Symphony 160, what the Skycatcher could have been...apparently

labbadabba

labbadabba

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,391
Location
Lawrence, KS
Display Name
Display name:
labbadabba
So, slow day at work, which means I'm poking around Controller and ASO. There I see a 2003 Symphony 160 for $59k with roughly 1,000hrs TBO remaining on the O-320.

Having never really looked into it before, I did some digging. It looks to me that it is the replacement to the 152 that Cessna should have sought before the ill-fated Skycatcher (a plane I'm strangely fond of). A certified two-seater that can cruise in the 120's KTAS, IFR certified, and can carry a load (full fuel payload of 500lbs) and 3 1/2 inches wider in the cabin than a 172 seems too good to be true.

Plane & Pilot had a favorable review back in 2005 that seems to corroborate this: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/omf/symphony-160.html#.VLmMxXvx0Vd

A two-seater fits my mission profile nicely, so this has my attention.

Does anyone know much about this aircraft? Are there serious pitfalls to purchasing an OOP aircraft from a defunct company?
 
Isn't it an offshoot of the Glasair Sportsman?
 
labbadabba said:
So, slow day at work, which means I'm poking around Controller and ASO. There I see a 2003 Symphony 160 for $59k with roughly 1,000hrs TBO remaining on the O-320.

Having never really looked into it before, I did some digging. It looks to me that it is the replacement to the 152 that Cessna should have sought before the ill-fated Skycatcher (a plane I'm strangely fond of). A certified two-seater that can cruise in the 120's KTAS, IFR certified, and can carry a load (full fuel payload of 500lbs) and 3 1/2 inches wider in the cabin than a 172 seems too good to be true.

Plane & Pilot had a favorable review back in 2005 that seems to corroborate this: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/omf/symphony-160.html#.VLmMxXvx0Vd

A two-seater fits my mission profile nicely, so this has my attention.

Does anyone know much about this aircraft? Are there serious pitfalls to purchasing an OOP aircraft from a defunct company?
Click to expand...


I know a fee folks that have them, one is a CPL who had his own aviation business, I've never flown one, but have heard good things from some folks with a few airplanes under their belts.
 
Yes, it does look like the certified development of the Glasair.

I guess one of my follow-ups would be, why wouldn't Cessna/Textron purchase the design? It already looks a like a cross between a 162 and a 172 and out-performs both aircraft for less money.
 
labbadabba said:
So, slow day at work, which means I'm poking around Controller and ASO. There I see a 2003 Symphony 160 for $59k with roughly 1,000hrs TBO remaining on the O-320.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, this aircraft is closer to a 172 than a 152 in size and weight; it is a two seat airplane with the capability to carry to real people, bags, and a considerable amount of fuel--not unlike a 172 with the back seat removed!

One owner I talked to loved the airplane, and operating costs seemed reasonable. Most parts that need frequent replacement are fairly standard and the airframe is fairly simple, but he admitted to worrying that certain things would require a long parts search or expensive fabrication.

Hourly numbers he quoted me sounded a lot like a 172, but with an extra 10 to 15 knots for a given burn (it is smaller and aerodynamically newer after all).

Some came from the factory Day VFR only; it is (was?) possible to retrofit them for night VFR. If you want IFR, you need one that came from the factory that way.

In short, I liked the plane a lot, but personally for 60K I'd be tempted to go the 172 or PA28 route and get something where I can find spare parts in a junkyard and have the option of throwing someone in the back.
 
labbadabba said:
Yes, it does look like the certified development of the Glasair.

I guess one of my follow-ups would be, why wouldn't Cessna/Textron purchase the design? It already looks a like a cross between a 162 and a 172 and out-performs both aircraft for less money.
Click to expand...

A glass panel 162 - they aren't sold any other way - was initially around $100k before Cessna ratcheted up the price. A glass panel Symphony 160 was closer to $200k according to the P&P article you quoted.
 
The Symphony was a certificated version of the Stoddard Hamilton Glastar (which later became the Glasair Sportsman after they went out of business) The Cessna 162 is an LSA with a GW of 1320 pounds so I don't understand whey the comparison is being made because there is no way either the Symphony or the Sportsman are going to make it as LSA's.
 
labbadabba said:
So, slow day at work, which means I'm poking around Controller and ASO. There I see a 2003 Symphony 160 for $59k with roughly 1,000hrs TBO remaining on the O-320.

Having never really looked into it before, I did some digging. It looks to me that it is the replacement to the 152 that Cessna should have sought before the ill-fated Skycatcher (a plane I'm strangely fond of). A certified two-seater that can cruise in the 120's KTAS, IFR certified, and can carry a load (full fuel payload of 500lbs) and 3 1/2 inches wider in the cabin than a 172 seems too good to be true.

Plane & Pilot had a favorable review back in 2005 that seems to corroborate this: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/omf/symphony-160.html#.VLmMxXvx0Vd

A two-seater fits my mission profile nicely, so this has my attention.

Does anyone know much about this aircraft? Are there serious pitfalls to purchasing an OOP aircraft from a defunct company?
Click to expand...
The Symphony is a nice airplane. I flew three of 'em with a flight school called Sky Safety down in San Antonio and I believe they still like them and use them for training.
 
I have a freind with a symphony. Nice plane, performance is no where near my Glastar performance though. Plus, I have long range fuel, can't have it in the symphony.
 
labbadabba said:
I guess one of my follow-ups would be, why wouldn't Cessna/Textron purchase the design?
Click to expand...

Someone already mentioned that it's not an LSA. But more importantly, Cessna would've ruined it anyway. Look at Columbia. Cessna bought it, fixed it up, and magazine reviewers rave about "the new TTX". And yet, they sell 1 of those for 10 to 12 Cirruses. Same price! Why? If Cessna cannot sell a $800k airplane, they have absolutely no chance to sell a $200k airplane. Their sales force would stage a mutiny. You need to understand how large bureaucratized organizations work in order to understand why Cessna cannot sell a small airplane again. True, they continue to offer a Skyhawk out of sheer inertia, but does it sell?
 
What the Skycatcher could have been is a Flight Design CTSW or an Evektor Sportstar. Two great light sport airplanes that were available in 2006 and are reliable and have decent range and load capacity.
 
I soloed and earned my ASEL in 380MF, owned by Fly Carolina out of Monroe, NC. It has traded hands several times since then, but here are some pics of an identical plane, 350MF:

http://steveweaver.com/n350mf.htm

I really enjoyed learning to fly with a stick. It took me time to feel comfortable with a yoke in a Cessna.

Most of the above descriptions are accurate, except for the cruise speeds. I have about 90 hours in them, but haven't been in one since 2006.

V speeds are mostly close to Skyhawks:

Vx 70 KIAS
Vy 80
Vg 74
Vs1 60
Vso 51
Va 116
Vfe 90
Vno 130
Vne 162
Cruise 114

Useable fuel is only 29 gallons.
 
Old Geek said:
What the Skycatcher could have been is a Flight Design CTSW or an Evektor Sportstar.
Click to expand...
Actually, while it's easy to laugh at Cessna's incompetence, did you know that Flight Design actually built a competitor for the 162? It was called FDMC or "MC" and it was fully built from aluminum. It was back when Cessna was supposed to bring credence to the LSA market, imagine that. They sold 2 of those (according to the FAA registry).
 
Tim Metzinger on this forum ferried a few of these I believe,and knows a bit about the. Symphony.
 
Just a guess but Cessna would probably be more interested in a plane with a profit margin. I.e. not a two seater...
 
I'd buy a similar experimental. Buying a rare certified airplane with no factory support sounds like a recipe for disaster over time. Where exactly do you get parts? No factory and a tiny fleet. Much easier to maintain an experimental with similar specs. Experimental will probably hold its value better as well since its supportable.
 
zaitcev said:
Actually, while it's easy to laugh at Cessna's incompetence, did you know that Flight Design actually built a competitor for the 162? It was called FDMC or "MC" and it was fully built from aluminum. It was back when Cessna was supposed to bring credence to the LSA market, imagine that. They sold 2 of those (according to the FAA registry).
Click to expand...

Yeah. Still scratching my head over that one...
 
The Cessna 162 is an LSA with a GW of 1320 pounds so I don't understand whey the comparison is being made because there is no way either the Symphony or the Sportsman are going to make it as LSA's.
Click to expand...

I guess my point being, is if Cessna really wanted to re-enter the 2-place market why mess around with an LSA? I'm sure it would have cost less to purchase Symphony aircraft lock stock and barrel than it did to develop a clean sheet C162.
 
I'd buy a similar experimental. Buying a rare certified airplane with no factory support sounds like a recipe for disaster over time.
Click to expand...

Yep, parts are a worry for me. But who knows, someone may restart production.

