Cessna 162 SkyCatcher

[RobertRent 17]

Cessna's new light sport aircraft looks very interesting. For more info, see: http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com

[Deaf Pilot 1]

I loved it... I really wanted to get it and I may someday but I'm probably going to stick with a complex used plane. My buddy and I are talking about getting an Arrow. But I've been eyeing this too.

[Guest]

It is a very sharp plane but seems a bit overpriced from what I have seen and read. I would be more interested in cirrus' new SRS. Looks very cool, almost like a mini sr-20.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[Deaf Pilot 1]

Definitely overpriced... at that price, might as well make that relatively small step up into a new 172.

[Guest DanWalloch]

>Definitely overpriced... at that price, might as well make>that relatively small step up into a new 172.There still is a huge price difference between the 162 and 172.http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml$219,500 for the most basic 172.$106,000 for the first couple 100 162s is still a steal by today's standards. New airplanes are hardly cheap, especially if you want a production aircraft with the latest in avionics. That $106K figure is probably right on with the orginal 152 price + inflation.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Here's the question to keep this on topic:Who wants to help me make it for FSX?

[Geofa 108]

I looked at a lot of sport aircraft at the aopa expo two years ago.I was left with a feeling that the quality/price/performance was not really worth it unless you couldn't qualify for your medical.You can get a very good condition used aircraft-fill the cockpit with all the latest and greatest, and probably get a speedier bird for much less cost imho...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[bkeske 0]

Probably....no, in fact, very true.But I think is a great little project, and would not think twice about considering a well done virtual model for $20-$35.;)

[Geofa 108]

You are more than correct there-when I think of the variety of aircraft we can experience in FS for the price of taxiing to the other side of the airport for real-well we are very extremely fortunate indeed!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest grapesh]

The price is steep now, but Cessna's entry into LSA market is a significant event, and it would definitely boost other LSA sales, which in turn can make flying much more affordable. The problem is that well-established flight schools are not in a hurry to offer LSA training, -- I just went to Hanscom (KBED) yesterday to learn that 2 major flying schools there don't even consider LSA yet. And for me and many others, sport pilot license is just right cost/fun combination, especially that your LSA hours can be applied towards PPL.Cheers,=S.V.=

[Manny 1,293]

I agree Geof. I was so excited when this whole LSA thingi came about.. And I thought it would be in the $50K-60K range. But nope.. they are taking it to another level.There was a very nice 2002 Cessna 172SP that I could have bought last year for $115. It had a TBO engine 2000hrs. So an additional $15K I could gotten the engine doneup. So for a 130K a very nice Cessna SP is much better than then an LSA.But so far, the best LSA is the CT from Flight Design, Germany. There are a couple of them that I need to fly around and check it out here in the DFW area. They also have the Thorpe IndUS over there.The CT sips 4.5gal/hr and flies 118kts and can theoretically travel 1000 miles non stop. thats amazing.Got the numbers for the Cessna Skycatcher to see if it can beat the CT. The endurance of the Cessna is half that of the CT Flight design.http://www.flightdesignusa.com/------------------------------------------------SPECIFICATIONS CT Flight DesignTOP SPEED 120 KTS.CRUISE SPEED 112 KTS.STALL SPEED 39 KTS.GROSS WEIGHT 1320MAX RANGE 1080 MIFUEL ECONOMY 4.5 GPHFUEL CAPACITY 34CABIN WIDTH 49 INCHESTake off ROLL 295ft------------------------------------------------SPECIFICATIONS Cessna SkycatcherTOP SPEED 118 KTS.CRUISE SPEED 112 KTS.STALL SPEED ?? KTS.GROSS WEIGHT 1320MAX RANGE 470Knt Miles = 540miles (Pathetic)FUEL ECONOMY ?? GPHFUEL CAPACITY 24CABIN WIDTH 44 INCHESTake off ROLL 755ftCessna Sky cather's problem is endurance. It can only stay up half as long as the the CT Flight design. The CT has a Rotax engine...but the Cessna has the more proven continental engine. and look at the short runway requirement for the CT to take off. 295ft vs Cessna's 750ft roll.The CT is a great cross country aircraft, the Cessna Sky catcher, is not. Because of the continental engine, it may be good for flight schools to do local flights. Recently two people took the CT for a successful around the world trip.Manny