beasly
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
From my limited knowledge ( I have a government education) that is how the Fed's funded themselves pre income tax--tarriffs.
Also, that is a fugly airplane on first impression.
b.
First Cessna Skycatcher arrives in Wichita from China
- Thread starter ktsai91
- Start date
:yeahthat:
From my limited knowledge ( I have a government education) that is how the Fed's funded themselves pre income tax--tarriffs.
Also, that is a fugly airplane on first impression.
b.
muffinman
Well-Known Member
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
I am one to advocate flying and aviation and love to see people flying, but I have to say I fully agree in this situation. I know you love avitation Kstai, but you can't lie about something that is against the rules just to get what you want. I love flying too, but it's not worth leaving out a "detail" like that just so you can be happy. Remember man, you aren't the only one up there.
Maybe you could write to an airline or something and see if you can get in one of their sims, it's really cool and it is possible, but make sure you should be flying. Just because you found a loophole doesn't make it right.
PGT
Well-Known Member
Makes too much sense for the government to do
BrewMaster
Well-Known Member
C'mon man...this was just an innocent post and discussion about the Skycatcher. Why do you have to bring that up? There are things set in place to address these issues and allow qualified people to fly. I understand what you're saying, but there is no harm in talking about this.
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
skycatcher + spin = medical issues (death) ??
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
In the past, I've bashed the 162. I've decided to refrain from doing so again, until I fly the thing. Heck, I got checked out in a CTSW this past weekend, and I must say, its the most fun airplane I've flown in a while.
Comparable light sports such as the Flight Design CTSW/CTLS and Remos G3/GX (which are 1 and 2 in sales) sell for more. Bone stock, they may cost the same, but to get them similarly equipped (glass panel), you are looking at way more. A CTLS equipped with glass is listed as $133,800. A Remos is either $129,900 or $144,900, based on how fancy you want that panel.
That said. The 162 looses a lot of weight due to the O-200D choice. So, the way I see it, is they have to make that up somewhere. So, the price has to be lower.
How is $111,500 a competitive price?
Comparable light sports such as the Flight Design CTSW/CTLS and Remos G3/GX (which are 1 and 2 in sales) sell for more. Bone stock, they may cost the same, but to get them similarly equipped (glass panel), you are looking at way more. A CTLS equipped with glass is listed as $133,800. A Remos is either $129,900 or $144,900, based on how fancy you want that panel.
That said. The 162 looses a lot of weight due to the O-200D choice. So, the way I see it, is they have to make that up somewhere. So, the price has to be lower.
twotwowoo
New Member
:clap::beer::rawk::yourock:
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Jesus. Crazy people are allowed to drive two inches from my bumper and no one complains, but the pitchforks come out when some enthusiastic kid wants to putter around in a glorified kite? Put down the pitchfork, Maverick.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I never have understood the haters of this plane.
Re: China manufacturing -- Quality has been shown to be equal to American production quality. Chinese manufacturing facilities are extremely modern. Using blanket statements like, "I don't trust something made in China" is a bit old-fashioned and uninformed, in my opinion.
Re: Outsourcing jobs -- I don't like it either, but the American public has voted with their wallets for a long time and repeatedly chosen the cheaper route. Oftentimes the same people screaming, "Keep jobs in America! Stop outsourcing!" are the same people who shop at Walmart and drive Hyundais. Can't have it both ways.
Re: Spins -- I still don't understand why Cessna didn't certify the design for spins after the two highly publicized spin accidents, if for no other reason than to reassure the public. However, I'm confident the issues have been eliminated. Cessna has too much of their reputation staked on this plane to allow otherwise. Plus, look at how its performance compares to all the other LSAs that have undergone extensive spin testing....oh, that's right, the others haven't.
Re: Performance compared to a 152 -- It's remarkably similar. Carries a little less, goes a little faster. It's a wash.
Re: Price compared to a 152 -- You're comparing a 1970s vintage Volkswagen Beetle to a 2009 Volkswagen Beetle. I can pick up a '70s vintage car for $2k on Craigslist, or I can get a New Beetle for $20k at the dealership. The reasons why I would do either are *completely* different. Comfort, safety, technology, reliability, coolness, and the fun factor all come to mind. Both cars will carry about the same amount, go about the same speed, and get me from Point A to Point B. But they're very different machines and priced accordingly. If you can't understand this comparison, I don't know what else to say.
