Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman wrote:

On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike wrote:
buttman wrote:

whoa. Mechanical flaps?
What's wrong with that?
nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.

Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
the late '60s.

Ron Wanttaja

That Johnson Bar was fun. You had to lift up on it slightly as you
pressed in the end button to release the pressure on the catch. If your
hand was a bit slippery from that last hamburger you ate at the airport
coffee shop, the bar could slip right out of your grip and slam the
flaps up in about a nano-second. Great system really, but you had to be
careful especially with go-arounds initiated from the flare :-)
Dudley Henriques

On Jul 22, 8:37 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman wrote:
On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike wrote:
buttman wrote:

whoa. Mechanical flaps?

What's wrong with that?

nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.

Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
the late '60s.

Ron Wanttaja

As did the 172, 180, 182, 185, and many other high-wing
airplanes like Aeronca/Bellanca/American Champion, Piper, Stinson,
Auster, and on and on. No more difficult than aileron controls. Lots
of homebuilts, too. Where has Buttman been all this time?

Dan

I love the manual flaps on my 1964 Cessna 172E. Much better than the
electric.

Al
1964 Skyhawk
KSFF

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
the late '60s.

Ron Wanttaja

whoa. Mechanical flaps?


What's wrong with that?

Pay no attention. It's just buttman.

You know, the CFI that pulls the throttle on his students - 10 feet off the
ground?
--
Jim in NC

Buttman,

whoa. Mechanical flaps?


Handbrake ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Jul 22, 4:42 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
its LSA entry:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/

Fancy brochu

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...ni_bro_web.pdf

Order form with pricing (for first 1000):

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/imag...final_0721.pdf

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

The Tecnam Bravo is very comparable to the 162. It is all aluminum,
but it weighs 100 pounds less (which under LSA rules means it has 100
pounds more useful load) and it doesn't need wing struts. It also has
a base price of $95,000 rather than the $111,000 Cessna is going to
ask. The Flight Design CT weighs a full 170 pounds less, also does
away with the wing strut, has a wider cabin, and costs about the same
as the Tecnam. There are a number of other LSAs out there which
compare favorably to the Cessna and cost quite a bit less. I think if
a small, relatively unknown company had brought an airplane like the
162 to the market, there would have been a resounding thud. But
Cessna is to airplanes what IBM used to be to computers, and maybe
they can get away with charging a premium to get the name Cessna on
the side of the plane.

I think this situation is similar to the time when IBM introduced
their first personal computer. It legitimized the concept of the
personal computer. In the long run, though, IBM withdrew from the
manufacture of personal computers because they just could not compete
with the likes of Dell. Time will tell whether or not a large company
like Cessna can compete with the many smaller companies that have
entered the LSA market.

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.


You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)

On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil wrote:





On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
the competition.

On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.