Cessna Skycatcher 162

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Half of it looks like a 152, the rest looks like a Tri-pacer!;)

 

 

[Paul Willett]

Has anyone here ordered one?

 

I am curious as to what useful load they would be expecting?

 

Also wonder, considering the weight, why Cessna ended up opting for a cut-down version of the Continental instead of the proof of concept prototype powered Rotax - which is much lighter?

 

Better commercial arrangement with Continental than Bombardier perhaps?

 

Does anyone know the deliver time for orders made now?

 

 

[Paul Willett]

ps - I don't want to buy one!

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Paul,

 

I understand that the useful load at 600kg MTOW is 222kg. Cessna are lobbying for an increase in the LSA MTOW from 1320 lbs to 1400 lbs (635kg) thereby giving a useful load of 257kg. Interesting thing there is that whilst that may help them (one assumes that they have designed to 650 or even 750kg MTOW), many manufacturers have not designed to that level. I understand that the range is from around 550kg to 750kg - design MTOW. That means that some manufacturers can't benefit from any increase in MTOW for LSA.

 

You would have to put your money on Cessna's lobbying skills however to get this up.

 

As for the Continental...it doesn't make sense on 2 levels: one is weight as you point out. The other is that Cessna is a Textron company, as is Lycoming. So if they wanted to do that why not a Lycoming?

 

I had wondered whether it was playing to all the conservative forces who know and love the aircooled slow revvers - TCM and Lycoming.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Paul Willett]

Mike (Pelorus) - Yes, you are probably right about appealing to the conservative forces - but these are prob those who are migrating from GA to LSA (USA), or to LSA/RAA in Aust. Rotax tends to still have a rep amongst rusted on GA Jockeys that emanated from the ealry 90's versions - not the refined and reliable powerplant of today. (I am one of those converts myself).

 

I have also heard on the grapevine that Cessna are pressuring Continental to 'lighten' the engine for the C162. Exactly where and how they will do this would be interesting. As someone pointed out to me just today, it does seem kind of strange taking a 2007 airframe design and putting a 1960 technology engine in it - It would be a real opportunity for Cessna to show they way with this and get some modern engine management systems and componentry approved - if anyone can do it they can after all.

 

I have no doubt it will end up being a very nice aircraft - but I think the early models might be a bit of a compromise to both ends of the market, rather than fitting perfectly in to one.

 

The ab-initio training market sounds like it will be the more lucrative rather that the private/rec which is who I thought they were originally aiming at with the Rotax (and didn't the orig concept have some more composite in it??)

 

Now if they come up with a composite version that is amphibious I might open my chequebook!

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

yes.. Its on order

 

Has anyone here ordered one?

Well he is not online here that I know, however I do know a guy that ordered one at Oshkosh when they released, He currently owns a 172 which is online with a Melbourne GA school at Essendon, and is a Captain for Cathay as his day job..

 

So quite likely will be the first one delivered to Aus..

 

Regards,

 

AusDarren

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

China to build Skycatcher

 

Cessna Aircraft Co. will become the first U.S. manufacturer to turn over complete production of an airplane to a Chinese partner, a move intended to cut production costs and foster a nascent private-aviation market in China.

 

Cessna officials said China's state-owned Shenyang Aircraft Corp. will build the new Cessna 162 SkyCatcher at its factory in Shenyang, China. The planned single-engine, two-seat airplane will be the smallest in Cessna's product line. It is designed for training and what is known as the light-sport market, for recreational fliers.

 

 

[Guest J430]

Hmmmmmmmm.........................

 

Makes a J230 or even J160 pretty good value. I have seen far too much stuff built in China, engineering stuff not toys, and I can honestly say it will be a long time before I buy a plane made there. I know it can be done.....but its not done very well, very often so far.

 

J

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

As an unashamed supporter of the Tibetan cause it's not like me to speak in support of the Chinese. But in fairness to the Chinese people, they are very capable engineers and craftsmen. The reason a lot of Chinese products are crap is because western businessmen go to China and ask them to make crap.

 

Give them a specification for a quality product and they will make you a quality product. I think that's what Cessna will do. My only concern in buying and aircraft made in China would be in my money going to the communist regime.

