River Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Cessna Skycatcher Disappears from View By Pia Bergqvist /www.flyingmag.com/Published: Feb 11, 2014 Related Tags: LSA/Sport, News, Aircraft Cessna Skycatcher There is new evidence that when Cessna Aircraft CEO Scott Ernest said at the NBAA Convention in October that the Skycatcher has "no future," he meant it. While no official word has come out of Wichita, Cessna has removed all traces of the LSA from the single-engine product line on its website, seemingly moving the Skycatcher program to the history books. Cessna did not immediately reply to our requests for comment. Assuming the program is indeed done, it's a quiet demise for Cessna's lightest airplane after a troubled history. The Skycatcher was plagued with challenges from the start. The light sport model's tail design had to be revised after a prototype spun and crashed late in the development phase. There was negative reaction from the flying public after the Wichita, Kansas-based company announced it would produce the Skycatcher in China. Then, in 2012, safety alert SA162-57-01R1 was released as a result of wing spar cracking, requiring mandatory spar improvements and the removal and replacement of a section of the leading-edge wing skin with segments containing new inspection access panels. Cessna covered the cost of the work, provided it was completed at an authorized service center within one year of the publication of SA162-57-01R1. Another unpopular announcement was the increased price of the LSA, which Cessna had originally hoped to deliver for under $110,000 in 2007 dollars. That figure skyrocketed to $149,900 at the start of 2012. These challenges combined to reverse the flow of excitement Cessna created when it first announced the Skycatcher program at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in 2007. People lined up at the booth to place their orders for the airplane and the company quickly secured several hundred deposits for the new LSA. Cessna had planned to ramp up production to 700 airplanes per year. However, four years after the first Skycatcher was delivered in December 2009, only about 200 Skycatchers have been delivered. -end- 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 A few reasons for that which could provide a good article. I personally believe the LSA formula is flawed being only some sort of fill-in formula. I think the skycatcher was designed with '"enlargement' anticipated. A good example of building to a weight and the frame not being long lasting, as a consequence.. There may be quality control issues, but that is just speculation on my part. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I shared a article on Facebook about it yesterday from aopa.org. They have approx. 70 aircraft in stock that they are going to use a spare parts instead of selling them. Well nobody wants to buy them anyway with their crappy payload and some other things I wont mention here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Typical Cessna, 40 years behind the times. they were competing in a market that knew what it was doing, and they were priced far too high. the only thing going for them was the name Cessna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Pretty similar criticism in style to that which is levelled at jabiru engines here, often.. You are entitled to do it of course. You appear to not like Cessna's since you say this one (which has failed in the market) is TYPICAL. I think CESSNA have done a lot for aviation, and don't deserve your assessment. Nev 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 They didn't register a single 162 in 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Poor cessna. They did try, they gave it a good go, but just couldn't get into LSA mode of thinking. No Rotax, mixture of materials (aluminium and fibre glass) usable load that is totally useless, unfinished looking aeroplane inside and out. Nobody should doubt the pedigree but the skycatcher is a great example of the manufacturer not listening to the customer. Very VERY good lessons for other aircraft AND ENGINE manufacturers around the world. Including..Australia.. 1 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 when competing against the likes of the RV-12, it had no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What a vicious, pathetic, gratuitous and entirely predictable dig at Jabiru. Cessna are a part of Textron - a huge company. Rotax engines are a part of Bombadier - another huge company. Both have annual revenues in the multi $billions area. Bombadier don't produce an LSA-class aircraft, they couldn't be arsed to produce in the sector. Then, you compare the performance of one of the last remaining Australian companies to actually produce a product - that has an export $$-earning performance - in the high-tech sector. We have as of today NO future Australian car manufacturers. Jabiru is one of two Australian-owned export-earning aircraft manufacturers (Seabird is just hanging in there, GippsAero is now owned by Mahindra). You - and a few others - have no other agenda in life than to destroy Jabiru. Nobody, including me, suggests that Jabiru could not do better than they do, but at least most of us express our feelings in terms of trying to exhort them to do better by encouragement of support if they do. [removed] If you are successful in your campaign to destroy Jabiru, the Rec Aviation scene in Australia will be decimated for support of competent aircraft that comprise something like 30% at least of the total fleet. I cannot think of a better example of a Pyrrhic victory. 1 7 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 . 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Both Cessna and Piper have bailed on the LSA market, it reflects how bad the US economy is and how much competition is in the LSA market. In 10 years, 134 approved designs about 1 a month. Much easier to sell a turboprop or a Jet. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 [removed]: if Jabiru is extinguished, there's no proper new production aircraft available on the Australian market for under $70k. How many students are you going go get through your facility when they can't expect to buy an aircraft they can fly for less than about $100k with our exchange-rate falling as it is? 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 ....... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I think you need to go have lie down tossca.. Relax mate, we all have an opinion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 How many years has truster and drifter been around without manufacturer support? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 They dont count. They dont have doors!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The 162 was uncompetitive in the market, a couple hundred went to flight schools but Cessna missed out on most private sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yes i know. A shame for the owners, they just cant sell them either. Their reputation proceeds them unfortunately. Theres a couple in Melbourne that have no hours on them, sitting going to waste becsue nobody wants to fly them, the school cant use them and the owners cant sell them. They bought the badge, and were let down. Such a shame. I did some ferrying for Piper when they were selling the piper sports here. It was a shame how that deal turned out as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Are you referring to ME Oscar? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So let's see here: Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, Bombadier, Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi, Mitsubishi, Embraer, Honda - who of the major manufacturers have I forgotten? - can't make a profitable LSA aircraft? But you, sunshine, castigate Jabiru because they don't match the reliability figures of commercial passenger aircraft? Cessna and Piper LSA aircraft have landed their buyers in a pool of excrement. Jabiru haven't, but if you had your way, they would. Have to admire your style, Merv - it's called chutzpah by those with a forgiving nature, or merde absolument for those who are more direct. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Are you referring to ME Oscar? Nev Absolutely NOT. I agree totally totally with your comment - the 162 was a complete aberration for Cessna, I'll step into any Cessna anytime to fly (though there aren't many I'd lust to own, other than a 185 or an early 310) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Cessna and Piper LSA aircraft have landed their buyers in a pool of excrement. Jabiru haven't, . A buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand, and says" make me one with everything" hehe.. Oh sorry, I thought this was the joke thread... 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Of all the Cessna models i have flown, they are nothing special. (152, 172, 182 and 206) the Cherokee series flies much better, and the Robin/alpha are a league ahead as well, almost as responsive as a LSA aircraft yet still being a GA trainer. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 This is only opinion but I think that Cessna would rather spend money on research, design and development on the Cessna caravan and their business jets than piston singles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I would guess the value of these aircraft ( C-162) is close to zero now . I presume they will continue to support it .U/L I don't know what you base your judgement on. Any of the larger engined Cessna's (singles) will lift stuff out of strips the others won't and their fowler flaps are the best in the business.. The Retract set up is funny, but the 206 does a good job. In my early days I went for Beechcraft and I like the Commanche line (except the tail) but the Cessna's to my mind are a better workhorse. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now