Flew a SkyCatcher

K

KSCessnaDriver

Well-Known Member
I was one of the biggest vocal opponents of the 162. Didn't like the fact that it's got an O-200, didn't like the fact that its made in China and generally didn't like that it was so late to the LSA party, but today I figured, what the heck, give it a shot.

Needless to say, its a much easier airplane to fly than any of the other LSA's I've been in (Remos, Flight Design, Jabiru). It's still a squirrely little plane on the runway, especially near takeoff speed, but that's because the tires are so small. The control stick/yoke/whatever the heck it's called, is sort of odd at first but easy to use. Kind of loud at first, but well, its an airplane. Horribly low useful load, but like any LSA, its the name of the game. I did some landings, which I felt were very simple, almost like a 152.

Needless to say, I'm sold on the thing. Flight schools should consider getting these just to make training cheaper.
 
I was mistaken for a sky scratcher by Colgan yesterday at the hold short, does that count?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I was one of the biggest vocal opponents of the 162. Didn't like the fact that it's got an O-200, didn't like the fact that its made in China and generally didn't like that it was so late to the LSA party, but today I figured, what the heck, give it a shot.

Needless to say, its a much easier airplane to fly than any of the other LSA's I've been in (Remos, Flight Design, Jabiru). It's still a squirrely little plane on the runway, especially near takeoff speed, but that's because the tires are so small. The control stick/yoke/whatever the heck it's called, is sort of odd at first but easy to use. Kind of loud at first, but well, its an airplane. Horribly low useful load, but like any LSA, its the name of the game. I did some landings, which I felt were very simple, almost like a 152.

Needless to say, I'm sold on the thing. Flight schools should consider getting these just to make training cheaper.
Click to expand...

.????? Are you selling those things now? I see right through you!
 
not that it adds any real value to the conversation, but the skycatcher is one sexy looking airplane.
 
Overpriced.

Run the numbers and the juice ain't worth the squeeze at a flight school. I predict failure just like the whole sport pilot rating itself.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Needless to say, I'm sold on the thing. Flight schools should consider getting these just to make training cheaper.
Click to expand...

Told you so.


:D


But seriously, I've been a fan all along. Cessna knew what they were doing. It's not perfect, but it's about as good as an LSA can realistically be. In my observation, the people who are most opposed to the Skycatcher just don't have enough experience with them.
 
I should have said that I rented it at $107/hr. For a brand new airplane (less than 50 hours TT) in the Boston area, I think it's a heck of a deal.

Krieger said:
.????? Are you selling those things now? I see right through you!
Click to expand...

Haha, no. There's about 10 other LSA's I'd try to sell before I went down the China route.

ryanmickG said:
Overpriced.

Run the numbers and the juice ain't worth the squeeze at a flight school. I predict failure just like the whole sport pilot rating itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole sport pilot rating thing has failed *sarcasm*. The only rating that's ever failed is the recreational pilot deal. The sport pilot certificate and LSA's are here to stay. And the LSA's are likely to be the basic trainers of the future.

jrh said:
Told you so.


:D


But seriously, I've been a fan all along. Cessna knew what they were doing. It's not perfect, but it's about as good as an LSA can realistically be. In my observation, the people who are most opposed to the Skycatcher just don't have enough experience with them.
Click to expand...

Eh, the 162 is a good plane. I'm still of the opinion that it would be about 10x better if they would have went the Rotax route. They killed so much weight with the O-200D that it's almost laughable. Personally, of the LSA's I've flown, I'd go with the Jabiru.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The sport pilot certificate and LSA's are here to stay. And the LSA's are likely to be the basic trainers of the future.
Click to expand...

It will take a while. The insurance companies are the ones who run the show in the flight instructing world and there is just not enough history behind the planes to make them insurable at a decent cost. Also, the sports pilot is too much of a liability. Who wants a bunch of geezers that cant get a medical flying around on their policy? No thanks.

If I was old and couldn't get a medical for whatever reason I would just go buy a 172 and fly it without a license at all. No certificate equals no certificate action when get caught. :D
 
ryanmickG said:
It will take a while. The insurance companies are the ones who run the show in the flight instructing world and there is just not enough history behind the planes to make them insurable at a decent cost. Also, the sports pilot is too much of a liability. Who wants a bunch of geezers that cant get a medical flying around on their policy? No thanks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps where you live that's the case. Go down to Florida. There are lots of various LSA's at flight schools, that are being run at affordable rental rates. The insurance companies have made their mark already. Most LSA's are now needing about 5 hours of dual prior to solo operation, and in many cases, its probably needed.
 
Someone please explain how a new, $100K airplane is going to be cheaper to operate/make money with than some used but well-maintained 152s and 172s?

And, assuming you tell me it's based on fuel burn, how much fuel do you have to burn to get an ROI on a 162 vs. a 152 or 172?
 
There's a guy at the AOPA forums who is paying almost $200 an hour to rent a Skysmasher, er... Skytrasher, er.... Cessna 162 with instructor. He can't get a PPL due to medical issues, and the only flight school with one in the area is raking him over the coals! Of course, he only wants to fly a Skythresher, er... Skyfarter, er... what the heck is the name of that thing???

Actually, I think the 162 Skycatcher was a good move on Cessna's part, regardless of where it is built. They needed a training aircraft to replace the 150/152, and Piper dropped the ball when it came to that. Watch. They will sell a boat loads of them, literally!
 
killbilly said:
Someone please explain how a new, $100K airplane is going to be cheaper to operate/make money with than some used but well-maintained 152s and 172s?
Click to expand...

Because when my flight school is advertising a brand new, safe, Skycatcher for 105/hr while your's is advertising a 30 year old 152 for 95/hr, I can convince people that the new plane is: 1) Safer 2) Cooler to fly (which leads to flashy marketing) and 3) Safer and 4) Did I mention since its so much newer is safer? There is little truth in advertising. And compared to a 152, the SkyCatcher is much more comfortable to fly. Honestly, there are lots of people out there who can't comfortably fit in a 152.
 
Never even seen one of those things. I did get checked out in a brand new Remos GX($99 wet) that my primary/instrument CFI owns and is renting out in SAF...The majority of his renters that I know of are PPLs looking for something a little more interesting and fun than a spam can, but I believe he also has some Sport students.
 
loubetti said:
There's a guy at the AOPA forums who is paying almost $200 an hour to rent a Skysmasher, er... Skytrasher, er.... Cessna 162 with instructor. He can't get a PPL due to medical issues, and the only flight school with one in the area is raking him over the coals! Of course, he only wants to fly a Skythresher, er... Skyfarter, er... what the heck is the name of that thing???

Actually, I think the 162 Skycatcher was a good move on Cessna's part, regardless of where it is built. They needed a training aircraft to replace the 150/152, and Piper dropped the ball when it came to that. Watch. They will sell a boat loads of them, literally!
Click to expand...

You can rent a skycatcher here for 80 hr wet as long as you pay the 500 dollar yearly membership fee that covers insurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top