 

 

[Guest J430]

Gooday Flyer40

 

I do agree on the human rights and other issues that I am sure we would have similar views, however, your concept of asking for crap at the lowest cost is not always the case.

 

I have recent experience where samples are good, production is cr@p. The secret is not asking them to produce but rather take your own technology and plant there and then control it like they do their civil liberty's.

 

Material substitution and accuracy checks can be all to hit and miss. Yes I agree they have some smart engineers and should be able to do it. Problem is it does not happe that way as much as you would like to think.

 

Maybe some not critical parts, but anything like aileron hinges or attachments, spars, high load components that are cyclicly loaded are a big concern.

 

J

 

 

[bushpilot]

Are Cessna saying the total SkyCatcher production will be out of China? I was assuming (maybe wrongly) that they would produce in the U.S. for the North American market and China for Asia / Europe. If their main market (initially) is the U.S. it makes some sense to make them there.

 

In any case I agree with comments below. I also import lots of mechanical products from China and we have recently switched to Taiwan to get some decent quality...

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

My reading of the material from Cessna and interviews with Jack Pelton is that the whole 162 will be built in China.

 

I have always been a doubter about Cessna's proposed price point for the 162, particularly as it was expected to be built in Wichita. I guess that I now have more faith that they can meet their price point, they have two things going for them production costs in China and volume driving the capacity to screw down prices from third party suppliers.

 

On the subject of quality - many of you have direct experience of China and manufacturing outcomes. I feel that Cessna won't let quality become an issue - their brand can't afford it. That means that they will be spending a lot of energy making sure that the end product meets spec. Also the FAA will be interested and they now have a certification office in Beijing.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

The engines will be biult in the U.S. and the avionics are Garmin.

 

Extracts from the interviews, etc,that Mike refers to -

 

Lewis Campbell, Textron's chairman and chief executive, said in an interview that lower manufacturing costs in China would allow Cessna to sell the airplane for $71,000 less than it would if it had built the plane at its factories in Wichita, Kan. The move also positions Cessna to play a larger role in the developing private- and corporate- aviation market in China. ..."This will give us a foothold into a market that will expand over the next 10 to 20 years," Mr. Campbell said.

 

...Cessna said it will be able to deliver the first 1,000 planes for sale at $109,500 each, with subsequent planes costing $111,500 each(U.S. dollars)...

 

... the Chinese government has loosened some of the many restrictions on private aviation and encouraged the development of an indigenous flight-training industry...

 

...According to the Civil Aviation Administration of China, the country had 12,840 nonmilitary pilots in January 2006, the last date for which figures were available. About 27,000 students were enrolled among five civilian flight schools, two scientific-research centers and 11 scientific-research bases.

 

...One of the most prominent, the Civil Aviation Flight University of China, has tripled its yearly capacity to 1,200 students and now operates one of the largest fleets of training planes in the world. By the end of the year, the university will have 117 Cessna 172s and six Cessna CJ1 jets in its fleet of 233 airplanes.

 

HPD

 

 

[trevorp]

South China airways have a school at Jandakot WA and at Merredin which is about half way between Perth and Kalgoorle. They have two citations jets which fly up north a fair bit. Perth ,Alice ,Darwin and i see them refueling quite often at Learmonth. I was told they use outback country to fly over for ther nav exercises because of the sparesness of landmarks etc and is simular to the inland regions of China. Generally see two older and rounder instuctors and a very young and slim Chinese guy get out. Singapore airlines also have a school at YPJT. TP

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Perhaps we should start a new thread about Chinese aircraft manufacturing? Anyway............

 

I work in safety and we often hold up Chinese safety statistics as an example of extremely poor safety performance. For example 8,000 rail workers killed each year, 50,000 mining workers killed each year (that's not a misprint).

 

But their aviation sector couldn't be more different. For an industry that is experiencing unprecedented growth their safety performance is remarkable. Even more so given that periods of rapid growth are traditionally quite painful in terms of safety as people and systems struggle to adapt with the pace of change.

 

I don't know about their GA sector, but in the transport category their safety performance measured in terms of hull losses per million departures is second only to Australia. They're doing better than the US and Europe.

 

When I was at Qantas I had some personal insight into how they achieved this when China Southern came to us for assistance. Much of their flight safety regime including their flight data analysis department was modeled on the way Qantas does things.

