Skycatcher's End

[drseti]

I think there's more to it than that. FD does a lot of their manufacturing in Germany, and Rotax is in Austria. Pipistrel's hq is in Slovenia, and they moved their manufacturing plant across the border to Italy to meet US import rules. Tecnam is doing well from Italy. Not exactly Eastern Bloc countries. Yes, labor rates play a role in pricing, but I think corporate culture is more of a factor.

As for China - I was in Beijing just three weeks ago, at an aerospace trade conference. They are getting their quality control act together, and yes, I expect them to dominate LSA in just a few years.

[luckypierre]

Its tragic what happened to the Skycatcher. I agree with all the comments including the idea to buy the assets, substitute a Rotax, and rebrand the plane. As they liked to say in a company I used to work for: "a camel is a horse designed by a committee"

[Chemguy]

The camel is a creature remarkably and uniquely adapted to survive in one of the harshest environments in the world. Had the Skycatcher been as thoughtfully engineered, it may have survived the equally harsh market that is LSA.

I still have my original Skycatcher factory sales brochure. It is a beautiful document printed on quality stock as one would expect from Cessna. I followed the aircraft's development closely with the hopes of purchasing one upon retirement as an economic alternative to renting 30 year old 172s. That is, I had hoped for a new, efficient, and low maintenance plane from a recognized manufacturer that might fall within my budget. That, and as a trainer, is after all, how the Skycatcher was touted. It was a dream and I almost signed up for a position.

A test flight proved disappointing. I liked the flaps (much like my brother's Piper) and did not mind the engine (though, I would have preferred the Lycoming and still not sure of the Rotax). However, the usable load, lack of steerable nose wheel, lack of spin certification, and the dramatic increase in price (for such an austere design) was the end of that. The 2011 model at our FBO sits for sale with tanks half full and only 140 hrs TT. I could almost deal with the weight characteristics since I fly alone (except when I'm with one of my friendly instructors) but, I just don't know. It just didn't make it for me. I honestly believe, it is stories like mine that are indicative of its demise. Frustrated, I guess.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Nomore767]

I took my flying friend for a 1.9 hour flight in a SkyCatcher yesterday. I love this plane and would buy one if I could afford it. He and I are both fairly trim, so we were OK with full fuel and no baggage. I lost 35 pounds last November - December so I could fly it with no issues.

Totally agree.

[MrMorden]

I took my flying friend for a 1.9 hour flight in a SkyCatcher yesterday. I love this plane and would buy one if I could afford it. He and I are both fairly trim, so we were OK with full fuel and no baggage. I lost 35 pounds last November - December so I could fly it with no issues.

We've talked a lot about the business side of the 'catcher, and the overall design...how about a PIREP of the airplane's handling? What do you like about how it flies, and what don't you like? Control harmony, stability, visibility, etc?

I'd love to get a ride in one at some point, I think they are neat, and would have sold a million with a higher useful load.

[Merlinspop]

I lost 35 pounds last November - December so I could fly it with no issues.

We may have disagreed about certain financial analysis techniques, but I can't let this slide by without giving you Big Kudos for this! That's over an hour's worth of extra flying right there! I really can stand to lose at least a half hour, plus reserves.

Anyway, congrats on getting it off and keeping it off!

[Nomore767]

Andy,

I've flown several LSAs (CC Sport Cub, Remos, CTLS and the C162) and my favorite is the Skycatcher.

