Sport Pilot Talk

http://www.cessna.com/NewReleases/New/N ... 10041.html

Cessna Hits Stride with Skycatcher Light Sport Aircraft Deliveries

SEBRING, Fla., Jan. 20, 2011 - Cessna Aircraft Company, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, said today at the annual U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Fla., that it has received more than 60 Skycatcher light sport aircraft from Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. In conjunction with its reassembly site at Yingling Aviation in Wichita, Kan., Cessna has delivered more than 30 Skycatchers.

“Our U.S. reassembly facility is receiving Skycatchers from Shenyang Aircraft Corporation at an increased cadence, but most importantly the quality of the aircraft continues to be excellent. Feedback from our customers – individuals and flight schools alike – has affirmed the need for a light sport aircraft with the Cessna brand. It’s encouraging to see the Skycatcher enter service in such a positive way,” said Jack J. Pelton, Cessna chairman, president and CEO.

The company is on track to deliver 150 Skycatchers in 2011, including the first models featuring the McCauley two-blade, fixed-pitch composite propeller.

The Skycatcher, announced in 2007, is Cessna’s entry in the popular light sport aircraft category. It features the Garmin G300 avionics suite and a Teledyne Continental O200D engine. Priced at $112,250, the two-seat, single-engine aircraft has a maximum cruise speed of 118 knots with a maximum range at 6,000 feet of 440 nautical miles. Fabrication and assembly is centered at Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in Shenyang, China. Aircraft are shipped to Cessna’s U.S. reassembly site.

_________________
Bryan Cobb
Sport Pilot CFI
Commercial/Instrument Airplane
Commercial Rotorcraft Helicopter
Cartersville, Ga
bryandcobb@att.net

I am thrilled the Cessna Skycatcher is finally getting off the ground with deliveries. It is a beautiful plane and I'm sure it will live up to it's family rep in handling, but I do have some concerns about it. Has anyone heard if/how they plan to work on the weight problem? With full tanks, it only has about 350 # or less useful load. I'm no heavyweight (about 180), but I'm afraid I couldn't take my son for a ride in it unless one or both of us went on a starvation diet for a month or so. Also, I haven't seen what they are projecting for fuel burn. Seems to be around 6.5 g/hour as I compute it. I'm not trying to be negative, but it would seem they may erode their home-court advantage if they don't figure a way to address these areas.

The only way for the C162 to lose weight is to change engines. Cessna did consider the lighter ROTAX, but for their own reasons chose the Conti engine. Like most LSA's, it best suited for training and not a personal airplane. Fifteen gallons of fuel should be plenty for training purposes and the C162 does have sight tubes so you can see exactly how much fuel you have remaining. Since the 162 has a conventional engine that any A/P can work on and parts support from Cessna I would guess that even with its' shortcomings it will eventualy dominate the training market.

I haven't compared the useful load spec's of the 162 to the 150, 152, or Tomahawk, but I would bet they are very close.

There's a LOT of fat folks that learned to fly by shoehorning themselves into a 152 with a fat instructor.

Somehow, I'll bet it will all work out!

PC WARNING! I CAN use the word FAT without being flamed because I weigh 252 now. LOL

_________________
Bryan Cobb
Sport Pilot CFI
Commercial/Instrument Airplane
Commercial Rotorcraft Helicopter
Cartersville, Ga
bryandcobb@att.net

I TOTALLY agree! Soon we are gonna see DPE's minting A LOT more Sport Pilots.

_________________
Bryan Cobb
Sport Pilot CFI
Commercial/Instrument Airplane
Commercial Rotorcraft Helicopter
Cartersville, Ga
bryandcobb@att.net

Looking at an old POH I have for a C150, the useful load for a 150 and a 162 are about the same. When I learned to fly [30 years ago] no one seemed to care if you exceeded max weight by 40-50 lbs in a C150. Don't know if the attitude is the same today or not. I also don't know if 1320 lbs is just an artificial limit for the 162 or if the airplane can actually handle more weight safely.

Yawn.

Ha Ha! Sorry to belabor arguments that I know have been belabored before. It's just that this problem is so glaring and so many peoplein the LSA crowd seem so excited about a respected USA aviation company finally fielding a USA designed and built (well, kinda!) LSA airplane. It seems a shame to relegate such a noble effort to a (weight selective) training mission. And, OBTW, what about the fuel consumption? No one commented on that item.

Regarding the Continetal Engine? Somewhere, I read that the 162 Continental engine only weighs 100 pounds, so I am not convinced the engine is the sole culprit in the SkyCatcher weight problem. Maybe the extra upholstery and other pretty stuff that doesn't seem to fit in a trainer?

Of course, a lot of this 162 weight issue could be ameliorated if the FAA were to decide that the 1320 # LSA weight limit could be relieved a bit. Anyone think Cessna might be retaining some lobbyists to research this concept?

We of the LSA interest sector have an obligation to pose these kinds of pertinent challenges to those who build our flying machines.

_________________
Tecnam Flyer

Thats why I bought a Beech Skipper four months ago.

550 lb useful load, Lycoming O-235 2400 hour TBO, aluminum prop

30 gallons fuel. Training I average about 4.5 gallons per hour at 2500 rpm and 85-90 knots. Climb prop. Lots of cabin room. Everything is built strong. Utility category at gross weight.

