First Cessna Skycatcher arrives in Wichita from China
- Thread starter ktsai91
- Start date
jrh
Well-Known Member
Are "trainer" and "comfort" mutually exclusive terms?
I've sat in the SkyCatcher and it's significantly more comfortable than a 152. The cabin is as wide as a 206, it's adjustable for tall individual, the ventilation is better, visibility is better, the cockpit is more ergonomic in general...I know it's all subjective, but I think Cessna has made significant improvements in this area.
I have no idea if it will actually be safer or not, but considering we've done a lot of studies on crashes over the years, I tend to think the designers probably incorporated some of that wisdom in to the design. The restraint system, seat strength, crushable areas of the airframe, etc. are *probably* designed at least *marginally* better than a 152. But you're right, I don't really know. I'm going off the assumption that newer designs are typically somewhat better than older designs when it comes to safety in general.
Haha...I suppose you still want to teach four way radio ranges to your students as well?
I teach a lot in both glass and conventional cockpits. I'm absolutely convinced that glass cockpits, when trained and used properly, are better, even for trainers--especially for training pilots who have no aspiration to be career pilots. But that's a debate that could take up a whole 'nother thread.
Agreed. I'm assuming this one, again, simply because I believe newer is more reliable than older, as a general rule.
Look, *I* think my Cessna 140 is cooler than a modern Skyhawk. But reality is, take 10 average guys off the street who know nothing about flying, and they're going to say the 172 is cooler. Coolness is a very relative idea.
The only reason I say a 162 is cooler is because I think that's going to be the general public's perception. New paint, slick looking interior, glass panel...it just seems modern and cool.
Same as the analogy with the Beetles. A few car enthusiasts will say the '70s versions are cooler, but the general public still wants the New Beetle.
I've heard the stick control is kind of neat, but I don't know, I haven't flown it personally.
Same for visibility, which is better, which might equate to more fun for some people.
And then, a person has to look at the overall experience. You're cruising around in a nice, new, clean, modern plane. That equates to "fun" for a lot of pilots. Same reason most people drive a newer car than an older car.
"Fun" is not all about performance specs or simply getting from Point A to Point B. A lot of it is perception.
Ok, I didn't mean to come across as biased or overly subjective. I just think a lot of pilots have a bit of a "grumpy old man" attitude about some of these modern aircraft. If they're content to fly around in planes from the '70s, that's cool. Nothing wrong with that. After all, I love my plane from the '40s. But that's not what the majority of newbies to aviation want. And the SkyCatcher is all about promoting aviation to the masses.
I don't know jack about it besides it being made in China.
I don't even buy food product sourced in China!
I have no hate, just no interest.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
I believe the plane in the OP link (N162CE) crashed. Cessna needs to invest in new file photos.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
If it is anything like the other 3 LSAs I flew, it goes something like this:
In any heavy training environment, it will be a balled up piece of Chinese aluminum within a year.
- Landing light replacement can be purchased at Walmart
- Oil filter can be purchased at NAPA
- NGK motorcycle spark plugs (with a neat picture of an airplane with a big red X through it) can also be purchased at NAPA
- Snow mobile battery
In any heavy training environment, it will be a balled up piece of Chinese aluminum within a year.
greaper007
Well-Known Member
The response to this is best summed up in a Ferris Buellers Day off quote.
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
Its not just you. Everyone really does hate the skycatcher. They don't all hate the same thing, but everyone hates something about it.
Some hate that its $115k instead of $15k.
Some hate that its made in China instead of here.
Some hate that its made by Cessna instead of [insert name] <INSERT choice of company>.
Some hate that its composite even though its not.
Some hate not composite.
Some hate that the doors open backward even though they don't.
Some hate the the doors don't open backward.
Some hate that is has a glass panel instead of steam gauges.
Some hate that the max weight is 1320lbs and max speed is 118kts, i.e. they hate that its an LSA.
IOW, you name a feature or aspect of the Skycatcher and I'll find you someone who loves to hate it. It was a lot simpler when the only thing people hated about Cessna was that they hadn't come out with a new design in 40 years. Maybe they should go back to that so we can all hate the same thing again.
...because keeping the companies profit margins high by not taxing the hell out of products built out of country allowing them to keep American workers at home where they're generating zero revenue to pay taxes on which allows the top 1% of the "earners" in the country to support the Americans that would otherwise work but can't find work because all of the jobs are in China or Mexico or (insert 3rd world sweatshop country) so they sit around on Unemployment which has to be funded from somewhere so the businesses and top 1% of earners are taxed more and more which further causes jobs and businesses to be outsourced to other countries is really working out well for us.
Seriously. A movie? You know the events in that movie didn't really happen. Ferris didn't really get a day off. I suppose next you'll tell me that 1984 wasn't a fiction book (and a dull read at best) but a prophecy?
-mini
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
Do you really believe that its that simple? Really? Just force Cessna to build the skycater with all American workers and that will magically put enough dollars in the pockets of all American workers that they'll then gladly buy Cessna two seat trainers in droves even though the final price ends up being well North of the $115k that everyone is currently complaining about. What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?
Follow along. This works with any big business, but I'll use a Cessna worker here as an example.Do you really believe that its that simple? Really? Just force Cessna to build the skycater with all American workers and that will magically put enough dollars in the pockets of all American workers that they'll then gladly buy Cessna two seat trainers in droves even though the final price ends up being well North of the $115k that everyone is currently complaining about. What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?
Cessna hires Joe for $20/hr (round numbers, please). Joe goes to work and makes his $40,000/year. Joe pays his bills, pays his taxes and has some money left over. Joe now has a disposable income. Joe says, "hey family, why don't we go on a vacation? We'll go to Disney World!".
Joe buys 4 airline tickets on ABC airways, 5 nights in DEF hotel, 4 Disney tickets, food, etc. The airline has to have someone working to check him in at the ticket counter. Because Joe is giving the Airline his disposable income, they can afford to do that. Now that money gets taxed again (it was taxed already when Joe earned it and now it's being taxed when Susan the airline ticket girl gets her share...and the company pays taxes on it before that, so it gets taxed twice actually...of course Cessna and Joe already paid tax on the money to begin with). Someone has to load the bags. Because Joe's disposable income is coming in as revenue, the airline hires a baggage handler. That money also gets taxed again (read above). Then the airline needs FA's, pilots, mx, etc. Because the airline is getting revenue, they can afford those things. That income is taxed again.
Then Joe gets to Florida and rents a car. The car rental place has to have someone working the desk, someone working the lot, someone to maintain the cars, etc. They can afford it because someone is giving them money. ...and the money gets taxed again.
Then Joe gets to the hotel. The hotel needs front desk, housekeeping, someone to set up the breakfast, etc. They can afford that because Joe's giving them some of his money. That money gets taxed again.
Then, Joe goes to Disney World to see the Mouse. He buys tickets and food and the Goofy hat with the long ears and a picture of his kids with Donald Duck, who oddly enough never seems to be wearing pants, then he buys them a shirt, etc, etc.
You have to have someone at the ticket window, at the gate, security, someone to play inside the Mouse and Duck and Goofy costumes, someone to sell the merchandise, someone to take the pictures, someone to prepare the food, someone to sell the food, someone to clean the park, ride operators, actors (or "cast members" as Disney Employees are called), band members, supervisors, etc.
Disney can afford all of that because....well, because they're Disney...but maybe they hired another guard because Joe's revenue came in and they could afford to do that while not decreasing bonuses to Bob Iger. That money all got taxed again...but instead of the business paying 25% (round numbers), they're paying 15% because of others in the workforce (like Joe and the extra guard and the cook and the janitor and the cast members and the ticket girl and security, etc.) that are also paying taxes.
The government's pockets stay full. Joe can afford his family. Someone out there can afford a 2-seat trainer. It's a circle. You put in the quarter and get on the horse...you go up and down...and around. Circular like a circle.
The point is...
We have to produce something here in this country if we're going to survive. That's the only way to solve these problems. If we're not making cars and airplanes and computers and clothes and books and widgets to sell not only to each other, but to the rest of the world...we're not producing revenue. Revenue to do things like pay our bills and pay our taxes so we can have things like schools and roads and a strong military, yadda yadda.
