Why the Critics Are Wrong about the Cessna SkyCatcher

I got an email the other day from a curmudgeonly character named "Bill" who, despite his gruff manner and reluctance to discuss the subject in any detail, nevertheless voiced some criticisms that are quite common these days.

The reason for Bill's rant--and something tells me he doesn't need much to get going--was the piece in this month's issue by Mac on the Cessna SkyCatcher. Bill was rankled at the positive review Mac gave the airplane and called the 162 a "reinvention of the wheel with some shiny stuff on it" and a "$100,000 toy." 

I've always thought the "reinvention of the wheel" saying was hilarious. Thank goodness the wheel has been reinvented again and again. The first ones were terrible! But through constant reinvention, they've been getting better ever since.

As far as the "shiny stuff" comment is concerned, the crack implies that the shine is for the sake of the shine, and nothing could be further from the truth. The Garmin avionics in the 162 make the gauges in an old 150 look positively prehistoric. The Garmin suite does a lot more, does it more reliably and makes things safer and is cheaper to buy and maintain. But apart from that, it's all flash. Sheesh.

Bill's "$100,000 toy" comment was off base, too. First of all, the SkyCatcher is not a toy. Most of these airplanes will go onto the line as trainers. Is $100,000 (actually, a bit more than that) too much to pay for a trainer? It depends. You can get a couple of 162s for the price of a 172, and Cessna has sold hundreds of those airplanes in recent years to be used as trainers. So maybe not. And the 162 is, indeed, one of the top two or three airplanes that I would have my kids train in.

I do agree that airplanes cost a lot.  Do they cost too much, though? Sometimes, they do, but not in the  case of the SkyCatcher. Its price is actually very good. Believe me, Cessna is not going to get rich building this airplane. The margins are far too slim. Besides, saying the SkyCatcher costs too much is like saying that my house costs too much. That is, it's like saying that we wish that airplanes cost less. I strongly share that sentiment. But it's not going to make my house or your dream airplane cost less.

And let me make one thing clear: Airplanes cost a lot not because the airplane makers are artificially inflating the prices of their wares in order to dupe unsuspecting consumers but because it takes tens of millions of dollars to get a very light airplane to market and the number of sales a company can hope to get on that airplane are relatively small. And remember that airplane manufacturers have to pay other companies--engine makers, avionics suppliers, tire makers, accessories suppliers--a huge percentage of the value of the airplane before a consumer pays penny one. And that's not even factoring in the cost of overhead. Let's face it, the 162 is very attractively priced. Besides, if we care about aviation, we want airplane companies to make money. We really, really do.

I didn't write this piece, but I get the criticism from time to time when I write a strongly positive review of an airplane that I've glossed over the weaknesses. I think it's important to understand that the airplanes we fly are, for the most part, certified to extremely stringent standards. And Flying has always and always will be strongly supportive of strict standards, as there is overwhelming proof that these standards improve safety. The truth be told, most of the time, not all of the time, the airplanes I'm flying are just good airplanes.

Are some more comfortable, better handling, easier to land or faster than others? Sure. And we say that. Now, the SkyCatcher is an LSA and is, therefore, not conventionally certified, but as Mac pointed out in his piece, that didn't keep Cessna from going through internally the same process it uses to certify a Part 23 airplane. The result, no surprise, is the kind of positive review Mac gave the airplane. Because it's a good airplane at doing what it was intended to do.

Does it cost more than a run-down 30-year-old Cessna trainer? You bet. But if Cessna tried to build the 152 all over again, it would cost $200,000 or more. That is a fact of economics.

But I do wish airplanes cost less. They just don't.

There are options, renting, flying clubs, partnerships and shared ownership. But the whining option seems silly and self defeating. If you want to fly, find a way.

The SkyCatcher happens to be one such way. We should be celebrating that fact.

By Robert Goyer

Comments

[Ron Ward]

My one and only complaint is that no one (that I've read lately) talks about where the 162 is built. The last time I heard it was being built in China at the same time that Cessna was having massive layoffs in Wichita. I don't care about all the usual excuses, that just isn't right.

[Victor A. Santiago]

Interesting! I would like to hear Cessna's position on that. If it's true, as a Cessna enthusiast and future potential buyer, I would be VERY dissapointed and would definitely take that into consideration. As well as pass on the info...

[Otto H. Keesling]

Why is it that no one complains about Japanese autos dominating the market. It seems the same attitude doesn't apply to Cessna one of our best aircraft manafactures. Some like to complain it seems to be the purpose they are on earth.

As usual Flying reported on the aircraft in a very comprehensive manner, Thank you for that. I became tired of the lack of action on the AOPA. They allowed the FAA to run rough shode and let fuel prices rise without any question. When I was a member I ask them to help me with a aviation physical problem which they egnored me. Flying editor got back to me within the week. Thank you keep up the good magazine.

[lenny]

Based on my knowledge that I have gained from reading several articles in several magazines, reports, etc. the 162 is INDEED being built in China. I believe alot of consideration for that was the cost of the UNIONS. duh..go figure..lets price ourselves out of a job, then complain!!
Next,, where the hell the the weight limit come from, again from what I have been able to find, it was just some number they pulled out of their butts. !!!
just light enough so the COLT, 152, and others in that weight range would not be designated as light sport. I for one think that is crap. No I do not own one, I have a 175 so I do not personally have a dog in the fight except as a pilot trying to make it in G.A.
the 152, the colt are both PROVEN AIRFRAMES. You all can talk about avionics being the GREAT saver of pilots and a/c but ....avionics has yet been able to stop the stupid mistakes that pilots make.
we don't need more expensive avionics, we need better thinking pilots...
that cost a hell of a lot less then the 162.

[Greg Mason]

I believe the reason you see complaints about the 162 being built in China has to do with the perception of the quality of items that are produced there. The Japanese have a reputation of building quality products, including automobiles while China has a reputation of provided us with inferior and dangerous products. Think about the recent concerns about drywall, pet food, baby formula, tires, etc. that have come from China.

The other consideration is the difference between a US company sending work overseas and a foreign company manufacturing a product and selling it here.

I would also like to see the 162 built in Wichita and not overseas but there is the cost consideration. We know that Cessna, like a growing number of companies, are manufacturing overseas to save cost which should relate to the price paid by customer. If the product is less expensive but inferior and dangerous (China's reputation), do we want it? If the quality of a product is equal to or better from an overseas manufacture (Japan's reputation) and sells for less than the same or similar product made in the US then.................

[Hallett Stiles]

Half of the cost of a new airplane is the liability insurance.
Joint-and-several liability is 50% of the price of the aircraft.
John Edwards and his trial lawyer friends.
The do-gooders and the bleeding hearts.
Vote for politicians who promise tort reform.
Tort reform will reduce the price of everything.

[Gabriel I. Peñagarícano]

The 162 is being built in China, along with thousands of other products which used to be manufactured in the U.S, because the "Made in U.S.A." tag makes everything prohibitively expensive. I wounder what the cost of the 162 would have been if it had been made in the U.S.

[Clive Roberts]

Had a chance to sit in the 162 back at AOPA Palm Springs and believed it to be a 'good idea'. Since then scams of Wall Street and the realtor/lenders have reduced, at least in the case of everyone I know, 'discretional' spending to zero. Hard enough to come up with enough cash to stay current renting A/C.

The choice to assemble the 162 in China comes as an insult to many as an example of further loss to any US manufacturing.

As to the comment on Japanese (& German) cars: You do know that Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, Subaru have plants in the USA, employing people here?

[Colin E. Ward.]

some less than worldly wise person at Textron stated the 162 would have cost $75K more to build in the USA. for the price of a couple of first class tickets to China Cessna could have advertised the whole project in the WSJ requesting towns, states, groups to bid on the manufacturing and assembly processes, and stated the target values. the country would have had the oportunity to bid on it or turn it down. Cessna spent years looking for the proverbial "good deal" when they landed the Independence factory site benefits, i wonder why they did not do the same for the 162. perhaps it was the lure of the Chinese (Asian) market itself over the long term.

[Mike F.]

International sourcing is a fact of life. As long as Cessna keeps up the quality inspections it should be ok. The big question is who is watching the factory half a world away? There won't be FAA drop-in inspections - does Cessna have some QA staff permanently located there?

My last 2 "Japanese" cars were built in Ohio (Honda) and Tennessee (Mitsubishi). My last two "American" cars came from Asia (Chevy) and South America (Chrysler). The American built cars were of significantly better quality, so I hope Cessna is watching very, very closely.

[Orville Hale]

Robert:

I think your observations & comments are right on target. I believe we all wish airplanes cost less (both to buy & fly) but the truth of the matter is that's just not the case, largely for the reasons you outlined in your article.

Thanks for your comprehensive articles, most of us really appreciate them.

Best regards,

Orville Hale

[Gary]

I was so very much looking forward to Cessna's new bird! They had bought our the Columbia line of birds and were producing these light composite birds here in Oregon which provided some good jobs for some of our people. Then, they took the "composite" work to communist China and laid off a bunch of the people at the Columbia plant. Sorry, I'll never buy one.

[Christopher Bates]

Cessna doesn't have to make money on the sale of every airplane - because they're going to make money on every part that airplane needs for decades to come.

Same way Hewlett Packard can practically give away computer printers - they make it up for years to come by selling us super expensive ink cartridges, which have astronomical profit margins.

When they sell you a new SkyCatcher, they may not get cash - but they get an annuity, compliments of you.

[John Wilson]

The whole China/US made argument boils down to "how much extra are you willing to pay to support someone whose product or efforts cost more?" It plays out everywhere, such as in anti-WalMart campaigns.

Here at our home airport, the FBO, run by a neighbor, sells gas that generally runs $.45/gallon higher than a vendor only a few miles away. Should I cough up the extra $25 or more per fill-up to support him? Or should I go with free enterprise, which has provided us with our fantastic lifestyle? What would you do?

[Robert W Tucker]

Is everyone OK with the fact that whatever design weakness permitted the 162's flat spin problem has been addressed through afterthought patches?

When I compare the 162 to Diamond's products, I see a company that made 1950's designs a bit slicker with avionics and better surfaces vs. a company that exploited modern NASA research to make a fundamentally safer aircraft in all respects. (The 162 has already had more incidents and crashes pertaining to airframe design than Diamond's zero).

It takes an experienced pilot and several tries to force the DA40 into a shallow spin. It can only be done with extreme inputs and attitude. The recovery procedure is "let go" and it returns to stable flight in 1/2 turn. Anyone who has flown the two aircraft at the edge of their envelopes knows that Cessna didn't do what it could have done.

Cessna could easily have designed that kind of safety as well. They were leaders -- once. Instead, they chose to make the 162 in the image of their 50 year old designs, only not as stable. I don't call that progress. GA Cessna is a company of the past that will fade away when we old Cessna owners retire those great 180's, 182's, 185's, and 210's.

[John Wilson]

Robert, you miss the point of the 162's design. It is specifically meant to serve as a primary trainer, which should not be a totally docile steed. A primary trainer should nip firmly (but not bite dangerously) when you do something wrong. That way, as you move up, you don't do so with the mistaken belief that you can mishandle every aircraft you fly without penalty.

[Roland Shaak]

The range sucks, the avionics are great, the engine proven but archaic (where is FADEC??), and it should be built in the US doing what Boeing did...go to a town/city/state that wants their manufacturing biz offers perks and labor agrees to no unions...up here in Seattle the unions are running Boeing out of town in a hurry. But hell i just bought a nice 150 for 16,500...a new uprated not rebuilt motor is going in it as well as an Aspen avionics suite, Garmin mode 3, Garmen GPS (type TBD)and the airframe is being inspected and gone though (restored)...for way way less than a new 162...i love the 150/2..if i need to haul three or more souls...i rent a 172...

[Roland Shaak]

Hello I meant FADEC & fuel injection in the above post.....

