Cessna 162 Comparables? Useful Load? LSA now or later?

J

J29172

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
50
Display Name
Display name:
JDN29
I know there weren't many of these made and so that makes them harder to find. I am looking for comparable LSAs. The biggest worry is size and useful load. The CFI I will be using is 135lbs and I'm 270. My son who would occasionally be traveling with me is 88lbs. Otherwise, after training, I'd usually be flying solo.

What are the other options? The CFI told me with us ,we'd have to bring the 162 down to 20gal of fuel. LSA

The normal trip I would take is KHEG to KUZA 288NM straight. I understand with this trip, there will be some diversion due to airspace and possible headwinds so it may be a longer distance.

For my needs, sport pilot will be sufficient. However, I am trying to decide if training now will be worth it or waiting til I drop 40lbs, which is doable. I did find a few Flight Design CTSWs for sale but my CFI said he is unaware of that plane. So, maybe a red flag?
 
Buying or renting?
Carrying 405 pounds of bodies shouldn't be that hard. Flight Design, RV-12, Cub/Champ varients, Kitfox, etc.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Buying or renting?
Carrying 405 pounds of bodies shouldn't be that hard. Flight Design, RV-12, Cub/Champ varients, Kitfox, etc.
Click to expand...
I would be renting the 162 for now to complete the training. I wanted to learn in what I would buy but there are not many 162s for sale. I found the Flight Design CTSW to be easier to find for sale. My only concern was the CFI stating he didn't know what this plane was. I will look up the others.

I did get the information on the SportCruiser, so that is the only other that I have viewed so far.
 
Training and losing weight ware good things. There are many LSA options and several mentioned already. Gobosh, Remos, Tecnam, Pipestrel, Evecktor are just a few that haven't been mentioned that make or made good aircraft. Transitioning from one LSA to another usually isn't too bad. I've flown Gobosh and Remos aircraft and while not the same they are similar...though the Remos is a damn glider when ya wanna come down.

Get your ticket (Sport Pilot certificate) then shop for a plane.

And with 'just' 20 gallons on board the Skycatcher still has more than three hours endurance. Since the average lesson is about an hour it's not a concern.
 
Clark1961 said:
...Get your ticket (Sport Pilot certificate) then shop for a plane.

And with 'just' 20 gallons on board the Skycatcher still has more than three hours endurance. Since the average lesson is about an hour it's not a concern.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

It's not difficult to transition to most other LSAs after you get your ticket in a Skycatcher.

The Flight Design is a popular LSA. There is a member here with one who's posted some video on some fairly lengthy cross country flights.
 
GRG55 said:
:yeahthat:

It's not difficult to transition to most other LSAs after you get your ticket in a Skycatcher.

The Flight Design is a popular LSA. There is a member here with one who's posted some video on some fairly lengthy cross country flights.
Click to expand...
I will have to try to find the videos. I do find it cost effective going this route. I just wasn't sure about transitioning to different planes after doing so.
 
Clark1961 said:
Training and losing weight ware good things. There are many LSA options and several mentioned already. Gobosh, Remos, Tecnam, Pipestrel, Evecktor are just a few that haven't been mentioned that make or made good aircraft. Transitioning from one LSA to another usually isn't too bad. I've flown Gobosh and Remos aircraft and while not the same they are similar...though the Remos is a damn glider when ya wanna come down.

Get your ticket (Sport Pilot certificate) then shop for a plane.

And with 'just' 20 gallons on board the Skycatcher still has more than three hours endurance. Since the average lesson is about an hour it's not a concern.
Click to expand...
I have been researching the Evecktor SportCruiser, but I wasn't sure if that one was the same as 162 when it comes to the weight. I have seen a Remos posted on here. I have never seen a Gobosh. So, I will look that up too.

I do see that like the Evecktor, some planes you have to step down into them unlike the 162 where I can just climb in the door. Do you find that to be more difficult? I have only flown in a 172 and a similar Beech. So, I haven't been in an LSA yet. Will find out in the coming weeks.
 
At 270 lbs, check for any weight restrictions. For example, the FD CTSW POH section 3.5 has weight limit of 260 lbs per seat and has minimum single pilot weights, among other limitations. This is for the FD CTSW SLSA. FD CTSW ELSA may be different. Other LSA will very likely be different.
 
jnmeade said:
At 270 lbs, check for any weight restrictions. For example, the FD CTSW POH section 3.5 has weight limit of 260 lbs per seat and has minimum single pilot weights, among other limitations. This is for the FD CTSW SLSA. FD CTSW ELSA may be different. Other LSA will very likely be different.
Click to expand...
I saw the minimum weight listed there but didn't see the maximum per seat. I will look into this with all the other suggestions as well.
 
