Cessna delivering the final Skycatchers

Sad, but inevitable. I do wonder if the people at Cessna were the only ones who realized how doomed it was from the beginning. Or if, maybe, they knew, but went ahead with it anyway.
 
mrivc211 said:
I guess scrapping them must have been cheaper than dropping prices?
Click to expand...

Selling them for some money is better than no money, even if they weren't turning a profit on them. I'd wager the demand is just non-existent for them.

My flight school has one. I'm not impressed with it from what I've seen of it on the ground.
 
SFLAX said:
If they sell it they have to suppport it, less deliveries less time needed to support them.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the starships. Well I was interested in one until I read how they were scrapping them. Instead I bought another 152 today. I was bummed to hear there was no interest.
 
Engines and all. Seems this is a middle finger to those who invested in one. No parts in ten years? Hope future Cessna buyers take note. That is a lot of spare parts that would have been useful. I wonder if they at least took the avionics out? From the looks of things, maybe not. Garmin would love it. Just like Doritos, "Crunch all you want, we'll make more!"
 
Something mildly interesting to me:

The C-172 is still the best selling GA aircraft in the world, but Textron doesn't even picture it (much less report numbers) in their annual report.

I swear there's a "Skyhawk Evening Manufacturing Club" that's a company-sponsored extra-curricular activity at a certain Wichita plant.
 
greg1016 said:
The saddest part is they actually are a fun airplane to fly, it is the LSA standard that is the problem with it. Should have gotten them standard airworthiness certification and upped the MTOW
Click to expand...

Once again, LSA was never meant for all these S-LSAs that are on the market. It was a method to regulate the vast number of 2 seat not legal part 103 ultralights.

Cessna tried an LSA, failed. Piper tried an LSA, failed, although it's still on the market as it's original name.


If you thought the 162 was fun to fly, obviously you never flew any of the other new, composite built, Rotax powered LSAs. I know this forum hates on the Rotax 912, but it's a great engine for that size airplane
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
If you thought the 162 was fun to fly, obviously you never flew any of the other new, composite built, Rotax powered LSAs. I know this forum hates on the Rotax 912, but it's a great engine for that size airplane
Click to expand...

I second that. The Remos GX and similar LSAs were on the market before the 162, cheaper, and better built. I still much preferred flying a 150.
 
greg1016 said:
The saddest part is they actually are a fun airplane to fly, it is the LSA standard that is the problem with it. Should have gotten them standard airworthiness certification and upped the MTOW
Click to expand...

Mountain Man said:
Would've been a 150 replacement.
Click to expand...

Which has been sorely needed in the market.

If Cessna had built the skycatcher as a 152 replacement in the normal catergory with a 1750 lb MGTOW, they could have built it sturdy enough to last in the flight school environment as a primary trainer. But since they were working under the LSA weight cap, they had to shave ounces where ever they could, and wound up with a "cheap" 120K airplane that was constantly broken for simple stuff like door latches.
 
USMCmech said:
Which has been sorely needed in the market.

If Cessna had built the skycatcher as a 152 replacement in the normal catergory with a 1750 lb MGTOW, they could have built it sturdy enough to last in the flight school environment as a primary trainer. But since they were working under the LSA weight cap, they had to shave ounces where ever they could, and wound up with a "cheap" 120K airplane that was constantly broken for simple stuff like door latches.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I looked at the stats but...

The skycatcher literally was a better 150, similar speed, similar payload, but wider cabin (same cabin width as the 206)

The price, the fact that it was built in China, and the weirdo control setup is what killed it I think.

You can still pick up mid time 152's for 30 to 40 grand for a cream puff and they don't have a bunch of A model things to deal with.

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I've ended up where I needed to be.


- Douglas Adams
 
The thing sipped the gas and had a fair amount of avionics for a little guy but it was easy to over control and our local flying club wadded up 2 of them before they sold the third before it became beer cans. The castering nose wheel and short wheelbase made it tricky for newer pilots.
 
I LOVE 150/152s. They are the perfect trainers.

That said:



I sat in a 150 the other day, and they are small.....

The other issue is we've become a country used to AC. Cooking in Orlando in a 35 year old 152 is not what I'd call a premium experience.

Actually, most flight schools don't even rate as comedy when it comes to providing a marketable product. Most outfits I've seen make me wince uncomfortably...it's like watching Napoleon Dynamite run a flight school.

Richman
 
trafficinsight said:
It's been a while since I looked at the stats but...

The skycatcher literally was a better 150, similar speed, similar payload, but wider cabin (same cabin width as the 206)

The price, the fact that it was built in China, and the weirdo control setup is what killed it I think.

You can still pick up mid time 152's for 30 to 40 grand for a cream puff and they don't have a bunch of A model things to deal with.

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I've ended up where I needed to be.


- Douglas Adams
Click to expand...
And eventually the stock of creampuff 152s will dry up, and the corrosion lurking in a lift strut attach point layup will cause a wing to separate, and an AD will come out, and $100k to rebuild a set of wings will kill the type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top