Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


I guess it's better than "Ground Finder".

Al G

Al G wrote:
"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


I guess it's better than "Ground Finder".

Al G

THe thing is 100 lbs over the empty weight it should be. Maybe "SkyPiggy"
would have been a good name.

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?

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?

912ULS - 1500 hours

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

"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

: 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.

If the "D" models has the improvements you suggest, then it's a good compromise. If not, it's a rather disappointing
choice. Perhaps with 110 HP it'd go faster than allowed in a LSA?

-Cory

--

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

On 2007-07-23 07:31:11 -0700, Phil said:

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.

I don't think it is as bad as 'Stationair.' Sounds like something slow
and ugly, which it is, but they didn't need to call it that . :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor