I had the opportunity as a CFII to train and solo a new pilot in this plane. First of all I totally agree with all the Cons in this video. The most damaging and dangerous handling characteristics of this plane are the real killer for me. Before I give you my reasons just let me say that I was also a commercial piston twin pilot for different entities, restored and upgraded a Piper Apache 235 and a 1972 Cessna 150. Most of my flying was in the mountains and coastal areas from Key West to Nantucket and even Canada. I have thus flown in many different conditions of weather and wind. Also I put over 1,000 hours on my Cessna 150 and flew it everywhere aforementioned and since selling it it is still flying as a trainer with JA Flying Services in IL. Now, regards the Cessna 162, before I flew this plane I read the entire POH plus did a check-ride with the owner of the flight school I was working for. The first odd thing about this plane is the instructions for a power-on stall. Most power-on stalls for this type of aircraft including a Cessna 150 or 172, have you set power around 75%, bring the nose slowly up for a stall while increasing right rudder to maintain directional control in the stall. The aircraft then stalls and as you release the yoke back pressure, apply full power to return to level flight. The 162 advises not to imput full power on stall recovery until it is returned to level flight. Why??? An aeronautical engineer will have to give the exact reason for that but I have an idea why this might be. The power to weight ratio is very great with the power and thus torque factor, that in a stall, with an already existing moment to bank and flip to the left without adequate right rudder control, with full power you could very easily put this plane in a spin. The second item I greatly disliked about this aircraft is that the POH advises against flying it and thus landing it in any crosswind greater than as I best remember, 13 knots. I was told that the plane would be a handful to land. Well one day we went out with a fairly calm sea breeze (was training in coastal FL) but on getting the weather before returning to land the wind had jumped up to a 15 knot crosswind. My student was doing very well at landings and wanted to try it. Halfway down the final he could not maintain directional control and it became my plane. Remember now, I have flown the Cessna 150 in terrible crosswinds and was still able to land well enough. It took all of my skill to bring that plane in safely for a landing. My thoughts are that there just isn’t enough vertical stabilizer and rudder. Just a guess. Once in ground affect it got fairly normal. I can’t imagine a low time pilot with little wind experience not crashing that plane onto the field. I also realize that if one flies the plane strictly within its numbers and is experienced in crosswind landings it might be an enjoyable plane to fly. However, when does the wind always do what weather reports say. Someone would be better off buying a well cared for and equipped Cessna 150. It is a much more stable and forgiving aircraft. Sorry for the long comment but that’s my “rest of the story”. Very good video.
The real killer (potentially literally) is that this aircraft was designed for a category of pilot who is LESS experienced, has LESS training, and LESS skill, so that they can still own and fly an aircraft of their own. The fact that it requires that much more training, skill, and experience to fly safely is downright dangerous when combined with its marketing materials.
I agree with most of your comment however, the power on stall recovery you describe is normal, you never want to add full power while the nose is pointed toward the ground, with any airplane. Also, the POH does not advise or discourage against any specific crosswind speed. The maximum demonstrated crosswind is 12 knot, exactly the same as the C152. The POH states "The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability as well as airplane limitations. Operation in direct crosswinds of 12 knots has been demonstrated (not an operating limitation)." and "Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity is the velocity of the crosswind component for which adequate control of the airplane during takeoff and landing was actually demonstrated during certification tests. The value shown is not considered to be limiting." This is standard Cessna verbiage, not specific to this airplane.
I was training in one. The next day we went to fly it again, it was dripping fuel right onto the pilot seat. I don't like a design where if there's a problem with the fuel it pours right onto the pilot. Imagine if there's a fire.
Bought this plane two months ago (Oct 2023) with zero experience to get my PPL in and absolutely love it. Don’t have much to compare it to but I’ve found it super responsive, insanely difficult to stall, burns very little fuel, climbs way over 1000fpm with just me in it, and lands great when you learn how. Just passed my checkride and have no plans on getting rid of her! Has dual displays and autopilot, couldn’t ask for much more. Plan on throwing an icy breeze in the back in summer. Everyone who’s been in the plane loves it, it’s too bad they aren’t around.
I did my initial flight training in the 162. I heard all the objections and reasons why it was a failure, such as those mentioned in the video. But I really enjoyed flying it, it had great avionics and was nice and responsive on the controls, overall a blast to fly in my experience.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 OK boomer. Are you gonna be in every comment thread on this video with your mysognism and weird cessna hate? Go take your pills and go to bed, granpa
oh yes.. the 162. I flattened the rear tie down eye hook trying to land it .. got to watch that tail while coming in for the flare ! it now has that piece of metal protecting the tail like I see in some of these pictures.
I have approximately 700 hours in a dual screen 162. And probably have around 4000 total hours in GA. And after about 50 hours of flight time in my 162 I fell in love with that little plane if you’re coming out of a 172 or even a 150 sure you can beat this little plane up, but if you put 20 or 30 hours on it it begins to grow on you, the little plane is a pretty good performer. Drawbacks, it’s pretty light and pretty bumpy, has almost 0 airflow in the cabin for these Texas summers, and crosswind component is terrible, taxiing above about 12 to 13 miles an hour cross wind is pretty sketchy.
