Skycatcher's End

[Jack Tyler]

As we're seeing here, there will be much Monday Morning Quarterbacking and "I told you so's" - in part because the issues were so seemingly transparent over such a long period of time. In retrospect, it seems like Cessna couldn't get anything right...but we forget what the LSA world looked like 5 or 6 years ago. Light Sport was going to reignite recreational aviation, half the (relatively small) number of S-LSA a/c that existed were rehashed designs or pretty crude in appearance and/or made by 'foreigners' who were not well known, Cessna had a relatively massive network of early customers (in their flight schools) and follow-on potential future buyers (those Cessna Training Center graduates who would gravitate to a Skycatcher like their parents did to a 172), and of course the overarching advantage of having been the most successful piston a/c manufacturer in the world. And so 1,000 buyers laid down deposits...which is probably the one and only high point of the Skycatcher program in a commercial sense.

The reality seems to be that by then Cessna had lost insight into an opening piston a/c marketplace and also had lost to much of of its piston a/c design and build talent. Probably some hubris wrapped up in their failings, too.

One thing not mentioned so far in this thread is the fateful management change Textron made to bring in two high-level managers from GE to run Cessna. No one understands cost profiles, profit margins, marketplace analysis and ROI better than GE trained managers. Once the Skycatcher had to earn its place in the company's portfolio not as we might choose to see it - rounding out a piston product line, or expanding into the new LSA/SP world - but as it needed to be seen internally as a contributor to the balance sheet, it was probably game over. And sure enough, it was shortly after that point when Cessna didn't show up at Sebring's LSA Expo with the Skycatcher.

[designrs]

Genious is easy in hindsight.
LSA planes generally don't fare well with traditional corporate bean counters, with exception being "grass roots bean counters" that actually started by building the planes with their hands and have passion.

[MrMorden]

Flight Design is not making the leading product for a niche market.

LSA is not a niche market in General Aviation? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's a good one.

[MrMorden]

I think the Skycatcher is a great little airplane. I like everything about it except the useful load is a little low and it could use another 6 gallons of fuel capacity. Everything else about it, I prefer over the CT's, especially the looks and the engine.

I generally agree. I don't know about the hybrid stick/yoke, but not having flown one I can't say if it's great or just weird. But the 'Catcher is a nice little design, the Garmin panel is very sweet. I think there is a little too much exposed wiring and hoses, but I understand that covers for all that stuff cost weight.

The only thing I can see killing it is utility. It screams for a 550lb+ useful load, and that is not happening with the O-200D installed.

[MrMorden]

I flown the Skycatcher before during training at one of my former flight schools. The "stoke" was very easy to adapt to and seems natural. But I don't like the ground handling and the heavy use of right rudder on takeoff roll.

The CT also needs a lot of right rudder on takeoff. Remember that you are dealing with a very light airplane with a lot of power for its size and a big rudder & vertical stab. The strong need for rudder is almost inevitable. In fact, my CT needs rudder on any significant power change as well, right rudder when adding power, left when reducing.

This might not be true of all LSAs, but I bet it's true for many.

[MrMorden]

As we're seeing here, there will be much Monday Morning Quarterbacking and "I told you so's" - in part because the issues were so seemingly transparent over such a long period of time.

True, but I think this was pretty easy to foresee. As soon as the engine choice and specs were announced, I was posting in several forums that Cessna was making a big mistake leaving so much weight on the table in an LSA. But from a technical standpoint, I see that as their only major mistake. Cessna knows how to make airplanes.

The other problems were not so apparent, but ultimately damaging as well. The corporate leadership was not fully committed to either the program or the LSA space, leading to sluggish and haphazard commitment. Also I think the decision to build in China turned off a lot of people who have a distrust of Chinese manufacturing and those with a "buy American" mindset.

I'm sorry to see the airplane go, we are in need of as many airplane choices as we can get.

[drseti]

In another thread where we were discussing the inevitable shakeout that has to occur in the LSA marketplace, someone asked who the survivors would be. I said, "well, Cessna, of course."

Oops, my bad!

[Merlinspop]

In another thread where we were discussing the inevitable shakeout that has to occur in the LSA marketplace, someone asked who the survivors would be. I said, "well, Cessna, of course."

Oops, my bad!

Elephants don't like being where there are a lot of mice scurrying around...

[CTLSi]

......

[Merlinspop]

In another thread where we were discussing the inevitable shakeout that has to occur in the LSA marketplace, someone asked who the survivors would be. I said, "well, Cessna, of course."

Oops, my bad!

Elephants don't like being where there are a lot of mice scurrying around...

Elephants are doomed to extinction. Just ask the other dinosaurs.

Yes, we know. someday every civilian airplane flying, including airliners, will be produced by FD and powered by Rotax. We get it.

[dstclair]

Yes, we know. someday every civilian airplane flying, including airliners, will be produced by FD and powered by Rotax. We get it.

Then FD will forget about their roots and kill the CTLSi to focus on their corporate Jet market

[Jim Stewart]

I flown the Skycatcher before during training at one of my former flight schools. The "stoke" was very easy to adapt to and seems natural. But I don't like the ground handling and the heavy use of right rudder on takeoff roll.

The CT also needs a lot of right rudder on takeoff. Remember that you are dealing with a very light airplane with a lot of power for its size and a big rudder & vertical stab. The strong need for rudder is almost inevitable. In fact, my CT needs rudder on any significant power change as well, right rudder when adding power, left when reducing.

This might not be true of all LSAs, but I bet it's true for many.

AFAIK, all small planes need a bootload of right rudder on takeoff. Review P-factor, torque and gyro effects.

[MrMorden]

I flown the Skycatcher before during training at one of my former flight schools. The "stoke" was very easy to adapt to and seems natural. But I don't like the ground handling and the heavy use of right rudder on takeoff roll.

The CT also needs a lot of right rudder on takeoff. Remember that you are dealing with a very light airplane with a lot of power for its size and a big rudder & vertical stab. The strong need for rudder is almost inevitable. In fact, my CT needs rudder on any significant power change as well, right rudder when adding power, left when reducing.

This might not be true of all LSAs, but I bet it's true for many.

AFAIK, all small planes need a bootload of right rudder on takeoff. Review P-factor, torque and gyro effects.

Yeah I know all that, which is why I referenced power, size of vertical stab, etc. Some airplanes are more prone than others, LSAs probably more so as a rule than heavier birds.

[CTLSi]

......

[FastEddieB]

Right rudder is needed on both takeoff and landing due to these effects.

Why on landing?

BTW, on takeoff I think it has more to do with the power to weight ratio than the absolute weight.

A typical Light Sport at 100 HP and 1320 lbs is not a whole lot different that a Currus, let's say, at 310 HP and 3,400 lbs. Both will take about the same right rudder, all things being equal.