Cessna 162 ?

dmspilot said:
Thanks for the clarifications regarding the Chinese manufacturing vs. assembly.

The 162 is aluminum isn't it?
Click to expand...

Huh... I'll be darned. I didn't know that. Haven't looked at one up close.

Well anyway... was just sharing that there was an SB out... I deleted the e-mail from their automated system so I don't have a link to share.
 
vintage cessna said:
I seem to recall seeing a whole lot of Chinese aircraft doing aerobatics at OSH last time I was there.

All I know is that my C162 is averaging 35 revenue hours a month while the C150 on the same line that goes for $20 an hour less averages 10 hours per month.
Click to expand...


There's also a minimum of time and effort spent. For example, it doesn't add a gram of weight to roll an edge.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The big problem with LSA's in general is that they are just to light and don't hold up. No way can you make a durable airplane and keep the gross under 1320 pounds. Why, I bet bunches of the Champs, Cubs, Luscombes, etc. that were built in the 1940's aren't even close to airworthy anymore - after only 60 years.
Click to expand...

Hunh?

(My Chief was made in 1940, rebuilt in 1980, and maintained as airworthy since then -- with the original S/N engine which I fly an average of 50 hours/year).

First, none of those has original fabric -- but that's fine, it was designed to have the fabric replaced. While replacing fabric, the structure is inspected/ repaired.

Most of them have not survived primarily for two reasons -- poor piloting (wrecks) and neglect (not flown).

Very few died in flight because they were just "too old."
 
Old Geek said:
My CTSW is doing just fine after 5 years. Nobody knows if it will make 50 years. But then I'll be dead and gone long before then.
Click to expand...
I know a couple of flight schools which stopped using CTSW's because the landing gear (especially the angle fitting connecting wheel assembly to landing gear strut) is too easily bent with anything less than a good landing. Flight Design beefed up that area for the follow-on CTLS along with some other fixes to make it easier to fly without breaking it. Of course, this probably isn't an issue for OG, as he probably knows how to fly pretty well already and isn't nearly as likely as a new Student to bang it against the ground.
 
Last edited:
fgcason said:
In general; pretty shiny always sells in america even if it's a POS that 10th world junk makers would be ashamed of. Old 25 year old proven durable nearly crashproof airplane, forgetaboutit.
Click to expand...
The problem with this argument is that 150 is junk too, even if crashproof. When I checked out in one, I was appaled at poor quality and mediocre engineering of it. I haven't seen 162, and perhaps Cessna managed to exceed themselves and cheapness, but among the LSAs with which I have experience, GX is far superior to 150 in every respect.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The big problem with LSA's in general is that they are just to light and don't hold up. No way can you make a durable airplane and keep the gross under 1320 pounds.
Click to expand...
Wow - I guess I was hallucinating when I saw that Ercoupe flying around 3G3. Better check with Dr. Bruce...:wink2:
 
Morne said:
I was hallucinating when I saw that Ercoupe flying around 3G3. Better check with Dr. Bruce.
Click to expand...
Yes, you should check -I believe hallucinations are a disqualifying medical condition. And you should also check with your doctor before considering acting as PIC of an LSA without a medical.
 
zaitcev said:
The problem with this argument is that 150 is junk too, even if crashproof. When I checked out in one, I was appaled at poor quality and mediocre engineering of it. I haven't seen 162, and perhaps Cessna managed to exceed themselves and cheapness, but among the LSAs with which I have experience, GX is far superior to 150 in every respect.
Click to expand...


I have done approximately 100- 100hr & Annual inspections on 150 & 152s and do not disagree with your assessment. I had one thorough one hour left to my own inspection of one on the ground and can assure you, they beat for cheap with the 162. It should be a $25,000 airplane lol. FMD, it's semi finished metalwork. They could have worked what they have a bit better, take some weight off with a Rotax and add a bit to the hinge so you can open the door under the wing in flight! They could even add a bit to the gear & gear boxes and still have left over for more fuel. If they did that, especially with a 914 0ption on floats, that would be worth $120k. Right now the fit and finish is really non existent in those regards. It really looked like a cheap kit a shop class had built. How they made it so heavy with so little substance is beyond me; it must have a spar ready for Mach loads.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
They could have worked what they have a bit better, take some weight off with a Rotax and add a bit to the hinge so you can open the door under the wing in flight!
Click to expand...
Very likely so. By the way, it is said that the 233 is between 200-D and the Rotax. Since it's produced by a company owned by the same concern, I hope to see a re-engined version in not too distant future, with the weight being used just like you say.
 
Morne said:
Wow - I guess I was hallucinating when I saw that Ercoupe flying around 3G3. Better check with Dr. Bruce...:wink2:
Click to expand...
Although some (most?) Ercoupes may be flown using only Sport Pilot privileges, they are not LSA's -- they still have Standard airworthiness certificates, not Special airworthiness certificates in the LSA category.
 
Ron Levy said:
Although some (most?) Ercoupes may be flown using only Sport Pilot privileges, they are not LSA's -- they still have Standard airworthiness certificates, not Special airworthiness certificates in the LSA category.
Click to expand...

