Apparently Cessna has roughly 90 “white tails” sitting in Kansas awaiting buyers. The managed to ship 168 Skycatchers in 2011 but only 19 in 2012 and rumour has it 2 or 3 in 2013.
I'm sure the price hike has had a lot to do with it. Going up from its original price of $100,000 to 149,000 but I'm sure there is a bit more to it than that.
This aircraft was I assume designed with flight training in mind. But I think any school would be better off splashing out 30 grand on refurbishing a C152 and you would end up with an aeroplane thats more productive for flight training IFR, Aerobatics (in some cases).
For me for this aircraft to commercially successful they have to reduce its operating costs by say 20% of what is available in the market at present and they has simply failed to do this.
What they need to do is ditch the o-200 upfront and replace it with a Rotax 912Is. Does anyone think this will actually happen?
The microlight companies have very good products, the result of many years of refinement. The world hasn't waited for Cessna to show it how to build microlights.
And the 1940s O-200 isn't exactly an advantage over the Rotax.
What they need to do is ditch the o-200 upfront and replace it with a Rotax 912Is
What would be the advantage? Does the 912 burn less fuel (than a leaned O-200) for the same speed?
Does the 912 burn less fuel (than a leaned O-200) for the same speed?
What percentage of time are you running Peak EGT in the typical C162 flight training ops? And yes, the 912iS will be significantly more efficient, at least 15%.
The 912 won't give you a better SFC than a peak-EGT-leaned O-200. How can it? Especially as it revs a lot higher so friction losses will be much bigger.
So the debate comes down to how much of the training profile would necessarily be spent full-rich with the O-200, and that is a fair point. Especially in the UK where most schools totally avoid the mixture lever.
However only a part of the PPL is spent banging circuits, or slow flight on the back of the curve. Quite a big chunk is spent on the solo flights and together with the QXC these all have long enroute portions. My guess is that 50-70% of the PPL airborne time is spent enroute.
The fuel saving by leaning, versus full-rich, is of the order of 30%, which is a LOT, but now drop in the above adjustment and see what you get.
So I think the fuel saving with the 912 isn't actually going to be anywhere near as big as people think.
So the question becomes: how much is training to use the red lever worth to a school? I suspect not much. When my younger son was doing some PPL lessons, they were about £250 each (PA28-161, about 1:10hrs each) so I think the school just sets the price a bit higher to compensate.
Of course Rotax powered planes use much less fuel than Lyco/Conti powered planes, but that is because most of the Rotax powered models are much smaller planes. Most are 2-seaters, with much less interior "stuff", less robust landing gear, everything is thinner, etc, so are a lot lighter.
The other thing is that there must be a reason why the US schools have not bought the 162. They cannot all be stupid or ignorant, and avgas over there is quite pricey now - it must be the dominant cost these days. What conclusions have they reached?
You have to buy a lot of avgas to make the difference between the usual US flight school C150/C152 shed (about US $20,000 at the high end) and a brand new Skycatcher ($140k). The other issue is the average size of a typical US flight student and instructor - many US flight schools use the 172 as a primary trainer because there won't be a W&B issue.
I've been able to fly the Skycatcher, it does what it says on the tin and is quite good fun. But it's still an awful lot of money.
Let me drop a spanner in the works by suggesting a completely different way of making money 
How about running a really well organised and posh PPL school which goes after the "BMW Z4 crowd", and operates nice clean shiny and nice-smelling DA40-TDis or even DA40-180s?
I am based at a busy PPL training location and every time I look at what goes on, it looks like an exercise to extract maximum money from people who mostly don't have any money. The logical result is a drive downwards into absolute mediocrity.
Obviously this suggestion opens one to accusations of being elitist, but in my business (electronics) I might sell a product for £200 and it doesn't bother me that those who have only £100 cannot afford it.
The other thing is that - judging from reading many articles on this topic in the UK Flight Training News rag for a decade or more - many instructors do not want the "BMW Z4" type students, because they are allegedly arrogant and refuse to listen. But maybe there is a way, because most of these people are good at something where they work.
My guess is that 50-70% of the PPL airborne time is spent enroute.
I can't believe this number, it's the other way round.
I went through my PPL logs, I've spent 68% in traffic patterns, only 32% enroute.
Of these 32% enroute, more than half the flights were done at a very low altitude ( < 3500ft), due to airspace structure. I doubt we've leaned on these flights.
Ok, I only had easy access to block time, so that might skew the statistics slightly with respect to fuel consumption, but I'm pretty sure the engine was running full rich on ground idle 8-)
more than half the flights were done at a very low altitude ( < 3500ft), due to airspace structure. I doubt we've leaned on these flights.
You could/should have been.
I'm pretty sure the engine was running full rich on ground idle
That is wrong too (the spark plugs get bunged up with crap really badly - evident if you do a 50hr check right after such ground running) but the fuel flow on idle/taxi is so low it makes no difference.
That is wrong too (the spark plugs get bunged up with crap really badly - evident if you do a 50hr check right after such ground running) but the fuel flow on idle/taxi is so low it makes no difference.
Instead of telling you to lean on the ground, they teach how how to burn free fouled spark plugs. I learned at a large airport where a lot of time was spent taxiing and waiting for a clearance. The first time I leaned on the ground was when I owned my own aircraft and fuel was on me.
The 912 won't give you a better SFC than a peak-EGT-leaned O-200. How can it? Especially as it revs a lot higher so friction losses will be much bigger.
From what I found, SFC should be similar, 912iS (note the "i") about 10% better. The friction losses due to higher rev might be more than compensated for by less friction in general due to better machining. The O-200 is a very low tech engine.
I think there is simply no reason to choose an O-200 over a Rotax for a new aircraft. The Rotax engines are very reliable, 2000h TBO, closer to a modern engine.
