Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Cessna Skycatcher reaches inglorious end

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Manhattan ,New York
    Posts
    237

    Cessna Skycatcher reaches inglorious end

    http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...aspx?CMP=ADV:1


    So 80 unsold airframes will be broken down for spare parts. I wonder how much money Cessna lost with this venture ?
    You will never know what you will be capable of until you try

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    17
    Sad, I wonder what they'll replace it with.

  3. #3
    Member clear_prop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SJC
    Posts
    46
    Skycatcher was doomed to failure from the beginning for being too heavy (a big problem for an LSA). It didn't help that there are better LSA for less money. Why pay a premium for the Cessna name when you can get a Remos or CTLS with more useful load for less cost.

    There are still plenty of 152s out there for the skinny pilots/instructors. Everyone else just starts in 172s.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by clear_prop View Post
    Skycatcher was doomed to failure from the beginning for being too heavy (a big problem for an LSA). It didn't help that there are better LSA for less money. Why pay a premium for the Cessna name when you can get a Remos or CTLS with more useful load for less cost.

    There are still plenty of 152s out there for the skinny pilots/instructors. Everyone else just starts in 172s.
    Wasn't the Skycatcher a two seat version of the 172 or was it a clean slate design

  5. #5
    Member clear_prop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SJC
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Simpilot17 View Post
    Wasn't the Skycatcher a two seat version of the 172 or was it a clean slate design
    It was a clean slate design, but some design choices (ex: O-200 instead of Rotax engine) led to a heavier plane. Full fuel payload was just 300 lbs.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Mateo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Where the PARK routing crosses the Expressway Visual 31
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by clear_prop View Post
    It was a clean slate design, but some design choices (ex: O-200 instead of Rotax engine) led to a heavier plane. Full fuel payload was just 300 lbs.
    Wow, that's not even 2 Americans.

  7. #7
    Senior Member sdspinelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wading River L.I.
    Posts
    249
    Definitely saw that one coming! In my opinion the 152 is the best aircraft for training. I can't tell you how many times I slammed that thing on the runway when I first started flying!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •