Cessna SkyCatcher Delayed… Hmmm, Maybe It’s Time To Look At The Citabria 7ECA

The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher Light Sport Aircraft  photo: Cessna

 (3 pix)

 I saw a link fly by my twitter feed for this AvWeb Cessna 162 SkyCatcher article that tells of a new 6 to 10 month delay for deliveries of completed aircraft.  Cessna did deliver the first airplane on 12-18-09, but that went to Rose Pelton, wife of Cessna CEO Jack J. Pelton, which kinda makes the 4Q delivery fulfillment seem a bit like smoke and mirrors.  It looks like this delay is due to some ongoing design alterations that are apparently being implemented after the airframes are built.

 If you’ve followed my coverage of the Boeing 787 program, which has been way behind schedule and has had some serious problems along the way, you know that I’ve remained very optimistic about the potential success of the project.  So, I’m not necessarily going to throw an airframer under the bus just because they’ve had some developmental problems.  But in Boeing’s case, I’ve seen on paper and in reality a truly remarkable concept that is also stretching the technology envelope.  It’s actually been pretty easy for me to still believe in the 787.

 But with the Cessna SkyCatcher, I have to say that I’ve been scratching my head ever since I first saw the concept aircraft on display at Oshkosh 2006.  I realize I might be in the minority here, but I don’t find the airplane attractive at all.  It doesn’t look good to me, and in fact, it doesn’t even look ‘right’.  And, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist (or an aeronautical engineer) to look at the concept airframe and think, hmmm, looks a little lacking in the vertical tail.

The original SkyCatcher concept aircraft as displayed at Oshkosh 2006

 I wasn’t all that surprised then in September 2008 to hear that they had run into some serious troubles while doing stall tests.  The airplane entered an unrecoverable flat spin during cross-controlled power on stalls, and when the ballistic recovery parachute failed to deploy, the pilot had to bail out!  He landed safely under his own parachute, but the airplane, while largely intact, was totaled in the impact.

 And then, in March 2009, after a redesign of the tail that included a larger vertical fin and less sweep, a second test aircraft again entered an unrecoverable flat spin while doing cross-controlled power on spin tests.  This time the ballistic recovery chute functioned properly and halted the spin, but it failed to jettison as was intended to allow the airplane to resume normal flight.  The pilot was too low to bail out and rode the airplane to the ground under the recovery parachute.  The pilot survived uninjured, but the airplane was dragged by the parachute after impact causing extensive damage.

 After all of this, I have some simple math: the SkyCatcher doesn’t look quite right overall + the vertical tail still looks too small + 2 prototypes have crashed + the airplane isn’t built in the USA, but in China = I’m not interested.  I’m not saying the airplane won’t be a success.  It might go on to be a great success, but my gut feeling is that Cessna has gone in the wrong direction with this airplane.

 Here’s a few more points to consider.  The 162 is an LSA (1320 pounds max gross, 120kts max level flight speed), and I think that’s the big mistake.  Don’t misunderstand!  I’m not in anyway against the LSA concept, but it has some real limitations.  As homebuilts or unconventional airplanes, I think LSA’s are a great idea.  But in making a two-seat aircraft for the everyday, ‘normal’ world with a 1320 pound gross weight, you have really reduced the attainable useful load.  The SkyCatcher useful load is only 490 pounds.  Remos actually does very well with their newer GX (650 pound useful), but their lightweight carbon fiber airframe adds a lot to the initial cost... which starts at $129,900, compared to the SkyCatcher at $112,250.  And I’m sorry, but the Remos doesn’t really look ‘right’ to me either.

The American Champion Citabria 7ECA 'Aurora'

 I guess for me, the bottom line is that there’s another alternative out there that I think seriously deserves some attention.  It’s the American Champion Citabria 7ECA, also known as the ‘Aurora’.  A very proven design for over 40 years and with no LSA limitations to worry about.  You get a ‘real’ sized airframe with a 118hp Lycoming up front.  You’ve got a useful load of 630 pounds, the third wheel on the right end of the airplane, and you sit in the middle of the airplane like a fighter pilot (and the other guy’s elbows aren’t poking you either)… and you get all this for a base price of $111,900.  Oh, and did I  mention that this airplane is stressed to +5 and -2 g’s, making it a pretty dandy little akro trainer!  Hmmm.

 I realize I might be biased since I learned to fly at age 13 in a brand new 1973 150hp Citabria 7KCAB, but I believe a very strong case can be made to suggest that a small engine Citabria is the big winner at providing more smiles per mile while not costing an arm and a leg.  With all that fun and utility, you get a gorgeous, classic looking airframe… and it’s made in the USA.  That base is actually a tad cheaper than the China built SkyCatcher.  Hmmm, again.

