Cessna 162 ?

Mister Mystery Man

Mister Mystery Man

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
26
Location
Crossville, TN (Home of Trade-A-Plane)
Display Name
Display name:
Mister Mystery Man
I was just wondering what the consensus is on the Chinese Cessna? How’s it fly?

From what I can see the 152 was a lot more airplane with more horsepower, more load and you even got a two-handed yoke. And all for considerably less that $150,000.
 
Mister Mystery Man said:
I was just wondering what the consensus is on the Chinese Cessna? How’s it fly?

From what I can see the 152 was a lot more airplane with more horsepower, more load and you even got a two-handed yoke. And all for considerably less that $150,000.
Click to expand...

All true, all true. But you also need a Class 3 medical and other stuff according to the FAA. Plus, you don't get that New Airplane Smell.
 
I haven't flown one so cannot comment on flying qualities. I think trying to meet the weight limit restrictions required building the airplane very light, which means Cessna had to cut out some of the nicer things, like insulation, etc. I think the Skycatcher is faster than a C-152. There are a lot of threads/opinions around if you do a search for them.
 
the 162 is a two people and half fuel plane, just like the 150 and 152. the 162 climbs faster and cruises faster. I enjoyed my flight in one.
 
Mister Mystery Man said:
I was just wondering what the consensus is on the Chinese Cessna? How’s it fly?

From what I can see the 152 was a lot more airplane with more horsepower, more load and you even got a two-handed yoke. And all for considerably less that $150,000.
Click to expand...


Haven't flown it, did have a close look at one, built and designed like crap.
 
tonycondon said:
the 162 is a two people and half fuel plane, just like the 150 and 152.
Click to expand...


152 can carry two 170lb adults, full fuel, and 25 pounds of stuff.

That is a calculation for our club's 1978 152's. 6 pack, single nav/com radio, mode c xpondr, no wheel pants.

Fortunately for me (I weight 135lbs and my #1 traveling passenger is 105 lbs) I never run into W&B issues in the 152.

Our fleet of 4 152's are always kept topped off and basically if you and the instructor can fit, you can fly. Of course there are exceptions, but if you are both well north of 170 lbs you are gonna have some trouble squeezing in there...
 
Last edited:
well i'm not a 170 lb adult and neither was my CFI.
 
Mister Mystery Man said:
I was just wondering what the consensus is on the Chinese Cessna? How’s it fly?

From what I can see the 152 was a lot more airplane with more horsepower, more load and you even got a two-handed yoke. And all for considerably less that $150,000.
Click to expand...


Considering that you can pick up a nice 152 for around 20 grand the only reason I can see to get the skycatcher is for the LSA, if you just want a new airplane, or if you are a busy flight school and need newer equipment.
 
I'm exceedingly happy with my Flight Design CTSW. Two 170 pound adults, 33 gallons of mogas and 60 pounds of baggage. Fuel burn is about 4.5 gallons an hour at 105 knots or about 2 gallons an hour in the pattern.

Tell my why I'd rather have a Flycatcher.
 
Old Geek said:
I'm exceedingly happy with my Flight Design CTSW. Two 170 pound adults, 33 gallons of mogas and 60 pounds of baggage. Fuel burn is about 4.5 gallons an hour at 105 knots or about 2 gallons an hour in the pattern.

Tell my why I'd rather have a Flycatcher.
Click to expand...


Have not heard "flycatcher" before, but I did hear someone call it a groundcatcher after one crashed.

Those are good numbers. The 152 I fly is 25gal mogas, 105kts on 5.5gph. The way I fly it for training and 100 buck burgers, more like 95 on 4gph
 
What if it were built in the USA, would that make a difference? "
Cessna said Monday work on the two-seat light sport aircraft will be moved from Yingling to the Cessna plant in Independence.
Cessna spokeswoman Diane White says Cessna wants to integrate the Skycatcher with its other single-engine airplanes in Independence."
 
deltafox said:
What if it were built in the USA, would that make a difference? "
Cessna said Monday work on the two-seat light sport aircraft will be moved from Yingling to the Cessna plant in Independence.
Cessna spokeswoman Diane White says Cessna wants to integrate the Skycatcher with its other single-engine airplanes in Independence."
Click to expand...

Hopefully what will happen is some senior guys on the line will say "Wait, we can't deliver a product like this, this is the dog's breakfast with all these unfinished edges." Then there were the door hinges, FMD no wonder the doors fly off them. Model airplanes hanging from kids' ceilings have more substantial hinges with better fastening.
 
i'd wager definitely no worse than any other LSA
 
fgcason said:
Unavailable however probably $200,000 if it was.