 

I'm not sure any of this can be translated into an expectation that the Chinese will build good quality Cessna's, but I think the prospects are good. And as Mike said it's doubtful Cessna would have it any other way.

 

Mal

 

 

[Guest J430]

Flyer40

 

Agreed!

 

However, Cessna appear not to be manufacturing rather subbing it out. Thats the danger. I am sure the folk at Cessna are not stupid and have plans in place to monitor quality etc, but gee its a big brave move when its not your own plant.

 

J

 

 

[Mazda]

After the recent toy recalls, don't lick the paint!!

 

 

[Geoff]

Very good Mazda:laugh:

 

 

[facthunter]

Chinese aircraft.

 

Just heard that they have rolled out an airliner. Don't have any details. Nev..

 

 

[Guest jodel]

I also agree that there are very few things more complex than an electric drill I would trust made in China. I will not knowingly buy an sort of tool made in China as

 

experience has taught me they look ok but break/round off/strip or simple fall apart.

 

There are very few exceptings to the above so why would the Skycatcher be different.

 

On the bright side cessna make fantastic aircraft and this one maybe a bit heavy but I would love a usa/Aussie/British/New Zealand/Canadian built one.

 

Hopefully if anyone can get our MAUW to 600+kg Cessna can.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I think our fathers had this conversation about the quality of some of the early products that came out of Japan about 30/40 years ago. look where they are now.

 

i regularly import samples of products in the fields we deal in. some are junk and some are very well made. it depends on the company who is doing the manufacturing.

 

I also import samples from Germany, Italy, England and India. same story. some good some bad. do not underestimate the companies that work closly with western companies. they are quite capable.

 

ozzie

 

 

[facthunter]

QUALITY CONTROL.

 

I had a long association with an engineering firm that decided relatively recently, that they could not compete with the finished prices of the chinese product. In some cases the article could be produced for less than the cost of the material in australia.

 

SO.... He went over there and spoke to heaps of very keen people and eventually had a large order filled in three batches. I saw the sample for the original order. Absolutely magic.. The first 2 batches ..fine. The last one.. Not of merchantable quality. Had to manufacture the shortfall with his own resources, and a NETT. BIG LOSS. I am very sure that the quality can be achieved, but perhaps, if you're not watching, it may slip away. I don't doubt that Cessna will be aware of this, and it's a real pity that so much of this work goes to countries where they do not have the overheads that happen where you have to comply with pollution standards, OH&S costs & reasonable work awards etc. I doubt that as an example, you would have any difficulty setting up a Cadmium plating plant in China. Here ,they are virtually extinct. The aviation industry uses Zinc-nickel as a substitute in australia. What about a level playing-field? When the average person goes to the hardware store. the cheap price seems to be the decider. On-one wants to pay any more than the minumum, do they?

 

As far as the empty weight of the 162 goes, I would be a bit worried, considering the material used, if it was much lighter. It comes in at about the right figure. I'm sure that they are hoping to raise the AUW. and the structure is designed accordingly. ...Nev...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Is the Dreamcatcher being manufactured and built from imported raw materials. (Bolts and ali, ect, from the USA ) Or are all the raw materials manufactured there. IE what is the local (chinese) content of the product? I do not think that there will be compromise on the finished quality/airworthiness of the aircraft. final assembly and test flight will be conducted in the USA and i am sure Cessna will have their own over seeing quailty. As Cessna are full steam ahead with their other products taking all production plant space, going offshore would be very viable. If the market turns and space to build at home becomes available then they can bring the already tooled up production back to Cessna plants.

 

On the other hand how many EU based aircraft companies are now building in non EU countries. there is a few i think.

 

I have recently noticed some tricks in the wording of some European products. in the advertising material it may say "German Designed" (Other countries are using this too)

 

To find out where it is made you usually have to open the carton to find the smallest of stickers with the smallest print that will tell you were it was actually made, usually a poor non EU country or China.

 

do your homework on anything you buy if location of manufacture is a problem for you

 

ozzie

 

 

[bushpilot]

Made in China

 

Cessna's response to this controversy:

 

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

 

 

[philipnz]

And here we have the amphibian wind powered version, or is it the chinese knock-off version.