facthunter Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 They have some things in common. They are both suitable for training, and value for money, and highwing and tricycle, payload. Rather dissimilar in most other ways. Construction method, price, etc. It would be somewhat difficult to compare otherwise as they approach the problem from opposite corners. The Skycatcher owes it's ancestry to the 150/152. What does a Jab owe it to ( A surfboard?). That does sound derogatory, but it is not meant to be. I'm not against jabiru's. It's about 2/5ths of the price and does a job. ( and not made in China... YET).. Nev
Litespeed Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I don't think this is a far comparison- the skycatcher is a over priced spam can. The cost difference is huge and all for no real improvement. I would pick a Jabiru and save a huge amount.
David Isaac Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I don't think this is a far comparison- the skycatcher is a over priced spam can.The cost difference is huge and all for no real improvement. Interesting comparison LS.If I am to assume that a Skycatcher is similar in handling characteristics and control authority to a C150/152 then that would be one hell of an improvement over the Jab. You only have to download the POH of the Skycatcher from the Cessna website to see how seriously Cessna take the importance of documentation. You won't find a P chart in the Jab POH, in fact comparison for comparison the Jab POH is laughable compared to the Skycatcher POH. The Skycatcher has all the expertise and experience of the Cessna history and a reliable time tested proven engine, Jabiru have nothing on design experience and history compared to Cessna and had significant criticism over their engines. So what is the real cost difference to the comparable Jabiru model (would that be a J160 or a J170) in terms of cost of ownership I wonder? 2
Guest ozzie Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I think the Jab's ancestry is linked to two lawn chairs, a case of beer and a box of chalk.
facthunter Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Downunder, the Lyc 0-233 is soooo wide compared to the Jab six. You would have a prop ground clearance difficulty too Nev
Gnarly Gnu Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Anyone here flown the Skycatcher? I was planning to try and arrange a flight in the next few weeks when I will be working in NSW, be glad to here from someone that has experience.
Guest ozzie Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Better book first if you plan to fly RNAC's at Rutherford. It seems to be in the air all day.
facthunter Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 It would be running a Continental O-200D? Nev
winsor68 Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 What payload can the Cessna carry... I have heard it is not much.
ben87r Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 from what i read a while ago 2 medium size pax and 2 ish hours fuel, if my memory is correct
Guest nunans Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Obviously cessna are doing thier best to get a slice of our fast growing rec market and one would expect that they would be good at writing POH's after all they've been doing it for 100 years, but they are new to rec aircraft and I wonder if they are in tune to the membership or just making a stripped down aircraft for a low (for them) price. Jabs are Australian, were born in the ultralight market and are well represented all over the country,
Gnarly Gnu Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 from what i read a while ago 2 medium size pax and 2 ish hours fuel, if my memory is correct Hmm... that could be a problem. The 2hrs of fuel is for the plane not the pax right? Just checked the Cessna web site, a 'typically equipped' Skycatcher is 834 lb / 380kg empty. 1
Litespeed Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Obviously cessna are doing thier best to get a slice of our fast growing rec market and one would expect that they would be good at writing POH's after all they've been doing it for 100 years, but they are new to rec aircraft and I wonder if they are in tune to the membership or just making a stripped down aircraft for a low (for them) price.Jabs are Australian, were born in the ultralight market and are well represented all over the country, Yep, Cessna are complete newbies to rec and a cost structure of a giant company even when built in china. When compared to some of the great stuff now available on the market - they are just another tin can. Jabiru in this market is one of the Worlds biggest makers and has sales and history of use beyond any other maker in its class. Over 1800 aircraft sold, over 6000 engines. At this stage of the game Jabiru has runs on the board. Phil 2
Piet Fil Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 For me its simple: one I could possibly afford, the other is a pipe dream. And if your talking the Lotto dream of unlimited funds you'll find me in a nice little sopwith camel replica (Snoopy eat your heart out!)
Guest ozzie Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Yep, Cessna are complete newbies to rec and a cost structure of a giant company even when built in china.When compared to some of the great stuff now available on the market - they are just another tin can. Jabiru in this market is one of the Worlds biggest makers and has sales and history of use beyond any other maker in its class. Over 1800 aircraft sold, over 6000 engines. At this stage of the game Jabiru has runs on the board. Phil Just another 'tin can' but with a respectable history and a pretty good pedigree. Under the cowl is pretty much the same. Not much use pumping out 6000 plus engines if everyone is bitching about them.
David Isaac Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Just another 'tin can' but with a respectable history and a pretty good pedigree. Under the cowl is pretty much the same. Not much use pumping out 6000 plus engines if everyone is bitching about them. I must admit ... 1800 aircraft and 6000 engines. What the ... The empty weight of the 162 does limit it's duration with two up. I am reliably informed that the 162 is designed for future higher weight since there is considerable scuttlebug in the industry as to a weight increase. I haven't looked at what the certified MTOW is in VH rego form. I don't believe you can compare the two pedigrees, they are too far apart. I am more concerned about control effects and strength.
facthunter Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 My initial emphasis was on the training sphere. I stand by it. Very few aircraft currently available are really suited for training. The Skyfox did a fair job in it's day. If the 162 is anything like the 150/152 it will have airframe longevety and repairability. It doesn't have a great payload as it appears to have room for growth. Whether it is corrosion proofed will count for a lot as many of the aircraft available fail dismally in this area. To call Cessna's spam cams etc is a bit unfair. I took then for granted in my day too and only realised how good they were in retrospect. I hit the worst turbulence I have ever experienced in a C-150. There are some very high hours Cessna's about that have had a life of training only. The Whitney Boomerang is purpose built for training but how many of them have been sold? The types that we all like to own,don't have to be "training capable", so there is a large personal choice there.Nev
Litespeed Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Just another 'tin can' but with a respectable history and a pretty good pedigree. Under the cowl is pretty much the same. Not much use pumping out 6000 plus engines if everyone is bitching about them. We may not be all fans of Jabiru, but they are very successful. Many new light sport manufacturers have selected Jabiru as standard engine fitment. So some have faith in the product. 1
fly_tornado Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I doubt Australia's aviation community would be so vibrant without Jabiru. It opened up a lot of options for people 1
facthunter Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 There's no doubt about that. People fly them across australia regularly. You don't have to know much to look after the airframe either and they improve as time goes on. The engine is a bit of a WIP. though. Nev
Guest nunans Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Just another 'tin can' but with a respectable history and a pretty good pedigree. Under the cowl is pretty much the same. Not much use pumping out 6000 plus engines if everyone is bitching about them. In only have very limited experience so far but in the 8hrs I recently done in aircraft with 0-200 engines I had to swap planes after the first flight due to the oil slick all over the side of the fuse when we landed (leaking through bolt). However I did my rec ab initio in a J160 which went more than 800hrs before rebuild which was done prior to a sale rather than after a failure. I know that may not be typical but it shows that just because it has continental on the covers doesn't mean it will be perfect. (I must admit i loved the sound though ;)
Guest ozzie Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 So true plenty of popped cyl heads and cracked cases on a lot of continentals that i worked on. Lycs seemed to fair a little better but they seemed to fall short on the ancillaries. As with all things man made the man is the biggest problem.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now