I no longer see the attraction of LSAs. If you can get a medical once you can fly with Bacic Med, which is barely one step up from a drivers license. Getting the private gets you so much more than the Sport. Sorry, I just don’t see it anymore.
 
J29172 said:
I did find a few Flight Design CTSWs for sale but my CFI said he is unaware of that plane. So, maybe a red flag?
Click to expand...

A red flag against the CFI? The Flight Design is only one of the most common LSAs around...

steingar said:
I no longer see the attraction of LSAs. If you can get a medical once you can fly with Bacic Med, which is barely one step up from a drivers license. Getting the private gets you so much more than the Sport. Sorry, I just don’t see it anymore.
Click to expand...

But for people who can't get that medical once, it's the only option other than gliders or ultralights.
 
Dana said:
A red flag against the CFI? The Flight Design is only one of the most common LSAs around...



But for people who can't get that medical once, it's the only option other than gliders or ultralights.
Click to expand...
I was asking if it was a red flag with the plane...guess I didn't think about the CFI but maybe because I called it CTSW and not by Flight Design?
 
So you want a plane with a crappy useful load and design? Lol

You know there was a good reason Cessna crushed all the remaining 162s right

c162_crush3.jpg


That sport cruiser is pretty crappily deaigned, that might be a good comparison to the 162lol


But legit, if you want a GOOD LSA, check out a Aeronca champ, chief, luscombe, or a J3 or Taylor craft.


Also regardless of payload, dropping some weight from 270 would be a good idea.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
So you want a plane with a crappy useful load and design? Lol

You know there was a good reason Cessna crushed all the remaining 162s right

c162_crush3.jpg


That sport cruiser is pretty crappily deaigned, that might be a good comparison to the 162lol


But legit, if you want a GOOD LSA, check out a Aeronca champ, chief, luscombe, or a J3 or Taylor craft.


Also regardless of payload, dropping some weight from 270 would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
I read the article on the 162s. My intent was to find something similar since that's what the flight school offers. Everyone's story is different. I actually dropped 115lbs and had to stop due to chemo, which causes one to gain. The only reason I asked was to see if there would be a difference in selecting an aircraft for purchase.
 
J29172 said:
I read the article on the 162s. My intent was to find something similar since that's what the flight school offers. Everyone's story is different. I actually dropped 115lbs and had to stop due to chemo, which causes one to gain. The only reason I asked was to see if there would be a difference in selecting an aircraft for purchase.
Click to expand...

On the heavier side it's going to be tuff for most any LSA, some of the more bush style planes like a LSA carbon cub will have more room in the weight department. The 162 was just flat out a bad design.
 
James331 said:
On the heavier side it's going to be tuff for most any LSA, some of the more bush style planes like a LSA carbon cub will have more room in the weight department. The 162 was just flat out a bad design.
Click to expand...
That's the only LSA they have for training. My plan was originally to purchase a plane to train in, which with the now even more limited options, I may wait until I lose the weight to start.
 
Especially with LSAs, IMO the major buying consideration will be whether the manufacturer will still be in business in five or ten years. At the beginning there were far too many LSA manufacturers, but I haven't been paying enough attention to know whether the shakeout is mostly complete or not. If there more than two or three still active, I would say the shakeout is not complete. Be careful out out there!
 
J29172 said:
The CFI told me with us ,we'd have to bring the 162 down to 20gal of fuel.

The normal trip I would take is KHEG to KUZA 288NM straight.

I did find a few Flight Design CTSWs for sale but my CFI said he is unaware of that plane. So, maybe a red flag?
Click to expand...

In the order of topics:

1. Yes, the CFI is correct that you'll have to off-load. BUT why is this a problem? With 20 gallons you can fly for at least 3 hours with reserve. It's extremely rare to find a student who can accept instruction for more than 1.5 hours. People are concerned about off-loading in 150, because in many cases you only have an hour worth of fuel at takeoff. The gross weight of 150 is much greater (1600 versus 1320 lbs), but the airplane is significantly heavier. Off-load away!

2. You know, I'd like to land when I bore a hole at LSA speeds for 288 nm. But I'm sure the airplane can make it, especially solo.

