Cessna Skycatcher reaches inglorious end

[alberchico]

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/February/10/Skycatcher.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 ? :frown:

[Simpilot17]

Sad, I wonder what they'll replace it with.

[clear_prop]

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.

[Simpilot17]

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

[clear_prop]

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.

[Mateo]

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.

[sdspinelli2]

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!