Cessna 162 Comparables? Useful Load? LSA now or later?

I have a CTLS..it is a great little plane. As mentioned, per seat limit is 260lbs. I haven’t flown a skycatcher, but from hearing from people who’ve flown both, the CTLS is superior in handling and comfort. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
 
It doesn't take much for a plane to be more comfortable than a Skycatcher.

I still think it's a great little plane though; just not $149,000-worth of great.
 
It doesn't take much for a plane to be more comfortable than a Skycatcher.

I still think it's a great little plane though; just not $149,000-worth of great.
$49,000 for parts and labor. $100,000 for S-LSA certification with faa.
 
I have a CTLS..it is a great little plane. As mentioned, per seat limit is 260lbs. I haven’t flown a skycatcher, but from hearing from people who’ve flown both, the CTLS is superior in handling and comfort. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
I am on a forum of just these planes. I have not saw one in person but I considered doing so as there is one for sale in FL. Maybe a CTSW? But I will be ok to start my weightloss journey again soon. I want the option of flying different planes. I am considering trying a different flight school now, so possibly I wasted $400 on this training program.

I would really like something more hands on, even if I have to pay more for the ground school. But the times I did fly, I felt very rushed, the person before me or after me caused pressure. I want my training to be focused for me and not have the sessions sitting on top of each other. I need a little more structure. So, once I figure out this piece, and lose at least 30lbs, I'd be happy to check out this plane!
 
Curious as to whether you tried a new school yet and what LSA they rent?

Was the CFI a sport CFI or just a lower weight regular CFI? I assume they were young.

My gut tells me you are looking for an older pilot, maybe retired from their real job, that added the Sport CFI to their regular ticket. Someone who loves flying and wants to share that vs. headed to the airlines.

My $0.02 on a slightly stale thread.
 
Curious as to whether you tried a new school yet and what LSA they rent?

Was the CFI a sport CFI or just a lower weight regular CFI? I assume they were young.

My gut tells me you are looking for an older pilot, maybe retired from their real job, that added the Sport CFI to their regular ticket. Someone who loves flying and wants to share that vs. headed to the airlines.

My $0.02 on a slightly stale thread.
Well, my CFI is retired from the Navy. I did actually go flying with him a week ago. I haven't changed flight schools. He was just light weight so it worked. I really like him. I had to take a break away from flying and intend to go back more intensely in Oct. But, I'm going to ask for a better time slot and explain my needs better, I guess. That may be helpful. I don't think his intent was bad and I considered staying in Orlando for a month to do the accelerated program down there. I really would rather do it here. I am toggling between which would be better to learn as I've been told both planes are different.

I guess to answer, your question, I am still figuring it all out.
 
I’m doing my PPL training in a Skycatcher and really enjoy it. It’s a lot of fun to fly once you get the hang of it, the only downsides being the wind sensitivity and the weight limits. You also can’t beat the rental price compared to the 172.

I’m also planning to buy a plane after I finish my training and really cannot find a reason to talk myself out of a 162. It fits my mission of short solo VFR flights. Also I just don’t see many other options where you can get a modern plane (say less than 10 years old), under 1500 hours TT, and with a dual screen glass cocokpit for around $50k. Maybe I’m missing something here, but seems like a pretty good deal to me too.

Good luck in whatever you decide. Would love to hear some feedback once you get started.
 
I’m doing my PPL training in a Skycatcher and really enjoy it. It’s a lot of fun to fly once you get the hang of it, the only downsides being the wind sensitivity and the weight limits. You also can’t beat the rental price compared to the 172.

I’m also planning to buy a plane after I finish my training and really cannot find a reason to talk myself out of a 162. It fits my mission of short solo VFR flights. Also I just don’t see many other options where you can get a modern plane (say less than 10 years old), under 1500 hours TT, and with a dual screen glass cocokpit for around $50k. Maybe I’m missing something here, but seems like a pretty good deal to me too.

Good luck in whatever you decide. Would love to hear some feedback once you get started.
Why do you want a dual screen glass cockpit for short solo vfr flights?
 
Why do you want a dual screen glass cockpit for short solo vfr flights?
I guess I'm just into the technology. I like having as much information available as possible. My experience is limited, but I find the dual screen seems to improve my situational awareness on the short cross countries compared to the flights I've done in 172s with steam gauges. I'm fine with flying using steam gauges, but I find the modern presentation of the G300 much more appealing.
 
I guess I'm just into the technology. I like having as much information available as possible. My experience is limited, but I find the dual screen seems to improve my situational awareness on the short cross countries compared to the flights I've done in 172s with steam gauges. I'm fine with flying using steam gauges, but I find the modern presentation of the G300 much more appealing.
Yeah, I just don’t get it. But that’s ok.

I’d rather be looking outside. Now if I could have dual g3x in my mooney for IFR, that would be nice.
 
I’ve been flying a 162 a lot with my mooney getting an engine overhaul. Its got lots of space for 2 and no baggage, and it’s cool in the Florida summer. It’s simple and cheap to run.

But it seems like a terrible trainer. It’s not easy to land well at all. It’s easy to land, but hard to land well. Very touchy. And it hates gusty winds of any speed. Doesn’t really mind steady winds even crosswind.

Im lucky to have something to fly while my plane is down, but I’m not buying one.
 
I’ve been flying a 162 a lot with my mooney getting an engine overhaul. Its got lots of space for 2 and no baggage, and it’s cool in the Florida summer. It’s simple and cheap to run.

But it seems like a terrible trainer. It’s not easy to land well at all. It’s easy to land, but hard to land well. Very touchy. And it hates gusty winds of any speed. Doesn’t really mind steady winds even crosswind.

Im lucky to have something to fly while my plane is down, but I’m not buying one.
Totally agree with your analysis. The 162 is quite difficult to land consistently on centerline and pretty squirrely on takeoff with any gusts as well. Taxing with the castering nose wheel takes some practice too.

I have about 15 hours in the 162 and 5 in the 172 and my landings have been better in the 172. I actually prefer the 162 for maneuvers though. Stalls and steep turns are amazingly easy to execute, but that may be a product of my having more time in it. I'm just hoping that training on the 162 will make me a better pilot since it's harder to get the hang of.
 
Totally agree with your analysis. The 162 is quite difficult to land consistently on centerline and pretty squirrely on takeoff with any gusts as well. Taxing with the castering nose wheel takes some practice too.

I have about 15 hours in the 162 and 5 in the 172 and my landings have been better in the 172. I actually prefer the 162 for maneuvers though. Stalls and steep turns are amazingly easy to execute, but that may be a product of my having more time in it. I'm just hoping that training on the 162 will make me a better pilot since it's harder to get the hang of.
Oh yeah, I forgot about taxiing. It taxi's like a bent 50 year old shopping cart with 3 wheels, and one wheel has shot bearings.

You will fly everything else better after flying the 162. The mooney seems so easy to fly (stick and rudder-wise, not complexity wise) after I do a few landings in the 162.
 
Yeah, I just don’t get it. But that’s ok.

I’d rather be looking outside. Now if I could have dual g3x in my mooney for IFR, that would be nice.
I flew Skycatchers almost exclusively for two years before BasicMed went into effect. I feel that the glass cockpit is a net safety enhancement even for VFR. After I got the BasicMed done, I got checked out on the G1000, and my observation is that the G300 is much less complex, and as a result, I think the tendency for eyes-outside time to be neglected is less pronounced with the G300.
 
Totally agree with your analysis. The 162 is quite difficult to land consistently on centerline and pretty squirrely on takeoff with any gusts as well. Taxing with the castering nose wheel takes some practice too.

I have about 15 hours in the 162 and 5 in the 172 and my landings have been better in the 172. I actually prefer the 162 for maneuvers though. Stalls and steep turns are amazingly easy to execute, but that may be a product of my having more time in it. I'm just hoping that training on the 162 will make me a better pilot since it's harder to get the hang of.
I didn't have any trouble landing the 162 on centerline, but I definitely had trouble taxiing at first. However, after I started flying it exclusively, that problem went away. I think I was letting the castering nose wheel spook me, because after a while, it seemed like I could taxi it as easily as any other airplane. I think I was failing to take into account that it doesn't take much airflow over the tail to provide rudder authority, and that misconception was causing me to rely too heavily on differential braking for steering. Also, I had previously gotten in the habit of using a lot of differential braking when taxiing 172s because they don't seem to have adequate nose wheel steering authority.

There's one pitfall of the 162 that I found out the hard way: When you turn on cabin heat, you have be sure and notice the color of the heat control, because the size and shape are the same as the fuel shutoff knob, and the two knobs are close together. :redface:
 
Back
Top