Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

On Jul 22, 4:42 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
its LSA entry:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/

Fancy brochu

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...ni_bro_web.pdf

Order form with pricing (for first 1000):

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...final_0721.pdf

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

The Tecnam Bravo is very comparable to the 162. It is all aluminum,
but it weighs 100 pounds less (which under LSA rules means it has 100
pounds more useful load) and it doesn't need wing struts. It also has
a base price of $95,000 rather than the $111,000 Cessna is going to
ask. The Flight Design CT weighs a full 170 pounds less, also does
away with the wing strut, has a wider cabin, and costs about the same
as the Tecnam. There are a number of other LSAs out there which
compare favorably to the Cessna and cost quite a bit less. I think if
a small, relatively unknown company had brought an airplane like the
162 to the market, there would have been a resounding thud. But
Cessna is to airplanes what IBM used to be to computers, and maybe
they can get away with charging a premium to get the name Cessna on
the side of the plane.

I think this situation is similar to the time when IBM introduced
their first personal computer. It legitimized the concept of the
personal computer. In the long run, though, IBM withdrew from the
manufacture of personal computers because they just could not compete
with the likes of Dell. Time will tell whether or not a large company
like Cessna can compete with the many smaller companies that have
entered the LSA market.

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.


You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)

On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil wrote:





On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
the competition.

On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.

: I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
: children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
: Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
: light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
: sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
: an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
: developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
: American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
: to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
: doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
: features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
: the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
: the competition.

I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine. Don't get me wrong... I like old-school
stuff and it's a great fit to a Cessna 140/150. For a brand-new aircraft though, it'd be nice to see
some newer technology for the engine. If not liquid-cooling (Rotax) or diesel, at *least* adequate
cooling fins to keep exhaust ports from cracking. Why not a Lycoming O-235 like in the 152?

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:01 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
:

I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine.

IIRC, the Cont O-200 has a TBO of 1,800 hours. Have you checked the
TBO on the Rotax?

wrote:

I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine. Don't get me wrong... I like old-school
stuff and it's a great fit to a Cessna 140/150. For a brand-new aircraft though, it'd be nice to see
some newer technology for the engine. If not liquid-cooling (Rotax) or diesel, at *least* adequate
cooling fins to keep exhaust ports from cracking. Why not a Lycoming O-235 like in the 152?

-Cory


Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

"Phil" wrote

On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

Because you can make the wing structure and mounting lighter.

I gotta wonder though; why is the dang thing so heavy? It is probably at least
75 pounds heavier than others of the class.

It is going to make full tanks with two people impossible to do and still be
legal, (and no luggage) unless they are really lightweights.

I will go out on a limb and say that Cessna had better put it on a diet, or it
will not sell as well as they would like.
--
Jim in NC

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil wrote:





On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck
with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
the competition.

On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.

You conveniently forgot to mention that it has a real engine that can be
fixed by any maintenance facility.