My 'mission' as a retired 60 year old is a personal airplane that I can pull out of the hangar on my own, fuel, service oil if needed, fly and put it away. If I need maintenance then a mechanic is literally yards away, and he has no issues with the 0-200D, servicing or doing inspections etc

Flying…the airplane is excellent. Some dislike the stoke, but if you can imagine a regular 'stick' which you move forwards, backwards, sideways etc and a combo of all then the 'stoke' is a non-issue. personally, I find the controls well balanced and slightly heavier than other LSAs which I think is good. I like nose wheel steering but adapted quickly to the differential braking and castoring nose wheel.
To me the C162 is Cessna-mini, very much designed like a Cessna only smaller and lighter. So the preflight is simple and straightforward. I can do it in a few minutes, and the oil is easy to check. Fuel? The wing roots have sight gauges and a metal ball floats to show exactly where the level is. It's the best and most reliable such system I've seen. If you want to check the actual tank each tank has a tab with holes showing ¼, ½, and full. Fuel is either on or off and gravity fed, simple, reliable and accurate. It uses 100LL which is available everywhere (at the moment!) and is $4.87 at a local field. At 5.5 gph and that price, the small difference between non-ethanol premium autogas, to ME, goes a long way to offsetting the auto-gas fuel advantage.

All metal, the airplane takes a hit on weight and in that regard the RV12 is better. But, mechanics like it and it's much more 'hangar rash' resistant. The RV12 is also all metal. I've flown all composite Remos and it's very nice…as long as you don't crack or damage the composite, then it can get expensive. BTW…talking with several mechanic shops, I've gathered that the C162 is overall cheaper to maintain than a Rotax powered airplane, in my area, the Carolinas, where Rotax shops/dealers are not as available. One shop estimated 50% less than an RV12 for example. The availability of Rotax trained shops will surely change for the better, in my area.

For ME, mostly flying alone, non-training, the useful load is fine. I can use the full 24 gal fuel load and add a bag for cross-country. If my wife comes along then we're limited to 1.5 hours BUT she doesn't like flying anyway. If I were to take a passenger on a local hop I don't need to fly more than 1.5 hours anyway which is doable. I would say as a trainer it's tougher but then show me an LSA which isn't as they come up against the 1320 lb limit.

Controls are pure Cessna. This is C150/152 with many of the 'issues' fixed. Its roomy and I find it comfortable enough but then I haven't flown it for 3 hours straight. Loads of baggage room…problem is you could put more in than the 50lb limit so weight and balance is key, again as with all LSA.
Engine operation is simple and familiar to ME. Engine parameters are simple and easy to see on the PFD/MFD. Nice to have carb temp to see when carb heat is needed, and its simple to lean using cylinder temps.
I love the Garmin G300s and they have more info than I'd ever really need. If I owned one I'd get an iPad-mini with a simple app like Jepp VFR or Foreflight to have all my charts in one place which I can take away etc. G300 has Safe Taxi, AOPA directory etc which again is a lot of info.

Again, MY mission is exactly the Sport Pilot one…day VFR, almost entirely local flying with occasional cross country. So what the C162 has, is more than I need for this mission, and is very economical. I'm not going across the country. If I did I'd get my medical and get a bigger airplane for the bigger mission. Again, I'm a prime candidate for the Sport Pilot rule.

I found I could fly this plane solely on my Cessna experience, but I still got a good checkout. The CFI was impressed that I could fly it so easily. Not to brag, but to indicate how easy it was for ME to adapt to flying it, for ME. Add power, let it fly off when ready and it was a short distance and it climbed to at about 1000-1200 fpm. The Vx/Vy easily seen on PFD. I feel safe saying that I could have gotten in and just flown it but of course I got a check out.
Stalls were a non-event, it just doesn't want to stall. Power on I limited it to 60 kts and full power with 30 degree nose up, as Michigan Flyers suggest to their students otherwise the deck angle is steep, it just doesn't want to stall. Even if slightly uncoordinated it doesn't want to drop a wing but that would be my fault not the plane.
Steep turns are another non-event. Very simple and the plane will move cleanly and easily to where you want it. I like the controls being a bit heavier than other LSAs and I personally think it's better for a student pilot.
Practice emergency landing, it just keeps flying at 70 its while you have plenty of time to work the problem and blind an emergency field.
Pattern work is simple and reminds me of the Cherokee I learned in. Flaps are Johnson bar. What I didn't like was at full flap the handle sticks up quite high but then every time you bang your hand on it you remember you have full flaps. On the ground doing preflight you can move the flaps down by hand to check the attach points and move them up when you return to cockpit.
Slow to 60 (1500rpm)and 1st notch flaps (below a high 100kts) on down wind, second notch and 55kts on base and 50 its on final (adjusted for weight). I mostly used two notches of flaps because of the handle position and because it lands better . If it was a short/soft field I'd use full flaps. Bleating reed noise as the stall approaches just like other Cessnas.
You should be wary of a tail strike as there is plenty of elevator control at low speed. 7-8 degrees nose up for take off and no more than 15 degrees for flare or you could touch the tail. If you're on speed and idle just wait for the wheels to touch. Forcing it on or pulling back for a full stall landing and you may just hit the tail. BTW…the tail tie down has a metal guard to prevent damage if the tail touches.
Good crosswind limit of 12kts and max 22kts in all ops. More than this and to ME it's not Sport Flying in a light airplane. Here, I'd say it's more limited as a trainer, but then the CFI can explain why and accuracy with sped and control handling demands that the student pay attention so may that's good for training.

