Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

Before I left today, they were at over 500 of them "sold".

Blueskies wrote:
"Ken Finney" wrote in message ...
"Morgans" wrote in message ...
"Ken Finney" wrote
And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight reduction" over previous models.
Really?

What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much? (or any)

I'd expect some tighter tolerance machinings and castings, electronic ignition versus magnetos, and higher-tech
starter and alternator.



Yes, it has no mags, and is FADEC.

On Jul 27, 2:12 pm, Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net wrote:
Supposedly Cessna took orders for 400 Skythings by the close of
business at Oshkosh. I wonder if that equals all other LSAs to date?

Speaking of bloat and high prices, Cub Crafters is offering a Cub
Sport (whatever) at about $120,000. And Legend Aircraft is offering a
Cub with AUTOPILOT.

Yes, it's a wonderful thing how LSA has brought flying back to its
essentials.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollinswww.flyingtigersbook.com

That is truly amazing (400-500 sold)...I am still trying to figure out
what one does with it...I guess it is a ying yang thing...IF I could
get away with no radios flying the light stuff I would...

Robert

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

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

It is 100 lbs lighter than a Legend Cub, carries 8 more gallons of fuel
and flies 10 kts faster.

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 23, 3:23 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:01 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
:

I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine.

IIRC, the Cont O-200 has a TBO of 1,800 hours. Have you checked the
TBO on the Rotax?

TBO on the Rotax is 1,500 hours.

And then you throw it away and buy a new one because no one will work on it
and you couldn't get parts if you could find someone to do the overhaul.

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

You conveniently forgot to mention that it has a real engine that can be
fixed by any maintenance facility.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Scott Skylane" wrote

Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.

I agree, most completely!

The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
powered LSA's.

Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
--
Jim in NC

I would give up 100 pounds of useful to fly behind the O-200 vs the rotax.

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote
And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight
reduction" over previous models.

Really?

What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much?
(or any)


I'd expect some tighter tolerance machinings and castings, electronic
ignition versus magnetos, and higher-tech starter and alternator.


Continental had one on display at OSH. It had numerous changes that saved
weight. Starter and alternator are probably worth 15 pounds alone. Oil
tank was lightweight also.

John T wrote:
Before I left today, they were at over 500 of them "sold".

Somebody up-thread made the comment that the 400 number was probably more
than all the LSA sales combined. The August Aviation Consumer has an article
on the LSA market and quote 1000 have been sold and delivered. "as of this
writing" which one would assume was a month or so ago." And they were
talking about the real airplane part of the LSA rules not weight-shift,
powered parachute...

john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

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

It is 100 lbs lighter than a Legend Cub, carries 8 more gallons of
fuel and flies 10 kts faster.

Let's see, 50 year old design compared to a modern composite design. Yes,
that a fair comparison.

It seems that Legend put their Cub on SlimFast recently though it is still a
little chubby.

http://www.legend.aero/news.asp?id=44
Following an extensive review of the design of the Legend Cub, the company
has determined new empty weights for its three base models as follows. The
open cowl model, or J-3 style, with a Continental O-200 engine weighs in at
830 lbs. A closed cowl version, or PA-11 style, with the same engine weighs
in at 845 lbs. The lightest weight unit features a Jabiru 3300A engine and
is available in a closed cowl. This model weighs in at 800 lbs.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Somebody up-thread made the comment that the 400 number was probably more
than all the LSA sales combined. The August Aviation Consumer has an article
on the LSA market and quote 1000 have been sold and delivered. "as of this
writing" which one would assume was a month or so ago." And they were
talking about the real airplane part of the LSA rules not weight-shift,
powered parachute...

On my last pass by the Cessna tent, the number of $5000 deposits on the
toteboard was 550. Did anyone catch the number at show closing?