I typically fill to the tabs giving 20 gallons total and train for two hours.

Easy to work on and the T tail works fine. Standard elevator not stabilator. Stalls are gentle and I can hold the nose off until very slow on landing. Soft field takeoff is conventional. Great visibility and standard IFR panel layout. Shoulder harnesses large entry doors, good heat and ventilation.

1,900 hours airframe. 500 since Mattituck Overhaul with new cylinders. no airframe damage, IFR certified paid $23,500. Insurance in the flight school was 4,000 per year hull 27,000

Controls are light and quick but smooth. Airplane looks fairly modern and is a 1980. Old but new by trainer standards. Controls are very logical and laid out conventionally. Great lighting and seats.

Part 23 certified with a long history. Very few AD's to worry about. Parts support is not great but most everything is standard stuff.

Rents for $85 per hour wet. The students and instructors love it. The only problem I have is people with a pilots license that show up and take one look saying "I'm not getting in that Tomahawk" I say "Jump in then because it's not a Tomahawk"

It's no closer to a Tomahawk as a Grumman Cheetah is a Piper Cherokee.

I agree the useful load on the Skycatcher and Aeronca Champ is just to small. Both are airplanes I would consider except for the useful load.

Cessna appears to have gotten the Skycatcher as light as possible without sacrificing anything. But Tecnam has an all metal high wing airplane with better useful load. Better engineers? Not really just a different approach. Tecnam looks very well built

There has to be a trade off somewhere.

Engine is lighter but what is the real ready to run weight difference between the O-200D and the Rotax 912 including radiator and other parts. I know the 912 is still lighter but exactly how much?

Same farm tractor vs race car analogy comes to mind. I like to fly farm tractors.

_________________
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery

The Continental o-200D weighs in at 176.5 dry from the TCDS. This would go along with the 40 pound weight penalty over the Rotax I had heard about. The Rotax weighs in around 120 plus add all the required item needed for the installation and it is between 140-145. Tom

According to Rotax's own website when you add the listed options onto it's base weight the total for the 912S comes out to 165.8 lbs. I'd be more than happy to leave out 2 gallons of fuel to make up the difference and gain the huge service network the O-200 has vs the Rotax's comparatively small number of qualified mechanics available. LSAs with Rotaxes have been out for 7 years now and getting service is still a problem in many areas.

http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/p ... _S_ULS.pdf

Where did the 176lb weight for the o-200d come from? All the documents I find mentions 199lbs. Vans mentions an installed weight of 215lbs. I suggest the Rotax/Continental difference is back to the generally accepted 40lbs.

Not worth the weight for me for a 1320lb aircraft. YMMV.

_________________
dave

LightSportFlyer, good to hear from you again. I know you don't like foreign made engines, but please try to be accurate in your compairisons. If you had looked at the list of items you were adding you would have seen that not all of them are needed. I mean who would put a propeller governor on an engine for a light sport airplane that can not use a variable pitch prop. The weight I posted came from the FAA TCDS for the O-200D, but from Continental's site the dry weight installed is 199 pounds. http://www.genuinecontinental.aero/o-200.html Lets make a fair comparison for the Rotax. From the web site you posted The engine base weight is 124.8. For the installation I am familiar with you have the oil radiator 1.2, Radiator 2.2, slipper clutch 3.7, Airguide hood 1.8, mounting frame 4.4, and 3/4 gallon of coolant to be fair 6.0. I don't think continental includes airbox or exhaust, but I will add them in anyway 11.6 for both. That gives a difference of 43.3 pounds, but take out the exahust and airbox and the difference is 54.9 pounds. If you want to add in the external generator you can add in 6.6 pounds, but you are still looking at about a fifty pound advantage in weight for the Rotax.
Also with the recent FAA ruling any A&P can work on the Rotax engine without training from Rotax. All they have to do is meet the CFR requirements of having training in the task being performed just like for the continental and Lycoming.

The issue is not structural integrity (most S-LSA airframes can easily handle 1400 pounds or so), but rather stall speed. The LSA stall speed limit is 45 kts clean. Stall speed increases with weight. If you go over 1320, most of the LSAs will stall at too high a speed. The SportStar, for example, was limited to 1268 pounds for this very reason. Evektor, the manufacturer, eventually came up with a service bulletin to take them up to 1320, by adding vortex generators to the wings to lower the clean stall speed, so that it hits 45 kts at 1320 pounds. Cessna could similarly add vortex generators to the SkyCatcher wing, to make its stall speed stay below 45 kts at some higher weight -- but they won't, because that would essentially encourage pilots to operate outside of the FAA LSA limit.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

This is good news, Bryan, and makes perfect business sense (since Textron owns both McCauley and Cessna, it is reasonable to employ vertical integration to maximize control over the product line). For this reason, Cessna should really strive to adapt the Lycoming (also a Textron company) O-233 engine to the 162. Unfortunately, Lycoming is not yet cranking them out in suitable quantity -- and the engineer there I spoke to last month says that they still haven't gotten the weight down to where it makes sense in an LSA. Right now, they're carbureted. The IO-233 (fuel injected version) will be lighter, but of course more expensive.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org