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

Buttman,

whoa. Mechanical flaps?


Handbrake ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

Vaughn Simon wrote:
I was sort of hoping for a more useful, useful load. With full
fuel and no accessories, you have capacity left for two mythical 170
pound pilots plus 6 pounds left over for headsets and sectionals. Or
is the 6 pounds for the engine oil?

Other than that, I like it so far.

Vaughn

Yeah, it's about 100#s heavier empty than a lot of the competition.

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)

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...


I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher??

If they'd have named it "Skywalker" George Lucas would have probably bought
them all.

-c

C Gattman wrote:
"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...


I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher??

If they'd have named it "Skywalker" George Lucas would have probably
bought them all.

-c

Or just owned them all after the Trademark lawsuit.

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

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.