Looking for next plane - is a C162 a good option

[c162pilot]

Recently sold our 2011 DA40-XLS and I am now looking for next my next plane. Decided to go the S-LSA route. Looking at CTLS/CTLSi, Tecnam P2002, RV12 amongst others. Some of you may recall I once had a deposit on a C162 Skycatcher but cancelled the order when Cessna jacked up the prices. Just spoke to a friend of mine who recently sold his C162 for $48,5000. I notice there were quite a few C162's on the market and I am sure I could find one for around $50,000 which is almost half of what all the other planes I am looking at would cost. I did get checked out the in C162 and if I can live with the limitations of the C162 would it be a good decision to buy a C162 in the fifty thousand dollar range if you are looking for a run about for the next few years?

[joey4420]

I personally could not live with one, but that is me. I am flying one in training and yes the cost would be good, but the load factor is what gets me. That and even though the one I fly is in a flight school it has just over 1000 hours and had to have an engine rebuild due to metal in the oil filter.

[MrMorden]

If you fly 90% of your time solo, as most of us do, then the useful of a 162 is fine. If you want to do long travel legs with a passenger, it might be a bit frustrating.

[MrMorden]

In that case, you go with 3/4 fuel and 2 hour legs with 1 hour reserve. Not a problem for me, but would be for some people.

Which is fine for a day trip, but when traveling that won't leave any room for baggage with most normal-sized humans. I guess you could go to half fuel and one hour flight legs with an hour reserve, which gets you 35-40lb of baggage with two 180lb people.

[Wm.Ince]

486-108 (3/4 fuel) = 378
378-360 (occupants) = 28

Pack light or get smaller friends. It's not going to work for everyone.

With Our CTSW's, we don't have to compromise on either one.

[MrMorden]

378-360 (occupants) = 28

Pack light or get smaller friends. It's not going to work for everyone.

378-360 = 18. Get really small friends.

[MrMorden]

486-108 (3/4 fuel) = 378
378-360 (occupants) = 28

Pack light or get smaller friends. It's not going to work for everyone.

With Our CTSW's, we don't have to compromise on either one.

Well...sort of. My airplane with full fuel and two 190lb people is 10lb overweight. But that is with 34 gallons of fuel. At 20 gallons (2.5 - 3.0 hours plus reserves), I have 75lb for baggage.

Even in a "heavy hauler" (HA!) LSA like the CTSW, It's still tough to travel long distances with a passenger and decent baggage. I don't like going much below 7-8 gallons of fuel on landing because the CT's fuel system quirks, so in reality I'm back down to 2.5hr legs. Useful travel in an LSA with a passenger is just hard to do. I think the Bristell has a bigger load, as does a Highlander. But the latter is slow, which causes other travel issues.

[FastEddieB]

Here's the cheat sheet I use in my (porky) Sky Arrow:



Before buying a plane, its wise to come up with something like this and see if it meets your mission profile.

While I'd love more useful load and range, I can live with what my plane delivers. Karen weighs little enough the we can carry full fuel - albeit only 18 gals - and a reasonable amount of luggage if needed and still stay under 1,320 lbs.

As a side note I just hammered my weight down to 179. If I can keep it there (or lower) that helps a lot as well!

[HAPPYDAN]

I like your weight and balance chart. Is that a spreadsheet? Do you mind if I copy that (with mods, of course) for my own use? You know I like the Skycatcher, but lately I have become interested in the Legend Cub. Probably has an even worse useable load, but the most fun I've had flying was in a1936 (restored) Piper Cub. I liked the steam gauges too. If you can't have fun, what's the point?

[FastEddieB]

It's in Excel.

See if it attached properly. If not I can maybe email it to you or give you a DropBox link.

Just please double check both my formulas and your own!

[3Dreaming]

Probably has an even worse useable load, but the most fun I've had flying was in a1936 (restored) Piper Cub.

I guess you are lucky. Not many people get to go for a ride in a 1936 Piper Cub. The puny 37-40 HP of the J2 would only carry 2 people aloft in the best of conditions.

[HAPPYDAN]

Probably has an even worse useable load, but the most fun I've had flying was in a1936 (restored) Piper Cub.

I guess you are lucky. Not many people get to go for a ride in a 1936 Piper Cub. The puny 37-40 HP of the J2 would only carry 2 people aloft in the best of conditions.

My father soloed in a J3 in 1942, so it was kind of a discovery mission. The plane is owned by Safety in Motion, Puyallup WA (KPLU). Hand propped, 65 hp Continental, hand held radio. It took them 2 weeks to find a qualified CFI, but is was worth every minute and every penny. Low and slow.
http://sportpilottalk.com/download/file ... iew&id=558

[HAPPYDAN]

It's in Excel.

See if it attached properly. If not I can maybe email it to you or give you a DropBox link.

Just please double check both my formulas and your own!

Thanks much! This is a good format and looks to be easy to work with and modify as needed.

[FastEddieB]

Thanks much! This is a good format and looks to be easy to work with and modify as needed.

Happy to help!

Probably obvious, but I'll state it anyways for the newbies:

This stops one step short of the "balance" part of "weight and balance" - one still needs to apply the resulting cg to the manufacturers cg envelope to be sure it's within limits. One will get a feel over time about what sort of loadings start approaching or exceeding cg limits. It's a good exercise to see what it takes in a "worst case" scenario to end up out of limits. In my Sky Arrow it's virtually impossible to do, but it's not unusual for a Light Sport to start hitting its forward cg limit with a heavy pilot and passenger and no baggage.

One solution is to carry a collapsible water container that can be filled and secured in the baggage compartment as ballast.

[joey4420]

Load factor? I think you mean useful load. 486 pounds useful load works for me.

Yes I meant Useful Load, sorry it was a long day at work and my terminology was off.