3. I cannot imagine a Sport CFI ignorant of the CT line. Most likely there was a miscommunication.

Personally, I prefer CT (CTSW or CTLS) to 162. It carries more and it's faster, and it does all this with a standard parachute. CT has upholstery. I sometimes say - and truthfully - that I received a more grievous injury climbing aboard a 162 than I received when I crashed my experimental. I bloodied my head by smacking it upon something inside the 162.

I know that some people prefer the brake steering and the stoke of the 162, but these never won against poor performance of it.

Unfortunately, CTs are expensive. Expect to pay $75k for a decent CTSW, and CTLS are north of $90k.

P.S. It's true that POH for CTLS limits the pilot weight to 260 lbs.
 
Last edited:
You can see from my profile picture I soloed in a Skycatcher. It is the most common LSA trainer around. I would drop 25 lbs and train in the Skycatcher.
 
Cluemeister said:
You can see from my profile picture I soloed in a Skycatcher. It is the most common LSA trainer around. I would drop 25 lbs and train in the Skycatcher.
Click to expand...
I will be training in the Skycatcher. We just won't have full tanks of fuel. What do you think of it as far as a plane that you would purchase?
 
zaitcev said:
In the order of topics:

1. Yes, the CFI is correct that you'll have to off-load. BUT why is this a problem? With 20 gallons you can fly for at least 3 hours with reserve. It's extremely rare to find a student who can accept instruction for more than 1.5 hours. People are concerned about off-loading in 150, because in many cases you only have an hour worth of fuel at takeoff. The gross weight of 150 is much greater (1600 versus 1320 lbs), but the airplane is significantly heavier. Off-load away!

2. You know, I'd like to land when I bore a hole at LSA speeds for 288 nm. But I'm sure the airplane can make it, especially solo.

3. I cannot imagine a Sport CFI ignorant of the CT line. Most likely there was a miscommunication.

Personally, I prefer CT (CTSW or CTLS) to 162. It carries more and it's faster, and it does all this with a standard parachute. CT has upholstery. I sometimes say - and truthfully - that I received a more grievous injury climbing aboard a 162 than I received when I crashed my experimental. I bloodied my head by smacking it upon something inside the 162.

I know that some people prefer the brake steering and the stoke of the 162, but these never won against poor performance of it.
.
Unfortunately, CTs are expensive. Expect to pay $75k for a decent CTSW, and CTLS are north of $90k.

P.S. It's true that POH for CTLS limits the pilot weight to 260 lbs.
Click to expand...
Not worried about the offloading. I was just providing the information I was given to be able to train in it. It seems more likely that I would find the CTSW for sale, which I have already. Sorry to hear about your crash. I will be setting up a discovery flight next week, so I will ask him again, but he clearly stated he wasn't familiar with that aircraft. So, I will reference it by Flight Design and see what he says. Even if I learn in the 162, I would like to stick with the same CFI and transition to whichever plane I purchase. I found the 162s listed online to be more expensive than the CTSWs that I found so far. Possibly they are not in good shape? I will research further.

I can certainly restart my weight loss goal and begin training at the same time. I just want to know more about the LSA side of things as I have not really looked into it as greatly. There are no local flight schools with CTSWs. In fact, most of them don't even have LSAs.
 
airdale said:
Especially with LSAs, IMO the major buying consideration will be whether the manufacturer will still be in business in five or ten years. At the beginning there were far too many LSA manufacturers, but I haven't been paying enough attention to know whether the shakeout is mostly complete or not. If there more than two or three still active, I would say the shakeout is not complete. Be careful out out there!
Click to expand...
I would then say that I'd stick with the 162 because Cessna has been around so long. I'm not sure of the others.
 
Check out the Sling 2, manufactured by The Airplane Factory. Like the RV-12, it started as a kit and is now mfgr’d as an S-LSA. It’s built like a tank and is a dream to fly. Sliding canopy, reminds me of my Tiger, but only 2 seats. The funny thing about the Sling is it’s a S-LSA at 1320lbs but if built as a kit or flown overseas under different regs it’s gross is 1540 lbs.

You can load it up with 39.6 gallons of mogas or 100LL and fly for 10 hours, not that anyone wants to, but nice to know. They cruise at the top end for LSA’s and can be optioned with glass and a chute.

Check it out...Oh and like others here have said, if your CFI is not familiar with Flight Designs now AeroJones line of LSA’s it time to find a new instructor IMHO.
 
