Originally published at: Cessna Skycatcher: The LSA That Couldn't Catch On
How Cessna’s effort to revive entry-level flight training fell short amid design setbacks, production challenges and a market that never fully materialized.
All the points brought up by the author is exactly why I feel that the recent changes in the light sport and recreational aircraft will not result in any increase in the pilot count or aviation activity.
You are born as a low-cost designer and manufacturer, you never turn into one.
Look at other industries, or airlines.
Remember Bede the designer of the Yankee Trainer? Remember how many crashed due to an inability to recover from a stall? There is a story there. Might deregulation and human greed cast an illusion on cheap Charlie thinking as far as flight safety goes?
I have never flown a Yankee, but I’ve talked with CFIs who have and while this isn’t a definitive survey, the general consensus was that the Yankee was a ‘fun’ airplane to fly and very responsive. It could recover from a stall much like any GA aircraft, but a fully developed spin was unrecoverable. The CFIs differed on the ‘why’ but most indicated both a lack of rudder authority and the fuel tank system in the wings. Apparently the fuel tended to move toward the wing tips during spin rotation and the rotational inertia in a fully developed spin inhibited or prevented recovery. One CFI said that during slow flight and stall maneuvers in the Yankee he kept his feet at the ready position…
Also, and this is a single data point, the flight training and rental activity has significantly increased at our local airport since MOSAIC was enacted in October. It used to be easy to schedule our LSAs and C-172s, but now we have to plan ahead, often by several days. I hope it continues!
Be safe out there!
This is one of the best summaries of the 162 program I’ve read to date. The Scott Ernest price hike from $115K to nearly $150 killed nearly half of the 800+ orders overnight. The overweight O200 engine doomed the useful load from the beginning especially when compared to the competition using a Rotax powerplant. The authors final three observations sum up where we are in aviation and see it now playing out in the AAM / Urban Mobility movement - regardless of the technology and deep pockets involved.
I see no mention in this article or the comments of useful load and payload with full fuel. If I remember correctly, other news sources said that payload with full fuel was a bit over 300 pounds, making this plane useless for (legal) dual instruction. Also, I don’t believe the 162 Skycatcher was approved for intentional spins. Is my memory correct?
Dismantled is a poor choice of words for the remaining Skycatchers. The original article had “scrapped” which better captured the utter destruction of the remaining airframes, undoubtedly for vindictive tax purposes. The weak point is the nose gear and firewall and it’s a shame those parts weren’t saved. The new leadership was looking at the millions of dollars in the bizjet crowd and walked away from Cessna’s plane for the average pilot heritage. The dropping of the primary category work was a mistake and a throwing away of the intellectual property they had worked hard to gain. Had they increased the useful load, it would have gained a market. One other point: Many of us saw the original rudder design and thought that the lack of area below the elevator and small size would lead to spin issues. We eyeball engineers were right. Not the first time a stylist had the better of the aerodynamic team.
You’re right. The original design had a Rotax engine and greater useful load. It has a placard against intentional spins.
Having 50 hours in a Cessna 150 and 850 hours in a Cessna 172; I am certain both the Cessnas 152 and 162 are wonderful aircraft. Used Cessna 150s are always available for sale. Meaning to me, both the 152 and the 162 will always be the step child of the 150. And specifically, probably no way exists to compete with the Cessna 150 in the market place because there are so many of them. I believe over 20,000? And Cessna 172s, over 30,000? At used costs that are a fraction of a new airplane cost. And the old airplanes, if have gone through yearly annual inspections, are probably safer or as safe as any new aircraft. And the exercise Cessna went through with the 162 appears to prove that. The training market for starter aircraft is well suited by used aircraft and it is highly unlikely any manufacturer will challenge the used aircraft market; where the aircraft value is unexcelled. Though, in the last 7 to 8 years, the price of used aircraft has doubled or more. Meaning to me, used aircraft will be around forever.
Had Cessna just brought back the 152 in lightweight composite materials, and made it here in America, they might have had something.
The only certified engine at the time suitable for LSA aircraft (limited to 1320# GW) was the Rotax. Both Continental O-200 (used in the 150 & 162) and even heavier Lycoming O-235 (used in the 152) were mismatches for LSAs. They were about 30% heavier and burned at least 25% more fuel. Cessna had hoped flight school familiarity with the O-200 would make a difference but in the end, the limited useful load impacted the training market from an instructor/student pairing and the endurance standpoint. Test airplanes on experimental airworthiness regularly flew around 1400#+ which had little effect on performance but the extra capability made the 162 shine. Had Cessna been granted the 1420#GW exemption given to amphibious LSAs, the history of the airplane may have been significantly different.
I believe the Wichita Eagle newspaper reported it accurately describing how the shipping containers of airplanes waiting reassembly in Independence, KS were bulldozed intact- none of the engines, props, avionics, seats, or even wheels and tires were removed. And I believe they even had the gruesome pictures to go with it.
If you design an airplane that has been announced to cost $100,000 and the price turns out to be 50% more at $149,000 you have missed your price point and lost your projected market. Even more critical was to design an airplane for student training which was, at least initially, hard to get out of a spin. This could have been fatal to students if not corrected, since they do not get hands-on spin experience in the training course. If you want that training, you have to get it in an aerobatic aircraft, or, a glider. Also, there are prospective buyers who do not want an airplane manufactured in China, where every devious scheme possible is used to cut costs. There are airplane manufacturers like GoGetAir and Pipestrel in Europe which are a fraction of the size of Cessna but manufacture airplanes that are offering 2 seat aircraft that incorporate light weight new tech materials and designs and have better fuel economy and performance. Clearly, being bigger is not always being better.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.