I wonder how the 162 will fare after being banged around for 30+ years and thousands of hours by students.
Click to expand...


From what I saw of the metalwork, they will not last that long. These are not built like 152s, not at all. These are built in a disposable fashion. I'm not really against this, but they should be priced as such, not priced as a durable good.
 
deltafox said:
What if it were built in the USA, would that make a difference? "
Cessna said Monday work on the two-seat light sport aircraft will be moved from Yingling to the Cessna plant in Independence.
Cessna spokeswoman Diane White says Cessna wants to integrate the Skycatcher with its other single-engine airplanes in Independence."
Click to expand...

Oh really? Is Cessna going to raise the price by > $50,000? Because that's how much more they said it would cost if they made it here.
 
they said they are moving assembly to Independence, not manufacturing.
 
Depends on your mission... for a trainer and $100-hamburger flights, it's OK. But for cross-country, especially with a pax/luggage, not so much. If you want a LSA, for medical reasons, pickup a used CT... you can get one with 200-300 hours for $85K. Lot's of room, speedy, sporty, and good load/distance capabilities.
 
It flies pretty well, but the stick movement is downright weird. No doubt if you learn in it, it won't bother you, and if you fly it enough you'll get get to it, but when you just jump in, it's weird. The so-called baggage area is so lightly built I'd be afraid to put anything more than jackets back there. Performance is very good compared to a 150/152, but the limited elevator travel creates problems fir soft field operations -- you're gonna beat the nose wheel strut and supporting structure pretty hard.

That's my take based on half an hour in the Flycatcher.
 
DavidWhite said:
Not near as well as a Cherokee or skyhawk.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect it would.
Years ago I watched a 152 slam into the ground, and I mean SLAM into the ground, bounce, slam into the ground again, stroll off into the weeds at just under flying speed, hopped a ditch, banged to a stop. It didn't hurt the plane at all. I'm just not seeing the 162 taking that kind of abuse without falling apart considering that the doors simply fall off in flight on their own and comments like Ron being afraid to put more than a couple coats in the baggage area.
 
fgcason said:
Years ago I watched a 152 slam into the ground, and I mean SLAM into the ground, bounce, slam into the ground again, stroll off into the weeds at just under flying speed, hopped a ditch, banged to a stop. It didn't hurt the plane at all.
Click to expand...
You're describing half of my landings in the Sport Cub! :redface:


(the other half are not quite that good.)
 
Last edited:
deltafox said:
What if it were built in the USA, would that make a difference? "
Cessna said Monday work on the two-seat light sport aircraft will be moved from Yingling to the Cessna plant in Independence.
Cessna spokeswoman Diane White says Cessna wants to integrate the Skycatcher with its other single-engine airplanes in Independence."
Click to expand...

This quote is easy to misinterpret, especially if you read "yingling" as a Chinese city. In fact, it's the company that previously assembled the 162 in Wichita, but now Cessna will be doing it in Independence. So, no manufacturing is coming back from China.

As far as the plane goes, I've been checked out in one at my FBO, and I liked it, but it's the only LSA I've flown. I won't fly it regularly as I prefer a more traditional 172, but the 162 does perform very well. I don't mine the sparse cockpit for training, but it would not be comfortable for cross countries. I'm not a fan of the stick, though, but I'm sure that will come with time. It's very different than the sticks in a Diamond or the side-sticks in a Corvallis.
 
fgcason said:
I wouldn't expect it would.
Years ago I watched a 152 slam into the ground, and I mean SLAM into the ground, bounce, slam into the ground again, stroll off into the weeds at just under flying speed, hopped a ditch, banged to a stop. It didn't hurt the plane at all. I'm just not seeing the 162 taking that kind of abuse without falling apart considering that the doors simply fall off in flight on their own and comments like Ron being afraid to put more than a couple coats in the baggage area.
Click to expand...


Lol, one of the first things I thought when I got close was, "damn, I could have broke this in training."
 
I own a C162. To me, it is a thing, a tax deduction, a personal mode of transportation, but I feel the need to reply to some of the comments.

The doors will open in flight only if not latched properly. Secondary latches are now installed per Cessna SB in an effort to making securing the doors idiot proof.

The cargo are will hold up to 50 lbs. The floor of the cargo bay is thin gauge so you can't slam things around, but I've hauled golf clubs and luggage with no problems.

The C162 easily out performs a C150 and most other LSA's. I normally cruise at 115 kts TAS. Climb rate is over 1000 fpm and I've had it pegged at 2000 fpm several times.

