No more Skycatchers

Not a good thing,hate to see a major manufacturer discontinue a training aircraft.
 
frfly172 said:
Not a good thing,hate to see a major manufacturer discontinue a training aircraft.
Click to expand...

If you've ever sat in or even been within about 20' of one, you would understand why they do not sell. A 1993 Yugo had a better finish, and felt more quality.
 
Well that was short lived. The flight school here has one of the 195. I still think they will eventually have a lack of parts and cause issues for owners. I have hundreds of hours in one and think they're good airplanes to learn in but can have some disadvantages too. I'm curious to know what the real reason behind the halt in sales is. My guess would be price and lack of useful weight.
 
Give the IP to their chinese subcontractor, give them the hint how to fix what needs to be fixed and see them come back on the market at a fraction of the price. For 60k, the thing would sell.
 
weilke said:
Give the IP to their chinese subcontractor, give them the hint how to fix what needs to be fixed and see them come back on the market at a fraction of the price. For 60k, the thing would sell.
Click to expand...


:yes::yes:
 
castering nose wheel, silly looking control stick, flimsy looking, too expensive, and several other LSAs with better features

Or as my friend the successful businessman says when I ask why a restaurant (or anything else) has gone out of business: "The real reason is the customers quit coming."
 
weilke said:
Give the IP to their chinese subcontractor, give them the hint how to fix what needs to be fixed and see them come back on the market at a fraction of the price. For 60k, the thing would sell.
Click to expand...

No one else has been able to build an LSA at that price, why would this be any different?
 
I knew it was doomed when they decided to go with a 0-200 instead of the lighter Rotax. Cessna Service Centers won that battle, but lost the war. With the additional weight they were hamstringed with very basic and blah interiors.

The early design included the Rotax 912, 100hp and a neat looking gull wing design. It was really a good retro looking design that would have taken off. Switch up to the Rotax 914, 115 HP turbo and they would have been very successful, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Yawn. Cessna did the whole Light Sport movement a big injustice with the Skycatcher. Anyone remember them boosting of 1000 airplanes sold? And how all the Cessna Training Centers would have one? Meanwhile there were several good aircraft available that didn't have the Cessna name. The Light Sport movement would have been far better served with pilots and students buying SportStars and CTSWs.
 
FormerHangie said:
No one else has been able to build an LSA at that price, why would this be any different?
Click to expand...

Because they are the chinese. They do it with patio furniture and a skycatcher is not much better in complecity snd workmanship

Everyone else hand crafts a limited series of over equipped aircraft using overpriced aircraft grade components. Chinese engine, chinese radios, chinese wiring is how you get to that price. I have a 2003 'Champion' brand 3500W generator. The carb gummed up after 10 years of crappy US gasoline. One phonecall to their US distributor and $26.50 later I had a new carb and was back in business. If they try, they can build good stuff.
 
Old Geek said:
Yawn. Cessna did the whole Light Sport movement a big injustice with the Skycatcher. Anyone remember them boosting of 1000 airplanes sold? And how all the Cessna Training Centers would have one? Meanwhile there were several good aircraft available that didn't have the Cessna name. The Light Sport movement would have been far better served with pilots and students buying SportStars and CTSWs.
Click to expand...

100% agree. :yes:
 
I wonder how long before they stop building the $400k 172s?
 
Geico266 said:
I knew it was doomed when they decided to go with a 0-200 instead of the lighter Rotax. Cessna Service Centers won that battle, but lost the war. With the additional weight they were hamstringed with very basic and blah interiors.
Click to expand...

It's popular thinking, and I used to think that a 912 would've helped, but now I know better. Cessna did not lose because they chose wrong engine, they lost because they became fat-posterior worthless corp, governed by beancounters at Textron. They are institutionally incapable of anything except milking taxpayers through military contracts anymore. Sure, the old core of jets for fatcats is going to roll on for a few years due to sheer inertia, but the end is near. Even Scorpion is a joke (did you see its wet surface?), what to say about building an airplane that's 1/20 of the cost! So no, 912 would do nothing for Skycatcher.
 
It has grocery cart wheels...and its as stupid of a training plane as it gets for this day in GA.

Why on earth not take a perfectly good 152 and make it a 152NG ? It would have sold like free beer.
 
You are right Pete.

It's popular to blame the bureaucracy for high costs, but the lion's share of blame falls squarely on the manufacturers. Their R&D costs have been paid off decades ago, now they've just got used to the gluttony and have to keep it up.

Soon, someone will come along and put them out of business. All it takes is one company and they'd all fall like stick men. A Beech Boananza for $700K+? It hasn't changed since the 40's. Aviation is a joke.
 
Geico266 said:
I knew it was doomed when they decided to go with a 0-200
Click to expand...

