No more Skycatchers

zaitcev said:
The factory-built RV-12 only happened after the collapse of Skycatcher. However, it was possibly to buy a CTLS for less money than 162. It's just that some dinosaurs were dead-seat on lumping the dead weight of O-200. If it were good for Cub, it should've been good for anyone.
Click to expand...

The factory built 12s were the cause of the Skycatcher collapse. ;). The factory built versions were announced long before Cessna killed the 162.

Had they kept the Rotax and gull wing design they would still be building them.
 
Last edited:
The fact that there are some people succeeding in LSA training doesn't change the fact that as a whole, there isn't a whole lot of it out there. I think I know of only one or two operations flying new LSAs over several states I fly in. Counter this with the fact you can find one or two flight training operations at just about any field. We had a couple of sport pilot training guys try to start up at CJR but both were using sport pilot-eligible (Ercoupe, Luscombe). I don't know anybody using Groundcatchers.
 
flyingron said:
The fact that there are some people succeeding in LSA training doesn't change the fact that as a whole, there isn't a whole lot of it out there. I think I know of only one or two operations flying new LSAs over several states I fly in. Counter this with the fact you can find one or two flight training operations at just about any field. We had a couple of sport pilot training guys try to start up at CJR but both were using sport pilot-eligible (Ercoupe, Luscombe). I don't know anybody using Groundcatchers.
Click to expand...

Tristian, KLNK.

Tristian (Tristar) is a some time POA contributor.
 
Last edited:
From a customer standpoint, why would I rent the 162 for a crazy $$$ per hour when I can find a four seat plane for the same or less.

The folks forced into SP is a large group but with fewer actual participants IMHO.
 
bnt83 said:
From a customer standpoint, why would I rent the 162 for a crazy $$$ per hour when I can find a four seat plane for the same or less.

The folks forced into SP is a large group but with fewer actual participants IMHO.
Click to expand...

The price of the rental of a Skycatcher at the two FBOs I linked above are $40.00 and $30.00 less per hour than a non-glass 172.
 
PPC1052 said:
The price of the rental of a Skycatcher at the two FBOs I linked above are $40.00 and $30.00 less per hour than a non-glass 172.
Click to expand...


It still doesn't really make sense tho. If you can rent either, spreading the cost of your missions between two planes actually probably increases cost of both. I don't think there are enough SP-only flyers to support the 162 at most FBOs. If the private chooses to use the 162 at a cheaper price when flying with reduced # of pax, that probably makes keeping the 172 around more expensive due to less use.
 
bnt83 said:
It still doesn't really make sense tho. If you can rent either, spreading the cost of your missions between two planes actually probably increases cost of both.
Click to expand...

I am confused. What do you mean by "spreading the cost of your missions between two planes"?
 
If I was buying for personal use and was limited to LSAs, I'd get the Remos GX. They have a much nicer interior than the 162 and a track record of continuous development.

If I was doing initial training, I would train in the cheapest hourly rate airplane available. If that plane happened to be a C-162, great. I did mine in a C-152 personally.

It is unfortunate that Cessna has axed the 162 though. Does not really inspire confidence in the light aircraft market as a whole.
 
Let's face it, with 2500 aircraft registered in eight years in the US, the LSA market ain't exactly booming. I can see where Cessna, with its focus on big ticket aircraft, isn't a good fit for this market.

I'd put my money on the RV-12 as the dominant SLSA in the near future. Last year, and probably this year, it will be CubCrafters, who seems to have taken the mantle away from Flight Design's CTLS.
 
Last edited:
So Cessna and Piper have both put a toe in the water and promptly pulled it out.

And recall that Cirrus had a Light Sport in the works, but pulled it before it could even be born.

I presented an idea to Cirrus that I still think would have been a good idea:

In 1986, Harley Davidson had a program where if you bought a base Sportster (for $3,995), you could get full value back for it any time in the next year towards a bigger Harley. I actually bought one, but did not choose to upgrade.

But I thought the idea had merit: Offer a Cirrus Light Sport, including training if required, at a "loss leader" price - maybe $125k at the time. Then, any time in the next year (or two, or three), give full credit back towards any Cirrus SR model. Would get people involved in Cirrus, and they would still have a used Light Sport Cirrus to resell or use for training or whatever.

