i'm starting to like the little C162 Skycatcher

iWantWings

iWantWings

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
437
Location
Southern California
Display Name
Display name:
wingsIwant
Some time in October i got checked out to fly Cessna 162; after i completed the 3-hour checkout (as required by the flight school/renter insurance) my CFI told me that the plane (the ony C162) would be out for some extended service related to a an AD.

About 2 months later, last week, the plane returned and was available for rent , yey! This was going to be the first time i would fly it solo after the checkout (and my 6th hour as pic as a pp)..

The plane flies well, is agile, very responsive to small control inputs and generally feels light (duh!) and nimble. I surely like the plane more now than I did the first time I flew it. It's also nice that it isnt four decades old (with an interior to match) much of that time served dutifully as a trainer. The Garmin g300 PFD and MFD have a ton of data, views and options; enable the synthetic vision and the clustered info on the PFD becomes a bit more saturated. But within a short time things began to look less like a puzzle for me on the two displays. the g300 manual details lots of data and configurations available, but i only got to play with the most basic info so far.

I posted a 15 minute video; it's a bit boring and mundane, just flying the patern, but i like seeing what i do and how (especially forgetting to do certain things, or not doin' them the best way). I dont fly nearly as often as i'd like to so watching the clips helps.

it was a pretty busy (for me, anyways) day in the uncontrolled pattern; people came out to play the vfr flying game after some rainy/cloudy days.

edit link: experimenting wih you tube tags


Scene Index
Very Brief view of Garmin 300 PFD and MFD 0:44
Taxi to runway 2:41
Takeoff 4:25
Turn to Crosswind 5:23
Turn to Downwind 5:55
Turn to Base 6:57
Garmin Aural Terrain Warning: 7:15
Turn to Final 7:26
Short Final 8:24
Over the numbers Landing 8:38
ATIS 9:22
Second pattern Takeoff 9:44
Taxi to parking 13:05
Shutdown 13:16
From the Skycatcher's perspective 13:45


This holiday i plan on flying it to the local mountains (big bear), rain or shine. just kiddin.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
If you like the 162 you would love the RV-12. ;)
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be fun? I read a great deal about RVs, but, on the various flight school's websites that I've looked at, I don't remember seeing RVs for rent. I sure would like to be in one at least once to see what it is all about - at least whatever one can do in 1 hour flight.

So RVs are popular, wonde why flight schools don't use them :dunno:
 
iWantWings said:
Wouldn't that be fun? I read a great deal about RVs, but, on the various flight school's websites that I've looked at, I don't remember seeing RVs for rent. I sure would like to be in one at least once to see what it is all about - at least whatever one can do in 1 hour flight.

So RVs are popular, wonde why flight schools don't use them :dunno:
Click to expand...

Don't they have to be SLSA in order to be used for flight training?
 
MSPAviator said:
I want to know what the 162 is like to fly vs. the 152.
Click to expand...

I took some earlier (like years ago) flight lessons in the C152 to the point I got to solo (then i quit); here are my non-expert observations of C162 and C152:

Performance
-the C162 with full fuel and 24 gallsons, 150lbs + 180lbs, outclimbs the C152 in all phases of flight.
- another example, during power-on stall, both CFIs recommended I do it at 2300 RPM instead of max power to avoid the relatively nose-high attitude during power-on stall that would occur at full power (i did it a full power first and felt like i was climbing nearly vertical - of course i was not, but taht's how it felt).

Glide Ratio
- C162 has less drag, parasite, "form drag", "profile drag" are lower on the C162; it has a better glide ratio and higher glide speed.

Ergonomics/interiorroom
- C162 has the controls layout out in such way that they make the pilot (at least make me) comfortable and things are within easy reach.
- C162 has a "stoke" (1/2 stick, 1/2 yoke). I prefer the yoke on the C152, or a full stick, but it's no biggie.
- C162 has a lot of lateral room, way more than the C152. In fact, the C162 feels at last as roomy laterally as the C172 with the same 2 people.

Instruments
- C162 is all glass Garmin G300.

Others
-C162 does not have a VOR
- C162 is not IFR
- C162 does not even have a magnetic compass (at least the one that I fly in).
- C162 meets the LSA criteria.

Steering
- free castering wheel, differential braking. No issues during normal taxi but during takeoff roll i learned that I have to get the C162 perfectly lined up at the very start of the runway; until the rudder becomes effective, steering is done by braking individual main wheels (and normally you'd want to avoid braking/friction during takeoff).

Wind
- C162 feels like a kite in windy days, say, 15kts or higher. Must keep forward momentum or else I get blown all over the place.
- C152 is heavier and is easier to manage in the same windy conditions.

Looks
- obviously subjective: C162 looks kind of like a magnified insect, takes some getting used to its looks. C152 is boxier, and cute :D

Again, these are my observations and not by the numbers.
 
Last edited:
From the video I noticed your Skycatcher has optional air vents on the side windows. Do the side vents make a difference, and do you know if installation of the vents require a weight and balance change?
 
iWantWings said:
I took some earlier (like years ago) flight lessons in the C152 to the point I got to solo (then i quit); here are my non-expert observations of C162 and C152:

Performance
-the C162 with full fuel and 24 gallsons, 150lbs + 180lbs, outclimbs the C152 in all phases of flight.
- another example, during power-on stall, both CFIs recommended I do it at 2300 RPM instead of max power to avoid the relatively nose-high attitude during power-on stall that would occur at full power (i did it a full power first and felt like i was climbing nearly vertical - of course i was not, but taht's how it felt).

