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

[Karl]

Like the health care industry, the aviation industry seems to have been crippled by the legal and insurance communities.
The $100k rise in aircraft prices after the production hiatus a couple decades ago seems to be largely an allowance for product liability insurance or settlements.

In both industries, we need tort reform legislation to make both affordable to consumers.

So, share the responses you received to your letters to your state and federal representatives and senators to reform tort law to limit settlements.

You did write to them, didn't you?

[Karl]

I'm eager to find out how it compares to the Diamond DA20 assembled on this continent and also used by the United States Air Force Academy.

Have you flown one yet?

They are a delight to fly. Nimble and responsive, the plane wants to fly. Frankly, the plane doesn't want to come down, and when you're in the left seat, neither do you. I upgrades 'fun to fly' to 'exhilarating to fly'. About a week is required for the ear-to-ear grin to fade away after the first flight in one.

I wonder how the C162 Skycatcher compares.

[cliff lapp]

Cessna is building this plane primarily as a trainer, for which it is brilliant.

The main reason it is excellent as a trainer, is it will cut the cost of the aircraft rental by 50%. This is a HUGE accomplishement. The -162 costs less than 1/2 of a -172 (or a new -152), and it uses about 1/2 the fuel of a -172, so your cost, as a student pilot, will be less than 1/2. Where my home is, a -172 was costing $125/hour, WITHOUT an instructor! With the -162, the price can be about $60/hour, little more than I paid in University in 1983 for a Piper Traumahauk.

The -162 can serve as a trainer for the LSA and Private Pilot, and you can build time towards your Commercial and Instrument tickets with this plane.

cliff
Nairobi

[Pilot Dave]

Well, interesting story Robert, but like so many have said - CHINA, CHINA, CHINA !! Did you notice that this week even more Barbie and Mickey Mouse toys have high levels of lead in them ? Same argument - CHINA !!! If we can't trust them to make safe toys, how can we trust them to make aircraft ?

Now, full disclosure - Cessna has been a long term advertiser to Flying... They get good press here, unlike the SJ-30 getting snubbed here (Mac's story a couple months back about the Premier 1 being the fastest small jet you can buy, as Mr. Roush did.)

[Mort Gutman]

Just a quick comment from one of the older generation...and somewhat larger generation...as many of us are. I'm weigh about 215 lbs. Per Cessna literature, the useable load with full fuel is 346 lbs. That means I'd have to get a flight instructor or passenger under 131 lbs. That also means no baggage, manuals, flashlights, etc. If you're a 200 lb. flight instructor, you'd have to limit your students to under 146 lbs. That would severely cut down on your potential student market. There are any number of LSA's with much better "numbers". I have no comment on the flight characgteristics of the plane, having never flown it. But the reviews so far have been favorable. If Cessna is going after the training market, they could have done a better job to maximize the potential student population.

[Jerry Painter]

The problem is not cost or shine, it's payload. Sad truth is the FAA stopped building 170 pounders long ago and real people just can't be carried with any fuel on board--even if they can be shoehorned in--just like 152's, J-3's and all those wonderful trainers of yesteryear. Why do you think flying schools have to use 172's these days? It ain't 'cause they're cheap! Otherwise, looks like a fine airplane. And, yes, it is too expensive, like everything else...

Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
www.FlyWBA.com
JP@FlyWBA.com
425-876-0865

[Robert W Tucker]

I accept John Wilson's reply regarding the importance of a trainer not conveying false-confidence. Yet, there has to be an underlying stability that will forgive, not kill, an inexperienced pilot. Warriors, for example, are a good example of a safe trainer that will still remind you gently of the need for inputs. In this regard, I do worry about low time pilots who flew only a new NASA designs like Diamond products. Yet, I maintain that safety trumps this concern and no one would suggest that a design that will flat spin is a good idea in a non-aerobatic aircraft (not really a good idea in them either).

My main point is that Cessna did far less than it could have done and I do not believe that economics can be fully blamed. They suffer from "big/old/besieged" company mentality. Diamond managed to do a decent job (100% of their fiber/carbon fiber work is in the factory; Cirrus and Cessna outsource); others have apparently managed to be profitable with new designs.

[Glenn Hake]

For the person that asked - the crazy MGTW 1320 (600 kilograms)and most of the LSA rule came from Europe like most of the LSA aircraft you see. There was a time when our government helped our industry leading companies and made common sense rules for Americans. Now nothing happens unless Europe or ICAO bite into it first. Common sense is not allowed.

[JOHN RASMUS]

More "reassurance information" should be provided the GA Public regarding the spin accidents of the Cessna 162 and the solution! I am a Private Pilot and was a "potential buyer" but still am reluctant to buy, until I become convinced the 162 is safe!

NOTE; TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF LSA FLIGHT BREAKUPS HAVE BEEN REPORTED!

[John]

for myself the issue is NOT about the value or cost of the 162. the real issue is why is Cessna getting a free ride from everyone at this particular point in time with this airplane? taking production to China when literally thousands of skilled Cessna employees are laid off in the middle of the worst economic meltdown in aviation history is completely inexcusable and may well be unforgivable. this certainly is not the action of a company committed to helping put America first.

[mike]

if it's built in china then it sucks!!!!!!!!!

[Jose Cuervo]

Lots of incorrect comments based on ignorance or a desire to ignore the facts. The LSA weight limit came from ASTM design standards, not pulled out of "somewhere". The Skycatcher is nearly 100% aluminum construction, not composite as are most competing LSAs. Sorry but the lone voice for a $200K 152 is lost echoing aross the valley. The large majority wants affordability. "Columbia line" of composite work has not gone to China and the Cessna Corvalis is now built along with the other single engine airplanes in Independence Kansas. FLYING editors Goyer and McClellan have got it right.

[George]

John... Robert was totally correct. A flat spin will not "nip firmly"... but IT WILL "bite dangerously" -- that is why the A/F chute had to be band-aided in. It's not really Cessna's fault though... they had to cut corners & use China to manufacture the 162 in odrder to sell their product at a reasonable price. That's what happens when you have years of out-of-control liability laws and labor unions sucking up all of the profits of our once-great industries. Back in the heyday of the legendary 172 & 182's -- the unions didn't have a strangle-hold on the employers like today. Same goes for the liability claims -- until they spiralled out of control and caused GA plants to shut down. And now with Obama at the helm -- I doubt that this country will ever be able to recover. All that he's really managed to do is rack up an unprcedented defecit (Oh... and a whole lot of hope & change).Perhaps it's a good time to start selling Mandarin lessons.

[Bernard Dunn]

I will not buy or fly an airplane made in China...You can not trust their work.

[Jon Croghan]

What they should have done is included the Cessna 150-152 in the LSA catagory, But no, that isn't what they did.

[Jon Croghan]

"I believe alot of consideration for that was the cost of the UNIONS."

I would suggest folks thinking that is union wages that makes things expensive go back and take a good look at the history of the union movement in this country. Then compare working conditions here and in China, or wherever, then ask yourself would you rather work here or there. Insurance costs come about because corporations, rather spend an extra dollar or two to make it better or safer because it might raise the cost a dollar or two, then end up spending much more on recalls. Ford''s recent cruise control problems is a good example. Of course, there are those things that no one could see coming. I always been struck with the fact that if you own an aircraft and there is a recall, the owner pays for it whereas, with the aforesaid Ford problem, Ford paid for it.

[Col. Bill, USAF Ret'd]

The unions have and will continue to be the downfall of our country and products. The SEIU is a good example. Personally I would not buy any aircraft built in China, PERIOD.

[Capt. Denis Murphy]

Personally, I dont care where is the 162 been built for that matter. My Ford Focus is built in Mexico, my Ford Crown Victoria in Canada. So thats facts of today international world.What really worries me, is that young kids are not getting into aviation at all. We as pilots, manufacturers are responsible for this fact. The unit cots of a flying machine has only going up and up in price, while home computers are cheap to do and more fun for that matter!!!! I believe Cessna has to be congratulated for doing an excellent job in this topic. Are there better altenatives of course, the Remos, the CT Desing come to mind as wonderful examples, but like anything in live there is also alternatives to better airplanes or cars.................

[John C. Valentine]

Dear Mr. Goyer, and Mac,

Mr. Goyer, I have the greatest respect for you - here, and in the previous magazine. Mac, words fail - you have my interest and respect, lo these many years.
But. (You knew it was coming. . .)
The issue is not whether Cessna stays afloat. The issue is whether we will buy aircraft built either by Peoples' Liberation Army units running factories to generate their budget (in a country that, by their spoken word, intends to take over the entire Pacific - which includes us), or built by slave labor in the greatest violator of human rights known - yes, that would be China as well. And, pollution? Jack Pelton is pretty gutless in transferring it from here to the worst polluter on the planet, instead of getting rid of it, period.
The item about Wichita jobs is salient. If the unions will deal decently instead of arrogantly, then we need to keep the jobs necessary for this build onshore as part of our strategic reserve, just as we stockpile rare materiel for wartime builds.
Come on, Cessna, you can do better than this.
If 'Skycatcher' is built in the last great bastion of totalitarian evil, I'm done with these people. Since we were brought up to "do what is right, let the consequence follow," then I have to state - I will not buy a Skycatcher. I will not rent, nor will I train in one. In fact, FBOs, clubs, etc. take note: If I find you owning, leasing or controlling one of these aircraft, or even see one on your apron that is other than transient, I will not transact any business with you at all and will work to see that my friends follow my lead.
You do have alternatives here in the States. Any of the right to work states. I suggest Cessna check out the new KIA plant in West Point, Ga. Which is the model of a brand new factor. In fact, what about your own Cessna plant in Columbus, thirty miles down the road! And, you wouldn't be selling aircraft built by people who think we are both stupid and lazy, but can't seem to even keep leaded paint out of childrens' toys.
Build it anywhere else, Mr. Pelton. Eastern Europe. Singapore. Mars. Then we can talk.

(I would appreciate this being used as a letter to the Editor in the paper magazine.)

[Jim Thompson]

In some posts people seemed surprised that the 162 was being manufactured in China. That has never been a hidden fact.

My problem with the Chinese manufacturing comes from my personal experience in my profession, instrumental music. About 10 years ago we began to see poorly made instruments flood the market. There are now a very small number of decently made instruments, and in time they will all be well made. If the same holds true for the 162, it will take a few years for them to "get it right." I would not one to be a pilot who experiences a "one of a kind structural failure" while the chinese learn to get it right. Thank God I got my ticket when the 152 was not too old.

In a few years, I will be willing to strap into one and give it a try.

[David St. George]

FACT: China owns over a *trillion* dollars of our treasury bills now. They essentially own our government and finance our hometown over-spending. They are legitimate world contenders and build a plane that would cost twice as much built here with union labor (sorry!)

Cessna could make lots more money just selling their highly successful jets but instead put lots of time and money into re-starting the flight training market. They want more pilots and they want them starting in Cessnas. They famously bought a high-performance single for cents on the dollar (Lansair) These guys are very savvy and know what they are doing; the Skycatcher will succeed marvelously.

[Dale M.]

I think what has been overlooked is the fact that Cessna would never accept any work standards and practices that are less than out own.

[Dale M.]

That should be "its" own. Sorry!

[John]

In 25 years, the few Skycatchers that are sold will be collectors items. It costs more than other LSA's, has higher fuel consumption, lower performance, and it's built in China to boot.

By choosing China, they showed a complete lack of awareness that a greater percentage of an aircraft's sticker price goes to earning and maintaining the type certificate for that aircraft than goes to paying labor to build the aircraft.

The extraordinary expense of certifying this model and maintaining the type certificate must be padded into the price of each aircraft sold. Thus, it costs more than $100,000.

Anybody that says the 152 couldn't be brought back into production and sold for less than this has forgotten to include the enormous cost savings of having an existing type certificate and existing facilities, tooling, and skilled labor in the US just waiting to be utilized.

The whole China thing was just a big slap in the face of United States organized labor, but it has backfired enormously. I wonder if Cessna will have trouble keeping production up with demand? I think not.

It would have been hilarious to see the results of moving Citation production to China. I'd like to see executives putting their lives where their money is...

[Steve, Middletown, CA]

It is interesting that of those who so harshly criticize the fact that so many products are manufactured in China, few if any address the real culprits in the issue. If a man beats his wife every day, is she at fault for moving out of the house? The insane tax and liability burden that is imposed by our government is responsible for driving industry our of our country. I applaud Cessna for it's willingness to go to such lengths to provide a product that is so much needed. If we really want to see more products manufactured domestically, we need to step up to the plate and stop demanding that the government provide such an expensive "safety net" for us. The handouts we are receiving are killing us. Thanks Cessna, I hope that the Skycathcer catches plenty of sales!