Instead, we'll let companies produce products in other countries and sell them here for a fraction of what it cost to purchase an American made product. But who's going to buy it? The guy on Unemployment that got laid off from the GM factory? The furloughed pilots? The guy with a graphic design degree that has started his new career....flipping burgers at McDonald's because no one's hiring his position because they aren't making any money?
Where does the money come from to purchase these products?
What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?
-mini
jrh
Well-Known Member
jrh
Well-Known Member
I'd encourage everyone to compare the ASTM spin testing standards to those of Part 23 (14 CFR 23.221). Allowing "intentional spins" under ASTM standards is very different from "intentional spins" under Part 23 certification.
It's not hard to comply with the ASTM standards. ASTM only requires the ability to recover from a three turn spin within 1.5 additional rotations, and not have any control inputs make a spin unrecoverable. How much flight testing would it take to demonstrate this? I'm thinking not much.
Part 23 requires the ability to recover from a *six* turn spin within 1.5 rotations. Additionally, it specifies that no flight or *engine* control inputs should allow the spin to be unrecoverable. Plus, "There must be no characteristics during the spin (such as excessive rates of rotation or extreme oscillatory motion) that might prevent a successful recovery due to disorientation or incapacitation of the pilot."
Basically, Part 23 requires much more in-depth flight testing, while ASTM standards allow for a relatively limited set of conditions to be passed before allowing intentional spins.
Cessna put the SkyCatcher through a spin test program very similar to their Part 23 certified light aircraft. They did more than 500 spins with various weights, CGs, power settings, and control deflections. They found flaws (obviously, because of the two crashes) and corrected them by adding a dorsal fin and larger rudder.
Which is why I don't understand why they didn't complete certification for intentional spins. The only thing I can think of is that they want to minimize their liability in every way possible, even though it's a safe design.
FlyingPoke
I'm here to help...
So does this one actually take delivery somewhere? Or is this the 3rd attempt they try to figure out why it likes to turn into a lawn dart when trying to exit a spin?
*Edit... read above post, good they made the adjustments... but since its not tested and proven to work, I dont think I'd be running out to do spin training in this aircraft.
*Edit... read above post, good they made the adjustments... but since its not tested and proven to work, I dont think I'd be running out to do spin training in this aircraft.
futurepilot1
Well-Known Member
So, is this thread about:
A. Debating the quality/value of the 162 Skycather
B. Someone's medical issues
C. Macro-economics
A. Debating the quality/value of the 162 Skycather
B. Someone's medical issues
C. Macro-economics
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
It'd be really terrific if the world actually worked that way. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Not even close. You can impose tariffs and legislation which force companies to manufacture products in country with good ol' American labor all you want. You know the end result? More companies in bankruptcy. Because the one critical element that your beautiful theory seems to completely ignore is that John Q Consumer has a price which t he is willing to pay for any given product. And if no company is able to deliver that product at John Q's price point, then John Q ain't buyin'. Period.Follow along. This works with any big business, but I'll use a Cessna worker here as an example.
Cessna hires Joe for $20/hr (round numbers, please). Joe goes to work and makes his $40,000/year. Joe pays his bills, pays his taxes and has some money left over. Joe now has a disposable income. Joe says, "hey family, why don't we go on a vacation? We'll go to Disney World!".
Joe buys 4 airline tickets on ABC airways, 5 nights in DEF hotel, 4 Disney tickets, food, etc. The airline has to have someone working to check him in at the ticket counter. Because Joe is giving the Airline his disposable income, they can afford to do that. Now that money gets taxed again (it was taxed already when Joe earned it and now it's being taxed when Susan the airline ticket girl gets her share...and the company pays taxes on it before that, so it gets taxed twice actually...of course Cessna and Joe already paid tax on the money to begin with). Someone has to load the bags. Because Joe's disposable income is coming in as revenue, the airline hires a baggage handler. That money also gets taxed again (read above). Then the airline needs FA's, pilots, mx, etc. Because the airline is getting revenue, they can afford those things. That income is taxed again.
Then Joe gets to Florida and rents a car. The car rental place has to have someone working the desk, someone working the lot, someone to maintain the cars, etc. They can afford it because someone is giving them money. ...and the money gets taxed again.
Then Joe gets to the hotel. The hotel needs front desk, housekeeping, someone to set up the breakfast, etc. They can afford that because Joe's giving them some of his money. That money gets taxed again.
Then, Joe goes to Disney World to see the Mouse. He buys tickets and food and the Goofy hat with the long ears and a picture of his kids with Donald Duck, who oddly enough never seems to be wearing pants, then he buys them a shirt, etc, etc.
You have to have someone at the ticket window, at the gate, security, someone to play inside the Mouse and Duck and Goofy costumes, someone to sell the merchandise, someone to take the pictures, someone to prepare the food, someone to sell the food, someone to clean the park, ride operators, actors (or "cast members" as Disney Employees are called), band members, supervisors, etc.
Disney can afford all of that because....well, because they're Disney...but maybe they hired another guard because Joe's revenue came in and they could afford to do that while not decreasing bonuses to Bob Iger. That money all got taxed again...but instead of the business paying 25% (round numbers), they're paying 15% because of others in the workforce (like Joe and the extra guard and the cook and the janitor and the cast members and the ticket girl and security, etc.) that are also paying taxes.
The government's pockets stay full. Joe can afford his family. Someone out there can afford a 2-seat trainer. It's a circle. You put in the quarter and get on the horse...you go up and down...and around. Circular like a circle.
The point is...
We have to produce something here in this country if we're going to survive. That's the only way to solve these problems. If we're not making cars and airplanes and computers and clothes and books and widgets to sell not only to each other, but to the rest of the world...we're not producing revenue. Revenue to do things like pay our bills and pay our taxes so we can have things like schools and roads and a strong military, yadda yadda.
Instead, we'll let companies produce products in other countries and sell them here for a fraction of what it cost to purchase an American made product. But who's going to buy it? The guy on Unemployment that got laid off from the GM factory? The furloughed pilots? The guy with a graphic design degree that has started his new career....flipping burgers at McDonald's because no one's hiring his position because they aren't making any money?
Where does the money come from to purchase these products?
What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?
-mini
IOW, if we create a situation where the only brand new two seat training aircraft available have to be manufactured here and therefore all cost over $200k, then the net result is that no manufacturer is going to sell them in any measurable numbers. As a manufacturer of products, you either hit the price point that the market will bear, or you starve. And all the restrictions on imports in the world aren't going to change that one bit.
I absolutely agree that something needs to be done to curb unemployment in this country. But eliminating competition from imports isn't a solution. If you think it is, try it. I'll bet my last dollar that you'll be sorely disappointed with the results.
adk
Steals Hotel Toilet Paper
If they already spent all the money to get 90% of the Part 23 spin certification, it seems like they could get it certified to alleviate concerns from the two crashes and then placard "spins prohibited" to avoid liability.
They've already set a sort of precedent by disabling split comms on the G1000, which by the way really sucks.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Sure, I'll buy the six turn spin testing for a utility category aircraft. However, many, many aircraft aren't utility category. A normal category aircraft must only be recoverable from a 1 turn or 3 second spin, whichever is longer. They must recover in no more than 1 additional turn.
Way to pick the regulations to show your point, and totally ingnore the other half of the deal.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I wasn't trying to pick anything apart or only show one side of anything. Maybe I didn't understand your original point.
I'll give you this: An ASTM aircraft that is placarded "Spins Prohibited" has gone through the same testing as a Part 23 aircraft with a "Spins Prohibited" placard. Both aircraft have had very little testing done (or maybe been tested and found to be unsafe for spinning).
When it comes to an "intentional spins allowed" aircraft, ASTM standards are much lower than Part 23 standards.
The reason I point this out is to refute all the people who say, "Hey, my (insert random LSA) is able to do spins, it must be better than the SkyCatcher." Just because an LSA has done spin testing to ASTM standards does not mean it's super safe to go out and use as a spin trainer in fully developed spins. It might be, but we don't know for sure without more testing.