I ran that by some at Cirrus while they were pondering a Light Sport, but obviously they ended up nixing the whole program.

Then again, maybe they know more than I do about the economics of the whole plan.
 
There is a school out of Orlando Executive using SkyCatchers. They rent for $99/hour. The C-172N they rent is $119. I'm not sure how they're amortizing the cost of a new SkyCatcher into that number.

I rent a C-172C (with VFR GPS) for $65/tach hour dry and a C-172G for $72/tach hour dry from the same ramp area.

I do see them in the pattern periodically so they do fly...

I just don't see the economics. If you figure you can get a really nice C-172N for $50K (and I do mean REALLY nice) but the SkyCatcher is $165K, how are you paying back that extra $115K? Whether you borrow or not you have to get some return on the investment. I don't know how they do it.

John
 
bnt83 said:
From a customer standpoint, why would I rent the 162 for a crazy $$$ per hour when I can find a four seat plane for the same or less.
Click to expand...

In my area of the country (KJYO), a 162 rents for $110 and a 172 rents for $130-170, so there is at least a $20 per hour price advantage.

Ryan
 
FastEddieB said:
But I thought the idea had merit: Offer a Cirrus Light Sport, including training if required, at a "loss leader" price - maybe $125k at the time. Then, any time in the next year (or two, or three), give full credit back towards any Cirrus SR model. Would get people involved in Cirrus, and they would still have a used Light Sport Cirrus to resell or use for training or whatever.
Click to expand...

They are already doing this. Buy a G5, trade it on a Vision whenever it comes out.

People who can swing the 500-800k for a new Cirrus have no interest or need to go through a toy like a light-sport. Most of them are purchased for business use and if the owner doesn't have a pilot, doing ab-initio training will be for the private, not light-sport.
 
n12365 said:
In my area of the country (KJYO), a 162 rents for $110 and a 172 rents for $130-170, so there is at least a $20 per hour price advantage.

Ryan
Click to expand...

That only works because the plane is a leaseback and someone is not accounting for cost of capital and depreciation.
 
weilke said:
That only works because the plane is a leaseback and someone is not accounting for cost of capital and depreciation.
Click to expand...

Maybe. With respect to the ones I am aware of locally, they are each Cessna Training facilities. I suspect Cessna strong armed them to buy one as part of the deal, and gave them financing or other incentives. In the case of Tom Wood, they used to have a Diamond DA-20 that they leased out, but my CFI who was working there at the time indicated that they would likely have to get rid of it when they became a Cessna training center.
 
Last edited:
jsstevens said:
I just don't see the economics. If you figure you can get a really nice C-172N for $50K (and I do mean REALLY nice) but the SkyCatcher is $165K, how are you paying back that extra $115K?
Click to expand...
It's very simple. Those 162s were bought before the time Textron kicked Jack Pelton out and the giant price hike. The school probably paid $105k for each, which makes the financing much more bearable than your calculation suggested.
 
zaitcev said:
It's very simple. Those 162s were bought before the time Textron kicked Jack Pelton out and the giant price hike. The school probably paid $105k for each, which makes the financing much more bearable than your calculation suggested.
Click to expand...

Even at $105K there's $55K more capital in the 162 than the 172 but they charge $20/hr less? Still doesn't make sense to me.

John
 
Henning said:
Capital isn't the greatest cost, fuel is.
Click to expand...

C-162 burns between 5&6 gph. C-172 N will burn between 7&8 gph (properly leaned). Where I buy fuel that's $12-$14 per hour difference (and I buy expensive fuel).

I still don't see it without some kind of subsidy.

John
 
jsstevens said:
C-162 burns between 5&6 gph. C-172 N will burn between 7&8 gph (properly leaned). Where I buy fuel that's $12-$14 per hour difference (and I buy expensive fuel).

I still don't see it without some kind of subsidy.

John
Click to expand...

I would have to think that the 30+ year old Skyhawk would need more repairs & maintenance than would a new 162.
 
jsstevens said:
C-162 burns between 5&6 gph. C-172 N will burn between 7&8 gph (properly leaned). Where I buy fuel that's $12-$14 per hour difference (and I buy expensive fuel).

