Back in the game

jrh said:
I'm not saying you're big, but your instructor is.

The main point I'm trying to make though, is I'm not sure if any other LSA will do significantly better. None of the LSAs carry very much. Sometimes I hear people saying they don't like Skycatchers when in reality they're saying they don't like LSAs. Which is fine. But I'm just trying to be honest about what's going on.



Fair enough. I'm not trying to defend it. I don't know much about them, other than reading specs and having flown them for 20 minutes. I'm just saying, the little bit I've flown them, they seem pretty cool, and I'm trying to distinguish between what are actual problems versus what are perceptions or inherent limitations of the entire genre.

For instance, in this thread we've talked about:

Door openings in flight -- secondary door latch fixed it.
Issues with forward CG limit -- can't find a problem when I run calculations.
Doesn't carry much -- Carries about the same amount as my 140, which is a legendary airplane.
Tricky to land without striking tail -- Maybe? I don't know. Need more experience in them.
Click to expand...
They're made in China!

I would like to fly something small again though.
 
jrh said:
I just looked at the numbers on the 162 I'll be flying. It can carry 18 gallons of fuel (2.5 hours + VFR reserves) and has 355 pounds remaining for pax/bags. That's about the same as my Cessna 140. Except the Skycatcher is 20 knots faster, has way more shoulder room, a glass cockpit, and can be flown under Sport Pilot rules...none of which can be said for my 140. To me, that's pretty cool.
Click to expand...

The specs of the 162 aren't bad by themselves. The specs of the 162 are bad when you compare them to other airplanes. A Remos, for instance, can carry 500lbs of payload with 20 gallons of fuel onboard. And it's cheaper. And the flap lever doesn't interfere with the throttle.
 
I really don't see what's so wrong about the 162. Fun airplane to fly. I'm a big guy. I used to own a 150, so I'm used to it being a tight squeeze. If you fly any high performance aircraft, you'll get used to being able to either fill the seats or fill the tanks. You can't do both. The 162 is the same.

As far as LSAs go, I think the Skycatcher isn't bad at all. The biggest problem people have is assuming that it flies like any other high wing Cessna. The Skycatcher is a clean sheet design, for better and for worse. It's more sensitive in the pitch axis than any other high wing Cessna. I think some people equate that with being easy to tail strike. It really isn't. I had a whopping hour of time in it before I started instructing in it and really didn't have any problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top