[Mark Sickle]

I would never buy this airplane. Made in China - forget it. Cessna lays off so many Americans and then moves construction of the 162 to China - COME ON! Forget it, you could sell it for $50,000 and I'd still say NO THANKS!

[Scott Armitage]

Here's what Robert, as well as CESSNA is missing; Cessna is spending MILLIONS to develop the plastic/carbon fiber/non metallic glue/ airplane OUT OF COUNTRY. All of this for a supposed 'new' two seat trainer, when it was really intended to be an LSA.

The LSA market is selling aircraft, but as a flight instructor, I can tell you that I have had ZERO new students wanting the LSA ticket. It has always been 'senior' already licensed pilots looking to continue flying for fun without a medical. (That have never been denied a medical, of course.)

As far as electronic panels, only someone who hasn't flown them would criticize. The G-1000, as well as newer smaller variants have changed flying forever. For the better. But it doesn't change the fact the Skycatcher missed the mark.

In all of this, Cessna has missed the boat. They ALREADY OWN the type certificate for the 150/152 series, and it is a known quantity as a sturdy, metal aircraft. I have decades flying them, and I owned a 152 with the 125hp STC. It was a hot-day, high altitude, very impressive flying aircraft. I'm talking Reno, Lake Tahoe, high mountain, hot day flying machine.

All Cessna had to do was make a ONE AIRCRAFT deal with Continental for the I0-240/125 hp/FADEC engine for the already certificated 152 and they would have a world class untouchable airplane for MILLIONS less than the plastic/made-in-China thing they're building now.

A $200,000 152 is a better value than a Skycatcher.

The Emperor's New Clothes are ugly to me.

[Peter McCook]

There are dozens of brands of LSAs already in the USA, mostly from Europe. While many US flight schools will choose Cessna because they are familiar with the company and the power plant, most of the other LSAs offer much better performance. As a general rule, European LSAs(also used as trainers)take off in less distance, have a faster climb rate, and burn less fuel. Cessna has built a lumbering trainer designed to move the pilot along into other Cessna products. Europeans and others have built exciting LSAs for Sport Pilots.

[Mike Schrader]

After spending that last 16+ years witnessing and being part of a certification process the cost of building a new aircraft is beyond comprehension. I understand why Cessna is building in China but it does not make it any less frustrating to see a once all American industry being exported. They are also moving the major components for the Corvallis to Mexico, again I understand why but hard to swallow.
As far as a 172 being a great trainer that is correct but the cost to floor one for a trainer has crippled many flight schools and driven them out of the business. Especially considering the fact that it is almost impossible to obtain financing for the school as well as the student. After a hiatus of being an aircraft Mechanic, I recently worked on a new 172 and found it to be much like the old 172. Oil drips all over the place during an oil change, the cowl fasteners still wear easily and elongate (with the beautiful streaking on the new paint), the wheel pants are a major pain to remove for wheel inspection and now we get multiple sumps to drain. The list goes on. Don't get me wrong, the G1000's and airbags are wonderful. That said a great trainer would be one that is inexpensive, (or less), easier to service etc and great to fly.
So if the 162, Skycatcher, helps the flight school to survive and keeps the students from amassing a 3rd world debt I am all for it. Even if we have to send it to a third world to build it.
Mike Schrader

[Rob Wallace]

The 150/152 is/was a great plane but it's very long in the tooth.

People move on and they want something new, with a modern panel. No-one buys Ford Model T's anymore and the market for the elderly 150 series will disappear.

Cost? Of course it costs money to design & certificate a new plane. How many optimistic manufacturer's go bust every decade because they underestimate time and costs of certification?

[Richard, Phoenix, AZ]

Re: all the China comments above - here in Arizona, literally thousands of Chinese pilots receive primary flight training each year; in fact it's hard to not constantly hear their accents on any tower freq in the Phoenix metro area. Is it ironic that we will be training Chinese pilots in the U.S. in an aircraft they assemble?

[withheld]

Stability and safety are more important than cost - which seems to be the main focus of this defensive article.

FYI- Cessna prefers it written as "Skycatcher" now.