Skycatcher's End

[Jim]

From Aviation Week magazine:

 

"Cessna President and CEO Scott Ernest is signaling that Skycatcher, the company's low-cost, Chinese-built light-sport aircraft, has been relegated to the history books. "There's no future," Ernest said when asked about the aircraft at a Cessna press conference Oct. 21 at the NBAA convention in Las Vegas. Asked if that meant the project would be discontinued, he replied, "No future." Skycatcher was launched six years ago with great fanfare by Ernest's predecessor, Jack Pelton. Offered at an introductory price of $109,500, the aircraft attracted 720 orders worth more than $75 million in the first three weeks after launch, and backlog ultimately topped 1,000. But the project was bedeviled by manufacturing problems at its Chinese partner. Cessna also was forced to raise Skycatcher's price, which caused its backlog to evaporate. Ernest was more upbeat on two new signature projects at the aircraft builder. The Citation Latitude mid-sized jet is on track to make its inaugural flight in the first quarter of 2014, and the Citation X -- billed at the "world's fastest civilian aircraft" -- is expected to win final certification in March."

[Doug G.]

Not sure it ever had a future. At $109k maybe, but not at the same price as a CT. Its demise may hurt light sport training however since I can't see Cessna dealers using anything else.

If you just want something for tooling around the patch there may be some good deals out there.

[FastEddieB]

I just posted this to a similar thread over on SportPilotTalk.com that listed the othe failures by Cirrus and Piper to capitalize on ths market:

 

I really thought the Cirrus LSA concept was a good one.

 

Provide a loss-leader introductory package - plane plus training towards the sport pilot license for one fixed price. Then credit that amount, in full, if the buyer wanted to step up to a "real" Cirrus within a fixed time frame - maybe a year.

 

Back in 1986 I bought a Harley Sportster under a similar program - $3,995 for a basic XLH, full credit towards a "big" Harley within one year. I did not take advantage of the trade-up, but it did help entice me into the purchase in the first place.

 

Anyway, I'd think that Cessna would have continued the SkyCatcher if they could have even come up with a "break even" model. That they couldn't shows how tough this market is in spite of how "overpriced" we deem the current offerings.

[Jim Meade]

At a time when Chinese are buying U.S. plane manufacturers, maybe Cessna thought it could get a toe in the Chinese aviation world and capitalize on it with their bigger planes.

Cessna Service Centers were a logical locus for LSA training

The Skycatcher would replace the aging C150 as a trainer.

 

None of the above "good ideas" worked out.

 

It doesn't look like building airplanes in China is the immediate way to sell get into Chinese aviation, although that may be the long term plan.

Cessna Service Centers had a quote of Skycather's shoved down their throat. They hated them.

The C172 is the new bottom line trainer for anyone who might have enough money to buy a step-up Cessna. Besides, the Sport Pilot is not seen as a viable first rung on the ladder for future airline captains, who will start as private pilots, since they have to do it anyway.

 

Another good bad idea.

[FlyingMonkey]

I think at $109K it was a pretty attractive airplane, especially for flight schools and Cessna Flight Centers. Not at $150K.

 

What killed this plane before it got started was the braindead decision to use the O-200D engine. Installed weight is 201lb, versus installed weight of a Rotax 912S/ULS of about 135lb. I know they did it to appease the old-school bias toward simpler all air-cooled engines, but in the LSA world you can't just leave 60 or more pounds of useful load on the table and walk away from it.

 

I think a Rotax-powered Skycatcher with a 540-560lb useful load could have been a contender against the CT, especially with the Cessna pedigree and dealer/service network behind it. It is a nice airplane, and people that have flown it seem to really like the handling. I'm sad that Cessna so misread the LSA market and thus we lose yet another potentially great aircraft model as a result.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I think at $109K it was a pretty attractive airplane, especially for flight schools and Cessna Flight Centers. Not at $150K.

 

What killed this plane before it got started was the braindead decision to use the O-200D engine. Installed weight is 201lb, versus installed weight of a Rotax 912S/ULS of about 135lb. I know they did it to appease the old-school bias toward simpler all air-cooled engines, but in the LSA world you can't just leave 60 or more pounds of useful load on the table and walk away from it.

 

I think a Rotax-powered Skycatcher with a 540-560lb useful load could have been a contender against the CT, especially with the Cessna pedigree and dealer/service network behind it. It is a nice airplane, and people that have flown it seem to really like the handling. I'm sad that Cessna so misread the LSA market and thus we lose yet another potentially great aircraft model as a result.

 

What does your argument say about 833lb CTLSi's?

[coppercity]

I wouldn't say the CTSW was a mistake, it's a great airplane, the CTLS is a refinement of an already great design. They share a lot of the same elements in design like the wing.

[FlyingMonkey]

The skycatcher has as much to do with the CTLSi as the CTSW does with the CTLSi. Almost nothing. In fact the Skycatcher is more like a CTSW than other LSA, why? Both planes were early mistakes.

 

You have it backwards...the CTLSi is a late mistake.

[Ed Cesnalis]

The CTLSi's claim to fame is its economy. That is offset by the need to stop for gas every 2 hours.

[FlyingMonkey]

What does your argument say about 833lb CTLSi's?

 

I have made no secret of the fact that I think the ongoing reduction in useful load that the newer CTs are experiencing is a mistake on FD's part. IMO the large useful load of the CTSW is what made it a market leader. The CTLS has some improvements, but the 50lb penalty for them is unacceptable to me. The CTLSi ups the ante both in improvements and weight. Basically FD seems to be doubling down on heavy airplanes with limited utility (unless you are willing to fly over gross). I think it's a mistake.

[Adam]

What does your argument say about 833lb CTLSi's?

 

My 2 cents... If the FAA raised the 1320 lb limit by the same 50 to 60 pounds that the CTLSi eats up over an earlier CTSW we'd once again have a fabulous airplane with a 550 to 600 lb useful load! With each new plane revision comes some further erosion of the useful load. Perhaps FD should apply for an increase just like Icon did to "improve safety".

[Anticept]

This story started on the Sport Pilot site btw.

 

The Cessna Skycatcher was a joke as I have pointed out over and over. The end of this goofy plane says more about Cessna than about LSA of course. Cessna simply doesn't get it. And once again the Germans and their elegant, roomy, strutless, cabon fiber, Rotax 912i designs get even stronger.

 

Just about everything is wrong with the Skycatcher. Metal and rivets, Continental engine, narrow cockpit, stokel, noisey, struts, made in China, pricey for what you get. And now the market has spoken, as I pointed out just 20 planes have sold this year. Why so many jumped to get one when they first came out says more about blind customer loyalty to Cessna, than to the actual product they were making.

 

Hopefully the end of this aircraft sends both a message and a lesson to those just arriving in the LSA market. Avoid the metal beasts, assess products on their real merits, and if buying an LSA stick to the elegant designs from the companies that appear to 'get it'. Like Flight Design and Tecnam.

 

One of the things about cessna, is they are good at what they know how to do, but they are slow and unwieldy to change. Personally, i like their proven planes, but they are hit and miss with the rest of their small plane division.

 

Oh and the cessna company sucks. They are cocky, unfriendly, and rude to anyone who doesn't work in their service stations. I hate dealing with them.

[FlyingMonkey]

My 2 cents... If the FAA raised the 1320 lb limit by the same 50 to 60 pounds that the CTLSi eats up over an earlier CTSW we'd once again have a fabulous airplane with a 550 to 600 lb useful load! With each new plane revision comes some further erosion of the useful load. Perhaps FD should apply for an increase just like Icon did to "improve safety".

 

This is no doubt true. But the FAA has made it very clear they will not be issuing exemptions based on existing safety devices, you have to bring something new to the table like Icon's allegedly spin-resistance. There is nothing I can think of that can be retrofit to existing airframes to justify the exemption for CTs in FAA's mind. Maybe if the next version has a new wing...

 

Again, if you are willing to fly over gross you get the best of both worlds. I'd never officially advocate that, but I believe adults are, well...ADULTS, and can make informed choices about what level of risk they will accept, especially considering the arbitrary 1320lb limit.

[Jim]

The skycatcher has as much to do with the CTLSi as the CTSW does with the CTLSi. Almost nothing. In fact the Skycatcher is more like a CTSW than other LSA, why? Both planes were early mistakes.

 

I keep wondering what it will take for Roger to ban you.

[FastEddieB]

To keep things in perspective...

 

...here's the factory W&B on my Sky Arrow (click for larger):

 

 

And that's without a lot of options - no autopilot or multiple screens for instance. And with a non-injected ROTAX.

 

Yet Karen and I still flew round trip to Page last October. We get where we're going nonetheless.

 

I guess my point is that high empty weight is a limitation that does not have to be that limiting if you accept and work with its limitations - and you can quote me on that!

[FastEddieB]

 

 

Metal and rivets, Continental engine, narrow cockpit, stokel, noisey, struts, made in China, pricey for what you get.

 

In my opinion it was the stokel that was the kiss of death!

[Ed Cesnalis]

The skycatcher has as much to do with the CTLSi as the CTSW does with the CTLSi. Almost nothing. In fact the Skycatcher is more like a CTSW than other LSA, why? Both planes were early mistakes.

 

The CTLS is a stretched CTSW, your statement is ridiculous. Your post above touts carbon fiber construction and cantilevered wings yet now a CTSW is like a Cessna? The stretching of the CT was to make it easier to land, not an improvement for me.

[WmInce]

My 2 cents... If the FAA raised the 1320 lb limit by the same 50 to 60 pounds that the CTLSi eats up over an earlier CTSW we'd once again have a fabulous airplane with a 550 to 600 lb useful load! With each new plane revision comes some further erosion of the useful load. Perhaps FD should apply for an increase just like Icon did to "improve safety".

 

Adam,

 

Concur with that 100%.

IMHO, the CTLSi is too heavy.

The extra weight it has gained over the CTLS and CTSW are holding it back from more sales.

The CTLSi has improved fuel economy, but at the expense of usable payload. For many LSA operators . . . payload is a biggy.

If the FAA granted an exemption, as you suggest, it would widen the target market for potential buyers of new CTLSi airplanes.

 

JMTC,

Bill I.

[Ed Cesnalis]

• Piper
  
• Cirrus
  
• Cessna
  

[Tom Baker]

At a time when Chinese are buying U.S. plane manufacturers, maybe Cessna thought it could get a toe in the Chinese aviation world and capitalize on it with their bigger planes.

Cessna Service Centers were a logical locus for LSA training

The Skycatcher would replace the aging C150 as a trainer.

 

None of the above "good ideas" worked out.

 

It doesn't look like building airplanes in China is the immediate way to sell get into Chinese aviation, although that may be the long term plan.

Cessna Service Centers had a quote of Skycather's shoved down their throat. They hated them.

The C172 is the new bottom line trainer for anyone who might have enough money to buy a step-up Cessna. Besides, the Sport Pilot is not seen as a viable first rung on the ladder for future airline captains, who will start as private pilots, since they have to do it anyway.

 

Another good bad idea.

 

The Cessna flight centers loved the airplane until they were delivered. To be a center you have to take one airplane a year or have one on order, at least that is what I understand. These airplanes were on order a long time when the economy was in a bad way. Until they started showing up they were a big help to the centers.

[Tom Baker]

My 2 cents... If the FAA raised the 1320 lb limit by the same 50 to 60 pounds that the CTLSi eats up over an earlier CTSW we'd once again have a fabulous airplane with a 550 to 600 lb useful load! With each new plane revision comes some further erosion of the useful load. Perhaps FD should apply for an increase just like Icon did to "improve safety".

 

I think the weight penalty is more like 80-100 pounds from the average CTSW.

[paul m]

Can we just confirm the math before we all go down the usual rabbit hole of which model is best. Even at 833 pounds, the CTLSi can take over 4 hours of fuel and carry two 175 pound adults. Is that not sufficient for a trainer? No question the CTLSi is not as capable a long haul cross country machine as the CTSW-- in terms of weight and non-stop distance. But is the typical mission of an LSA a long cross country with two adults and plenty of baggage?

[Ed Cesnalis]

...is the typical mission of an LSA a long cross country with two adults and plenty of baggage?

 

When you live out west it is.

[chanik]

I often fly from San Jose to Phoenix nonstop with 2 and boxes of stuff in the back.

[Tom Baker]

Can we just confirm the math before we all go down the usual rabbit hole of which model is best. Even at 833 pounds, the CTLSi can take over 4 hours of fuel and carry two 175 pound adults. Is that not sufficient for a trainer? No question the CTLSi is not as capable a long haul cross country machine as the CTSW-- in terms of weight and non-stop distance. But is the typical mission of an LSA a long cross country with two adults and plenty of baggage?

 

Not everybody is 175 pounds. :blush: