 
Salty said:
I'm considering doing a long cross country and overnight with the 162 just to see how far I can go in it in a day without suffering too much.
Click to expand...
Could be a cool YouTube opportunity there.. reminds of the people who sail long distances and small (but apparently somewhat comfortable) boats.
 
Tantalum said:
At the risk of thread drift (it wouldn't be PoA without it), I think Cessna's corporate actions are a big part of the reason I have such a visceral reaction to Skyhawks. Cessna, er, Textron, has done just about everything but give the GA community a literal middle finger

They eliminated the competition from Beech and have let the Bonanza and Baron slowly die on the vine out there, blamed the market (instead of their own failed sales/marketing strategy) over the TTx, and kept the 172 line open basically to satiate the needs of flight schools. In fact, Cessna, as a (piston) GA entity, really only exists to serve the flight schools. When the Bo and Baron lines eventually close they'll again blame the market. Hard to believe the Cessna of today is the same as the Cessna that was cranking out the family planes up until the 1980s

The SkyCourier and the Denali (basically knockoffs of existing designs, PC-12 and Twin Otter) and the corporate market is all they are interested in serving

I get it, people want to make money, but you also want to feel like there's passion in what you do and your original "fanbase". If Toyota really only cared about sales/money they'd only offer the Prius and Corolla.. but they realize that there are people out there who like to offroad/race hence the TRD line stays alive. In the same light, Piper could shutter everything but the PA-28, but they don't

Speaking of, I give mad props to Piper.. they never "sold out" and still offer an honest range of products to the GA pilot. I'm in the minority, but I actually liked their jet design.. it was like a baby DC-10.. there was something utilitarian about it that I liked.

Mooney's issues were management related, and that's a topic for a whole other thread

But honestly, Cessna's treatment of the GA piston world is offensive, and the Skycatcher thing is a reminder of that

As a tribute:
View attachment 86552
^imho parts of this plane are sexier than the SF50
Click to expand...
Once a company has been bought by 6 bigger companies in succession, things like "fanbase" are less than meaningless to management.
 
Salty said:
Once a company has been bought by 6 bigger companies in succession, things like "fanbase" are less than meaningless to management.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself, "is this good for the company?"
upload_2020-6-10_17-17-59.png
 
Salty said:
I'm considering doing a long cross country and overnight with the 162 just to see how far I can go in it in a day without suffering too much.
Click to expand...
500nm is a long day in the 162.
 
Tantalum said:
A personal favorite of mine. Would love to have one. Two doors, wings in the right spot, really fun to spin.. FANTASTIC little airplane

In addition to a TBM, Cirrus, Aerostar, Navion, Ercoupe, Tantalum's dream hangar when money no longer is an object will have a Tomahawk as well

https://www.aopa.org/community/flying-clubs/flying-club-newsletter/2015/may/17/aircraft-spotlight
View attachment 86546
Click to expand...

They have a cult like following... I call it Tomahawk Dementia Syndrome... I too suffer from it.. :eek:

Not my plane, but if it ever cam up for sale

https://www.piperflyer.org/piper-mo...B83nUPQqKK9qbvKHbz3jOWiWLm4VDBtJcGZcXV-bRzrgI
 
GeorgeC said:
500nm is a long day in the 162.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t sound long to me.

That’s what? Assuming about 100 kts, about two 2 1/2 hour legs? I’ve done that easily in a C150, in a Citabria, and more recently in my Sky Arrow.

That assumes someone is reasonably comfortable, and actually enjoys flying!
 
FastEddieB said:
Doesn’t sound long to me.

That’s what? Assuming about 100 kts, about two 2 1/2 hour legs? I’ve done that easily in a C150, in a Citabria, and more recently in my Sky Arrow.

That assumes someone is reasonably comfortable, and actually enjoys flying!
Click to expand...
Eddie, I agree. I recently flew round trip from Santa Rosa, CA (KSTS) to Sedona, AZ (KSEZ) via Lancaster, CA (KWJF) for a photo shoot with Jack Fleetwood (633 nm each way) over a long weekend in my Zodiac and I was comfortable, not fatigued, and had a great time. It wasn't a long day to me.
 
Salty said:
I’ve put 170 hours on a 162 in the last three years just putting around, even with a Mooney as my main plane. It’s so cheap and easy to keep running, I fly it when I don’t want to go somewhere fast, and when flying with people that want to sightsee or take the controls. Average about 4.5 gallons per hour.

it’s pretty comfortable for shortish flights and cheap to fly. I’ve landed in much worse than 12 knot crosswinds. I fly it in just about anything, but it is a handful when it’s gusty out. I find that fun. :D
Click to expand...
I have some time in a 162. Decent, simple airplane, with A modern Panel. That itself stops many of the issues you can find on an older airplane.

quicker than a comparable 150, and IMHO, more comfortable. Crosswinds are not easy, but can be handled well enough on two notches, instead of full. It’s not a family trickster, it’s not Mooney fast, but fast enough in my opinion, especially for a first plane.

as always, it depends on what you intend the mission to be.
 
Don’t care what anyone says, I still like the 152... :)
 
Ryanb said:
Don’t care what anyone says, I still like the 152... :)
Click to expand...
IF you can find one that isn’t ragged out. That extra horsepower makes a big difference. Buddy flew a 150 last week with a pax. Barely made 300 ft per minute on a hot morning. Same morning I was getting 750 at gross in the cruiser with a pax.
 
Witmo said:
I'm biased in that I have hundreds of hours in 150s and no time in a 162. It sounds like the skycatcher has many of the limitations of a 150 like a small cabin and limited useful load and even some more like poor spin characteristics and a really light wing loading. Seems to me there are better LSAs out there for the bucks if LSA is important. You won't beat the 150 for acquisition cost or maintenance. I've seen 150s with Garmin 530s so avionics are whatever you want to spend. I wouldn't recommend either for instrument training, although many have used 150s to get the rating, It's just that neither is what I'd call a stable instrument platform or have the legs required to really use it for IFR cross country in the real world. I'd pass on the 162.
Click to expand...

Actually the cabin is huge. Esp compared to a C150
 
You gotta try it and see.

I didn't like it, especially the wind indentation that forms over the engine cowling when flying it. I also don't like manual flaps. There was a story about doors flying off in flight. After 10 hours I went back to the 152 mainly because the useful load wasn't enough for myself, my CFI and full tanks, and someone was always topping off the tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top