C-1 PILOT said:
Check out the Sling 2, manufactured by The Airplane Factory. Like the RV-12, it started as a kit and is now mfgr’d as an S-LSA. It’s built like a tank and is a dream to fly. Sliding canopy, reminds me of my Tiger, but only 2 seats. The funny thing about the Sling is it’s a S-LSA at 1320lbs but if built as a kit or flown overseas under different regs it’s gross is 1540 lbs.

You can load it up with 39.6 gallons of mogas or 100LL and fly for 10 hours, not that anyone wants to, but nice to know. They cruise at the top end for LSA’s and can be optioned with glass and a chute.

Check it out...Oh and like others here have said, if your CFI is not familiar with Flight Designs now AeroJones line of LSA’s it time to find a new instructor IMHO.
Click to expand...
I will ask again next week. I am sure he's probably the only instructor light enough in this area to train with though. I am going to meet him and see what I think with a Discovery Flight. The flight school he is at has given me the best impression as far as customer service/caring/answering all of my questions without rushing me. So, possibly it was because I said CTSW plane...and not Flight Design.
 
J29172 said:
I will be training in the Skycatcher. We just won't have full tanks of fuel. What do you think of it as far as a plane that you would purchase?
Click to expand...

I believe you can get a good deal on the skycatcher. I looked at lots of aircraft, and ended up buying something else. I found the interior of the 162 very spartan, and the seats not as comfortable as I'd like. It's a great aircraft to train in, so I say get started on your training and worry about buying an aircraft later. But if you have the cash, and don't mind the risk of buying a plane you may not like as much as you thought, go ahead and buy one. There are plenty of deals on them. I think you can pick one up for $50-60k.
 
James331 said:
So you want a plane with a crappy useful load and design? Lol

You know there was a good reason Cessna crushed all the remaining 162s right

c162_crush3.jpg


That sport cruiser is pretty crappily deaigned, that might be a good comparison to the 162lol


But legit, if you want a GOOD LSA, check out a Aeronca champ, chief, luscombe, or a J3 or Taylor craft.


Also regardless of payload, dropping some weight from 270 would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
I've seen it suggested that the reason the remaining 162s were crushed was that the Chinese company that Cessna contracted to build them did such a poor job that it was judged not feasible to make them airworthy.

I flew rental 162s almost exclusively for two years, and about the only negative thing I can say about them is that the seat gets uncomfortable after about an hour.
 
I enjoyed the hell out of the Flight Design. Comfortable, handles great, good visibility, low fuel consumption. If you just wanna get some air under your butt, and take a few short trips here and there, it's a good little plane. If you want to fly a lot of long X/C... not so much.
 
I like the CT line,also like the tecnams.
 
James331 said:
So you want a plane with a crappy useful load and design? Lol

You know there was a good reason Cessna crushed all the remaining 162s right

c162_crush3.jpg


That sport cruiser is pretty crappily deaigned, that might be a good comparison to the 162lol
But legit, if you want a GOOD LSA, check out a Aeronca champ, chief, luscombe, or a J3 or Taylor craft.
Also regardless of payload, dropping some weight from 270 would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

This still breaks my heart. As for your suggestions, I'm not speaking for the OP but not everyone gets excited about flying 70 year old ragwings...
 
J29172 said:
I know there weren't many of these made and so that makes them harder to find. I am looking for comparable LSAs. The biggest worry is size and useful load. The CFI I will be using is 135lbs and I'm 270. My son who would occasionally be traveling with me is 88lbs. ?
Click to expand...

I was in a similar boat (or plane?). I actually used it as motivation to lose a bit of weight. I thought of my goals in terms of avgas. Knowing that the 162 burns about 6 gallons and hour max, I knew that every six pounds lost was another gallon of AvGas. 36 pounds gave me a whole extra hour of endurance in terms of fuel. I really love the 162 but I think an RV12 may be your best bet. If you can attend, there are a few LSA fly-ins over the course of the summer that are worth attending. There are some REALLY nice capable LSAs out there, much more so than the 162 (which I admittedly have a soft spot for).
 
J29172 said:
Maybe because all my family is trying to get me to come visit anyway! I'll see if it's still available. I haven't logged in here in awhile to see the newest comments. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Check out the Aeroprakt A22LS. 680-720 pound empty weight with an extremely wide cabin.
 
I'll be selling my 2012 Aerotrek A240 within the next 3 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top