Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

On 2007-07-22 14:42:09 -0700, Jim Logajan said:

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 like the cute little Garmin panels. The thing has all the wiring
harness you need to convert it to IFR, by the way. Mike Pickett got to
sit in it at the dealers meeting and said he liked how comfortable it
was and the layout of the controls. He liked the stick, too, which is
an angle under the dash instead of attached to the floor, so it doesn't
get in the way of your dress.

Everybody made fun of the cupholders, though. FOUR cupholders in a two
place plane. Count 'em.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

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'm not "knocking" it so much as I lament a brand new aircraft not using new technology. TBO doesn't take into account
cylinder overhauls, which are routinely required on old-school air-cooled aircraft engines. I'm been plagued with sticking
valves on my O-360 since I got my Cherokee and taking a step *backwards* from that (WRT cooling, compression ratio, etc) seems
silly.

Newer technology isn't always better. Airplane engines have evolved
very well to meet the requirements of the airplanes they are in. Sure,
some improvements seem pretty obvious such as fuel injection, electronic
engine management, etc., but I'm not sure what I'd change to the basic
engine architecture. For an airplane, an air-cooled engine with
separate cylinders makes a lot of sense. A water cooled mono-block
design would add a lot of weight and make field overhauls much more
difficult. And water cooling adds several more failure modes (water
pump failure, hose failure, thermostat failure, radiator failure, etc.).
I'd say that with respect to my automobiles over the last 30 years
that I've had more problems with the cooling system than with any other
part of the engine.


Matt

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-07-22 14:42:09 -0700, Jim Logajan said:

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 like the cute little Garmin panels. The thing has all the wiring
harness you need to convert it to IFR, by the way. Mike Pickett got to
sit in it at the dealers meeting and said he liked how comfortable it
was and the layout of the controls. He liked the stick, too, which is an
angle under the dash instead of attached to the floor, so it doesn't get
in the way of your dress.

Everybody made fun of the cupholders, though. FOUR cupholders in a two
place plane. Count 'em.

Makes a lot of sense to me. You need two bottles for the input fluids
and two more for the output fluids. 2 + 2 = 4 so I'd say Cessna was
just planning ahead! :-)

Matt

"C J Campbell" wrote

Everybody made fun of the cupholders, though. FOUR cupholders in a two
place plane. Count 'em.

That must be for a tobacco spit bottle and a drink. g

For me, that would be for a Coke and a water.
--
Jim in NC

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

Thanks for posting this...just in general however (to you and anyone
else)...

I guess I dont understand the LSA market all that well. 109K...

I guess that they and other "new" LSA people have done the marketing
study...but somewhere I do not see how the economics of the entire LSA
near/over 100K thing work.

60K on the open market will buy one a very very good four place with
lots of money (40K) left over to 1) work it up to your hearts content,
2) fix any squeaks and 3) fly the thing.

I cant see how the insurance is going to be all that much cheaper for
a Skycatcher then a Skyhawk even for a very low time pilot...the EFIS
screens are great and probably in the long run have a better MTBF
but......anyone who thinks that they are going to do serious IFR
instruction in this plane with the "size" of most of today's pilots is
kind of kidding themselves...and then why the LSA for that?

If one is really looking for a real LSA and moves into something like
an Ercoupe or a well classic LSA...yeah one is buying "old" but thats
about 20-30K and then there is 70K or so to fix it up and you are at
the functional equivelent to the Skycatcher.

I see the very light jet market, it replaces King Airs even high end
piston twins...I dont see the LSA NEW Market.

Have I missed something here?

Robert

I see the very light jet market, it replaces King Airs even high end
piston twins...I dont see the LSA NEW Market.

Have I missed something here?

Robert


The VLJ competes with a King Air but can never replace it. Even the oldest
KA 90 from 1965 will carry 9 passengers and all their bags.

karl

I saw the plane today and sat in it. Looks good so far, but the
"plane" on display was missing a few things (like an engine). Also,
the glass panel displays were mockups. As for first impressions, it is
roomy and wide. I like the strut-aided swing-up doors, although I
found getting in and out rather difficult (had to duck my head down
and manually pull each leg back to clear the door frame. It appears
that the seats are fixed (fore/aft) and the pedal position is
adjustable. There is a cam arrangement underneath the seats that
allows raising or lowering them somewhat. The rudder pedals are on a
"platform" a few inches above the level of the footwells - which seems
a bit unnatural. The "yoke" is something between a control wheel and
joystick - emanates from the panel, but can be either rotated on the
shaft or moved left/right (as well as moved in or out). Didn't get a
chance to question Cessna's sales staff about how it works.

Cessna's electronic tally board showed some 170 orders at about 10:00
AM and 367 when I looked in again about 5:00 PM. Looks as though it is
going to be popular.


David Johnson

On Jul 23, 11:07 am, wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:37 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:



On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman wrote:
On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike wrote:
buttman wrote:

whoa. Mechanical flaps?

What's wrong with that?

nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.

Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
the late '60s.

Ron Wanttaja

As did the 172, 180, 182, 185, and many other high-wing
airplanes like Aeronca/Bellanca/American Champion, Piper, Stinson,
Auster, and on and on. No more difficult than aileron controls. Lots
of homebuilts, too. Where has Buttman been all this time?

Dan

Well I've never flown any of those planes. All the high wings I've
ever flown have always had electrical flaps, and the only mechanical
flapped plane I've flown was a low wing. I didn't think it was
possible to have a cable or a shaft go through the floor, up the sides
of the door, then across the roof.

I do know of one high wing mechanical flap airplane, but it had a hand
crank coming down from the roof. I think it was the Aeronca, but I
could be wrong.

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Whiting wrote:
: Newer technology isn't always better. Airplane engines have evolved
: very well to meet the requirements of the airplanes they are in. Sure,
: some improvements seem pretty obvious such as fuel injection, electronic
: engine management, etc., but I'm not sure what I'd change to the basic
: engine architecture. For an airplane, an air-cooled engine with
: separate cylinders makes a lot of sense. A water cooled mono-block
: design would add a lot of weight and make field overhauls much more
: difficult. And water cooling adds several more failure modes (water
: pump failure, hose failure, thermostat failure, radiator failure, etc.).
: I'd say that with respect to my automobiles over the last 30 years
: that I've had more problems with the cooling system than with any other
: part of the engine.


As I like to explain to people, traditional aircraft engines are *very* reliable in the
short-term, but very unreliable in the long term. In other words, the chances of the engine failing for
a 3-hour cross country flight is very low. The chances of the engine needing maintenance in 50-100 hours
is pretty high. The chances of it needing *expensive* maintenance in 500-1000 hours is VERY high.
Consider all the care and feeding necessary to keep them going:

- Magneto maintenance.
- Spark plug cleaning, gapping, replacing.
- Oil changes more often because of blow-by from loose-tolerances required for air-cooling, lead
contamination from requiring leaded fuel, quicker breakdown due to higher operating temperatures, etc
- Significant amount of top-end wear due to high operating CHT's.
- Sticking valves due to high top-end temperatures.

Air-cooled engines have a much higher octane requirement than would be necessary for geared,
liquid-cooled engine. What liquid-cooled engines would require 96 or 100 octane for an 8.5:1 CR? With
96 or 100, a liquid-cooled engine could easily run 10:1 or more and get 10-20% more power for the same
fuel burn.

I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit too high-strung for using in
high-volume certified aircraft. What's needed is a larger version utilizing the same technology that
isn't run quite so hard.

-Cory

--

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

On Jul 23, 3:23 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
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?

TBO on the Rotax is 1,500 hours.