Re: China manufacturing -- Quality has been shown to be equal to American production quality. Chinese manufacturing facilities are extremely modern. Using blanket statements like, "I don't trust something made in China" is a bit old-fashioned and uninformed, in my opinion.
Re: Outsourcing jobs -- I don't like it either, but the American public has voted with their wallets for a long time and repeatedly chosen the cheaper route. Oftentimes the same people screaming, "Keep jobs in America! Stop outsourcing!" are the same people who shop at Walmart and drive Hyundais. Can't have it both ways.
Re: Spins -- I still don't understand why Cessna didn't certify the design for spins after the two highly publicized spin accidents, if for no other reason than to reassure the public. However, I'm confident the issues have been eliminated. Cessna has too much of their reputation staked on this plane to allow otherwise. Plus, look at how its performance compares to all the other LSAs that have undergone extensive spin testing....oh, that's right, the others haven't.
Re: Performance compared to a 152 -- It's remarkably similar. Carries a little less, goes a little faster. It's a wash.
Re: Price compared to a 152 -- You're comparing a 1970s vintage Volkswagen Beetle to a 2009 Volkswagen Beetle. I can pick up a '70s vintage car for $2k on Craigslist, or I can get a New Beetle for $20k at the dealership. The reasons why I would do either are *completely* different. Comfort, safety, technology, reliability, coolness, and the fun factor all come to mind. Both cars will carry about the same amount, go about the same speed, and get me from Point A to Point B. But they're very different machines and priced accordingly. If you can't understand this comparison, I don't know what else to say.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
That's not true. The LSA's are governed by the ASTM specifications. I don't have the full text with me (but I can pull it from the library at school tomorrow). But, if I recall, spin testing is required, even if the plane is placarded "Spins Prohibited". Believe its 4.5.9 of ASTM F2245-04
E_Dawg
Moderator
How is $111,500 a competitive price?
Gotta pay for the lawsuits somehow!
If comfort is really a concern, why are you buying a 2 seat trainer? Buy something with leg room! But you're probably right. This probably beats a 152 for "comfort". I'd rather have something like a skylane if I'm really looking for comfort, but in the case of a 2 seat simple single, chances are I'm looking for a trainer...not comfort.
If this is the case, they should ground the entire fleet of Cessnas over 30 years old. They're either safe or they aren't. Furthermore, you're going to suggest that a proven design that's got a safety record is safer than something we haven't seen yet? Interesting.
Aside from the avionics, a plane is a plane. It's got all the same moving parts and it still has a horizontally opposed internal combustion engine that's probably underpowered and overweight for its application. The fancy avionics is all they've got on this one. For the application (2 seat trainer), I'm not 100% sure that's a bonus. I'd rather see a VFR only airplane with a transponder, 1 VOR (for teaching vor nav), 1 ADF and 1 comm radio...maybe a 2nd but 1 is fine. If the 162 had warp drive and a tractor beam, you'd have this one.
That has yet to be proven for the 162. Time will tell.
The Mac vs PC argument. What's cool about a 2 seat trainer? They are both probably close on hourly operating cost...the 152 maybe a fractional less due to insurance on a new type (for the 162) being higher. Other than the avionics (previously covered), what's so cool about it?
I'd think there are several airplanes more "fun" than a 162. Is the 162 more "fun" than a 152? Can you prove it? Is there something the 162 can do that the 152 can't?
Putting that at the end of an argument isn't some kind of pocket ace that gets you a win in the debate. The comparison is understandable, but I don't think your view of the 162's percieved superiority over an older aircraft at 1/3 of the acquisition cost and probably a similar (if not lower) hourly operating cost is necessarily all that accurate. You use quite a few objective arguments and one (safety) that's ludicrous in your side of the debate.
Some may be "haters", some may not. I personally just don't see the market for a 2 seat trainer over $100k. I could get two 2-seat trainers for that price...and a hangar...and probably personal insurance (not instruction or rental though...I doubt you could get all of that for $100k). That's not hate, that's a fact.
-mini