Title 14, Part 1, definitions and abbreviations:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—
(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a glider.
(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
Click to expand...
LSA or not has very little to do with how it was certified.
 
Skylane81E said:
Actually it has a lot, having gone through the certification of a SLSA I can tell you the bar isn't set very high.
Click to expand...
Not very high for E-AB either.

But, the definition of "light sport aircraft" depends on weight, speed, seats, not how it is certified.
 
In 2007 I wandered around the LSA mall at air venture.

I counted three planes I'd ride in not counting the cub clones and powered parachutes.

Hollow core rivets and composite skins so thin you could poke a finger through were onl some of the things that scared me.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Not very high for E-AB either.

But, the definition of "light sport aircraft" depends on weight, speed, seats, not how it is certified.
Click to expand...

Yes but the post you quoted was pointing out that there is a difference between CAR 3 planes and S/ELSA airplanes.
 
Henning said:
I have done approximately 100- 100hr & Annual inspections on 150 & 152............
Click to expand...

BS.gif


I find that rather amusing for a guy that does not possess an A&P nor an IA rating.

Under 14 CFR 43.3 you certainly don't qualify although you may have worked under the supervision of an A&P to do a 100 hour, but an IA cannot delegate his duties performing an Annual. For a non certified person, or an A&P without an Inspection Authorization to claim they have performed annual inspections is ludicrous at best.

You have once claimed you worked under a CRS (certified repair station), although there is no record of you ever holding a repairman certificate.

Even under a 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station (145.157) (a) A certificated repair station located inside the United States must ensure each person authorized to approve an article for return to service under the repair station certificate and operations specifications is certificated under part 65.

In short, I ain't buying it. :nono:


Sorry for interrupting the discussion.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
BS.gif


I find that rather amusing for a guy that does not possess an A&P nor an IA rating.

Under 14 CFR 43.3 you certainly don't qualify although you may have worked under the supervision of an A&P to do a 100 hour, but an IA cannot delegate his duties performing an Annual. For a non certified person, or an A&P without an Inspection Authorization to claim they have performed annual inspections is ludicrous at best.

You have once claimed you worked under a CRS (certified repair station), although there is no record of you ever holding a repairman certificate.

Even under a 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station (145.157) (a) A certificated repair station located inside the United States must ensure each person authorized to approve an article for return to service under the repair station certificate and operations specifications is certificated under part 65.

In short, I ain't buying it. :nono:


Sorry for interrupting the discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many CRSs you worked in or supervise, but I promise that for the most part the Certificate Holder is not doing the opening and closing of the plane and typically is educating their employees during the inspection itself. The employee is also the one typically tasked with all the lube and such. At that time there was not even a requirement to be an A&P to sign off repairs, only authorization from the certificate holder to use the CRS number to sign with.
 
Henning said:
I don't know how many CRSs you worked in or supervise, but I promise that for the most part the Certificate Holder is not doing the opening and closing of the plane and typically is educating their employees during the inspection itself.
Click to expand...
Then you weren't doing the Annual inspection, just assisting the person who was.

At that time there was not even a requirement to be an A&P to sign off repairs, only authorization from the certificate holder to use the CRS number to sign with.
Click to expand...
How many decades ago was that? And in what country?
 
Henning said:
I don't know how many CRSs you worked in or supervise, but I promise that for the most part the Certificate Holder is not doing the opening and closing of the plane and typically is educating their employees during the inspection itself. The employee is also the one typically tasked with all the lube and such. At that time there was not even a requirement to be an A&P to sign off repairs, only authorization from the certificate holder to use the CRS number to sign with.
Click to expand...

Nope, the person signing off work (returning to service) has always been required to be certified under 14 CFR Part 65.

And an IA cannot delegate an inspection.
 
Henning said:
Can I operate a qualifying Luscombe or Ercoupe... under LSA inspection and maintenance rules?
Click to expand...

You mean the S-LSA or E_LSA maintenance and inspection rules? No. Can't operate them under the E-AB maintenance and inspection rules either.

But you can operate them under the rules for sport pilot since they (at least some of them) are defined as Light Sport Aircraft.
 
For what it's worth- For the first 100 hour inspection I took the Skycatcher to a very experienced mechanic with an outstanding reputation. I told him I wanted his honest assessment of the airplane, not to worry about my feelings as I had an offer for the plane for more than I had paid. If it was junk I wanted to know. He told me it was a well built aircraft and easy to work on. I haven't seen anything yet to make me doubt him.
 
Henning said:
Piper had the one that had hollow core rivets holding sheer stress...:eek:
Click to expand...

Skylane81E said:
<snip>

Hollow core rivets and composite skins so thin you could poke a finger through were onl some of the things that scared me.
Click to expand...

What is the minimum shear strength for a 1/8 Cherry N(hollow core, not required to retain the mandrel) CC rivet (such as the Sonex uses)?

