Flew a SkyCatcher

Ajax BU said:
I'm still loving it. This week has been tough since I have 2 students out of town, and another avoiding this week. I have a husband and wife doing their PPL at the same time and since the wife is out of town the husband isn't allowed to get ahead of her. She is also the one who, on the first lesson, told me I wasn't allowed to write in her logbook--ever. We got past that once I spoke about what I have to do, which upset her...now she just cringes whenever I sign it. It's some new breed feminism thing.


How are things down there? Tell everyone I said hey, I'll try to swing by from time to time. I did see 9TC do a touch and go the other day, that was cool.
Click to expand...

I guess she wears that pants in the relationship?
 
A150K said:
Which is why if you are going to go the LSA route, you should get a Remos or something powered by a 912.
Click to expand...
I just wonder what's changed making the newer 0-200 not be mogas approved. Our plane runs better on mogas--we have valves stick from lead deposits if we run too much 100LL through her.
 
pwttogfk said:
I just wonder what's changed making the newer 0-200 not be mogas approved. Our plane runs better on mogas--we have valves stick from lead deposits if we run too much 100LL through her.
Click to expand...

O-200s were not built for avgas...I too wonder why the new O-200 wasn't approved for Mogas.
 
A150K said:
There's exactly one place in my area I know of and that's who supplies my friend with mogas for his Remos.
Click to expand...

If the remis has a rotax then ethanol shouldn't be a issue. I thought rotax were designed to run on up to 10% ethanol blends
 
A150K said:
O-200s were not built for avgas...I too wonder why the new O-200 wasn't approved for Mogas.
Click to expand...

They were indeed built for avgas give it time and a mogas stc will show up. But all mogas stc's require ethanol free


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.... Allll haaaiiil steeeeve joooobs
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get the marketing position, but I don't think the economics hold water, honestly. I'm 6' 1" with a long inseam, and I found the 152 to be plenty comfortable for me - did all of my PPL training in them and still have a soft spot in my heart for the piece of junk I got my certificate in.

I'll conservatively say that a really nice 150/152 is going to cost you...oh, let's say $30K. The Skycatcher costs $105K, right?

So there's a $75K delta that you have to make up on the operating costs for a comparison. To do that in any reasonable amount of time with any kind of real ROI, you're going to have to rent that thing for the price of some larger complex aircraft, or at least a comparable cost to something like a DA-40.

For trainers, and the amount of abuse they're designed to take, I still think a 150/152 wins hands down.

pwttogfk said:
Things have come so far since the 1970's...Skycatcher vs. 150 comparison
Speed--150 wins
Payload--150 wins
Range--150 wins
Handling--Test pilots accidentally crashed the Skycatcher prototype. I somehow never crashed a 150 or 152 despite making every effort to during my primary training.
IFR--150 yes, 162 no
Spins--150 yes, 162 no
Mogas--150 yes, 162 no
Insurance costs--150 is WAY cheaper
Mx costs--150 is WAY cheaper as well
Purchase costs--you could outfit a squadron of solidly built 150s for the cost of a single 162 that's made by the same folks who make exploding laptop batteries (I kid, I kid)
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is basically my point.

I'll go you one better, too.

A lot of CFIs want quality students, right? Do you want a student who is going to make a decision to fly based solely on the way the plane looks and the fact that it's new? Or do you want a student who does some homework and finds out that flying a perfectly airworthy older airplane is a common and best practice?

Maybe I'm off the mark. Maybe the marketing pukes have data that shows the Sport Certificate with the 162 is going to recoup costs for a flight school. But I doubt it.

I saw one in person at the Andrews show this year. I guess it's okay looking, but it didn't blow my skirt up like a Citabria, Tiger, SuperCub or nicely-outfitted 150 would.
 
Inverted25 said:
If the remos has a rotax then ethanol shouldn't be a issue. I thought rotax were designed to run on up to 10% ethanol blends
Click to expand...

Just because the engine can run it, doesn't mean the airframe can take the fuel. Lots of the LSA's have tanks that are incompatible with ethanol.

killbilly said:
I get the marketing position, but I don't think the economics hold water, honestly. I'm 6' 1" with a long inseam, and I found the 152 to be plenty comfortable for me - did all of my PPL training in them and still have a soft spot in my heart for the piece of junk I got my certificate in.

I'll conservatively say that a really nice 150/152 is going to cost you...oh, let's say $30K. The Skycatcher costs $105K, right?

So there's a $75K delta that you have to make up on the operating costs for a comparison. To do that in any reasonable amount of time with any kind of real ROI, you're going to have to rent that thing for the price of some larger complex aircraft, or at least a comparable cost to something like a DA-40.

