Sport Pilot Talk

MrMorden wrote:If I were a 162 owner, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

Trust me, you don't have to own a 162, to have that disposition over this.
Somebody didn't do their homework.
What a shame.

I notice too the engines are still on the airframes as they are dropped in the dumpsters. WTF???

eyeflygps wrote:I love the SkyCatcher. I flew 1.5 hours yesterday in one. It works perfectly for my mission. For me, 490 pounds useful load less 144 pounds of fuel is OK. The fact that it was produced in China is a NON-ISSUE for me.

As much as you like the airplane, it's really too bad you couldn't have "saved" one of them from such a demise.
They should have put them up for open bid. They would have went like hot cakes at an EAA fly-in.

The ANN story about it today opined that it could have been liability or continued support concerns or possibly a smoldering issue between Cessna (Textron) and the company in China they subbed the build out to. The latter could explain why engines (avionics, too, maybe?) weren't removed first, perhaps. I'd be curious to know if the "scrap" gets sent back to the same firm in China.

eyeflygps wrote:However, business decisions can be difficult to understand if you don't have all the information.

Exactly.

We look at airframe parts and landing gear and engines and avionics and on and on and see it as a huge waste - which it is.

But from Textron's view, liability probably played a part.

Plus, to remove, itemize, ship, store and distribute so many parts would have been a "non-trivial" undertaking. And with finite resources, they probably compared it to their profit margin on each jet sold, and made the rational decision that their efforts were best applied elsewhere.

Kind of reminds me of the story told here:

MrMorden wrote:If I were a 162 owner, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

I nearly bought a used Skycatcher six months ago. Happily ended up with this for the same amount of money. PLUS, it's American made!

I think you made the better choice Capt. Bob!!! I called Arion a week ago to ask about their resin specs and some general questions about the airframe and Jabriu engine. Nick was quite informative and very nice. Spent 10 minutes on the phone with him, if I had the cash I'd have put a down-payment on one right then....

Captain Bob wrote:

MrMorden wrote:If I were a 162 owner, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

I nearly bought a used Skycatcher six months ago. Happily ended up with this for the same amount of money. PLUS, it's American made!

Sexy plane. Best of luck with it Bob.
Please keep posting about your ownership experience & the Lightning!

Captain Bob wrote:

MrMorden wrote:If I were a 162 owner, I'd be pretty pissed about this.

I nearly bought a used Skycatcher six months ago. Happily ended up with this for the same amount of money. PLUS, it's American made!

I know a local pilot who flies an Esqual (it's one of the 6 EX-AB airplanes they made before they switched to LSA-compatible standard with an extended wing). He is quite happy with it. It uses the same Penske fuel pump that made my firewall crack, so I examined its installation by Arion. They installed it in a smart way, so your firewall isn't going to crack.

Well, I just checked online, there are 11 up for sale one one site, that's more than I remember seeing before they circular filed the spares. Looks like owners are a bit nervous about owning one without the spare parts hanging around. Prices for some are quite reasonable superficially speaking.

I know the C162 I was using for flight instruction is down for metal shavings in the Engine. Per Maintenance one of the reasons you seen the engines still in the airframes that were scrapped was due to cheap metal in the engine. Sadly the one I was flying only has a little over 1000 hours on the hobbs and 750 hours on the Tach. So I am now flying the 172N that no one wants to use.

From what I have read and understand from the Maintenance dept, it was cheap metal from China that was the issue. They didn't plan to have problems, but sometimes the cheapest bidder isn't always the best option.

One thing for certain is the 0-200 in the Skycatcher is not the same as the old tried and true vesion that was in the 150. They made significant changes to try and reduce weight. Until you get actual field experience with the changed engine you truely will not know how it will hold up.

eyeflygps wrote:Well, if it's not the same engine and has been lightened up, it may very well not last as long, regardless of what materials they used. One more reason to go with the RV-12 when my ship arrives, although I seem to want an airplane less and less with each passing day.

Continental developed the D model of the O-200 for the LSA Market. Cessna adopted it for the Skycatcher and Legend puts it in their Legend Cub. Interestingly (to me, if no one else), CubCrafters (who count up grams while trying to shave weight) did NOT put it in their Sport Cub, sticking with the A model. From another source, someone compared just the blocks from the D and A models and the D came out about 8 pounds lighter. Compression on the D is 8.5:1 while the A is 7:1. Toss in lighter weight accessories and the D came out about 24 pounds lighter than an A.

None of this is intended to be a knock on Continental or the O-200D. I'd happily drone along behind one in either a Legend Cub or a Sport Cub. I do know which one I'd rather hand prop if I had to, though!

foresterpoole wrote:Well, I just checked online, there are 11 up for sale one one site, that's more than I remember seeing before they circular filed the spares. Looks like owners are a bit nervous about owning one without the spare parts hanging around. Prices for some are quite reasonable superficially speaking.

It's a metal airplane and fabricating parts should be an option. This would be a GREAT opportunity for somebody interested in going E-LSA and willing to do some of their own work and parts fabrication when needed. And then if the engines truly turn out to have problems, you could slap a Rotax 912 on it and instantly gain 75lb useful load. You might have to shift some weight around or put additional weight in the front to stay within acceptable CG limits though.