Sport Pilot Talk

N918KT

http://www.kansas.com/2010/04/09/1261633/cessna-to-speed-up-its-skycatcher.html

The next 4 Skycatchers are coming by the end of May! I can't wait for them to be delivered in NJ! (But I also want the Tecnam LSA to come too as well.)

Bill · Joined: 07 Jul 2008 Posts: 96 Location: Delaware Beaches

"Yingling Aviation's Tim Schmidt and Matt Shonka look over a Cessna Skycatcher light sport aircraft. In the past two weeks, Yingling received four Skycatchers from Shenyang Aircraft Corp. for reassembly." (quote from the article).

Sold by Cessna but built in China shipped half way around the world to be re-assembled by Yingling. Reminds me of the adage, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." :shock:

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

Bill wrote:
Sold by Cessna but built in China shipped half way around the world to be re-assembled by Yingling.

Then back to Cessna for modifications, then back to Yingling again for flight testing, and finally back to Cessna once more for sales... Do you think Cessna maybe owns a fleet of container ships?

Rex · Joined: 02 Mar 2009 Posts: 9 Location: Clermont, FL

Are there any Cessna Skycatchers in the Denver Colorado area???
Would love to see one up close.

Rex
Have a good day! :)
Join the best LSA group on the internet.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

LightSportFlyer · Joined: 10 Nov 2008 Posts: 64

It's also no coincidence either that shortly after Piper announced they had an LSA and would start making deliveries in April '10 - then all of a sudden Cessna announces they'll be "speeding up deliveries" that had just recently been delayed till the end of the year.

Bill · Joined: 07 Jul 2008 Posts: 96 Location: Delaware Beaches

LightSportFlyer wrote: It's also no coincidence either that shortly after Piper announced they had an LSA and would start making deliveries in April '10 - then all of a sudden Cessna announces they'll be "speeding up deliveries" that had just recently been delayed till the end of the year. Nothing like a bit of friendly competition to make things happen. I'd be all over the Piper LSA if I hadn't decided to keep my 'Coupe. When I get the urge for "new and shiny" I'll go rent a Tecnam or CTLS or SportCruiser or ...

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 259

There's not a thing wrong with a 'coupe. If I was a foot shorter I'd probably own one! It was the essence and intent of the LSA/SP rule before the rule was ever even dreamed of.
There is a guy in the hanger next to where I'm building my 650 that is restoring one. It's all torn apart now and looks to me like one heck of a solid plane. I'll probably have it flying before my 650.

Of course the Sport Cruiser/Piper Sports are real beauties. I think Cessna ought to worry. As if looks weren't enough, the difference in useful load will convince a lot of people.

Ron

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

rsteele wrote: the difference in useful load will convince a lot of people.

Ron, be wary of Piper's useful load claims. The numbers they were talking about at Sport Expo in Florida a few months ago were the figures for the Czech Aircraft Works SportCruiser. Piper is adding a ballistic recovery system, which will probably eat into the useful load by about 50 pounds.

Still a great airplane, but if I had a choice, I'd take mine without the parachute.

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 259

I agree about the 'chute, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are about going without.

My though: I need the useful load, not going to help in a spin/stall, these things land so slowly, an off field is unlike to cause serious injury. I might feel differently if was flying over the mountains on a regular basis!

Ron

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

rsteele wrote: I agree about the 'chute, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are about going without.

With the rare and sad exception of in-flight breakups (e.g., the Zenith/Zodiac), off-airport landings in an LSA result in, at most, minor injuries. BRS landings are just as likely to cause minor injury! The most they can do is minimize damage to the aircraft -- and I figure that if you have an emergency, the insurance company already owns the plane; I'm merely borrowing it from them. So, why should I give up payload just to do the insurance company a favor?

The fact that the first two Cessna SkyCrashers were destroyed in parachute descents seems to indicate that not even the insurance company benefits from them! Plus, do you know how those things deploy? With an explosive charge. I don't want pyrotechnics on my aircraft. And I'm sure TSA would have something to say about carrying a bomb aboard on every flight...

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 186 Location: Allen, TX

In my prior (to LSA) flying life I lost the engine in my Bellanca SuperViking. I was at 6000' feet on very windy day. Long story short, my best option turned out to be a saltwater marsh with the tide out. Set up for my pattern, turned final into the wind, rode the edge of the stall warning horn to minimize speed and landed. Not much runout in a marsh! 2 kids in the backseat didn't get a scratch, bump or bruise. My wife broke her collar bone (seatbelt) and I bruised/cracked a rib or two on the yoke. Went on to DisneyWorld the next day :)

Since I had control of the aircraft, I would NOT have pulled the chute but I would like to have had the option. If the wind would have been considerably less, the chute might have been a viable option. Wouldn't have had that sudden (and painful) stop at the end ;)

BTW -- one of the many things I love about LSA is the low stall speed and weight. My Bellanca went around 3300lbs and stalled around 60 kts. With energy directly proportional to mass and directly proportional to the square of the speed, I figure my S3 has about 15% the energy to dissipate. Not much human damage is likely to occur -- even without a chute.

In my case, no way was my wife going to get in another light plane without a chute so my decision was easy!

I consider a chute one more safety option. Well worth the 36lbs.

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 230

Yawn.

I just finished the third annual inspection on my CTSW.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

dstclair wrote:
I consider a chute one more safety option.

And the operative word here is option. It appears that, by making the BRS standard equipment, Piper and Cessna are denying me the opportunity to chose between the parachute and a different safety option, an extra 1.5 hours of fuel. I suspect that not offering the SkyCrasher and PiperSport without a chute will cost them some sales.

deltafox · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 68

Interesting assessment of requirements. I'm not sure the potential market for these planes would be willing to exchange the BRS for the extra fuel. Those that do might well consider stepping up to GA rather than investing in the LSA.

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 186 Location: Allen, TX

Quote: Interesting assessment of requirements. I'm not sure the potential market for these planes would be willing to exchange the BRS for the extra fuel. Those that do might well consider stepping up to GA rather than investing in the LSA.

All depends on the plane and weight of pilot+passenger. Believe it or not, there are LSA planes that can have a full tank, BRS and 2 people. I've got about 4.5 hrs of fuel with reserves when at gross with myself and average-sized passenger. That's enough for me. I know others that like to have 6.5+ hrs.

Interesting that the trend seems to be that the LSA's from the big vendors are coming with chutes. Safety seems to be what they interpret the market to want.

Time will tell.