I thought all of these had been made into beer cans.

They seem to think pretty highly of it, but if somebody wants a Skycatcher, here’s your big chance.

https://indyairsales.com/current-invent ... sh-annual/

My hangar also has a nice one 4-Sale on the California Central Coast if anyone is interested.
They are all priced about the same.
Insurance is tough on them due to the rarity of parts.

there is one parked here at peachtree city. I've never seen it fly but it looks flyable - has a cover, tires are up, etc

My first airplane was a 162. I can’t say enough good things about it. I never had any problem with insurance, even as a low-time private pilot. If it fits your mission, it’s a sweet bird!

That’s not a bad price for a pumpkin as long as nothing breaks in the next 900-ish hours. With insurance, if you can get it, it likely breaks down to $90-$110 per hour at 200 hours a year dependent upon fuel and whether you tie it down or hangar it. Then just toss it and the keys into the beer can machine and buy a Bristell NG5 or RV-12.

Bob

…spending my kids inheritance one day at a time.

I read recently about a handful of 162 owners successfully converting them to Experimental and doing some system upgrades that Cessna walked away from.

I don’t believe that parts availability is too much of a concern now, but reasonable that it will eventually happen. (I think you can even still get some stuff from Textron, but I could be mistaken there.)

I haven’t been in one, but I had a CFI who thought they were a fantastic airplane to fly with two lightweight people.

I have a couple hundred hours instructing in a 162. They were great to fly and instruct in. I will buy one in the next year or so when the kids are ready for lessons.

They are definitely great little planes. Even at 6’ 3”, now 6’ 2” after back surgery, I could fit and be comfy.

There was a 162 on the line in Leesburg that spent 5-6 months waiting for a left flap after a hangar rash incident. It wasn’t repairable, unfortunately. In theory anything is repairable or you could create an owner produced part.

That’s neat to know that it is possible to convert them to Experimental or E-LSA and give them some extra life or possibly remotor them.

I have seen a few of them over WV when the clouds were thick. They should not have been in the soup, but I have heard it is a solid IFR platform as is the RV-12 and Bristell NG5.

Sadly to make an owner produced part like a flap you need the drawings. If Cessna won't support them they should release the drawings. I have never seen a maintenance manual for a Skycatcher but does it have a structural repair section?

The ability to make owner produced parts may not apply to a S-LSA.
When converted to Experimental they made them into E-LSA. A bit different than amateur built experimental like a typical homebuilt. It still needs to operate in the LSA rules. I don't think they can ever be E-AB.

https://www.aviatorshotline.com/corpora ... lterations.

If I remember right from when the LSA rules came out if Cessna stops service bulletin support for the 162 I believe they all revert to E-LSA.

I understand a little about liability, but why did they scrap the unsold 162s?

https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/business-military/cessna-scraps-unsold-skycatchers/

What else would they do with them when no one wanted to buy them?
I suppose they could have sold them at a big loss but then they have liability to deal with for years with no profit to cover it. Probably makes more financial sense to scrap them and claim the loss on the taxes.

I personally think the 162 cannibalized orders for the 172, so Cessna scrapped it to protect their piston cash cow.

Help me here, are they time limited? When it hits a certain number of hours does something happen that makes them worthless or unairworthy?

Currently teaching my son in a rental 150 but have 3 more kids to teach and wondering about the 162. No complaints with the 150, its a nice little trainer.

I have quite a few hours in the 162 and absolutely loved flying it. It’s a wonderful little airplane. I could just image how good it could be with a Rotax 916 iS strapped to the firewall!

Yep, so did the 177. What they need to do is scrap the 172 and get their head and engineering out of the 1950s, but of course they don’t care about making better piston airplanes, they just want to make a little money while doing as little work as possible.