I still don't see it without some kind of subsidy.

John
Click to expand...

This is another reason the Rotax would have been a better choice. 4- 5 gph, and it burns car gas.
 
jsstevens said:
C-162 burns between 5&6 gph. C-172 N will burn between 7&8 gph (properly leaned). Where I buy fuel that's $12-$14 per hour difference (and I buy expensive fuel).

I still don't see it without some kind of subsidy.

John
Click to expand...

The rest is subsidized by less maintenance on a new plane vs old and less insurance cost on 2 seat vs 4 I'd imagine.
 
jsstevens said:
Even at $105K there's $55K more capital in the 162 than the 172 but they charge $20/hr less? Still doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

I dunno about 162 in particular, but Remos GX burns less than 4 gph when doing circuits or cruising, while 172N at the same field burns 8 gph. The cost of fuel easily accounts for the $20/hr difference and leaves some for the financing. Granted, the local FBO charges insane $7 for a gallon of 100 LL, which is why I get fuel surcharge waived if I refuel off-field. Still, $20/h is a very reasonable advantage that a fleet S-LSA ought to exhibit. Note, however, that a typical LSA loses in the hull value that drives insurance. I'm not saying that it's a surefire winner.

P.S. I see others already addressed the costs of fuel above. I'll just mention that if anyone wants to examine the economics of LSA-based school, Dr. Shuch posted his detailed cost breakdowns at avsport.org.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The rest is subsidized by less maintenance on a new plane vs old and less insurance cost on 2 seat vs 4 I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

The liability portion of the insurance for a two seater vs four seater is cheaper. Skycatcher burns about 4 to 4.5 GPH for a typical lesson. Maintenance runs about $18 per hour.

Prior to the price hike, a Skycatcher with the most common options ( MFD, sun visors , external power etc) would cost about $120,000.

The past few years the IRS has allowed a section 179 expense up to $500,000 in the year of purchase of business equipment.

Someone in a high tax bracket that lived in state with an income tax would really only pay about 60% of the purchase price or $72,000.
 
Well, I'm really sad that the whole business ended, as a budget flier.

When Pelton was forced out and the price went up by a half on the 162, the end of the big three for private flying started. If the 162 had a 150 pound greater useful load, if the FAA had allowed all that factory flight testing to be credited toward Primary Cat certification, if the dealers had gotten behind it, if people hadn't gone off the deep end about China, if the flight engineers had simply looked at the first attempt at a tail and said there isn't enough area below the elevators for that to work....well, none of that happened. Now the process begins. Cessna is slowly going to get out of the piston engine product line, as will Piper and Beechcraft. None of their new management is looking at private prop aviation as the future.

The useful load was probably the one thing that didn't work for the 162. I would have loved to get checked out in the 162 but you couldn't get a CFI and full fuel with me in the plane. And useful load was completely artificial. If you did the numbers by performance, it could easily carry more than the 150 at the same rate of climb.

The real cause? Well, let's say that the FAA regs aren't helping private aviation at all. There isn't any reason why a sport plane can't be in the market, but between the artificial LSA weight limit and the the FAA instance that the cost of full certification in Primary cat. had to be done -

And let it be said: In the history of running a company, having the CEO declare the product as no future while you have 80 on the ramp and a sales force that is still trying to move them... well, that is worthy of an episode of The Office.
 
Last edited:
skyking3286 said:
Well, I'm really sad that the whole business ended, as a budget flier.

When Pelton was forced out and the price went up by a half on the 162, the end of the big three for private flying started. If the 162 had a 150 pound greater useful load, if the FAA had allowed all that factory flight testing to be credited toward Primary Cat certification, if the dealers had gotten behind it, if people hadn't gone off the deep end about China, if the flight engineers had simply looked at the first attempt at a tail and said there isn't enough area below the elevators for that to work....well, none of that happened. Now the process begins. Cessna is slowly going to get out of the piston engine product line, as will Piper and Beechcraft. None of their new management is looking at private prop aviation as the future.

