This aircraft has a strange mix: electric elevator trim, but manual flaps. I was hoping it would have a fuel-injected engine to do away with priming and carb heat, but nope.
Sorry folks....you 150-152 purists better put your contacts in. All this thing is, is a modernized 150-152. I don't just see a family resemblence, I see a 50 year old design with some swoosh and swoop built in to make it look modern.
I am okay with that, and Jim is right on. Don't criticize it, embrace it. Come on....an O-200, how retro is that, slant tail fastback....kind of fills in the gap left between straight tail/fast back, Omni Vision/Straight tail, and Omni Vision/slant tail.
In fact....with this announcement, I think the 150-152 club should immediately start a forum and web page specifically devoted to being the type club for the new bird, just like I think the Cardinal Flyers should jump on the NextGen Cessna due to the similarities.
The only thing I see wrong with the new bird is the missing cantilever wing, but that probably is too heavy, although other LSA's made it work quite well.
Another positive - unlike most other LSA's this one has a sizable baggage compartment, one you can actually put a fair amount of stuff into!
For years I've wanted a plane that did everything the Cessna 150 does, just faster. Simple, easy to fly, two seats, roomy baggage compartment, reasonably good short-field capability, inexpensive to own and maintain, and fun to fly... but with a faster honest cruise speed of 120+mph.
I find that many experimentals do so, but almost all fall flat when it comes to the baggage compartment. It's either too small, or too convoluted, or too inaccessible (or all three). And the planes with big enough baggage compartments are usually 4 seaters with all of the attendant weight, bulk, and expense.
This Cessna LSA seems to be what I've been looking for. Granted, the "inexpensive" part is relative, but compared to building an airplane or any of the other LSAs (once loaded with all the required 'options') the price is right in line. Also, I couldn't afford a brand-new Cessna 150 in today's dollars, so I'll look forward to buying a used 162 once the flight schools trade up.
I am a little surprised at the Cessna 162 designation! I think this design will sell at least as well as any competition, and upgrades and improvements will be forthcoming over the next few years (and decades?). What will the designation be for the "Skycatcher II"? The Cessna 165? At any rate, I'm pleased to see that the O-200 will continue life in a new airframe, ensuring parts availability and possible upgrades for our engines for the foreseeable future.
This airplane should have been called the Cessna 160 (although I think an earlier unsuccessful design already had that designation)! Then the Cessna 162 would have been the logical next step, in keeping with Cessna tradition. I agree, Jim! We will eventually become the Cessna 150-152-162 Club!
If this aircraft is as successful as I expect it to be, I think there will eventually be a heavier, more robust version for the trainer market (probably IO-240 powered), certified in the normal/utility categories for the private pilot market as well.
I admit I was shocked to see the "glass" panel! This drives the cost up, I think, but it is a logical step forward in weight reduction.
I already visualize a tailwheel STC for the Skycatcher. It seems to just beg for one! I hope there is enough structure there to allow it without the additional weight of reinforcement.
I happen to like it. Now that they've tooled up to produce this plane, maybe they'll come out with a later version that doesn't necessarily fit the LSA requirements. That could mean a bigger engine and payload, or maybe even a tailwheel version. It is a step in the right direction, not that I can afford one right now.
Originally Posted by Jim_Hillabrand
It's a known fact that the population pool of our beloved 150-152's shrinks every WEEK for one reason or another and no new ones are replacing this shrinking pool. This alone should be a red flag.
Jim is correct. Every single issue of the club newsletter has at least 2 pages dedicated to explaining how a few more 150/152s are damaged or destroyed. With the cost and headaches associated with restoring a certified airplane, I'd guess that many of them are parted out.
I could see these planes being purchased by newly formed clubs as well as schools. A group of people could get together and buy two of these and have a few bucks left over, as opposed one new Skyhawk.
I am a little surprised at the Cessna 162 designation! ... What will the designation be for the "Skycatcher II"? The Cessna 165?
This airplane should have been called the Cessna 160 (although I think an earlier unsuccessful design already had that designation)! Then the Cessna 162 would have been the logical next step, in keeping with Cessna tradition.
The naming traditions at Cessna are a bit convoluted. The names used to always end in a "0" or a "5". The Cessna 120, 140, 170, 180 and 195. When they first flew the nose-wheel version of the Cessna 170 in 1955, they decided to call it a 172 to differentiate it from the tail-dragger models. Ditto the 182.
So it stands to reason that the Cessna 142 would've been the logical name for our current aircraft. After all, the still-born Cessna 140B had the same flaps, wing and fuselage structure. But the tail had to be greatly enlarged to compensate for the 40° Fowler flaps. That, along with other detail changes and the long hiatus between the demise of the old 140A and the new two-place plane is probably what led Cessna to use a new model number. They called it a 150 following old tradition, but breaking with the new tradition of using a "2" for nose-wheel airplanes. Obviously, it wasn't until 1978 that they finally called it a 152.
Actually, it is documented that the prototype 150 (an unsold 140 fuselage modified with a nosewheel, new tail and modified wing structure) was officially designated the Cessna 142... but only for a day or two. The "142" was to be built under the 140's type certificate, but the CAA soon determined that the new aircraft was different enough from the 140 to warrant a separate type certificate. The 150 designation was chosen by Cessna to differentiate between the two similar designs, and hoped this could aid sales with the introduction of an "all new" Cessna!
![[Linked Image from visitedstatesmap.com]](https://www.visitedstatesmap.com/image/ALAZARFLILINIAKSKYLAMNMSMONENJNMOHOKPATNTXWIsm.jpg)