The interior is sparse BUT mechanics like it because they can access everything much more easily. Did I say my mission was lower cost?

The wing loading is the highest of the LSAs I've flown at a bit over 11 and that makes cruising nicer in turbulence. The view is great. The Remos eye level to the side was right at the bottom of the wing. The C162 has much more room and I found it perfect for me. The high wing means less sun heat and sunlight on the glass displays. Air cooling was great from great air vents. Heating drops off as you throttle back though.
The doors are simple to use and the 'fix' for early doors coming loose is easy, a second latch. Gull wing doors, you simply open and sit and swing your legs in. The stoke means no stick to climb over. Pedals adjust back and forth and you sit more like in a sports car than a traditional trainer.
Typical Cessna gust lock. Works great and simple to use.
I can get out and easily put this plane back in the hangar on my own and go home.

I will go to Sebring and try and fly some other LSAs but for me I need to see something better than the C162 for my mission. Again, that's ME and what I want to do.
I flew a CTLS with dual 10" Dynons and it was an awesome plane. Personally I don't need the full menu of glass installed or either a BRS chute. Yes nice to have but not necessary, for ME. I would have wheel fairings on the C162 as it looks nicer and for the added pounds of weight there is a few more knots. The C162 will cruise at 118kts on 5.5-5.7 gph so my mission of a 3-3.5 hour flight with 5-6 gals reserve is easily doable. When I land I just look for the cheapest 100LL. Oil, fuel, maintenance is almost always on hand wherever I would go. For ME, my mission is achieved.

Now, I'm not happy with way Cessna has handled the C162. They've dithered and to my mind lost a golden opportunity. They could have produced an airframe with options for a heavier model for PPL and an LSA model for Sport pilots. They 'could' have opted for a Rotax version too and used more composite material on the fuselage to improve weight and useful load. Again, they dithered and they've allowed their potential to die. But…Cessna has made a good airplane although there are many who can't seem to wait to bash it. Not sure why but they get a kick out of it.
However, the 0-200D is a great engine and simple. Easy for an owner to service and to maintain at the shop. Components like tires and plugs are easily available. Plugs are more money but should last several hundred hours. No carbs or gearbox to maintain, and no rubber replacement required. No auto fuel to lug to the airport. So, for ME, in my area, the C162 is a better deal, for now. However, the RV12 SLSA is right on my radar. If I can fly it and get more comfortable with the Rotax operation, it 'may' just be my final choice. It's a work in progress, but I use the C162 as a standard to beat. The RV12 is top notch and Im learning about the Rotax.

The Skycatcher is bashed and ridiculed but I really like it. it's a good little plane and great to fly and I think probably efficient and economical to own.

That's my take on it.

