C162 I certainly can see why others might be interested in buying one,
primarily for the same reason I bought my C172. I certainly never
thought that was the plane I was going to buy. Slow, doesn't climb,
unsexy, un-a-lot-of-things. However, I needed a plane that was all
metal since there are no hangars available here in the mid-Atlantic and
I since I primarily wanted to take long trips, I needed something that I
could quickly gets parts for and any A&P in the country would feel
comfortable working on. That has paid off. I've had sort of weird
things happen. Heck I had my oil sump gasket fall out over Ohio one
day! If this had been on one of our Rotax school planes (yes, I know
Rotax doesn't have oil sump gaskets) I would have been in a world of
hurt trying to get it fixed. As for useful load, I'm 140lbs and my
partner isn't much more. Trust me, a 172 with an O300 in the summer
effectively gives you the useful load of the C162. The bottom ine being,
if I had room for my camping gear, a C162 would be a fine plane for me.
Now that being said, would I ever put one on the line at my flight
school? Not a chance. But you have to remember, a flight school has
very different needs in a plane than a personal owner and at that, each
personal owner has his own unique list of needs. I don't think it is
fair for anyone on this list to condemn Michael because his list of
needs for a personal aircraft may be different from our own.
Helen
On 8/8/2010 8:50 AM, jimmyg51147 wrote:
> Michael:
> I think you need to explain what sort of thinking went into the decision to buy a Skycrapper. I feel it is nothing but a shrunk-ed up 150 that is not only underpowered but has a ridiculous useful load. The design of this plane is at least 70 years behind the new modern Light Sport planes such as the Arion Lightning and Piper's LSA. I don't care where the plane is made Arion is made in Australia and the Piper was from the Czech Republic. There are also high wing designs like the Paradise from Brazil and all are better than Cessna's product. Cessna's executives ignored Light Sport for so long that by the time they came out of their coma the company was late getting into the market and they had to cobble together a piece of crap from an ancient design they had sitting on the shelf. When they found out it didn't have proper spin recovery fixing it put them even farther behind the curve.
>
> It is not that I would not buy one it is that why would anyone buy one. Please enlighten us.
> Jimmy
>
>
>> Maybe I'm off base, but it seems to me that ALL of you are here primarily to bash Cessna and Skycatchers! I just galloped through 6 months of messages, and could not find one positive comment.
>> I joined this list because I actually have a 162 on order; anybody else?
>> Michael
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment