LSA Sales Figures

Back the early 2000s, when I worked at COPA, we had some conversations with the good folks at EAA as they were advocating for the then-proposed Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) category. That category greatly borrowed from the Canadian experience with the Advanced Ultralight Aeroplane (AULA) category that we have had since 1991 and the resulting LSAs, on the market since 2004, are very similar aircraft.

EAA was very interested in our technical details, including our TP10141, the design standards for AULAs, as well as the aircraft that were already flying in the category here in Canada. We were happy to share our experiences, as I have flown quite a number of AULAs, doing reviews for COPA, including the Merlin, EZ-Flyer, CT2K and the Allegro.

Since I have been doing my annual analysis of the civil fleet numbers since that time, one thing that did come up was sales expectations. EAA was planning that the new LSA category would provide new, inexpensive and fun two seat aircraft and that it would revitalize the sagging American aviation market.

At that time we had had our AULA category for about 13 years and I pointed out that the national fleet had statistically increased by an average of 60 aircraft per year in that time. I noted that with a population that is ten times that of Canada, it would be reasonable to expect that US sales would be about 600 aircraft per year. The EAA rep indicated that after all the work that they had done that sales in that range would be a disaster for aviation in the US. He indicated that they had projected sales much higher than that, some 5,000-10,000 aircraft per year in the US. I thought at the time that would have to mean that Americans would have to be an average of at least ten times richer than Canadians, or at least ten times more interested in buying a new two seat airplane. I wished them luck and hoped he was right.

Over the years I have kept an eye out for LSA sales numbers. At one time Cessna had 1200 orders for their Cessna 162 SkyCatcher, which sounded very positive. In the end they only delivered 192 aircraft, with the remaining 80 unsold aircraft used for parts, when the company cancelled 162 production. In the case of that design, price increases and lacklustre performance drove buyers away.

So this week I was interested to see recent sales figures released. These show sales of 199 LSAs in 2014, down from 259 in 2012.

The leading builders in 2014 were:

• CubCrafters - 50
• Van's Aircraft - 26
• Searey - 19

In overall production since 2004 for the US market Flight Design leads with 372 aircraft and CubCrafters is second, with 326 aircraft flying. In the case of Flight design that represents about 37 aircraft per year sold.

While these are great little aircraft I don't think the category has met expectations for revitalizing aviation in the USA.

Stick A Fork In It - The Cessna 162 Skycatcher is Done

The news came this week that the Cessna will not sell any more model 162 Skycatchers. The 162's official webpage was taken down. The 80 unsold aircraft in inventory will be held for parts for the existing fleet, which currently stands at 275 aircraft. That tally includes the 80, meaning that there are 195 in the flying fleet.

After the most recent news the demise of the 162 was no surprise. In fact, for people who followed the story from the start, most will wonder how the aircraft stayed in production for as long as it did, from December 2009 to December 2013.

The 162 had a tortured development from the start. Its design phase saw the Rotax 912ULS engine that would have ensured a good payload replaced with the Continental O-200D, which put it over weight and gave it higher fuel consumption. The aircraft not only lacked full-fuel payload, but it lacked the ability to carry taller pilots and people who could easily get into a Cessna 150 couldn't fit in the diminutive 162 cockpit. The cockpit actually has room for the seats to be moved back, they just didn't do it, presumably for C of G reasons. There were two prototype crashes, both during spin testing that required design changes, some of the changes involved post-production modifications to the early production examples. Then there was the highly unpopular decision to have the aircraft built in China with final assembly in Kansas.

The initial price was supposed to be under US$100,000, but it quickly rose to its final mark of US$149,000. Cessna has not said, but my guess is, with all the trans-Pacific freight and two assembly lines to produce each aircraft, that they were still losing money on each one built. Why else quit making them? It is amazing that companies like Zenair can build and sell a comparable aircraft, the Zenair 650 LSA, for US$129,900 and presumably make money doing it. Big companies with tons of experience building and selling aircraft, like Cessna, should be able to do it more efficiently and for less. They had 1,200 orders for this plane, after all and that has to produce some economies of scale. Companies like Zenair are essentially building to order on an individual basis, but then perhaps "cottage industry" scale is the cheapest way to build small planes.

Then there was the much maligned choice of names, Skycatcher, sometimes written as "SkyCatcher". The choice of the marketing department, it did sound like it would fly formation with famous Cessna names like Skyhawk, Skylane and Skywagon, but it didn't. It started out snickeringly as "Skysnatcher" (or worse) and then, after the first two prototype accidents, as "Skycrasher". Perhaps they should have held a competition and let the buyers choose a name for it?

There were so many missteps in the short history of this little aircraft it is hard to believe that the development was carried out by the company that has produced more light aircraft than any other company in history.

Ironically I hope Cessna decides to sell the rights to the 162, because I think if the price was right that someone would actually buy it. I think with a bit of redesign work to lighten the airframe up, fit a lighter and more efficient engine, like the new Rotax 912 iS with its direct fuel injection and electronic engine management unit, which would allow carrying less fuel and more people for the same speed and range, as well as fix the ergonomics, you could have a real winner in a 162B model. Just name it something better, like "Sparrowhawk".

External links

• Skycatcher reaches inglorious end, by Alton K. Marsh, AOPA
• End Of The Road For Skycatcher? by Mary Grady, AVweb
• History of the Cessna 162 on Wikipedia
• Archives of the official Cessna 162 webpage on Archive.org

Cessna CEO: Skycatcher Has "no future"

I don't think this will surprise anyone: Cessna 162 production is about to be ended.

In October 2013 at the National Business Aviation Association convention Cessna CEO Cessna CEO Scott Ernest stated that the Skycatcher had "no future".

In my review of the Cessna 162 in November 2010 I noted that while the design did have some pluses, like the control stick, fit and finish and the doors there were many problems with the design, particularly:

• The name "Skycatcher", which no one reacted well to.
• The cockpit ergonomics, being unable to accommodate anyone over about 6'1".
• Poor payload, which was 304 lbs of people and baggage on the one typical production aircraft I evaluated.

At one time the company had claimed that they had 1200 orders, which would have made the aircraft by far the most numerous LSA built, if they had all been delivered. But the initial target price of "under US$100,000" was not met and the price quickly increased to US$149,000, far above the price of its competition. The price increases contractually allowed production position holders to cancel and Paul Bertorelli of AVweb reports that "it gave position holders an opportunity to bail, and they did. In droves." So apparently orders are well down and dealers have aircraft they they can't sell.

At last count the FAA register shows 275 Cessna 162s in the USA, while Transport Canada shows none registered here.

Bertorelli lays the blame for the demise of the 162 on its high price, lack of performance and poor useful load compared to its competitors and he is probably right there.

The 162 had a troubled development history, with two prototype crashes, both during spin testing, resulting in some design changes. There were also wing modifications after the aircraft entered service, all at Cessna's expense, too.

Then there was the decision to have the aircraft built in China, which riled a lot of feathers in the aviation world. In the end the aircraft were built at Shenyang Aircraft, boxed up and shipped to Wichita, Kansas where they were assembled, had engines and avionics fitted, modified and then test flown by contractor Yingling Aviation (later moved to Cessna's Independence Kansas plant). With the cost of shipping that could only have contributed to the high costs involved.

Personally I think the design met its Waterloo when the prototype had its Rotax 912 engine replaced by the much heavier Continental O-200, at flight school operator insistence. That compromised the payload of the aircraft and left it as a de facto single seater.

In the final assessment it looks like even the famous Cessna name wasn't enough to overcome the shortcomings of this design and its price. The market has decided its fate.

External links

• Skycatcher's Demise: Barely a Ripple by Paul Bertorelli, AVweb
• "No Future" For Cessna Skycatcher: CEO Scott Ernest, by Glenn Pew , AVweb
• Wikipedia

A First Look At The Cessna 162 Skycatcher

Skycatcher serial number 16200010 (number ten built) was brought to Ottawa by Anna Pangrazzi of Leggat Aviation, the Canadian Cessna representative. The aircraft was displayed at Rockcliffe Flying Club on 30 October and Ottawa Flying Club on 31 October and a number of rides were given, limited by the inclement weather. I was offered a chance to fly the Skycatcher, but had to decline for ergonomic reasons, as I will describe.

As I have written before, the Skycatcher has attracted a lot of criticism for Cessna's decision to have it built at Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in China, especially when more than half of Cessna's workforce has been laid off and don't look to be coming back to work anytime soon. It probably makes matters worse that Shenyang was scheduled to build 300 Skycatchers in 2010, against an order book of 1200, but will only deliver a total of 30. The Skycatcher is built in China and then boxed and shipped to the USA without being test flown. The aircraft are then mated with engines and avionics and assembled by Yingling Aircraft of Wichita, Kansas, who test fly them then. As a production aircraft Skycatcher number ten was built in such a fashion.

The Skycatcher will inevitably be compared with its predecessor, powered by the same Continental O-200 engine of 100 hp, the Cessna 150. Both are two seat, side-by-side trainers, with a high, strut-braced wing and tricycle landing gear. Both are similar in size, although the 162 has 3 ft 4 in less wingspan and is two feet shorter. Looking at the specs the 162 is lighter with a 1320 lb gross weight, limited by the US Light Sport Aircraft rules, versus the 150's 1600 lb gross weight. The Skycatcher is also a bit faster turning in a top cruise speed of 112 KTAS versus 106 KTAS. Even with its smaller wing of just 120 sq ft (the 150 has 156 sq ft) the Skycatcher has a better climb rate of 890 fpm against 670 fpm for the 150.

Of course the 162 has the famous Cessna name on it and that guarantees it will sell. The current orders of 1200 aircraft attest to the strength of the Cessna brand and if Shenyang delivers the Skycatcher will make up about half of all the Light Sports in the USA in a few years time.

Obviously Cessna has got some things right in the 162 design, although I have to admit that they have also got a few things wrong.

In walking around the aircraft and sitting in it here is what I think they got right. First is the fit and finish. The aircraft has been put together as well as any light aircraft has been. The riveting on the metal structure is well done, the paint is flawless and everything fits together well, except the fibreglass cowling which had some wows in it where it should have been flush. Shenyang have built tons of supersonic fighters and even lots of airliners, they know how to built aircraft well. Sitting on the ramp it looks like a Cessna, the 150 lineage is evident, but with an updated look for 21st century flight training.

The second thing that is done right is access. The old 150 has struts in front of the cabin doors and the doors open until they contact the struts, about 45 degrees. The 162 has the struts behind the doors, which is the right place for them. The doors open hinged from the top and supported by gas struts to avoid damage. These are very nicely wrought and work well. The cabin is well done and features fixed seats and knob-adjustable rudder pedals, glider fashion. The cabin is very similar in size to the 150's, except that instead of the seats touching in the middle they are separated by a good eight inches, giving the occupants a bit of elbow room. The flap handle, yes it has good old manual flaps, thank goodness, occupies the space in between the seats. Cessna says the cabin is 44 inches (112 cm) wide at the shoulders, which is definitely an improvement over the 150. That Cessna can get this wider cabin to move through the air six knots faster on the same horsepower shows that a bit of comfort doesn't have to cost performance.

One thing I think Cessna really got right is the control stick. It is a true centre stick, but it is mounted to a horizontal rod that disappears underneath the instrument panel. In fore-and-aft elevator control it slides in and out as you would expect. Aileron control is not the expected twisting motion, but instead it pivots in an arc as if from a pivot point located on the floor. The motion feels very natural, but best of all, without the floor-mounted stick, it stays clear of your legs throughout its range of motion. I think the stick design is truly inspired.

In my opinion Cessna also got a surprising number of things wrong with this aircraft. First is the name, Skycatcher. I am sure that the Cessna marketing department thinks it goes well with Skyhawk, Skylane, Skywagon and so on, but neither pilots nor the public get it. At the flying club get-together I overheard one wife-of-pilot exclaim, "Its called a Flycatcher, no? Skycatcher, why would they call it that?" It is getting called Flycatcher, Skysnatcher and other less polite things. Even my spellchecker thinks it should be Flycatcher. Overall the name is not that important, most people will probably call it a "162" and leave it at that.

The biggest thing Cessna got wrong has to be the ergonomics of the plane. Out of a group of about 12 pilots who came out to look at the plane, four could not fit in it. We are all taller and the aircraft, with its fixed seat and moveable rudder pedals cannot seat crew over about 6 foot 1 inch without your shins hitting the instrument panel and not being able to properly actuate the rudder pedals. There is room to have installed the seat up to three inches further back, but it is bolted to the floor and that makes this no aircraft for taller people. At 6'4" I could not get in it and COPA Publisher Michel Hell had to decline a flight for the same reason.

The second biggest problem with the aircraft is payload. It doesn't have much. The Skycatcher started life as a proof-of-concept aircraft powered by a Rotax 912S 100 hp engine. The 912 is a great engine, cruising on 4.5 US gal/hr of premium auto fuel, but in surveys the US flight schools didn't like it and so the Continental O-200-D was installed instead. The O-200-D is a special new lightened version of the venerable O-200-A, the first version of which was run in 1947. It produces the same horsepower as the 912S, but burns 5.5 US gal/hr in cruise. Lightened as it is, the O-200-D still weighs 48 pounds more than the 912S does. Today Cessna advertises the 162 as having a standard empty weight of 830 pounds (in the Cessna brochure) and a typical equipped empty weight of 834 lbs (Cessna website). As I had indicated I was very keen to see what the demonstrator has for an empty weight. This aircraft has a basic weight of 833 lbs, to which is added "installed" equipment. It is equipped with the second EFIS tube, fire extinguisher, ELT, wheel pants and sun visors. Yes the basic weight excludes all those things, even the sun visors. Something that is very unusual is that the basic weight does not include the unusable fuel or the engine primer, these are also on the list of "installed" equipment. Considering that the engine cannot be started without the primer and the aircraft cannot be flown without unusable fuel it seems very hard to understand why these are listed under options and not included in the basic weight. The engine oil isn't indicated on the weight and balance either, so presumably it has to be subtracted from the useful load, too.

The "installed" equipment, including the primer and unusable fuel, brought Skycatcher serial number 10 to an amazingly high empty weight of 865 pounds. Fill up the tanks (144 lbs) and this particular 162 will carry 311 lbs of people and baggage, or most likely 304 lbs with some oil in the engine. Compare this to my old Cessna 150, with its empty weight of 1065 lbs, which would carry 408 lbs of people and cargo with full fuel. It is hard not to conclude that the 162 is not really much of a two-seater.

As confirmed in October 2010 with Transport Canada, the Skycatcher is eligible to be registered in Canada in the Limited Class, allowing it to be flown privately with AME sign-offs on the maintenance. It will not be able to be used for flight training until the LSA category comes to Canada. This was a recommendation of the 2005/06 TC Recreational Aviation Working Group and has been accepted by CARAC and Transport Canada, but today it looks to be at least ten years off in implementation, if ever.

Leggat Aviation's Anna Pangrazzi reports that the company has already sold one Skycatcher in Canada to a private owner. Rockcliffe Flying Club has two on conditional order, the condition being that the rules change to allow them to be used for flight training. As I have previously written it would be possible for a flight school to have Cessna 162s as rental aircraft outside their operating certificate, but check-outs and insurance could be an issue.

Overall the 162 is an attractively-designed aircraft with reasonable performance. It looks well made and should prove a good aircraft for private owners in Canada, provided you are small in stature and light in weight.

Some additional information:

*Wikipedia background on the Cessna 162
*Video of the Cessna 162 at the Ottawa Flying Club 31 Oct 10

Light Sport Aircraft in Canada - Some Background

With the upcoming visit to Ottawa this weekend (30/31 October 2010) of the first Cessna 162 Skycatcher to visit Canada I thought it was probably a good idea to review the rules for this aircraft. The C-162 is being brought to Ottawa on a demo tour by Anna Pangrazzi of the Canadian Cessna representative, Leggat Aviation.

I have written before about the C-162 in April 2008 and outlined some of the controversies surrounding the lightest plane Cessna has ever built:

*The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher in Canada

*The New Cessna 162 SkyCatcher - Three Controversies for the Price of One!

To get some updated background on this visit I contacted Transport Canada to see what the options are in 2010 for registering a C-162 in Canada. Basically not much has changed since 2008. The C-162 was designed to be a US Light Sport Aircraft and that category still does not exist in Canada. Back in 2005/06 the Transport Canada Recreational Aviation Working Group that I chaired recommended that the LSA category be adopted as an additional category in Canada. That report was accepted by TC, but it still hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen for many years to come. The reasons for that are complex, but in essence the increased workload created by the attempt by TC to allow the business aircraft sector to self-regulate and the requirement to bring all that work back in house has created so much work for TC that all other initiatives have been put on hold, including bringing LSA to Canada.

Otherwise the Cessna 162 is still a manufactured aircraft with a gross weight of 1320 lbs that doesn't fit into the basic ultralight, advanced ultralight, certified or amateur-built categories in Canada. It fits the Limited Class, but in the past TC senior staff expressed some reservations about putting the C-162 in it. The class was intended for long out of production warbirds and not new mass production aircraft. That reluctance is gone and the way seems cleared for registering imported C-162s as Limited Class aircraft under the new Limited Class rules. Putting the aircraft in the Limited Class means that maintenance must be signed off by an AME and that the aircraft cannot be used for commercial use, including flight training, although aerial work is allowed (banner towing, crop spraying). There isn't much aerial work that this small aircraft could be used for, however.

This all means that the C-162 is a viable aircraft for private ownership in Canada, but not flight school use. The requirement for AME maintenance will make the costs higher than buying a similar AULA, however.

It is also possible for flight schools to use it as a rental aircraft for solo rentals outside their flying training operating certificate, but not for flight training. I am not sure how a school would check someone out on the aircraft, though!

Meanwhile some of the controversies surrounding the 162 that I wrote about in April 2008 still remain. The outsourcing of production to Shenyang Aircraft in China is actually more controversial today than it was in 2008. Back then it was justified by the company because Cessna was out of plant capacity, but since then they have laid off more than half their workers and seem unlikely to hire many of them back in the near future. It is much harder to justify contracting out to China when more than half your own workforce is out of work.

The other controversy remaining is the 162's payload carrying capacity. Cessna still reports the 162's standard empty weight as 834 lbs, which, with full fuel (144 lbs), leaves only 342 lbs for people and baggage, making it not much of a two-seater. I am very keen to see the empty weight on the demo plane and see if it makes that empty weight or if the production bird is actually heavier or lighter. Hopefully we will all have a chance to check it out this weekend, VFR weather permitting.

The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher in Canada

My last blog entry outlined some interesting controversies about the Cessna 162. These are global issues for the aircraft type, but there are also some issues that affect this aircraft only in Canada.

I should start by pointing out that these issues have been known for quite a while, but they have no current solutions. I talked to Transport Canada this past week to confirm that this information is still current.

The primary question is - as a Canadian can you buy and fly a Cessna 162?.

The answer is "yes, sort of, maybe, depends."

If you are planning on buying a C-162 for private use then the answer is "probably". If you want to use it in a flight school operation then the answer is more complex and closer to "no".

The whole issue hinges on the status of the C-162. It is a fully manufactured aircraft with a gross weight of 1320 lbs that meets the ASTM rules for a US Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). It is not a FAR 23 certified aircraft.

In Canada the C-162 does not qualify to be a CAR 523 or CAR 523 VLA certified aircraft. It is too heavy to be an Advanced Ultra-light Aeroplane (AULA) or Basic Ultra-light Aeroplane (BULA), as they are limited to 1232 and 1200 lbs respectively. It only fits into one category in Canada - the Limited Class.

The Limited Class was really developed to allow old out of production non-certified aircraft to be flown in Canada, such as warbirds and non-certified experimental gliders. Even though the C-162 fits this class, putting brand-new, mass-produced Cessnas in it wasn't TC's intention and in talking to them recently they are still a bit uncomfortable with the notion.

If a private owner were to put a C-162 into the Limited Class then it could be flown like any other light aircraft. The only restriction would be that maintenance releases would have to be signed by an AME, not by the owner as in the US LSA class.

Aircraft in the Limited Class can be used for commercial use, but only for CAR 702 Aerial Work operations. This means banner towing, aerial photography, crop spraying, etc. It can't be used for flight training. To be honest there aren't too many aerial work applications for this small, 100 hp aircraft.

So what do you do if you want to use C-162s in your school? Well you could try applying for an exemption to the CARs, but don't count on it being approved.

The next question most people would ask is "So what is going to happen?"

There is some good news here. The CARAC Recreational Aviation Working Group which I chaired in 2005-06 actually addressed this exact issue. It recommended that the LSA category be established as an additional category in Canada, among other recommendations. That report was accepted by CARAC in 2007 and moved on towards the TC risk assessment and NPA drafting processes.

In talking with TC officials this past week I confirmed that the recommendations are still on the way to becoming rules, but that the massive reorganization that TC is currently going through have brought work to a stop on this and many other projects.

So when will the LSA be a category in Canada, allowing private ownership of C-162s with owner-maintenance and their use in flight schools?

The soonest I would look for this is in about ten years. Due to TC priorities (i.e. not small aircraft) and shortage of manpower at TCHQ, I think "never" is a better bet.

Free advice:

If you are thinking of buying a C-162, or any other LSA that doesn't qualify to be an AULA or BULA in Canada, for private use then contact TC Airworthiness before putting any money down. Find out if they will issue a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Limited for it. Be prepared to have the maintenance signed off by an AME.

If you are thinking of buying a C-162, or any other LSA that doesn't qualify to be an AULA or BULA in Canada, for flight school use then contact your TC principal inspector before putting any money down. Find out if there is any chance of an exemption to operate the aircraft in school use. If not, it may be possible to put it in the Limited Class as a private aircraft and use it for rental only, as that use is not under your operating certificate.

The New Cessna 162 SkyCatcher - Three Controversies for the Price of One!

Cessna's new two seater, the Model 162 is a remarkable aircraft for a number of reasons.

It is the first two-seater Cessna has produced since C-152 production ended in 1985. It is the lightest aircraft Cessna has produced with an LSA gross weight of 1320 lbs. It has control sticks, instead of the ubiquitous Cessna "ram's horn" wheels. It even has swing-up doors, unique in the Cessna line-up.

Overall, though the Model 162 is remarkable, it is not that innovative. It is made of sheet metal, like all the other Cessnas have been, although the up-and-coming NGP may break that rule as do the Cessna 350 and 400, although Cessna bought those designs already flying. It has a Continental O-200 engine, just like its Cessna 150 predecessor of 1959. Despite its lighter weight it will have a performance very close to the 150 or 152 as well.

Where the 162 does stand out is that it has proven so controversial. In fact there are three controversies involving the SkyCatcher, not including the choice of name, which most pilots seem to dislike.

The aircraft's name is pretty minor compared to the biggest controversy - building the C-162 in China. Cessna announced on 27 November 2007 that the 162 would be built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium.

This decision resulted in a blog article by Cessna spokesman Tom Aniello on the aircraft's website www.skycatcher.com. Don't bother looking for that website - it doesn't exist any more and that is part of the story, although you can read an archived copy of the page here.

Aniello's blog was an attempt to put forward the logical business case for building the aircraft in China. His best two arguments were that the aircraft would have cost $71,000 more to produce in the US and that Cessna was out of plant capacity in the USA anyway.

Aniello also pointed out that Shenyang is a long standing producer of airliners and fighters and that they build parts today for Boeing's airliners. They are a reliable source.

The blog was just like this one, an article with a chance for readers to post their thoughts. And they did - thousands of them. I read them all. About 10% were positive about the decision and expressed understanding. The remaining 90% were very negative. They cited shoddy Chinese products being subject to recall in the USA, Chinese products being painted with lead-based paint, China's human rights record, exporting of US jobs and China's less-than-friendly relations with the west and the USA in particular. Many posts were from people who claimed to have either been considering buying a 162 and now wouldn't, or from people who had ordered one and canceled their order. The outpourings were sometimes ill-thought out and sometimes very eloquent and well written.

Cessna's response was also ill-thought out. On January 25, 2008 they deleted the whole website and issued a new statement.

It says:

"First off, we would like to personally thank everyone who has joined the conversation about our new Cessna SkyCatcher. Your comments and opinions surrounding this bold new venture are extremely valuable to us and especially as first flight gets closer."

"As the excitement builds, our site has also evolved. We’ve implemented new methods and editorial protocols to better facilitate communication. At the same time, we’ve added a new site feature that will include all of the very latest SkyCatcher product updates. This section is called e-Briefs."

"Here’s how the site works: we now invite you to submit your comment to our site editors for consideration of on-line posting, much like traditional publishing. This will give us a better opportunity to respond with our own comments on a more regular basis. You can rest assured that views representative of all sides of an issue will be chosen for display on the site by our editorial staff."

Naturally most people have understood this to mean: "to serve you better, we are ending all debate." Other aviation blogs have taken up the cause, but at least Cessna isn't hosting their own criticisms anymore. Obviously Cessna' mistake was to host a debate in the first place. They completely underestimated the results. Someone in Wichita got debriefed over this one.

Incidentally despite their new invitation to submit comments it looks like no negative ones have been posted. Big surprise. Lots of people are still unhappy over the decision to produce the aircraft in China and also that Cessna invited and then cut off debate.

There are two other controversies that the 162 has produced, but these are talked about less often, overshadowed by the Chinese out-sourcing issue.

The first is the cost. Cessna is now offering the 162 for USD$111,500, having sold the first 1000 orders at $109,500. Cessna's statements indicate that the price, if it were built in the USA would have been $182,500. This seems like a far-fetched claim. The current price of the bare-bones C-172R is currently $234,500. Given that, $182,500 doesn't sound out of line for a smaller two-seater. The odd thing is that other companies are building LSAs in the USA and are making money selling them for a lot less. A good example is AMD who sell the Chris Heintz designed Zodiac XL for USD$99,900.00.

Why would it cost Cessna twice as much as a small company to make an airplane in the USA? The size of Cessna and its experience should make aircraft cheaper, not more expensive, one would think. They must be making a lot of money building them for $111,500 in China, or perhaps the profits are eaten up by shipping the made-in-USA engines, avionics, etc to China and then back again?

The last and least-mentioned controversy about the 162 is its full fuel payload. With a gross weight of 1320 and a full fuel load of 26 US gallons (144 lbs) the aircraft has just 346 lbs remaining for occupants and baggage. That means that it won't even carry one standard TC weight man (200 lbs summer) and one standard weight woman (165 lbs summer) without draining an hour's worth of gas out. Don't ask about baggage.

Of course many will argue that with an LSA-imposed gross weight of only 1320 lbs how can the plane have any payload? Here is what the competition offers for full fuel payload:

AMD Zodiac XL - 370 lb and that is with 30 gallons of gas. With the SkyCatcher's 24 gallons it would lift 394 lbs

Flight Design CT - 476 lbs and that is with 34 US gallons on board. With the SkyCatcher's 24 gallons it would lift 536 lbs.

So why is the SkyCatcher so heavy, compared to other designs in its class? I don't have an answer to that question.

For me the most interesting controversy involving the 162 is its sales figures. Cessna claims to have over 1000 firm orders for the aircraft. If so that would mean that once these orders are filled almost half the LSAs in the USA will be Cessna 162s. Given the higher price and the poor load carrying capabilities, not to mention the huge backlash against the Chinese outsourcing, why is it selling so well?

Perhaps the answer there is the same answer as why brand-name Tylenol outsells the identical and much cheaper generics by ten to one: the power of brand names and advertising.

The Cessna 162 is a fascinating story to follow, more controversial than any other aircraft that Cessna has ever built. I am sure that as production starts and C-162s are delivered to customers we will hear a lot more about it!

Further recommended reading