Cheers, Howard.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Nomore767]

Jim,

The CC Sports Cub is a fantastic little airplane. I plan on flying the Legend to compare. I'd personally seriously look at them…but for ME I'd prefer a nice grass strip to fly out of and I don't have one locally. The tailwheel skill needs to be kept up and the insurance is higher, for that reason I come back to the Skycatcher. I think if you tried the Remos, CTLS etc you'd really like them but do they have a lot that beats the Skycatcher if you're just go to fly for fun? I don't really think so. But they are wonderful little planes.

I'm with you…at the end of the day, I just want to be able to go out to the airport and fly…not THAT bothered in what. I'm not much interested in having the latest and greatest in the panel. Don't have much interest in testing ATC at busy airports and airspace. I don't view all the goodies and BRS chutes as required…they each have they own set of rings and yangs. If you pull the BRS over the mountains are you out of trouble? Does it guarantee you walk away without a scratch?

I surely don't need multiple glass displays that do everything but my taxes. If the mission is Light Sport and that's what you want, then the Skycatcher does it all.

How did you like the Sky Arrow? I've seen a couple for sale $55k-75k so the price for a nice little LSA to just go flying is very good. I'm not sure about the space and tandem seating though. What do you say?

Cheers, Howard

[MrMorden]

Thanks for the great write up, Howard. The SC sure sounds like a very nice airplane. I understand what you are saying about the CTLS being a little too "whiz-bang" for your needs. I have a moderately equipped CTSW (Dynon PFD with backup steam gauges, and steam engine gauges, no autopilot), and it's a good compromise for me. I might like to have an autopilot for longer trips, but right now I'm not dropping the $5k to make it happen. The CTSW also has a better useful load than the LS, to the tune of 50lb+. That's a big deal to me because eventually I'd like to do some very long cross country flights and some mild adventure flying (fly and camp, for example) so I need to carry enough stuff plus the wife to make it useful for that.

The CTSW's lighter wing loading makes for great climb and glide, but it does get tossed around a lot in windy conditions, it sounds like the SC is better with that.

[3Dreaming]

Howard, nice write up. Tell some more about the fuel sight tubes. I have never heard of metal balls that will float in fuel.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Nomore767]

Thanks for the great write up, Howard. The SC sure sounds like a very nice airplane. I understand what you are saying about the CTLS being a little too "whiz-bang" for your needs. I have a moderately equipped CTSW (Dynon PFD with backup steam gauges, and steam engine gauges, no autopilot), and it's a good compromise for me. I might like to have an autopilot for longer trips, but right now I'm not dropping the $5k to make it happen. The CTSW also has a better useful load than the LS, to the tune of 50lb+. That's a big deal to me because eventually I'd like to do some very long cross country flights and some mild adventure flying (fly and camp, for example) so I need to carry enough stuff plus the wife to make it useful for that.

The CTSW's lighter wing loading makes for great climb and glide, but it does get tossed around a lot in windy conditions, it sounds like the SC is better with that.

Andy,

The FD aircraft are very good. For me, in this part of the Carolinas, and looking at ownership, I'm somewhat wary of Rotax powered planes because of the support issue. There are big dealers several hundred miles away which isn't so much of an issue with scheduled maintenance but the mechanics I've spoken with here aren't very familiar. I've urged them to get the training as there is a growing need for it. Meanwhile, acquiring a 'regular' engined SC like the 0-200D, seems more logical for ME and MY mission, so we'll see how it goes.

When I flew the Remos and the CTLS they both were 'capable' of carrying more but then didn't seem to have the space to do that. The Remos was basically a small duffle under the seat for example. The SC is the opposite, large space but limited to 50 lbs. Light Sport is somewhat of a compromise but then too many seem to want to fly outside the limits of what LSA was intended for and thus are disatisfied.

Cheers, Howard.

[Nomore767]

Howard, nice write up. Tell some more about the fuel sight tubes. I have never heard of metal balls that will float in fuel.

Well….they're silver balls and I think somewhere I read that they were lightweight aluminum or similar. Could be wrong, shouldn't have said metal!!

The sight tubes are graduated for air/ground and the ball floats so that the middle of the ball is the tank level, seems to work very well and very accurate.