 A few final points to ponder.  A Citabria demands that you are a better pilot, mostly because it’s a taildragger.  I think that’s a really good thing, even in a basic trainer.  Trainers obviously shouldn’t be twitchy or truly difficult to fly, but honestly, airplanes that are too easy to fly often wind up creating pilots that aren’t as prepared as they should be to handle situations they might encounter.  Plus, if you’ve never flown with your left hand on the throttle and right hand on the stick, then I think you’re really missing something special : ) 

 My bottom line:  I think the aviation world needs Citabrias more than it does SkyCatchers.

Comments

[Matt Everett]

I'm not a fan of the Skycatcher either. When talking light sport, I much prefer the Remos GX even though it costs more. I hate how Cessna lets look trump flying characteristics. Is an effective surface is so ugly, that we'd rather fight an ineffective one that looks good? I also hate the Chinese production. Seriously, I hate it. Every single product produced in China suffers from quality control issues. 3 are good 1 is awful, 2 are fine 3 are awful - this isn't a big deal when your dvd doesn't play, but when you lay dying amidst a pile of wreckage because the tail falls off that becomes a big deal. My final anti-Skycatcher remark is seriously...the first and only one "delivered" went to the wife of the CEO? I don't care what company it is, that doesn't seem like a delivery of anything.

So long comment short, I like the light sport movement and I feel it can be a great thing for the community, but I'm with you all the way on the Skycatcher and sometimes on the Remos (I mean it looks funny, but I like it).

[glen towler]

Cessna reminds me of GM making out of date products and then saying there new and to date there so many good light aircraft being made in Europe its just not funny if I had the money I would buy a microlight there are great ones being built in New Zealand right now

[Matt Adamson]

Although I agree that Cessna should not have had the SkyCatcher built in China, I do feel that Cessna is making a fairly decent product. In comparison between SkyCatcher and Remos GX (and lots of other plastic LSA's), the SkyCatcher has a proven Continental engine, aluminum construction, and (of course) is a Cessna. For an LSA, I'd say its a cut above the rest in most respects considering Cessna went ahead and actually performed spin tests in all kinds of configurations, most of which aren't required tests for certifying an LSA (most other LSA's I can guarantee haven't gone through nearly as much spin testing and R&D as the SkyCatcher).

Consider the 490 pound useful load, that's roughly what everybody gets out of their trusty old Cessna 150, except the SkyCatcher is lighter, roomier, and has the same power (a lower weight to horsepower ratio is a good thing!) And just because the LSA sticker says the gross weight is 1,320lbs, it doesn't necessarily mean the airplane can't safely handle more. Look at the 180hp LSA Carbon Cub that has a 'derated' 0-360 that 'limits' that airplane from exceeding the 120kt level cruise speed so it can still be an LSA, and tell me that's not pushing or stretching the envelope.

Nonetheless, I agree the world needs more airbatiC's! My neighbor restored a 7ECA and he takes me flying every now and again, and I have to say, its an awesome airplane. Even though I haven't flown in a SkyCatcher, I can safely assume I've already had more fun doing touch-n-go's in my neighbor's Citabria :-)

[Dave D]

Once can't blame the Cessna Execs for trying to penetrate a dying market with a fresh idea. And the LSA was supposed to be the new idea that would solve GA's training numbers decline. Problem is, and continues to be two fold. They arrogantly turned a blind eye to the future. Were I to look at China's improving economic clout and see that America's shenanigans with the public mortgage and housing marking was about to blow up in the banker's faces, it wouldn't take a Rocket Scientist or an Economist to see that there would be a PR backlash at the 162 for it's Chinese feathers. Americans who once had the money for one and now are out of the market are not going to see anything from China in a favorable light.

As for the machine itself, it is bearing the brunt of the classic Chinese QA/QC failures with couple of unrecoverable spin incidents and some structural defects coming to light. Not unlike the Piper Tomahawk, but we're more forgiving of our American sourced products.

There is no reason to buy this airplane. But then again, if you're a flight school, what are your alternatives? Rebuild over and over a Cherokee with 10,000 airframe hours? Buy a Remos or other foreign sources LSA? With very few new A&Ps being minted, I'd say the options are limited. The value of trying to keep even a minimalist 152 alive over 5 years could very well exceed the amortization costs of a new 162....even at its $116K in the door cost.

So my take is that the 162 was a good idea, at a really unfortunate economic time, in an anti-Chinese product climate when student interest is at its all time lowest.

Cessna execs have some soul-searching to do. Keep going with this or bail out of the low end market and concentrate on the jet business out of Dubai. I'd go with the second choice.