Can a Skycatcher be a good time-builder?

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
483
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
Cessna 150/152s typically are the proverbial poster child of aviation when it comes to owning to build time. But I’ve wondered if the C162s would be a good aircraft to purchase in order to log hours.

They seem to be around double the price of the average C150, but for a (estimated) 10 year old aircraft vs. a 40 year old one, this doesn’t seem like too bad of a deal, especially considering that most of them seem to have modern avionics, which could be salubrious for someone wanting to earn an instrument rating.

From what I’ve read, the 162 has a better climb rate than the 150/152, but has some disadvantages:
-Worse payload (which is saying something :p )
-Cockpit noise is louder
-Handles worse in a crosswind (again, that’s saying something)
-It’s also a real Traumahawk. Unlike a certain 2-seater trainer from Piper that is actually recoverable from a spin (if the pilot knows what they’re doing at least) the Skycatcher is said to be unrecoverable.

Despite these shortcomings, could a C162 still be useful as a time builder? Or should I stay away?

I wouldn’t plan on carrying passengers much. I did mention an instrument rating, but that could probably be worked around (I could train during the winter months). I’m also wondering if parts would be available.
 
i trained and earned my SPL in a 162 and what you’ve heard is true. can’t comment on spin recovery and i dont think the 162 is certified for IFR in IMC but is for IFR in VMC. it’s a feather in heavy wind and cross-wind landings can be like the old Disney World ‘E’-ticket rides. i seem to recall the demonstrated X-wind was 12-knots.
 
I’ve put 170 hours on a 162 in the last three years just putting around, even with a Mooney as my main plane. It’s so cheap and easy to keep running, I fly it when I don’t want to go somewhere fast, and when flying with people that want to sightsee or take the controls. Average about 4.5 gallons per hour.

it’s pretty comfortable for shortish flights and cheap to fly. I’ve landed in much worse than 12 knot crosswinds. I fly it in just about anything, but it is a handful when it’s gusty out. I find that fun. :D
 
RyanShort1 said:
You know where they were built, right?
Click to expand...
I’m not the OP bI don’t.
DMD3. said:
Cessna 150/152s typically are the proverbial poster child of aviation when it comes to owning to build time. But I’ve wondered if the C162s would be a good aircraft to purchase in order to log hours.

They seem to be around double the price of the average C150, but for a (estimated) 10 year old aircraft vs. a 40 year old one, this doesn’t seem like too bad of a deal, especially considering that most of them seem to have modern avionics, which could be salubrious for someone wanting to earn an instrument rating.

From what I’ve read, the 162 has a better climb rate than the 150/152, but has some disadvantages:
-Worse payload (which is saying something :p )
-Cockpit noise is louder
-Handles worse in a crosswind (again, that’s saying something)
-It’s also a real Traumahawk. Unlike a certain 2-seater trainer from Piper that is actually recoverable from a spin (if the pilot knows what they’re doing at least) the Skycatcher is said to be unrecoverable.

Despite these shortcomings, could a C162 still be useful as a time builder? Or should I stay away?

I wouldn’t plan on carrying passengers much. I did mention an instrument rating, but that could probably be worked around (I could train during the winter months). I’m also wondering if parts would be available.
Click to expand...

With that introduction, I knew zero about either before but I can surmise.

Worse gross weight than a bad plane, you spin it and you die, loud as crap, somehow worse in a crosswind, and apparently built in the third world.

Even if knew what salubrious meant, it could not make me pay double for a bird that has that many disadvantages. That second half of money buys a ton of Avgas and MX for the cheaper plane. Just my 2 cents.
 
I flew one once. Noisy, also very little feedback on the elevators.

RyanShort1 said:
You know where they were built, right?
Click to expand...
I've worked with enough Chinese to know they are capable of very good work. Like any out-sourced manufacturing anywhere, you get what you pay for. The shortcomings of the C-162 were in the design, not the manufacturing.
 
Parts are easy to get. Cessna still supports them.

a lot of people are making them experimental now also.
 
Last edited:
DMD3. said:
-Handles worse in a crosswind
Click to expand...
Yea, it's an LSA. Just like a Cub, Champ, Taylorcraft, etc. etc. etc. Low wing loading, low stall speed. You actually have to fly it.

Skycatcher is said to be unrecoverable.
Click to expand...
The Cirrus is said to be unrecoverable. Said to be.
Intentional spins are prohibited, but the POH outlines the procedure for recovery.
 
Salty said:
a lot of people are making them experimental now also.
Click to expand...

I thought that certified aircraft could only be experimental for a pre-defined time period for the purposes of testing (as in new engines or airframe modifications) and had to be returned to their original certification once the testing window was completed.
 
donjohnston said:
I thought that certified aircraft could only be experimental for a pre-defined time period for the purposes of testing (as in new engines or airframe modifications) and had to be returned to their original certification once the testing window was completed.
Click to expand...
There is experimental, and there is experimental.
The Skycatcher is certificated as an S-LSA, and thus, can be transitioned to E-LSA without too much effort.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yea, it's an LSA. Just like a Cub, Champ, Taylorcraft, etc. etc. etc. Low wing loading, low stall speed. You actually have to fly it.
Click to expand...

It is reported that what you stated here is the reason for a number of Light Sport accidents i.e. pilots that are used to heavier wing loading and more momentum get into a really light airplane and don't realize just how different they are.
 
A Light Sport is excellent for time building and earning all your single engine ratings. Not sure a C162 is one of the better LSA's though, have a look at some of the others.
 
I'm biased in that I have hundreds of hours in 150s and no time in a 162. It sounds like the skycatcher has many of the limitations of a 150 like a small cabin and limited useful load and even some more like poor spin characteristics and a really light wing loading. Seems to me there are better LSAs out there for the bucks if LSA is important. You won't beat the 150 for acquisition cost or maintenance. I've seen 150s with Garmin 530s so avionics are whatever you want to spend. I wouldn't recommend either for instrument training, although many have used 150s to get the rating, It's just that neither is what I'd call a stable instrument platform or have the legs required to really use it for IFR cross country in the real world. I'd pass on the 162.
 
FastEddieB said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Salty said:
Funny, they’ve been very responsive to my buddy that owns one. Do you own one?
Click to expand...
Shortly after Cessna announced they would stop producing and selling Skycatchers, they also announced that the 80 or so Skycatchers still in the production sequence would be put into a part-out inventory as demand required. In other words, they are no longer producing parts for them, they just source what’s needed from unfinished stock. When that runs out, it’s done.
 
Witmo said:
I'm biased in that I have hundreds of hours in 150s and no time in a 162. It sounds like the skycatcher has many of the limitations of a 150 like a small cabin and limited useful load and even some more like poor spin characteristics and a really light wing loading. Seems to me there are better LSAs out there for the bucks if LSA is important. You won't beat the 150 for acquisition cost or maintenance. I've seen 150s with Garmin 530s so avionics are whatever you want to spend. I wouldn't recommend either for instrument training, although many have used 150s to get the rating, It's just that neither is what I'd call a stable instrument platform or have the legs required to really use it for IFR cross country in the real world. I'd pass on the 162.
Click to expand...
A 162 is much larger inside than a 150. It’s wider than my Mooney by a long shot. Two big guys can sit Side by Side without rubbing arms. Can’t do that in a 150. They won’t be able to legally carry full fuel, but they wouldn’t in a 150 either.
 
I enjoyed building some time in a 162 at $90/hr.
 
I flew Skycatchers almost exclusively for two years. The seat gets uncomfortable on long flights, and you have to pack light if you're going to take trips, but other than that, it's a fun little airplane, and faster than a 152.
 
Salty said:
Funny, they’ve been very responsive to my buddy that owns one. Do you own one?
Click to expand...
Just because the manufacturer is ‘responsive’ doesn’t mean they’re supportive of the product any longer. If your buddy decided to throw in a GTX-345 or something for ADS-B, he wouldn’t be able to without the green light from Cessna. Since the SkyCatcher is not supported, there isn’t any guidance from the manufacturer.
 
Ryanb said:
Just because the manufacturer is ‘responsive’ doesn’t mean they’re supportive of the product any longer. If your buddy decided to throw in a GTX-345 or something for ADS-B, he wouldn’t be able to without the green light from Cessna. Since the SkyCatcher is not supported, there isn’t any guidance from the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
There is guidance from the manufacturer. The guidance was to install a GDL-82 for adsb. This problem is with any S-LSA, has nothing to do with support, it’s S-LSA rules.
 
unsafervguy said:
i never even thought about putting them in E-lsa
Click to expand...
It's very common with orphaned SLSAs. I paid a DAR $400 to do the inspection and submit the paperwork to convert my AMD CH601XLi-B to experimental because AMD went out of business in 2010 and there was no way to make any modifications (such as installing ADS-B) as any changes to an SLSA require a letter of authorization from the manufacturer; that's pretty hard to do when the manufacturer no longer exists. Once it's recertificated as experimental, you can take the 16 hour Light Sport Repairman - Inspection course, apply through the FSDO for the FAA LSR-I certificate, and perform your own condition inspections. Since it's experimental you can perform your own maintenance and minor modifications and sign them off. This significantly reduces the cost of ownership.

The SLSA doesn't have to be an orphan; you can convert any SLSA to "Experimental Operating Light-Sport Prev. issued cert under 21.190." The downside is that because it's experimental it can't be used for flight instruction for pay or rented for pay. Some European SLSA manufacturers are notorious for not issuing LOAs, so the owners simply pay a DAR to do the conversion to experimental.

Since Zenith is still very much in business selling Zodiac kits, you can buy kit parts from them if you damage your plane. IOW, spare parts are not a problem.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
I've worked with enough Chinese to know they are capable of very good work. Like any out-sourced manufacturing anywhere, you get what you pay for. The shortcomings of the C-162 were in the design, not the manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the word on the street from people I talked to that were using them (I was teaching a lot more light sport at the time) was that they weren't that well made and it seemed like it would've been a better plane if an established US manufacturer had kept it in house.
 
I looked at a couple before I bought my Yankee. My conclusion was that they are not worth the money. If they were selling for 150 money, I would consider a 162, but at the prices they are selling for now ($40k+), I would buy a really nice 150 and $10k in gas.

If you have a PPL and medical (or qualify for BasicMed), then the only advantage of the 162 is the newer airframe/engine and a well maintained, inspected, mid time 150 is unlikely to be $10k less reliable than a 162. And if you are paying $30k for for the 150, I would expect it to be one of the nicest available.

If you choose to fly sport pilot (you are likely not looking to build time), then there are far better LSAs for similar money or not much more.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Yes, but the word on the street from people I talked to that were using them (I was teaching a lot more light sport at the time) was that they weren't that well made and it seemed like it would've been a better plane if an established US manufacturer had kept it in house.
Click to expand...
It was made according to the specifications provided by Cessna. Whoever made the plane is immaterial.
AFAIK, there have been only two service bulletins for this model. That doesn't suggest there are a lot of quality issues. One was for wing structure strengthening, and the other was to replace 22 nuts in the nose of the plane. The wing structure was a design issue by Cessna. I don't know about the nut issue, but note that the replacement part number is the same as the original one.

The main problems with the plane is that it was expensive for an LSA, for what you got. It didn't carry a lot of useful load.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
It was made according to the specifications provided by Cessna. Whoever made the plane is immaterial.
AFAIK, there have been only two service bulletins for this model. That doesn't suggest there are a lot of quality issues. One was for wing structure strengthening, and the other was to replace 22 nuts in the nose of the plane. The wing structure was a design issue by Cessna. I don't know about the nut issue, but note that the replacement part number is the same as the original one.

The main problems with the plane is that it was expensive for an LSA, for what you got. It didn't carry a lot of useful load.
Click to expand...
There are a lot more SB's than that. But, it's no worse than any other certified aircraft, and most of them were minor.
 
Salty said:
There are a lot more SB's than that. But, it's no worse than any other certified aircraft, and most of them were minor.
Click to expand...
And probably no worse than the numbers expected in any new design. Thanks for the correction.
 
It's an awful plane. Flimsy, feels very cheaply built. The 150/152 is a far superior aircraft. Why fix what ain't broke?

Plus, it's ugly as hell

The only place a skycatcher belongs is in the trash
upload_2020-6-10_14-13-46.png

Even Cessna hated it so much they ended up literally destroying around 70 of them.
 
Tantalum said:
It's an awful plane. Flimsy, feels very cheaply built. The 150/152 is a far superior aircraft. Why fix what ain't broke?

Plus, it's ugly as hell

The only place a skycatcher belongs is in the trash
View attachment 86545

Even Cessna hated it so much they ended up literally destroying around 70 of them.
Click to expand...
I've flown a lot in both. The 162 is far superior to the 152. The price is the only thing worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top