That said, since I'm always in and out of Bravo airspace I don't want to mess with experimentals.
 
steingar said:
If the Symphony was really that great they'd still be making them.
Click to expand...


What I liked about the Symphony was the stick, the 160 HP Lycoming, the dual 430s, the engine monitor, and the fact that it was new compared to the 20-year old Skyhawks I had to chose from.

What I didn't like was the two seats, the hard as rocks 26g seats, the need to pull out a ladder to check the fuel, the gear was narrower than the Skyhawk, and the skylights that didn't seal well.

I was neutral on the castering nose gear, the composite fuselage surrounding the steel frame, and fowler flaps.

It was a great trainer, but I would never buy one to go anywhere. The fuel tanks are too small.
 
labbadabba said:
Yep, parts are a worry for me. But who knows, someone may restart production.

That said, since I'm always in and out of Bravo airspace I don't want to mess with experimentals.
Click to expand...

Why is that? I do it all the time.
 
steingar said:
If the Symphony was really that great they'd still be making them.
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the power of good/bad marketing. Case in point: people are willing to pay several dollars for a few ounces of sugar water that everyone says is unhealthy.
 
labbadabba said:
I guess my point being, is if Cessna really wanted to re-enter the 2-place market why mess around with an LSA? ...
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming to have been in on any of the Cessna board meetings but I think the whole 162 concept was all about that - being an LSA. There is more to that than just the Sport Pilot aspect, it's a completely different category with supposedly much less development and production costs.

Whether or not that's how it panned out I don't know but I'm pretty sure that was a basic key element in the project.
 
The symphony 160 was a nice little airplane,much faster than a 162 ,more payload,fun airplane that didn't catch on with all the light sports hitting the market.
 
I really enjoyed the Symphony. I ferried several, including one from the west coast to Trois-Rivieres and back. Short legs (I planned for no more than two hours between fuel stops), but comfortable and a much more solid-feeling airplane than you'd expect given the size and weight. Everywhere I went in one I got asked what sort of plane it was.
 
TMetzinger said:
I really enjoyed the Symphony. I ferried several, including one from the west coast to Trois-Rivieres and back. Short legs (I planned for no more than two hours between fuel stops), but comfortable and a much more solid-feeling airplane than you'd expect given the size and weight. Everywhere I went in one I got asked what sort of plane it was.
Click to expand...

I got the same question from ATC when I trained in one. I just got used to saying "It flies like a Skyhawk."
 
My partner and I are selling ours because we both have babies on the way (just wanted that as full disclosure, that's how I happened upon this post), but every pilot that I fly with can corroborate, the Symphony is a really, really nice airplane. OMF-Symphony took the Glastar and put in a reinforced steel tube cage and fitted it with the O-320. It's reasonably fast and operating costs are low and flight characteristics are very forgiving, especially it's stall characteristics. I learned in this plane and my instructor said it wasn't fair to practice stalls in the Symphony, and that I needed some training in other planes (literally, we did 3 hours in an A152 Aerobat so we could do spins, but more importantly, so I could feel what it was like to not have as much control in a stall) because in the Symphony, with its large wing surface, fenced ailerons and vortex generators on the trailing edge of the wing, stalls are incredibly benign and you still have full control.

One problem with the early Symphonies that lead to an AD was the landing gear attachment point. We had to spend $5k to have ours reinforced after cracks were found in the tubing, so if you're thinking of buying one it's something to be aware of on the earlier SNs. A couple of the sensors for VM-1000 that ours is equipped with had to be replaced and they're definitely on the spendy side. But other than that, we've had no problems with ours in the 7 years we've owned it.

Here's a little video I put together of some of my flights if you're interested.

 
blazer003 said:
My partner and I are selling ours because we both have babies on the way (just wanted that as full disclosure, that's how I happened upon this post), but every pilot that I fly with can corroborate, the Symphony is a really, really nice airplane. OMF-Symphony took the Glastar and put in a reinforced steel tube cage and fitted it with the O-320.
Click to expand...
The steel tube cage was part of the Glastar's design, as well...OMF didn't add it.
glastar.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
labbadabba said:
Yes, it does look like the certified development of the Glasair.

I guess one of my follow-ups would be, why wouldn't Cessna/Textron purchase the design? It already looks a like a cross between a 162 and a 172 and out-performs both aircraft for less money.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Let Cessna screw it up. They can turn anything into an "aspires to be mediocre" morass.
Sorry, I'm just really down on Cessna today. Long, sad story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top