hello from chicago illinois

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[CharlieTango]

Just as a real-world example, I was planning to fly the SkyCatcher from Atlanta up to Williamsburg, VA for an over-night trip. I was going to pick up my sister in North Carolina. In anticipation of the trip, we both dieted for 30 days and packed, weighed, and repacked our baggage until we got our weight down to the MTOW with full fuel (24 gallons). We were able to do so with 20 pounds of baggage each. When we actually made the trip, I left the plane in North Carolina and we drove her Z3 from there due to thunderstorm activity, but it was fun preparing for and making the trip.

We do trips from Mammoth to the Portland area 550nm - crossing Sierra Nevada and Cascades.

No diet,
100lbs of luggage
34gal - 7 hours
Avg 125kts

We land with 2-3 hours of fuel in reserve.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[CharlieTango]

My point was to answer the original poster's question.

OP: just wondering what others thoughts are on the two aircraft?

There are hundreds of words written in reply exemplifying the 162 and a few negative words on the CT. My thought is that the CT is in another class well suited to long flights and the 162 is a trainer. The pilots that claim the 162 fits their missions admit their missions is to fly solo and local. Diets to plan for a flight is a great example of the down side to the Cessna.

[Nomore767]

Nice review of the SkyCatcher. I can't comment on the others because I have no experience with them. In my case, I would buy a SkyCatcher in a heartbeat If I wanted to invest $100,000 or more in an airplane. My flying is 80 percent by myself and 20 percent with a friend. Our combined weight with full fuel and no baggage puts us at MTOW. I think the SkyCatcher is a great option if it meets your mission requirements.

I agree! I'm in pretty much the same situation as you. Right now you can buy a Skycatcher at real bargain prices. Great savings over other LSAs.

The Remos I flew could have carried full fuel, both of us and a lot of baggage. Problem was, the baggage compartment was so small that it would only take my wife's purse. True, my wife does carry an industrial sized purse! If it had a decent sized luggae area it would have been great, but...that space was taken up with the fuel tank. Here's the issue I had with fuel, there was no fuel gauge, and the CFI said to use the plastic tube that ran through the cockpit even though it wasn't marked with fuel levels. Or...put your hand on the tank and where the cold area started was the fuel level. There was a way of inputting the fuel level into the Dynon and it would calculate usage. Great, but...you have to know how much is in the tank to begin with. I found this aspect of the Remos a deal breaker and I stopped flying it. Well, also because the engine quit twice after landing.

The CTLS I flew, whilst a nice plane with Dynon 10" display etc....had a crack in it's luggage door (requiring composite repair), the placards were peeling or unreadable, it had damage from a tail strike, grounding it, and the last I saw it was sitting in the hangar waiting for a rubber service and for the Rotax man to call.

I actually really like the Flight design MC but they don't sell them in the USA. It's what the Skycatcher should and could be.

Again, just my opinion, FWIW.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Nomore767]

What's your point? We all know different planes have different capabilities. Buy the one you want, not the one someone else wants.

Quite often it seems guys are intent on defending the plane they bought, seemingly not wanting to be put down by another guy who says they should have bought what he got.

If your mission is low and slow off a grass strip maybe a cub or other tail dragger? If you want to fly a plane similar to your trainer, buy a Cessna or a Piper, although 35 years old.

If you like the new composite all glass foreign LSAs there are some fantastic planes out there. With fantastic price tags.

I just want to fly and not simply sit and compare fuel burns and oil changes with others at 'the electric hangar door'.

But that's just me.

Everyone's mission is theirs. It's all about flying and we should encourage everyone to find the plane they need, the flying they want, and the enjoyment and fulfillment they desire.

Absolutely..it's "Flying for Fun"!

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[illinoisflyboy]

I was leaning a little more towards the skycatcher after todays flight, but sitting around the fbo while waiting for the CTLSi demo plane to return I was talking to someone about the skycatcher and he said what others have said about Cessna and their plans for the skycatcher.. if Cessna quits making it, I wonder how long there would be parts availability for it, sure wouldn't want to be stuck with an aircraft that one could no longer get parts for. the CTLSi is still a potential candidate for me, my only concern is the availability of service for it in the northern Illinois area but i hear that is improving as more lsa aircraft appear at the other general aviation airports. kinda looks like my main concern with the skycatcher will be how long are parts available if they discontinue it.

[Nomore767]

I was leaning a little more towards the skycatcher after todays flight, but sitting around the fbo while waiting for the CTLSi demo plane to return I was talking to someone about the skycatcher and he said what others have said about Cessna and their plans for the skycatcher.. if Cessna quits making it, I wonder how long there would be parts availability for it, sure wouldn't want to be stuck with an aircraft that one could no longer get parts for. the CTLSi is still a potential candidate for me, my only concern is the availability of service for it in the northern Illinois area but i hear that is improving as more lsa aircraft appear at the other general aviation airports. kinda looks like my main concern with the skycatcher will be how long are parts available if they discontinue it.

As far as the CTLSi I would certainly have a look at an LSA powered with that engine. It's heavier but the injection eliminates the dual carbs and the automatic rich of peak leaning is certainly impressive, and economic.
On the other hand, after you've mulled over the economies of using auto-gas and 3.4 gph remember how long it would take to get a return on those reduced costs after you've paid $$$ thousands more to buy it and the airframe to begin with.

Lastly, as others have said...take a good look at your personal mission. With a healthy dose of reality think about what/where/when you'll fly your plane, with who and how far.
If you lived near a nice grass strip and like just flying low and slow for an hour of fun once or twice a week, look at getting a tailwheel like a Cub...the new Cubs are great.

If you want speed and technology to do a lot of cross country flights the new CTLS, Tecnams etc may be for you. You just don't want a $185k Tecnam sitting at your grass strip whilst your Cub is plugging way cross country at 90 its.

Just sayin'

[illinoisflyboy]

probably will be doing a lot of flights 100-200 miles away with the occasional 5-600 mile flights but most airports will be the conventional paved airstrips.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[illinoisflyboy]

that is my main concern with the skycatcher. most of the time I would probably be flying alone and I weigh about 150-160 so that is no problem but if my friend comes with he weighs maybe 200 pounds so with the 2 of us and fuel we might be close.

[deltafox]

Still love my PiperSport.