A lot of CFIs want quality students, right? Do you want a student who is going to make a decision to fly based solely on the way the plane looks and the fact that it's new? Or do you want a student who does some homework and finds out that flying a perfectly airworthy older airplane is a common and best practice?
Click to expand...

The goal isn't to make money on the Skycatcher right away. You are trying to force the competition to the same level or force them out of business, at which point you can jack the price up, either way. And the marketing with a shiny new airplane and flashy graphics theme must work. How else does ERAU & UND do so well, when in reality there is little difference between them and other aviation colleges.
 
I don't think the idea is that you want students that base their choices on how an airplane looks, it's that you want them to start and finish, that's more likely in a newer more well equipped airplane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.... Allll haaaiiil steeeeve joooobs
 
I'm going to start a zero to hero program utilizing only MU-2s. Cost of acquisition is very, very low. We'll bill the sucke...students for the gas. And you can log Multi Turbine PIC from the day you pass your checkride. The downside is no unsupervised solos...
 
Boris Badenov said:
I'm going to start a zero to hero program utilizing only MU-2s. Cost of acquisition is very, very low. We'll bill the sucke...students for the gas. And you can log Multi Turbine PIC from the day you pass your checkride. The downside is no unsupervised solos...
Click to expand...

Well that and the low survival rate ;)


Sent from 1865 by telegraph....
 
Anyone wanting to do the LSA thing and not doing it in a vintage, LSA eligible machine, or in one of the Cub-knockoffs or T-craft or Luscombe knock offs is an idiot. Those are PROVEN machines and basically unaltered in major ways. These plastic pieces of crap are insane. What about the kind like Tron guy flew that sheds wings? The Cessna product that is built by Chicoms that test pilots crash? Just stupid. Cessna should have built a 120 knock of and limited it to 1320 gross and called it a C 130. No "D" windows like a 120, but an electrical system like a 140. Put an O-200 on it and I'd have one right now. Instead they let communists build a POS.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The goal isn't to make money on the Skycatcher right away. You are trying to force the competition to the same level or force them out of business, at which point you can jack the price up, either way. And the marketing with a shiny new airplane and flashy graphics theme must work. How else does ERAU & UND do so well, when in reality there is little difference between them and other aviation colleges.
Click to expand...

I see where you're going with this but I'm not convinced. As I understand it, flight schools operate on very thin margins.

It might get a few more people through the door, and maybe your enrollment goes up some, but to me, that's more relying on the product than on the school itself. I know this is often how it works, I just don't think the economics are sustainable.
 
WacoFan said:
Anyone wanting to do the LSA thing and not doing it in a vintage, LSA eligible machine, or in one of the Cub-knockoffs or T-craft or Luscombe knock offs is an idiot. Those are PROVEN machines and basically unaltered in major ways. These plastic pieces of crap are insane. What about the kind like Tron guy flew that sheds wings? The Cessna product that is built by Chicoms that test pilots crash? Just stupid. Cessna should have built a 120 knock of and limited it to 1320 gross and called it a C 130. No "D" windows like a 120, but an electrical system like a 140. Put an O-200 on it and I'd have one right now. Instead they let communists build a POS.
Click to expand...

But... taildraggers are DANGEROUS!!!!!oneoneone. Everyone who tried it would DIE!!!1!
 
WacoFan said:
Anyone wanting to do the LSA thing and not doing it in a vintage, LSA eligible machine, or in one of the Cub-knockoffs or T-craft or Luscombe knock offs is an idiot. Those are PROVEN machines and basically unaltered in major ways. These plastic pieces of crap are insane. What about the kind like Tron guy flew that sheds wings? The Cessna product that is built by Chicoms that test pilots crash? Just stupid. Cessna should have built a 120 knock of and limited it to 1320 gross and called it a C 130. No "D" windows like a 120, but an electrical system like a 140. Put an O-200 on it and I'd have one right now. Instead they let communists build a POS.
Click to expand...

It's insurance. It's just way too expensive for a flight school to insure a taildragger....I agree with you in principle, but the target market of these airplanes says otherwise.
 
killbilly said:
I see where you're going with this but I'm not convinced. As I understand it, flight schools operate on very thin margins.

It might get a few more people through the door, and maybe your enrollment goes up some, but to me, that's more relying on the product than on the school itself. I know this is often how it works, I just don't think the economics are sustainable.
Click to expand...

There are some funny things that go on at flight schools. I know one that used to have a fleet of nearly 15 airplanes no more than 4 years ago. Flash forward to today and they have 3. Basically, the FBO owners decided that there was too much liability with older airplanes, so they took the GARA approach and thus, won't rent or do training in anything more than 18 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top