Glide Ratio
- C162 has less drag, parasite, "form drag", "profile drag" are lower on the C162; it has a better glide ratio and higher glide speed.

Ergonomics/interiorroom
- C162 has the controls layout out in such way that they make the pilot (at least make me) comfortable and things are within easy reach.
- C162 has a "stoke" (1/2 stick, 1/2 yoke). I prefer the yoke on the C152, or a full stick, but it's no biggie.
- C162 has a lot of lateral room, way more than the C152. In fact, the C162 feels at last as roomy laterally as the C172 with the same 2 people.

Instruments
- C162 is all glass Garmin G300.

Others
-C162 does not have a VOR
- C162 is not IFR
- C162 does not even have a magnetic compass (at least the one that I fly in).
- C162 meets the LSA criteria.

Steering
- free castering wheel, differential braking. No issues during normal taxi but during takeoff roll i learned that I have to get the C162 perfectly lined up at the very start of the runway; until the rudder becomes effective, steering is done by braking individual main wheels (and normally you'd want to avoid braking/friction during takeoff).

Wind
- C162 feels like a kite in windy days, say, 15kts or higher. Must keep forward momentum or else I get blown all over the place.
- C152 is heavier and is easier to manage in the same windy conditions.

Looks
- obviously subjective: C162 looks kind of like a magnified insect, takes some getting used to its looks. C152 is boxier, and cute :D

Again, these are my observations and not by the numbers.
Click to expand...

I have over 300 hours in the C162 and agree with much of your assessment except for steering. Once you get the hang of it, the only time you need touch the brakes is for slowing, stopping or pivoting around a spot. The easiest way to takeoff is to keep moving once you have taxied onto the runway and find the centerline with the rudder rather than braking.
 
vintage cessna said:
From the video I noticed your Skycatcher has optional air vents on the side windows. Do the side vents make a difference, and do you know if installation of the vents require a weight and balance change?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know enogh to give you an aswer. I am actually surprised that the side window air vents might not be standard; Of the handful of hours I've flown the C162, some were in warm-to-hot, but dry, california weather and I really ejoyed the breeze, especially at cruising altitudes, coming from the window vents in addition to the other overhead vents.

But for keeping cool in cruise, I think the overhead vents are sufficient, but on the ground, anything helps. And when very hot, I've seen the CFIs taxi with the gullwing doors open to the runup area.
 
vintage cessna said:
I have over 300 hours in the C162 and agree with much of your assessment except for steering. Once you get the hang of it, the only time you need touch the brakes is for slowing, stopping or pivoting around a spot. The easiest way to takeoff is to keep moving once you have taxied onto the runway and find the centerline with the rudder rather than braking.
Click to expand...

That is a lot of hours in a relatively new model :D How do you like it?
 
My only squawk with the 162 is the uncomfortable seats.

To save weight, they are only soft, flat cushions. No contour at all.

I asked the instructor who checked me out, and she said her lower back hurts after an hour and a half or so.

I also asked the guy who ferried the first one out here from Witchita if he found it comfortable, and his answer was a quick: "Hell no!"

Other than that, the Cessna engineers did a wonderful job of building a "real" airplane, and staying within the LSA weight limits.
It is an absolute joy to fly.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
My only squawk with the 162 is the uncomfortable seats.

To save weight, they are only soft, flat cushions. No contour at all.

I asked the instructor who checked me out, and she said her lower back hurts after an hour and a half or so.

I also asked the guy who ferried the first one out here from Witchita if he found it comfortable, and his answer was a quick: "Hell no!"

Other than that, the Cessna engineers did a wonderful job of building a "real" airplane, and staying within the LSA weight limits.
It is an absolute joy to fly.
Click to expand...

My longest flight thus far was only 1.1 hrs and maybe that is why I never found any discomfort in the seats. In fact, comfort aside, i really liked the "racing" seating position with the seat bottom low and near the floor while feet are extended more forward (I'm guessing this was designed to provide enough headroom without having to raise the height of the "ceiling").

Initially I read some not very good things about the design of the C162 and most often questioning the build quality. In fact, I have to admit I was influenced by what I read and expected the plane to by "whatever" in my first flight in it

I'm not a structural, mechanical or whatever engineer, but after having a few hours in it, I don't see what the complaints I had read were about. Maybe these derived from the fact that the plane was built in China. In any case, I don't know the reason for the complaints I have read, but from the little I know thus far, this plane kicks but!
 
vintage cessna said:
I liked it so much that I bought one.
Click to expand...

Congratulations!

My CFI (the one that I had finished my PP training with) had nothing but great things to say about the C162. I didn't know what to believe. In fact, once in a while he takes his wife flying and out of the entire fleet, for these occasions, he always chooses the C162 (the school has the new 172SPs with G1000, older 172 N, Debonair, Twin Comanche, Senecca).

And this guy had thousands of hours flying wide body civilian and other military aircraft - and he's got nothing but great things to say about the C162.

I'm glad my school has one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top