CTLS vs Skycatcher C-162

[TheEngineer]

Do any of you have experience flying both a Cessna 162 Skycatcher as well as the FD CTLS? 

I have 130 hours in a Skycatcher, and though I have nothing to compare it to, I've found it to be an easy aircraft to fly. I've read so many comments on flying and landing characteristics of Flight Design aircraft, but most seem to compare it with larger GA aircraft. Is landing a CTLS more difficult than a Skycatcher?

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, TheEngineer said:

Do any of you have experience flying both a Cessna 162 Skycatcher as well as the FD CTLS? 

I have 130 hours in a Skycatcher, and though I have nothing to compare it to, I've found it to be an easy aircraft to fly. I've read so many comments on flying and landing characteristics of Flight Design aircraft, but most seem to compare it with larger GA aircraft. Is landing a CTLS more difficult than a Skycatcher?

I don't have direct 162 experience, but I'd say until you get the hang of it the CT series is harder to land than most airplanes.  I trained in a Tecnam P92 and the CT is much more challenging.  There's a million threads on this forum talking about all the "quirks" of landing the CTs.  They are not really hard to fly, but like most LSA they can be a handful in rough air. 

The upside is they are relatively light (though the later ones are similar to a 162) and thus have a high useful load compared to many other LSA (my 2007 CTSW useful load is ~585lb).  Also they are pretty fast, I can see 127kt true or more at altitude without trying too hard.  

[Doug G.]

I am late to this post, but I did my training in a 162. There were a a lot of advantages to the CTLS. Comfortable seats (with adjustable lumbar support) even for tall people, an actual baggage compartment, 5 gph (actually less) and no oil burn, extremely rare carb icing (I have the carbureted engine), max. 32 gal. useable fuel, autopilot, large EMS/PFS displays, great visibility with no struts, runs on premium mogas or 100LL, airframe parachute (I know some 162s had them), a steerable nose wheel (a plus and a minus), no mixture control.

As far as flying the CTLS it does not feel a lot different and has a demonstrated crosswind of 16 kts which is higher than the 162–for what that is worth. I cruise at 110 kts at less than that 5 gph.

I like it.

[redegg]

On 9/15/2022 at 12:21 PM, TheEngineer said:

Do any of you have experience flying both a Cessna 162 Skycatcher as well as the FD CTLS? 

I have 130 hours in a Skycatcher, and though I have nothing to compare it to, I've found it to be an easy aircraft to fly. I've read so many comments on flying and landing characteristics of Flight Design aircraft, but most seem to compare it with larger GA aircraft. Is landing a CTLS more difficult than a Skycatcher?

I have experience in both, as well as the RV12 and a few other LSAs. If you find the Skycatcher easy to fly, you'll do fine in the CTLS. The self-centering springs (heavy rudder feel) and steerable wheel are noticeable, but it's fine.

[Madhatter]

Before I bought a CT I looked at a 162 on the CHS ramp. The plane was one of the worst examples of a new aircraft I had ever seen. Very poor quality and workmanship,  flimsy sheet metal structure , I'm guessing .016. Not a plane I would ever want, it looked like it was built very quickly to get into the LSA market.  No surprise it was a failure. 

[FlyingMonkey]

On 12/2/2022 at 7:44 PM, Madhatter said:

Before I bought a CT I looked at a 162 on the CHS ramp. The plane was one of the worst examples of a new aircraft I had ever seen. Very poor quality and workmanship,  flimsy sheet metal structure , I'm guessing .016. Not a plane I would ever want, it looked like it was built very quickly to get into the LSA market.  No surprise it was a failure. 

Interesting.  I wonder if the "cheapness" of feel is because they had to get everything so much lighter to accommodate the very heavy O-200D engine.  If they had gone with Rotax they could have saved 80-100 pounds and made that airplane much better, but they wanted to play to the old guard owners who are afraid of "snowmobile" engines.

[Madhatter]

Everything on the 162 is old technology back to the 50's. Our new certified GA aircraft are dinosaurs with added accessories.  Still have magnetos, old aerodynamic designs, aircooled engine design going back to the 1930's, not much has changed. Eastern European manufacturing technology is exceeding anything we have ( China owns Cirrus and Continental). We are good at making corporate jets but not small GA piston aircraft. 

[Warmi]

2 hours ago, Madhatter said:

Everything on the 162 is old technology back to the 50's. Our new certified GA aircraft are dinosaurs with added accessories.  Still have magnetos, old aerodynamic designs, aircooled engine design going back to the 1930's, not much has changed. Eastern European manufacturing technology is exceeding anything we have ( China owns Cirrus and Continental). We are good at making corporate jets but not small GA piston aircraft. 

Perhaps because there is hardly any money in it as far as large corporations are concerned. When you step down , there is plenty of small manufacturers designing and building small GA piston planes (Vans, Zenith, Rans etc ) - all of these are relatively small and none of them are certified but that’s because the overall market size is small and does not justify massive costs of certification.

The feds with their regulations and out of control lawyers killed the traditional certified GA market but in a free market economy, if there is some money to be made ( even if we talking here a few millions as opposed to billions ) , somebody will do it …

[FlyingMonkey]

On 12/4/2022 at 1:30 PM, Warmi said:

Perhaps because there is hardly any money in it as far as large corporations are concerned. When you step down , there is plenty of small manufacturers designing and building small GA piston planes (Vans, Zenith, Rans etc ) - all of these are relatively small and none of them are certified but that’s because the overall market size is small and does not justify massive costs of certification.

The feds with their regulations and out of control lawyers killed the traditional certified GA market but in a free market economy, if there is some money to be made ( even if we talking here a few millions as opposed to billions ) , somebody will do it …

The problem is small airplane aviation is not only a small market, but shrinking.  The number of light single pilots decreases every year, and new pilots are not coming up behind them.  The population of buyers for these airplanes is small, shrinking, and aging.  Building goods into a shrinking market is a sure-fire way to lose money.

Until young people start re-discovering aviation as a recreational activity, this situation will not improve.  There is very little room in the market for innovation as a result, and that's why many of these airplanes use all 50 year old tech.  The regulatory cost of getting new engines, airframes, and systems certified (even under ASTM rules) is daunting in the face of the small or non-existent profits to be made from them.

[Tom Baker]

Andy, your comment about young people was true maybe 10 years ago, but have you looked at the market recently? 

[FlyingMonkey]

7 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Andy, your comment about young people was true maybe 10 years ago, but have you looked at the market recently? 

I have a large flight school on my field.  There are a lot of people training.  But most of them are doing it to fly for the air carriers to fill the huge shortage there, almost none of them are training to fly as a recreational pursuit.

[Tom Baker]

38 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I have a large flight school on my field.  There are a lot of people training.  But most of them are doing it to fly for the air carriers to fill the huge shortage there, almost none of them are training to fly as a recreational pursuit.

Aviation is a way of life. While some will only fly commercially, most will delve into recreational aviation on the side.

[airhound]

My dad and his friends instructed me in the late 60ties. I returned to flying after a 25yr layoff due to service. Joined an AFB aero club. Of the hundreds of military pilots in the area, few were recreational, even fewer owned and flew family to grandmas. There were no dependents learning to fly. It became too costly and an unessisay liability for base commanders. Lots of Military Aero Clubs closed. Curtis Lemay probably rolled over in his grave. He started them to give the enlisted a way to experience flying. Times have been changing for general aviation across the board, “IMHO”.   I think few ‘would be’ pilots in general have a heart/passion for flying unless someone else is paying. 

Anybody in the know have a feel for decline in experienced maintainers? They aren’t as prevalent as they were pre 9/11 in my area. 
 

 

[redegg]

1 hour ago, Tom Baker said:

Andy, your comment about young people was true maybe 10 years ago, but have you looked at the market recently? 

Per the FAA airman stats, there were 720k active pilots in 2021, 610k in 2012. 

Average age has remained about 44.

Also roughly 6800 active sport pilots, 200 new sport certs per year.

[Jim Meade]

I know a couple of dozen big-iron pilots and to most of them it is a job.  I don't now of any of them who fly recreationally.  Same with the crop dusters I know.

[airhound]

Basic Med is a great accomplishment…

…along with the likes of BRS, ROTAX (915iS), and hopefully including 172’s, Piper’s, other 4 seaters in the LSA’ category should improve the numbers.

As far as maintainers. I’m lucky to be 100 miles away from OLY for my CT. Locally, the 172 is a challenge with sky high shop rates.

Wonder if local flying clubs are on the rise, like 4 guys and a mature 172 or RV?

[sandpiper]

While it is probably true that most people populating flying schools are after airline jobs, many (some) of them will be into GA as the years go by. Some will do this while still with the airlines and more will do it once they retire.

Living in a large airpark community and a member of the local EAA, I see this frequently.That, and having lived in Alaska most of my adult life, probably colors my perception a little. OK, a lot.

I'll use my FedEx daughter and her FedEx husband as an example. They own a Howard DGA and a Stinson 108. He is also an A&P/IA and is a GA junkie.

So, there is hope but pilots will always be a very small part of the population. Unfortunately that means advancement in airframe and engine technology will be a long time coming. Avionics, on the other hand, have a much larger market and GA has benefited immensely.