What is the maximum shear strength you can find for ANY of the AN4 aluminum solid rivets. (hint: see page 4-17 of your 43.13)

:rolleyes:

Tim
 
Henning said:
At that time there was not even a requirement to be an A&P to sign off repairs, only authorization from the certificate holder to use the CRS number to sign with.
Click to expand...

True, if you were working in a CRS, the DOM bought off the repairs, not the workers.

Part 65 is not at issue.
 
Skylane81E said:
In 2007 I wandered around the LSA mall at air venture.

I counted three planes I'd ride in not counting the cub clones and powered parachutes.

Hollow core rivets and composite skins so thin you could poke a finger through were onl some of the things that scared me.
Click to expand...
Were the skins thinner than the fabric on the cub clones?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Were the skins thinner than the fabric on the cub clones?
Click to expand...
I remember how Henning brought up the hollow rivet for the first time. Back then he did not talk about the shear load on it, but about the lifetime of the rivet. It was more than a year ago, because soon thereafter there was the first RM Light Sport expo (Hello, Blanche, Eric, and Mari!), where I observed those rivets for myself and interrogated the salesman, owner of Fox Aerosports. Of course the official line is that the hollow rivet was proven for the lifetime of the airplane, whatever that is. For myself, I have no way to evaluate the problem. One has to be an experienced builder or a real engineer, and I am merely a software engineer. I know that those airplanes accumulated a good record, but of course none lasted as long as an old 150! Closer to the topic, neither 162 nor GX use the hollow rivet in construction.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Even under a 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station (145.157) (a) A certificated repair station located inside the United States must ensure each person authorized to approve an article for return to service under the repair station certificate and operations specifications is certificated under part 65.
Click to expand...

Once again, wrong reference

145.155 Inspection personnel requirements.

top
(a) A certificated repair station must ensure that persons performing inspections under the repair station certificate and operations specifications are—

(1) Thoroughly familiar with the applicable regulations in this chapter and with the inspection methods, techniques, practices, aids, equipment, and tools used to determine the airworthiness of the article on which maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations are being performed; and

(2) Proficient in using the various types of inspection equipment and visual inspection aids appropriate for the article being inspected; and

(b) A certificated repair station must ensure its inspectors understand, read, and write English.

Hennie never did say he signed off the inspection, but it is legal for him to do the inspection.
 
Tom-D said:
Once again, wrong reference

145.155 Inspection personnel requirements.

top
(a) A certificated repair station must ensure that persons performing inspections under the repair station certificate and operations specifications are—

(1) Thoroughly familiar with the applicable regulations in this chapter and with the inspection methods, techniques, practices, aids, equipment, and tools used to determine the airworthiness of the article on which maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations are being performed; and

(2) Proficient in using the various types of inspection equipment and visual inspection aids appropriate for the article being inspected; and

(b) A certificated repair station must ensure its inspectors understand, read, and write English.

Hennie never did say he signed off the inspection, but it is legal for him to do the inspection.
Click to expand...

Your regulation knowledge as an A&P and an IA is appalling at best. :nonod:
 
Troska said:
What is the minimum shear strength for a 1/8 Cherry N(hollow core, not required to retain the mandrel) CC rivet (such as the Sonex uses)?

What is the maximum shear strength you can find for ANY of the AN4 aluminum solid rivets. (hint: see page 4-17 of your 43.13)

:rolleyes:

Tim
Click to expand...

Let's see if that hollow core rivet is still tight in 20 years...
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Your regulation knowledge as an A&P and an IA is appalling at best. :nonod:
Click to expand...

Your ability to site the correct reference has escaped you again.

Proving you are not a FAA type.
 
Skylane81E said:
Let's see if that hollow core rivet is still tight in 20 years...
Click to expand...

I don't know whether I should ask you about the ductility of aluminum vs SS, or if I should ask if these rivets (picture attached) are pulled or driven.

Tim
 

Attachments

  • smokingrivets.JPG
    smokingrivets.JPG
    12.8 KB · Views: 26
So any personal experience or verdicts on the Remos GX? I sat in one at Oshkosh, that's it. The fuel burn and useful load makes it sound attractive.
 
MSPAviator said:
So any personal experience or verdicts on the Remos GX? I sat in one at Oshkosh, that's it. The fuel burn and useful load makes it sound attractive.
Click to expand...

Gear looked light, outside of that not too bad. Still looked built light, but I saw what I needed to see to be ok with the structure in general, seemed roomy. Ugly as it kind of has to be to take greatest advantage to get that volume with that drag signature. Over all it was one of the ones I thought was viable.
 
MSPAviator said:
So any personal experience or verdicts on the Remos GX? I sat in one at Oshkosh, that's it. The fuel burn and useful load makes it sound attractive.
Click to expand...
GX would be my favourite airplane without reservations if only I could fit comfortably in it. It is the sweetest flying for sure. My longer opinions are availabe in this series of posts:
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/flying_remos_checkout
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/flying_meg_godlewski_and_c162
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/flying_ctls_at_last
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/flying_remos_gx_versus_cessna_150m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top