I agree that is a guaranteed new crank and at least 2 jugs in TBO.
There is a new STC for a crank 30 under but still.. I hate 0-200's as a former financer of 0-200's
 
I wonder if Cessna could build an exact replica of their C150s or C152s. Just keep the yoke controls, the steam gauges, and the old VOR/NDB/ILS systems and structurally engineer it to have the max gross weight reduce to 1320 lbs? Maybe still keep the Continental 0-200 engine in it if possible. If overgross, replace it with a Rotax 912.
 
I recall reading a while back that something like 60K wort of liability insurance was baked into the price tag of every cessna 172. That's going to make it tough to build a 60k plane.

Combine that with the fact that cessna is a big company with all the expenses and walls full of middle managers. I can't see how they thought it was ever going to be worth their time.
 
I spent one afternoon flying one and was not very impressed. It seemed so flimsy, cheap and plastic that i lost interest. When i discovered the stoke/yoke/stick whatever, I gave up thinking of it as something that would compete for long. Cessna took a pile of bad advice and built it into a over priced, over weight, under performing pig, imo.
 
It was designed to be sold to higher end training operations, however those for LSA have not materialized. Most of the ones training people with an eye towards hooking them not only for a private course but beyond, pretty much rather have the versatility of the 172. The 162 was not a replacement for the 152.

The LSA training market just hasn't materialized. Most of the people interested already are licensed, but just are falling back from needing a medical. There are a tiny handful of those who can't get medicals starting ab initio but not much of a market. Like the ill-fated recreational license, most of the rest go into the regular private pilot curriculum. The hard parts (learning to land) have to be done no matter what route you go and that ends up chewing up the $$$. XC and the few extra things over the recreational/sport training are int he noise in the grand picture.
 
flyingron said:
Like the ill-fated recreational license, most of the rest go into the regular private pilot curriculum.
Click to expand...

It's not universally true. NM Sport Aviation reports an even breakdown of Sport and Private students. They fly two Remos GX airplanes, mostly (they also have 2 leasebacks: an SP eligible Ercoupe and a 150 Aerobat -- but before the 150 they taught all their Private students in the GX).

I only passed Private because it was before NMSP opened and there was no Sport instruction anywhere near. Since then I talked to many people who were strong-armed into Private by the old and crusty aviation establishment, and I am sure that quite a few gave up because of that.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
It's not universally true. NM Sport Aviation reports an even breakdown of Sport and Private students. They fly two Remos GX airplanes, mostly (they also have 2 leasebacks: an SP eligible Ercoupe and a 150 Aerobat -- but before the 150 they taught all their Private students in the GX).

I only passed Private because it was before NMSP opened and there was no Sport instruction anywhere near. Since then I talked to many people who were strong-armed into Private by the old and crusty aviation establishment, and I am sure that quite a few gave up because of that.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand the advantage to going SP for someone with no medical issues.
 
Henning said:
I still don't understand the advantage to going SP for someone with no medical issues.
Click to expand...

Not having to spend money on a medical.
Not having to worry.
Less required initial training.
 
I for one am unsurprised. The fit and finish of those things sucked in my opinion. And why bother getting one of those when you could get an RV12 for the same money and do that much more?
 
us AAirways said:
I wonder how long before they stop building the $400k 172s?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone pay that much for a new 172? Just buy a used one for 30k, spend 30k for a new engine, 30k for brand new avionics, and maybe 20k for a new interior, and you are still only up to $110k. If you want, go ahead and get nutty: spend another 10k on a paint job.
 
weilke said:
Not having to spend money on a medical.
Not having to worry.
Less required initial training.
Click to expand...

If the money on a medical is a big deal, you can't afford to fly anything but an ultralight, and you don't need any license for that.

The worry of flying anything is about the same. One only needs to get a medical once if one wants to get a PP and fly under SP rules.

It has not shown true from what I see that there is any less initial training involved. There may be few tasks to to deal with, but it doesn't appear that the SP people are getting certified in less time.
 
steingar said:
I for one am unsurprised. The fit and finish of those things sucked in my opinion. And why bother getting one of those when you could get an RV12 for the same money and do that much more?
Click to expand...

Now we're talking! :yes:

The 12 is a very capable airplane.
 
Much more important that Mooney is restarting production!!
 
steingar said:
And why bother getting one of those when you could get an RV12 for the same money and do that much more?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Henning said:
I still don't understand the advantage to going SP for someone with no medical issues.
Click to expand...

Nobody can know if he has or does not have medical issues -- unless he/she finds an examiner who's willing to prescreen unofficially. My denial came absolutely out of nowhere. Of course I was careless by applying without a mock exam first. I thought I was perfectly healthy, but apparently not. Fortunately, I was able to convert the denial to a deferral, but it was a lesson. Perhaps a few people were smarter than me about it and knew the risk, so they went SP right away.
 
Florida Cracker said:
I spent one afternoon flying one and was not very impressed. It seemed so flimsy, cheap and plastic that i lost interest. When i discovered the stoke/yoke/stick whatever, I gave up thinking of it as something that would compete for long. Cessna took a pile of bad advice and built it into a over priced, over weight, under performing pig, imo.
Click to expand...

Wait,....I thought you weren't a pilot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top