I see a few Cessna 162s for sale. They seem cheap for their age, so I am sure there is a reason.

I have a friend in mind who wants to get his private license and is asking me about renting vs. buying. My general answer is rent a Cessna 172, then buy a Cessna 182 or older Debonair/Bonanza.

What is the story on the Cessna 162? How does it fly? What are the issues? Anybody have a firsthand experience?

Thanks in advance for the help.

KJ

Wow, crushing planes. Must be bad.

Beside no useful load and being made in China, what was wrong? Bad flight behavior?

200 planes delivered will be a definite support issue.

KJ

All LSA fly like the lightweight kites they are, the wind pushes them around more than a 172. Insurance claims and botched takeoff/landing runway excursions are common to LSA. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iv_rRus-X9k

Due to the weight limit, LSA often seem less robust than 152/172 type airplanes, they just dont seem like 10,000 or 20,000 hour birds. Parts seem flimsier.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the SkyCatcher beyond other LSA’s. But the LSA design limits and market were just too constrained to have another 172 or SR22 type of breakout success story.

For S-LSA’s the process for mods is different. As I understand it, the “factory” is supposed to sign off on any mods, not sure an STC process exists. I know at least one S-LSA owner (AMD/Zenith 601) who converted to E-LSA because the original factory went out of business and was not available to sign off on things. As suppliers change and avionics change, more mods will be needed just to keep planes in the air and up to date.

Thanks Jesse.

As a former manufacturing guy, it baffles me how a company like Cessna has the paid for designs for the 150 and 172 for free, desire to build an updated plane cheap and then start clean sheet and F up so bad.

When we just needed to update an old design to make it lighter, lift more, etc, it was (6) months paper to cutting metal and was often our most profitable designs.

What other industry has an all time best selling design like the 150 or 172 and doesn’t follow it up with lighter, faster, better for decades.

KJ

Try a DA20 katana

The 162 from Ks was not bad, production was shifted to China to reduce labor cost and Union increase cost.

savings were 73k per aircraft when production went to China

QC, was so poor that they were cancelled and bought back and scrapped


Too bad the production was not at Puebla mexico like the 350/400 Columbia

As a vendor and various trips there, I have stories.....

Thanks Guy.

I will look them up.

KJ

I got checked out in the 162 at my local FBO just for kicks. Time for a flight Review, let's do something different.
Looked over Weight & Balance the night before, discovered with gas, me and the lighter female instructor, we would be over gross. Bummer, we'll use the Bonanza for the flight review.

Found out the FBO's standard procedure was to fill the tanks only to the tab so two people wouldn't bust 1320, so off we went.

I thought it was an absolute hoot. Jumps off the ground and climbs better than any 150/152 ever dreamed. To be expected, when it uses the same o-200 as the 150 but weighs so much less. Light on the controls, all glass panel, pretty nifty little bugger.

The only downside was the thin (light weight) seat cushion. My butt was pretty sore before long. Instructor said she gets lower back pain after flying the Skycatcher.

Spoke with the guy that ferried two of them from the Cessna factory to the west coast.
Said the seats are miserable, and the engine puts out enough heat for carb heat OR cabin heat, but not both. Pretty chilly ride over the Rocky's in winter.

I thought it a pretty good update of the 150/152, and would be a good trainer. Too bad the price jumped up enough that the majority of orders got cancelled.

Sorry to see such a neat little airplane come to such an inglorious end.

I flew one once with a buddy. That was enough. Felt really unfinished on the inside, wasn't comfortable (to me at least) and just kind felt all-around flimsy.

Thanks Dan and Brad.

Sounds like maybe they killed it with the LSA weight target. I wonder if they made it a standard class if it could have worked. The China connection on manufacturing is not ideal either.

Crazy that the best trainers are still a roughly (70) year old design.

I suppose the SR20 could be argued as a true modern trainer, but that seems like a lot of plane for a newbie to me. I have not flown one, just a guess.

If I wasn’t so burned out from the last manufacturing turn around, I would be tempted to straighten one of these companies out. There is so much wasted potential with the legacy GA manufacturing companies. It is hard to watch.

Seems like all the action is in experiential, single turbines (Piper/TBM) and Cirrus. Most everyone else seems to milking parts business and slowly committing corporate euthanasia.

Thanks again for the first hand info on the 162.

KJ

In contrast to the 162, there are a number of LSA class aircraft that are quite well regarded, and have good performance, comfort, utility, and fit/finish. One thing most of these have in common is the use of Rotax (in some cases, Jabiru) engines which offer good performance with light weight (but have a few issues of their own). Van's RV-12, Sonex, Rans, Bristell, Vashon Ranger, Kitfox, Tecnam, Flight Design to name a few.

Unlike the others on the list, Vashon uses a Continental because the company wanted to satisfy users who wanted a more familiar engine design (and to extend it's utility to fields where service on engine would be available as I understand it) but it comes at the cost of lower useful load due to weight of the engine.

There is serious consideration by the FAA to increase the gross weight limitation, which would make some of these designs even more appealing - many of these same airframes are certified in other countries at higher gross weight and still have good performance (in some cases with higher power versions of the lighter engines). BasicMed has taken some attention away from LSA's but a gross weight increase might bring it back.

I owned an RV-12 for short period of time. Full fuel payload was 457 pounds - very adequate for a two seat aircraft. Reasonably comfortable, not a bad cross-country airplane if you didn't mind stopping for fuel about every 3 hours. Not a dangerous airplane by any means but requires attention and skill to land in gusts or crosswind.

Thank you.

I am one of those guys who likes the traditional engines. Sounds like that is not a good mix for LSA.

I am probably odd in my hesitation to switch, but 90% of my hours have been behind Continental and Pratt & Whitney engines.

I don’t know much about the Rotax engine. I do think the Vans planes are a really good option.

KJ

Suspect the elements for ease of manufacture, durability and ease of operation were mature by then.

I believe less than 40 are still left flying.

The O-200 D shares almost no parts with the 0-200 in the 150, the pistons, crank, camshaft, crankcase are all unique.

Parts for the airframe and engine are probably not available.

Wow, that is bad. Buying a 162 would be terrible if the engine support is not there.


KJ