I flew a 162 around 2013-2014 for about 10 hours. I can remember the seating position to be extremely uncomfortable as it felt like you were sitting with your legs straight out (I’m 6’3). I also vividly remember the aircraft being uncomfortable in anything greater than about 10 knots and we usually chose not to fly that day if that was the case. I actually liked the avionics in it but the stick was oddly positioned so it was difficult to to make fine, smooth adjustments in certain stages of flight i.e. flaring

Thanks for the Cessna 162 insight. Sad story, for that design.

I think I will tell my friend to rent a 150 or 172 then buy a Debonair or Bonanza.

I do need to fly a Vans RV and SR20 sometime to understand those better.

KJ

Check around your local fields - there are gazillions of RV's in Texas. If your interest extends beyond LSA's, the RV-9A is one of the best designs that makes a great trainer. It has a longer wing than most RV's, and most are equipped with O-320 or O-360. Very simple, easy to fly, efficient (7-7.5 GPH around 150Knots). Handling compared to any Cessna is sports-car like (controls are all direct push-rod designs as opposed to cables, except rudder which is cable controlled).

Van's Air Force is a good forum to check out RV's also.

The Vashon Ranger (current production aircraft) uses the O-200-D. Don't know what an overhaul or reman costs, but they are still being made.

Or Continental made 1000 and then shut down the line ... which will be a 50 year supply.

On another website, I recall where one post was adamant that Cessna blew it with the O-200, that they would have sold thousands of 162s if they used the Rotax.

On the other hand, FBO owner told me he would not have considered buying his two Skycatchers if they used the Rotax.

Think anybody in aviation has strong opinions?

To be a successful airplane it must be good looking. That is just part of the equation.

The 162 was just plain homely, to be kind!

Check around your local fields - there are gazillions of RV's in Texas. If your interest extends beyond LSA's, the RV-9A is one of the best designs that makes a great trainer. It has a longer wing than most RV's, and most are equipped with O-320 or O-360. Very simple, easy to fly, efficient (7-7.5 GPH around 150Knots). Handling compared to any Cessna is sports-car like (controls are all direct push-rod designs as opposed to cables, except rudder which is cable controlled).

Van's Air Force is a good forum to check out RV's also.

As said before, the 162 is very flimsy. To make the LSA weight limit, any place of skin where they normally would have used .032” aluminum...the engineers went to .025”. The rear windows flop around because the skin is so thin. You had to reinforce the “baggage” area because the structure could only handle about 50lbs in order to do inspections back there.

The “stoke” takes a bit of getting used to.

A flight school I worked at had one but nobody really flew it. I used it mostly as a parts runner around town.

One other down side is due to LSA regulations, you don’t annual the airplane. Cessna loves the MSG-3 program. LSA Regs say you perform the manufacturer’s recommended inspection program so the plane is inspected more like a Citation than a 150...about 15-20 different inspection documents to keep track of.

The few times I flew it I thought it would be a fun toy if someone gave it to me...don’t think I’d buy one though.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff.

It still surprises me that Cessna made this plane. Sounds like something out of a small, inexperienced company. Obviously the brains and corporate knowledge that made some of the best planes ever built have departed the ship.

KJ

Jeff, you hit the nail on the head. I think the 162 would be a blast of an airplane for flying down the coast, burger runs, and sunrise flights. I just don't see it having much more of a purpose than that and for $100,000+ it just really doesn't make any sense.

Now if that plane could come off the assembly line in the $50k range, there would probably be a radical revival with general aviation.

While there are LSA's in the 50K price range (Vans, Rans, Zenith) you generally have to build it yourself. Either that or take the risk of buying something that was made by an enthusiast in his garage. Not saying those can't be of good quality, but I am saying that the quality can vary dramatically.

BWTHDIK

http://eaaforums.org/attachment.php?att ... 1519682686

It’s all not as new as it looks.

The 1962-63 Cessna 160 appears to share a lot in common with the 162.

The first prototype Beech Skipper had a low horizontal and highly swept vertical that is a dead ringer for the Skycatcher tail. In 1980...

Skipper ended up with T tail because of spin recovery problems.

The C160 had a 4 cylinder 120hp Franklin that is a almost drop in replacement for the O-200
http://franklinengines.com/4a.cfm

Imagine that engine as an STC for a 150?

Our client is a flight school that has operated them since new. Besides the door opening in flight quite often, he complains the parts prices from Cessna are astronomical.

AG

Our flight school had two of them. I have 4-500 hours instructing in them. Several door pops and then the gull door would wrap around the strut, which was aft of the door. This was common. They added a second door lock. Fun little plane if no wind. When they were destroyed, asked our owner to get some spare doors, but they didn't sell any to anyone as far as I could tell. Parts will be tough to get. Had glass failures and the back up is looking out the window. If you want more info, contact me.

What kind of moron would design a door that opens that way? That is beyond belief! Cars and planes have always had doors with hinges in the front for darn good reason!

Were there no adults around when that was designed??

It’s no surprise that plane failed when something so basic was done wrong.

B