Skycatcher Down in KS

Jeez, major deja vu this week. Imeson crashes again, Skycatcher crashes again... What next? :dunno:

There's a major glitch in the matrix!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Jeez, major deja vu this week. Imeson crashes again, Skycatcher crashes again... What next? :dunno:

There's a major glitch in the matrix!
Click to expand...

WHAT???

SHADDUP ABOUT THE MATRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I wonder if they filed a flight plan. That might have saved them.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I wonder if they filed a flight plan. That might have saved them.
Click to expand...
It was probably is related to it being LSA. We ALL know how unsafe that whole mess is! Anything LSA is an accident waiting to happen! Not too mention it was an LSA that was PROBABLY on an XC and those things just are not capable of that type of mission. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



[/dumbsarcasm]





:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Ok, now that all of the standard sarcastic crash jokes have been exhausted...

It really makes you wonder about the future of the program. They have 1000 of these things pre-sold. I wonder how many of those 1000 are now wondering what they're getting themselves into? If these test pilots can't keep these things aloft...what does that mean for people looking to use them as primary trainers?
 
hard to tell jason. of course it could just be a sign of a complete and thorough flight test program. the big problem now is (I think) they are out of test airframes now, which is probably going to get annoying really fast.
 
This just goes to show how important it is that we institute user fees on General Aviation.





:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
And if the US-built test articles won't fly right, just imagine what will happen when the Chinese start building them... :yikes:
 
FlyNE said:
It really makes you wonder about the future of the program. They have 1000 of these things pre-sold. I wonder how many of those 1000 are now wondering what they're getting themselves into? If these test pilots can't keep these things aloft...what does that mean for people looking to use them as primary trainers?
Click to expand...
This wouldn't be the first time that airplanes have crashed during the flight test phase. Just off the top of my head I can think of Learjet and Cirrus, both of which went on to be pretty successful.
 
tonycondon said:
hard to tell jason. of course it could just be a sign of a complete and thorough flight test program. the big problem now is (I think) they are out of test airframes now, which is probably going to get annoying really fast.
Click to expand...

Maybe. The BRS was used, the pilot rode it down without injury. The airplane came to rest inverted but that doesn't mean it's not repairable.
 
Everskyward said:
This wouldn't be the first time that airplanes have crashed during the flight test phase. Just off the top of my head I can think of Learjet and Cirrus, both of which went on to be pretty successful.
Click to expand...
Falcon 20 too :yikes: (fire in aft compartment)
I do not believe that Cessna will give up on this, but it is a big set back.
 
tonycondon said:
hard to tell jason. of course it could just be a sign of a complete and thorough flight test program. the big problem now is (I think) they are out of test airframes now, which is probably going to get annoying really fast.
Click to expand...

Once they are out of test planes, they just call it good and start selling them, right? :devil:

With the low useful load of the plane and now some safety concerns, the deck is looking stacked against Cessna in the LSA market.

.
 
We're number fifteen on the list for delivery of the first of two on order. We've been anxiously awaiting delivery. But, one more incident and it will more likely be, "Okay, whose the first to test out our new plane?"
 
roncachamp said:
Maybe. The BRS was used, the pilot rode it down without injury. The airplane came to rest inverted but that doesn't mean it's not repairable.
Click to expand...

Even if it is repairable, it's a set of repairs that is going to take months, not days, which will significantly set them back. I'm also not sure the FAA would be happy with them using a significantly damaged and repaired aircraft for flight testing - Or if nothing else, they probably shouldn't be happy with that themselves. Even when repaired, planes with that much damage tend to not fly quite right.
 
Gee you guys are acting like flight test is without risk. Without even knowing the cause of these accidents there is an emotional outpouring that the 162 stinks and that it may kill all the LSA chances for Cessna.

Sorry if I am not ready to jump on that bandwagon. I realize that development and flight test are when you are working out bugs.
 
smigaldi said:
Gee you guys are acting like flight test is without risk. Without even knowing the cause of these accidents there is an emotional outpouring that the 162 stinks and that it may kill all the LSA chances for Cessna.

Sorry if I am not ready to jump on that bandwagon. I realize that development and flight test are when you are working out bugs.
Click to expand...

That's right, no reflection on the design yet (and almost certainly won't ever be) especially with such a traditional design configuration. Test flight phase accident rates in ALL types of aircraft have always been annoyingly high, and the rate shows no sign of improving. That's why test pilots can't buy life insurance.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Even if it is repairable, it's a set of repairs that is going to take months, not days, which will significantly set them back. I'm also not sure the FAA would be happy with them using a significantly damaged and repaired aircraft for flight testing - Or if nothing else, they probably shouldn't be happy with that themselves. Even when repaired, planes with that much damage tend to not fly quite right.
Click to expand...

How much damage was done?
 
I'm interested in the reason why it crashed....no conclusions about the plane can be drawn yet.
 
If you push anything to the limits you will have failures. I see the crashes the sign of very extesive rigorous testing. Cessna will learn from and fix the problems BECAUSE they have been pushed so hard to crash & reveal weaknesses.DaveR
 
tonycondon said:
hard to tell jason. of course it could just be a sign of a complete and thorough flight test program. the big problem now is (I think) they are out of test airframes now, which is probably going to get annoying really fast.
Click to expand...

And it is a good thing that they are doing a complete and thorough test program because it sure seems that they did not do a complete and thorough design program.

One would think that after 80 something years of building light aircraft and building over 30K 150s & 152s that they would have the whole single, low powered engine, high wing thing pretty much in the bag. But I guess not.
 
GigG601XL said:
And it is a good thing that they are doing a complete and thorough test program because it sure seems that they did not do a complete and thorough design program.

One would think that after 80 something years of building light aircraft and building over 30K 150s & 152s that they would have the whole single, low powered engine, high wing thing pretty much in the bag. But I guess not.
Click to expand...

all of the engineers who designed the 150 and 152 (and pretty much al the other singles) are probably retired.
 
tonycondon said:
all of the engineers who designed the 150 and 152 (and pretty much al the other singles) are probably retired.
Click to expand...

Well, one would have thought they would have left some notes around the office somewhere. But that aside, one of the reasons for the popularity shown by 1000 pre-orders for the Skycatcher is faith in Cessna. If the company has so purged itself of the corporate memory of how to design and build a light single then maybe that faith is misplaced.
 
Last edited:
GigG601XL said:
Well, one would have thought they would have left some notes around the office somewhere.
Click to expand...

The LEAN group decreed if it hasn't been used in the past 6 months, it isn't really used day-to-day and it should be removed.
 
If they'd just written the LSA rule to allow a max gross of 1450 lb, Cessna could have just put the 140 back into production and we'd all be better off.

Not a single 140 BRS has ever failed.

M
 
foka4 said:
If they'd just written the LSA rule to allow a max gross of 1450 lb, Cessna could have just put the 140 back into production and we'd all be better off.

Not a single 140 BRS has ever failed.

M
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention the C140. Right when the LSA rules were developed, the Cessna 120/140 association got an STC created to REDUCE the gross of those aircraft from 1450 to 1320. After getting the STC, the Association tried to get the FAA to recognize the newly STC'd aircraft as an LSA. Not only did the FAA reject that request, but (partially because of this attempt) they then specificlly inserted into the final LSA rule the clause that prevents modifying an non-LSA qualified aircraft to conform to the LSA rules.:mad2:
 
FAA didn't come up with the 1320 pound limit. That's defined in the ASTM Standards, around which the FAA Sport Pilot Rule was written.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
FAA didn't come up with the 1320 pound limit. That's defined in the ASTM Standards, around which the FAA Sport Pilot Rule was written.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Yeah, the rule's cast in stone now, but I just don't see the practical difference between a 1,320 lb LSA, a 1,450 lb C-140 and a 1,670 lb C-152.

Well, except for the LSAs being much more expensive, frequently of questionable lineage, and being wadded up rather frequently, that is...


Trapper John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top