Cessna 162 Skycatcher questions

[BillErvin]

I agree, it needs at little more work and considering this is the second try to stop the thing from spinning, maybe they need to bring in some new engineers.

I'm not sure I'd ever buy one, I just thought it was interesting that the airplane was trashed by the wind dragging it across the ground rather that becoming a lawn dart

I've spun a 150 several times easy-in easy-out

 

[JoelT]

I like your thinking about bringing back the 140.

Ditto

 

[WacoFan]

My comment about getting a 150/152 into a spin is based upon my experience in doing that (which is limited). It just seemed that if you are going to spin one you have to actively work at doing it as they are so docile. A Chief, T-craft, or Luscombe will spin much more readily it seems than a 150/152 which takes concious effort to do. I have heard some say that a 150/152 isn't a good trainer (compared to some of the older machines) because it is too docile and easy to fly. Just seems to me to be a superior machine that is also made in America out of aluminum as opposed to a plastic plane built by the Chi-coms.

 

[killbilly]

My comment about getting a 150/152 into a spin is based upon my experience in doing that (which is limited). It just seemed that if you are going to spin one you have to actively work at doing it as they are so docile. A Chief, T-craft, or Luscombe will spin much more readily it seems than a 150/152 which takes concious effort to do. I have heard some say that a 150/152 isn't a good trainer (compared to some of the older machines) because it is too docile and easy to fly. Just seems to me to be a superior machine that is also made in America out of aluminum as opposed to a plastic plane built by the Chi-coms.

I sort of understand your point, but I think the relative civility of that plane makes it a good trainer for a number of other reasons. Granted I have little basis of comparison because all of my PPL training was done in a 152 so I'm more than a little biased.

There are a number of compelling reasons to use them, though. They're bulletproof and will take a lot of abuse from student pilots, for one. They're easier to insure, too, from what I've been told. And, parts availability is very high, which helps.

Don't get me wrong - if I'd had access to a nice old taildragger to learn to fly, I would have opted for that, but for the money, the 152 was my best bet.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I think the Skycatcher is a stupid idea and obviously has inferior qualities to the C-150/152 (which never needed a drougue chute and then a BRS chute) to recover from a spin (assuming you could actually get them to spin). I am not sure if a 150/152 is light enough but you could get there. Also, stall speed needs to be 40kts or so I think.

I highly doubt your getting a C150 down to the LSA weight standards. On one of the forums I frequent, there was something like a 10 page argument on getting it light enough. You've got to figure out how to get 280 pounds out of the airframe/powerplant. By the time they're done, they were better off building something new. However, by staying with the O-200D, they really set themselves up to have the least useful load of all of the LSA's I know about. Stall speed, the C150 is ok, just has to be under a maximum stall of 45 knots. They may have to add a STOL kit, but I'd bet they're ok there.

Best case senario for the LSA market is to get the FAA to bump the weight category up to something around 1600lbs. I'd like to see the weight limit around 1775 lbs, so that the Diamond 20 and Liberty XL-2 would fit the category. LSA's are great, but if you want to put the older standard category aircraft in the category, its only fair to allow the new replacements for the C152/PA38/BE77 market.

Just my opinion.

 

[OldTownPilot]

My comment about getting a 150/152 into a spin is based upon my experience in doing that (which is limited). It just seemed that if you are going to spin one you have to actively work at doing it as they are so docile. A Chief, T-craft, or Luscombe will spin much more readily it seems than a 150/152 which takes concious effort to do. I have heard some say that a 150/152 isn't a good trainer (compared to some of the older machines) because it is too docile and easy to fly. Just seems to me to be a superior machine that is also made in America out of aluminum as opposed to a plastic plane built by the Chi-coms.

In a 150, it will spin nicely if you want it to. It (99.9%) won't spin if you don't want it to.

I.e It is VERY hard to get it to unintentionally spin. Now half turn spirals out of a power on stall seems to almost be the norm. (at least in the one I fly)

 

[Cessnaflyer]

You can definitely get a 152 to spin. Especially the Aerobat. I'm not sure if it's still online, but there was a youtube video of a 52-turn spin done over Austin by one of our local aerobatics instructors in a 152 aerobat.

I like your thinking about bringing back the 140.

Here you go.

This would make me puke!

[YT]iQkk0JLjEJY[/YT]

 

[Barty]

My comment about getting a 150/152 into a spin is based upon my experience in doing that (which is limited). It just seemed that if you are going to spin one you have to actively work at doing it as they are so docile.

Power on stall, let a wing drop, push the rudder to the floor on that side, as it noses over pull the throttle back to idle and enjoy the ride.

It has been a while since I've spun one, but that's all I remember doing to get one to spin. You'd probably never get it to spin in a power off stall unless you just jerk back on the elevator abruptly. Otherwiuse, you'll usually run out of elevator before it will spin.

 

[ppragman]

Power on stall, let a wing drop, push the rudder to the floor on that side, as it noses over pull the throttle back to idle and enjoy the ride.

It has been a while since I've spun one, but that's all I remember doing to get one to spin. You'd probably never get it to spin in a power off stall unless you just jerk back on the elevator abruptly. Otherwiuse, you'll usually run out of elevator before it will spin.

I always liked to go into it power off in the 150 then goose the throttle with left rudder as it breaks, it always seemed to make it a tighter spin.

 

[WacoFan]

Power on stall, let a wing drop, push the rudder to the floor on that side, as it noses over pull the throttle back to idle and enjoy the ride.

It has been a while since I've spun one, but that's all I remember doing to get one to spin. You'd probably never get it to spin in a power off stall unless you just jerk back on the elevator abruptly. Otherwiuse, you'll usually run out of elevator before it will spin.

I always liked to go into it power off in the 150 then goose the throttle with left rudder as it breaks, it always seemed to make it a tighter spin.

Have used both of these methods. I was not doubting that a 150 will spin...simply that I find it hard to see how someone will get it into an unintentional spin. I actually don't think that 150's suck - have had some fun in them. Other than the sucky nosewheel they are a fine airplane. I fail to see how a Skycatcher can improve much upon it other than perhaps be lighter.

 

[ppragman]

Have used both of these methods. I was not doubting that a 150 will spin...simply that I find it hard to see how someone will get it into an unintentional spin. I actually don't think that 150's suck - have had some fun in them. Other than the sucky nosewheel they are a fine airplane. I fail to see how a Skycatcher can improve much upon it other than perhaps be lighter.

Uncoordinated go around attempt at low airspeed is the only thing I can think of. I like the airplane a lot too. Its a good bird.