The useful load was probably the one thing that didn't work for the 162. I would have loved to get checked out in the 162 but you couldn't get a CFI and full fuel with me in the plane. And useful load was completely artificial. If you did the numbers by performance, it could easily carry more than the 150 at the same rate of climb.

The real cause? Well, let's say that the FAA regs aren't helping private aviation at all. There isn't any reason why a sport plane can't be in the market, but between the artificial LSA weight limit and the the FAA instance that the cost of full certification in Primary cat. had to be done -

And let it be said: In the history of running a company, having the CEO declare the product as no future while you have 80 on the ramp and a sales force that is still trying to move them... well, that is worthy of an episode of The Office.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of LSAs that have a more than sufficient useful load. The Skycatcher just isn't one of them. That's Cessna's fault, not the FAA's.
 
FormerHangie said:
I would have to think that the 30+ year old Skyhawk would need more repairs & maintenance than would a new 162.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. But....

Now that the 162 / Skycatcher is out of production, the parts for it are gonna get REAL expensive..:hairraise::eek:.............................:yikes:
 
skyking3286 said:
And useful load was completely artificial. If you did the numbers by performance, it could easily carry more than the 150 at the same rate of climb.
Click to expand...

Yes, the 1,320 limit is arbitrary, but...

...rate of climb is not the only or even main determinant of maximum gross weight. The strength of the structure can also be limiting.
 
FormerHangie said:
There are plenty of LSAs that have a more than sufficient useful load. The Skycatcher just isn't one of them. That's Cessna's fault, not the FAA's.
Click to expand...

Me and a couple friends all went thru a period where we tried to check out as many LSA's as possible with an eye towards making a purchase. We tried a Remos and liked it but found the cockpit a little tight, for a bunch of old guys, of course.
Tried the CTSW and found it quick, fun but more of a curiosity than our idea of a keeper.
Flew a Jetfox and Loved It but they stopped making them, of course.
Flew and liked a couple of planes out of the Ukraine and liked some,hated some and loved one, they seemed to stop making those, too.
Flew the Skycatcher once, hated the plastic, floppy, cheap looking, Chinese crappy finish work and hated the little plastic knob to turn and move the rudder pedals in and out, e stupid yoke/stick/stoke thing and the sudden movements when imputing a slight amount of input to it.
Couldn't find a reason to endorse the engine, as opposed to the Rotax as far a afield and weight, and lacking hip and shoulder room.
Still pondering an LSA.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Me and a couple friends all went thru a period where we tried to check out as many LSA's as possible with an eye towards making a purchase. We tried a Remos and liked it but found the cockpit a little tight, for a bunch of old guys, of course.
Tried the CTSW and found it quick, fun but more of a curiosity than our idea of a keeper.
Flew a Jetfox and Loved It but they stopped making them, of course.
Flew and liked a couple of planes out of the Ukraine and liked some,hated some and loved one, they seemed to stop making those, too.
Flew the Skycatcher once, hated the plastic, floppy, cheap looking, Chinese crappy finish work and hated the little plastic knob to turn and move the rudder pedals in and out, e stupid yoke/stick/stoke thing and the sudden movements when imputing a slight amount of input to it.
Couldn't find a reason to endorse the engine, as opposed to the Rotax as far a afield and weight, and lacking hip and shoulder room.
Still pondering an LSA.
Click to expand...

There are literally dozens of choices. Did you go to Sebring this year?
 
"...rate of climb is not the only or even main determinant of maximum gross weight. The strength of the structure can also be limiting."

My guess is with the intended role of being a light sport trainer for the schools, they had enough strength to add 150 pounds to the gross weight, certainly for takeoff weights in normal category ops. But more troubling is the issue they had with the wing needing a fix...wasn't that in the static test plane? At any rate, Cessna did a lot more testing than some of the LSAs in the market.
 
FormerHangie said:
There are literally dozens of choices. Did you go to Sebring this year?
Click to expand...

I did and also Lakeand last Spring.

The Italians are building a couple of things I am impressed with. The Alto was one.

Also liked the Bristel but it is underpowered and overweight in my opinion. The plane is beautifully appointed and quite comfortable, though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top