Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license program added to the US
fleet?

The recreational license has been around for several years now and has had
no discernable effect. The jury is still out on the Sport Pilot license.

In rec.aviation.owning Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license program added to the US
fleet?

The recreational license has been around for several years now and has had
no discernable effect. The jury is still out on the Sport Pilot license.

That's because the Recreational license has no value other than
slightly reduced training costs.

The Sport Pilot license has training costs reduced further, cheaper
airplanes, both in purchase and operational costs, and no medical.

The initial batch flying Sport Pilot will be the blue hair set that
is still basically healthy, but can't, or is afraid they won't, pass
a medical, or could with waivers but don't want the hassle.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:34:58 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:

Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license program added to the US
fleet?

The recreational license has been around for several years now and has had
no discernable effect. The jury is still out on the Sport Pilot license.

The last time I checked, I think there were 183 people in the US
flying on recreational pilot privileges, and it declined each year.

(Many student pilots at schools got a recreational certificate en
route to their private certificate. Those weren't counted.)

I'm not sure that there will ever be an accurate count on sport
pilots. Presumably we, like George W Bush, will be shown on the FAA
data base as "no current medical".

(I became a sport pilot last December, when my medical expired and it
had become too much of a hassle to renew it.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:24:59 GMT, wrote:

The initial batch flying Sport Pilot will be the blue hair set that
is still basically healthy, but can't, or is afraid they won't, pass
a medical, or could with waivers but don't want the hassle.

That's me!

Except that my hair isn't blue, it's pink for the scalp showing
through.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com

Dan, just want to say thank you for the story on your website about
Bluie West.
I will have to go back and read the other information you have posted.
Thanks again.

Cubdriver wrote:
I'm not sure that there will ever be an accurate count on sport
pilots. Presumably we, like George W Bush, will be shown on the FAA
data base as "no current medical".
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford


Good point Dan, AOPA and EAA need to do something to get the folks that
transition from higher certificates to LSA counted because if we don't get
counted we don't count. At least as far as congress is concerned.

Cubdriver wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:24:59 GMT, wrote:


The initial batch flying Sport Pilot will be the blue hair set that
is still basically healthy, but can't, or is afraid they won't, pass
a medical, or could with waivers but don't want the hassle.


That's me!

Except that my hair isn't blue, it's pink for the scalp showing
through.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com
I met a young gentleman who became a sport pilot when he passed his
checkride the first day of OSH. I'm guessing he was in his early
twenties. He's also been in a wheelchair for 12 years. I can see a lot
of those who didn't want to deal with the hassle of a medical, or knew
they couldn't get one, but always wanted to fly.

Margy

On Jul 29, 11:32 am, "Dave Stadt" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you can always buy one of the other LSAs for 10-15 thousand less,
and figure your first 10-15 thousand dollars worth of repairs are
free. For that kind of savings, you could just about ship the
airplane across the country for repairs.

Phil wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Scott Skylane" wrote

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.
I agree, most completely!

The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
powered LSA's.

Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
--
Jim in NC

I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.

To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a
better deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

John Boyle wrote:

To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a
better deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

Well, not exactly. As I previously stated, the 162 uses the new
O-200"D" motor, which Continental says will be a lighter, more advanced
version of the classic O-200 mill. We still don't know what the details
are, as the type spec hasn't been issued yet.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane