Skycatcher

Jim Logajan said:
Only sold 20 so far?? That's a far cry from the number of deposits they took when they first announced it.

Compared to other LSA vendors who have done better, yeah, Cessna doesn't know how to produce and sell into the LSA market.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right. Hell there are 3 within 25 miles of me, right now.
 
ja_user said:
That doesn't sound right. Hell there are 3 within 25 miles of me, right now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that doesn't sound right. I think he meant only the most recent fiscal or calendar year, which would make more sense since this AOPA story in March said they only sold 7 in 2013 as of the date that was published:

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/March/14/Cessna-162-slows-to-nearly-a-halt-prompting-questions

2011: 168
2012: 19
2013: 20 to date

Cessna still owned 92 of the 276 registered to date (per the AOPA March article.)
 
Always was a overpriced under-performer
 
Yeah, I don't get it either.

As I recall, the reason behind Cessna coming out with this aircraft was that they were Cessna - so many of the LSA aircraft were made by someone you had never heard of, and that might not be around for very long. Cessna was going to build the planes and they were going to be wildly popular because it was made by a long standing aircraft company who was going to be around for a long time to come.

I was at Oshkosh when they debuted it and were taking pre-orders. They got quite a few the first day - several hundred? I remember that they had a great big lighted sign that showed how many had gotten ordered, and that they updated with each new order.

There was initially a lot of enthusiasm for the SkyCatcher, but I think a lot of the glitter ran off when they decided to produce it in China.
 
KRyan said:
, but I think a lot of the glitter ran off when they decided to produce it in China.
Click to expand...

+1

Those people can't even make childrens toys, or clothes properly and I'm going to trust their airframe lol

Anything that has "made in china" on it is disposable and not dependible IMO.

It was a sad day when I heard cessna will be making the new 208s in china, what a horrible thing to do to a nice airframe :no:
 
Cessna discovered what piper did . They can't compete in the lsa market. Can't provide a quality aircraft for the money,too many other LSAs out there.
 
ChitDisturber said:
+1

Those people can't even make childrens toys, or clothes properly and I'm going to trust their airframe lol

Anything that has "made in china" on it is disposable and not dependible IMO.

It was a sad day when I heard cessna will be making the new 208s in china, what a horrible thing to do to a nice airframe :no:
Click to expand...


Wow!
Talk about a repeat of the '50's (although then, the country referenced was "Japan")
 
Vans sold every factory-built RV12 they made in one day. Cessna is doing something violently wrong.
 
I think at $109K it was a pretty attractive airplane, especially for flight schools and Cessna Flight Centers. Not at $150K.

What killed this plane before it got started was the braindead decision to use the O-200D engine. Installed weight is 201lb, versus installed weight of a Rotax 912S/ULS of about 135lb. I know they did it to appease the old-school bias toward simpler all air-cooled engines, but in the LSA world you can't just leave 60 or more pounds of useful load on the table and walk away from it.

I think a Rotax-powered Skycatcher with a 540-560lb useful load could have been a contender against the CT, especially with the Cessna pedigree and dealer/service network behind it. It is a nice airplane, and people that have flown it seem to really like the handling. I'm sad that Cessna so misread the LSA market and thus we lose yet another potentially great aircraft model as a result.
 
bullwinkle said:
What killed this plane before it got started was the braindead decision to use the O-200D engine.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I've heard a couple guys say the best thing about the Skycatcher is that it has a "real" engine.

I've flown a Skycatcher, and it's a Hoot! Jumps off the runway and climbs better than any C-150/152 ever thought.
I found the quality pretty good for such a light airframe.

Biggest detractor is price. They sold a bunch of them at first, then the price jumped up. Suprise, suprise- sales went down.
 
Nothing wrong with the engine, unless you put it in a plane limited to 1320lb. The Rotax weighs 65lb less installed. Even a Jabiru 3300 weighs 23lb less installed. That is just too much weight to leave on the table in an LSA.

If it leaps off the runway now, think of how it would be with 65lb less weight to drag and the same horsepower. My CTSW gets 1300fpm with just me and gas in it...even without a "real" engine. ;)
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
Interesting. I've heard a couple guys say the best thing about the Skycatcher is that it has a "real" engine.

I've flown a Skycatcher, and it's a Hoot! Jumps off the runway and climbs better than any C-150/152 ever thought.
I found the quality pretty good for such a light airframe.

Biggest detractor is price. They sold a bunch of them at first, then the price jumped up. Suprise, suprise- sales went down.
Click to expand...

+1 I'm happy when I'm behind a engine that has a pedigree I trust.

As for the 150/2 vs the 162, as a flight school guy, there is no comparison. For what I can get a 150 for Vs a 162, it's just s better business decision, plus having a long track record of performance, I know what I'm looking at with the airframe down the road.

Also you can't spin a 162, that sucks.
 
oldShar said:
Wow!
Talk about a repeat of the '50's (although then, the country referenced was "Japan")
Click to expand...

Not my fault they don't build quality!

I'll buy German, English, US, Japan, etc.

First concern is quality, you build quality I'm a customer, you don't and I'm not.

Most things I have bought from china suck, I also don't like supporting that country for a few reasons which I won't get into here.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Only sold 20 so far?? That's a far cry from the number of deposits they took when they first announced it.
Click to expand...

The reporter was confused. They sold 20 after the 33% price hike and the collapse of the order book. Lots of people chose to cancel. They sold 270+ before that in just three years and were aiming to overhaul Flight Design's CT by 2014, when the whole thing came crashing to the ground after Jack Pelton was kicked out.

A small company could've made it work, but Cessna is just too big. It's like expecting Bombardier to make an LSA. It just can't happen. Imagine you're a manager cog in the Cessna machine. You can work on Scoprion or you can work on Skycatcher. What's better for your career?
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
Cessna discovered what piper did . They can't compete in the lsa market. Can't provide a quality aircraft for the money,too many other LSAs out there.
Click to expand...

Yes, this.

I've been flying Skycatchers and PiperSports for the last little while. From the hip, through 120 hour pp-asel eyes:

PiperSport:
pros: has an autopilot, no mixture to worry about
cons: feels twitchy and short coupled, gearbox seems like unnecessary complexity

162:
pros: real engine + direct drive + bigger prop feels better, flies nicely
cons: seems to wallow in roll, feels like it's made out of recycled jiffy pop pans, G300 + SV is overkill. Odd design decisions, it seems. Johnson bar flaps, but electric trim? If they wanted to make it cheaper, why not go for a 6 pack and manual trim?

If I were buying an LSA and not renting one, though, neither is attractive. Flight Design or Pipistrel look interesting, though.
 
GeorgeC said:
162:
pros: real engine
Click to expand...
:nonod:

I've been flying airplanes with O-200-As for almost fifty years. That history led me to buy a new airplane six years ago with a new, 2007-build O-200-A.

After my experience with that engine and what passes for "quality control" these days, "real engine" are not the words that come to mind. Unless you put another adjective in the middle, one that is not suitable for a family website.

:mad2:
 
KRyan said:
Yeah, I don't get it either.

As I recall, the reason behind Cessna coming out with this aircraft was that they were Cessna - so many of the LSA aircraft were made by someone you had never heard of, and that might not be around for very long. Cessna was going to build the planes and they were going to be wildly popular because it was made by a long standing aircraft company who was going to be around for a long time to come.

I was at Oshkosh when they debuted it and were taking pre-orders. They got quite a few the first day - several hundred? I remember that they had a great big lighted sign that showed how many had gotten ordered, and that they updated with each new order.

There was initially a lot of enthusiasm for the SkyCatcher, but I think a lot of the glitter ran off when they decided to produce it in China.
Click to expand...

100% correct. When I last saw the sign it was over 800.
 
Pilawt said:
:nonod:

I've been flying airplanes with O-200-As for almost fifty years. That history led me to buy a new airplane six years ago with a new, 2007-build O-200-A.

After my experience with that engine and what passes for "quality control" these days, "real engine" are not the words that come to mind. Unless you put another adjective in the middle, one that is not suitable for a family website.

:mad2:
Click to expand...

I recall your plight. :(
 
steingar said:
Vans sold every factory-built RV12 they made in one day. Cessna is doing something violently wrong.
Click to expand...


Wrong. They sold every one they built in an hour. Demand on the RV-12 kits are through the roof! Lead times are out 10+ weeks over normal!
 
bullwinkle said:
I think at $109K it was a pretty attractive airplane, especially for flight schools and Cessna Flight Centers. Not at $150K.

What killed this plane before it got started was the braindead decision to use the O-200D engine. Installed weight is 201lb, versus installed weight of a Rotax 912S/ULS of about 135lb. I know they did it to appease the old-school bias toward simpler all air-cooled engines, but in the LSA world you can't just leave 60 or more pounds of useful load on the table and walk away from it.

I think a Rotax-powered Skycatcher with a 540-560lb useful load could have been a contender against the CT, especially with the Cessna pedigree and dealer/service network behind it. It is a nice airplane, and people that have flown it seem to really like the handling. I'm sad that Cessna so misread the LSA market and thus we lose yet another potentially great aircraft model as a result.
Click to expand...

110% Correct. Brain dead idea to change the wing and use the 0-200. They had a nice gull wing design at first. :yes:
 
Last edited:
GeorgeC said:
Yes, this.

I've been flying Skycatchers and PiperSports for the last little while. From the hip, through 120 hour pp-asel eyes:

PiperSport:
pros: has an autopilot, no mixture to worry about
cons: feels twitchy and short coupled, gearbox seems like unnecessary complexity

162:
pros: real engine + direct drive + bigger prop feels better, flies nicely
cons: seems to wallow in roll, feels like it's made out of recycled jiffy pop pans, G300 + SV is overkill. Odd design decisions, it seems. Johnson bar flaps, but electric trim? If they wanted to make it cheaper, why not go for a 6 pack and manual trim?

If I were buying an LSA and not renting one, though, neither is attractive. Flight Design or Pipistrel look interesting, though.
Click to expand...

Six packs are the past, glass is the present and future. Electric trim is likely the cheaper method to trim if it's an 'electric only' system. Manual trim requires more expensive cables and hardware as well as more time and effort to rig correctly, electric can be "plug and play".
 
Henning said:
Electric trim is likely the cheaper method to trim if it's an 'electric only' system. Manual trim requires more expensive cables and hardware as well as more time and effort to rig correctly, electric can be "plug and play".
Click to expand...
Cheaper maybe; more importantly it's lighter. LSA designers have to be on a "hunt and destroy" mission for every ounce of weight. Even CubCrafters uses electric-only trim.
 
Pilawt said:
:nonod:

I've been flying airplanes with O-200-As for almost fifty years. That history led me to buy a new airplane six years ago with a new, 2007-build O-200-A.

After my experience with that engine and what passes for "quality control" these days, "real engine" are not the words that come to mind. Unless you put another adjective in the middle, one that is not suitable for a family website.

:mad2:
Click to expand...


I think you would be impressed with the Rotax 912S. It is an amazing engine built for years of trouble free service. I have 10 years and over 1200 hours flying them. Not one ounce of problem.
 
Ive got maybe 10 hours in the Skycatcher (plus or minus), and I have to say that I really like the "stoke." It gives you the feeling of holding a stick, which I much prefer, but it doesn't take up that space between your legs. It feels totally unnatural on the ground, but once you're in the air, it's great. I'd love to see it on future airplanes.
 
Pilawt said:
After my experience with that engine and what passes for "quality control" these days, "real engine" are not the words that come to mind. Unless you put another adjective in the middle, one that is not suitable for a family website.
Click to expand...

This is sounds interesting. I hope Lycoming's IO-233-LSA is better.
 
jpower said:
Ive got maybe 10 hours in the Skycatcher (plus or minus), and I have to say that I really like the "stoke." It gives you the feeling of holding a stick, which I much prefer, but it doesn't take up that space between your legs. It feels totally unnatural on the ground, but once you're in the air, it's great. I'd love to see it on future airplanes.
Click to expand...

You can find it on past airplanes like the Avion Robyn 2160.
 
Geico266 said:
I think you would be impressed with the Rotax 912S. It is an amazing engine built for years of trouble free service. I have 10 years and over 1200 hours flying them. Not one ounce of problem.
Click to expand...

I must admit that the idea of a 912 iS running on 4gph of mogas, irrespective of ethanol content, has a certain appeal.
 
GeorgeC said:
I must admit that the idea of a 912 iS running on 4gph of mogas, irrespective of ethanol content, has a certain appeal.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's as reliable an engine as anything else out there is pretty nice, too.

It was a ridiculous decisions to choose a heavier, gas-guzzling engine in an LSA. Sheer stupidity. One of the nicest thing about LSA is that you're not stuck with engines that haven't changed since the 1940s. In an LSA, you can actually make believe that aviation has advanced to the 21st Century.

As for them not being "real" engines, Rotax engines are among the best powerplants made. I trust them with my life on a regular basis. Most A&P's and repair shops simply don't want to have to learn a new engine and stock parts for it. They don't want to support it, so they bad mouth it in the hope that it'll go away. That's really all it comes down to.

-Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top