I've been on several long xcntry trips and I find the Skycatcher as comfortable as any other small plane I've been in and it has more shoulder room than C172.

I've flown 5 different LSA's and the Skycatcher has been the easiest to land.

Will it take 30 years of abuse like the C150 or PA28? I doubt it, but then again I doubt any LSA will. In any event, none of my criteria for owning an airplane is to have an airplane that will outlast me.
 
Last edited:
Mister Mystery Man said:
From what I can see the 152 was a lot more airplane with more horsepower, more load and you even got a two-handed yoke. And all for considerably less that $150,000.
Click to expand...
The useful load on a 162 is about what 150 was, thanks to the gross weight increase of 152:
150M: 489 lbs book, 472 lbs for N2966V
152: 589 lbs book
162: 490 lbs book
Note, however, that 162 burns about 25-30% less fuel, so its payload when fueled to the same endurance is much better than 150, possibly even better than 152.

By the way, 162 is heavy for an LSA, owning to that lump-of-iron engine and pudgy aluminum construction (which Cessna fans prefer to call "robust"). A decent LSA is close to carrying its own weight, e.g. more than 660 lbs useable. The N28GX that I rent has 650 lbs useful load. It would be 615 with a chute.

P.S. I hear quite a bit of grumbling how Cessna's Chinese product gives decent LSAs a bad name. Our own Jessie is a vehement opponent of LSAs in part thanks to 162 (although he claims having looked at a number of them). On the flipside it takes Cessna's might to impart the idea of training LSA into crusty brains of aviation professionals. Without Cessna's "success" we'd still have solitary enthusiasts running one-man schools on Evektors (which actually seem to be doing just fine in schools).
 
Last edited:
The big problem with LSA's in general is that they are just to light and don't hold up. No way can you make a durable airplane and keep the gross under 1320 pounds. Why, I bet bunches of the Champs, Cubs, Luscombes, etc. that were built in the 1940's aren't even close to airworthy anymore - after only 60 years.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The big problem with LSA's in general is that they are just to light and don't hold up. No way can you make a durable airplane and keep the gross under 1320 pounds.
Click to expand...

My CTSW is doing just fine after 5 years. Nobody knows if it will make 50 years. But then I'll be dead and gone long before then.
 
I seem to recall seeing a whole lot of Chinese aircraft doing aerobatics at OSH last time I was there.

All I know is that my C162 is averaging 35 revenue hours a month while the C150 on the same line that goes for $20 an hour less averages 10 hours per month.
 
vintage cessna said:
All I know is that my C162 is averaging 35 revenue hours a month while the C150 on the same line that goes for $20 an hour less averages 10 hours per month.
Click to expand...

In general; pretty shiny always sells in america even if it's a POS that 10th world junk makers would be ashamed of. Old 25 year old proven durable nearly crashproof airplane, forgetaboutit.
 
fgcason said:
In general; pretty shiny always sells in america even if it's a POS that 10th world junk makers would be ashamed of. Old 25 year old proven durable nearly crashproof airplane, forgetaboutit.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that logic.
 
vintage cessna said:
The C162 easily out performs a C150 and most other LSA's. I normally cruise at 115 kts TAS. Climb rate is over 1000 fpm and I've had it pegged at 2000 fpm several times.
Click to expand...

with a 10knt thermal like that! Turn off the engine and SOAR!!
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The big problem with LSA's in general is that they are just to light and don't hold up. No way can you make a durable airplane and keep the gross under 1320 pounds. Why, I bet bunches of the Champs, Cubs, Luscombes, etc. that were built in the 1940's aren't even close to airworthy anymore - after only 60 years.
Click to expand...


Right, I looked at a 162 and thought, "This would be a really good $25,000 airplane." The door hinges are a travesty and need a couple of grams added to them and their fasteners. Why it pops open is wholly irrelevant, it should not rip off when it happens (it will as a trainer, it's only a matter of when) and that hinge... I could tear that door off accidentally trying to catch myself in a fall.

Just like most CAR/FAR cert planes are dead at 60, most LSA accepted planes will likely be dead by 30 or before. Any plastic plane should at least have shade or very good UV covers and be kept well waxed.
 
Last edited:
For the 162 owner, Cessna put out some new SBs this week and last that the title of them is "corrosion inhibitors" and they're targeted at the 162.

I haven't read them (I just watch for stuff for my aircraft and didn't have time) but I assume it says something to the effect of, "don't use them" on the composites...

Which probably means, some dummy tried...
 
Thanks for the clarifications regarding the Chinese manufacturing vs. assembly.

The 162 is aluminum isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top