My first flight was in a C150 in 1981. I got my private pilot certificate in 1982, in a Cessna 172. It took over 30 years before I was able to buy my own airplane, a 1974 Cessna 172M. Other than the radios, it has it's original panel. I absolutely hate those brightly colored video game panels. They look like something out of Star Trek, and I find them very confusing and disorienting. I love old school analog instruments. Not having a conventional yoke is another negative issue. Despite having GPS, my panel still has the original VOR indicator. I have been looking at the light sport category, because I fly almost entirely for recreation, am about to turn 64, and am starting to develop some minor medical issues that I don't believe present any danger as far as flying goes, but I foresee a time when I may not be able to pass a private pilot medical exam.
In Australia LSA has a weight limit increase to 760kg (1675lb)approved. Think still waiting on details to be sorted last I looked. Hopefully GA under that weight will be allowed into LSA.
I did the first half of my PPL in the 162 before the school got rid of it and I was forced to move to the 172. The plane was certainly different from what I expected when I started my training, and difficult to land when I started learning, but overall I loved flying it. It was so responsive to control inputs that having the stick instead of the yoke on top of that made it feel like you were flying a fighter plane.
I flew 162 a lot in its days. It was one of the best GA aircraft I’ve flown. Light, fun, and extremely safe. Comfortable and easy for cross country. Yeah, it is a cheating sending this with a student for cross country. Cessna mismanaged this so royally, it doomed itself. This could have been a Honda civic of a modern GA, had they managed it right.
Agreed, this could’ve been a Honda Civic of the sky. And by every account should’ve been. It’s about as simple as you get without flying a Piper Cub. No frills, about as comfortable as an aluminum row boat inside. A relatively inexpensive glass cockpit. If Cessna had price pointed these at $30,000-$40,000 range, they’d be flying (pun intended) off the shelves. Even as a person over 6ft I’d cram myself in one of these. Maybe Cessna will readdress the need for an inexpensive two seat trainer made in this century. It shouldn’t cost more than a new car for such a basic aircraft.
My memory is that final assembly, when it got to the US wasn't at the factory, but across the field at Yingling the Cessna FBO. Always wondered about that.
I have fallen in love with this plane, although I am a smaller guy, roughly 5'8. I find the G300 very intuitive and useful (synthetic vision, flight path director, airport information with AOPO, etc. The aircraft is easy to fly, although sensitive. Difficult to taxi, easy to tailstrike on landing, and uncomfortable seats. Overall very fun plane to fly and cheap to rent!
I like the seats and after you get accustomed to taxi technique it’s quite easy to do. You’ll only strike the tail if you try to flare deep. Just put the nose on the end of the runway.
Just to be clear weight was a problem in the 152 as well. If your student was more than about 150 lbs you had to go to a 172 for both weight and comfort reasons. That said the 152 was an excellent trainer. Later in my career I instructed on the side and the flight school had primarily a diamond fleet.....152's had become scarce. They also had a Remos LSA. I flew it once to get checked out and never stepped foot in the airplane again. It flew like a toy, looked like a toy, was uncomfortable, and was designed to overcome the one biggest objection students have for starting or continuing flight training. Cost. I had no problem selling a student on training in the DA-40 vs the Remos just on looks alone, not to mention the diamond was a roomy 4 seater with the G1000 panel and outstanding visibility. LSA's were a bad idea that never caught on and are all but gone from flight school fleets.
Cessna should try again with a new clean sheet design for a 2 seat trainer. I am absolutely sure there is still a market for 1. Just learn from the mistakes they made with the 162. I think my club would jump on the option of a new 2 seat cessna trainer. They are now still using 152’s for training but I heard replacement parts are getting harder to come by (or perhaps more pricey).
Lol! I have to chuckle at seeing a video captioned "Cessna's Worst Mistake?" open with a shot of my plane. Dwayne's Aviation, I could've sent you a much better shot of my red/white Skycatcher to use! I have 100+ hours in my C-162 and no complaints here. I take it up just about every other day. Headed to Key West in it this weekend.
@@Dwaynesaviation I have a Sport Pilot Cert so I've never flown in a 150, 172, etc. In my opinion it's not really fair to compare the two. Most of the complaints I read about useful weight & handling characteristics are really about limitations specific to all LSA as opposed to the Skycatcher itself. If you're on Sport Pilot Cert, the Skycatcher is a great plane. If you've got a Private Pilot Cert, then yeah, I don't know why anyone would look at an LSA then.
I watched video of Cessna employees taking what was left of their inventory and cutting it all up, dumping it all into large dumpsters. People witnessing this extraordinary sight remarked several times about perfectly usable part going into the garbage ‼️😩 Parts that should have been kept as New Old Stock. If parts are hard to get this is one reason why ‼️🤔😩
Interesting and well explained story, but you are using too many unrelated and distracting clips to fill the timeline in my opinion. Perhaps a little more C162 footage would have been better.
I totally forgot about the Skycatcher. I was following its development for awhile, but I ultimately stopped hearing about it and completely forgot it ever existed.
The entire GA lifestyle is going down hill faster than a racing downhill skier. Schools are not promoting aviation. Airports are getting so restricted, even people with PPL's can't get on them without either and escort or some kind of outrageous federal picture I.D. Top that off with the ridiculous prices of everything aviation nowadays, might as well say GA is dead.
Agreed 100%. In addition, the whole flight school, CFI, DPE system has had massive flaws for many years resulting in inferior flight training and a bad product. The current rate of GA fatalities is unbelievable.
@@jamesburns2232 They want to make more money for themselves, which they can do if they only have to work with the "Big Boys of aviation," the airlines.
Let's face it, if the proposed MOSAIC changes go through and a Sport Pilot can fly a C150 and possibly a C172, the market for S-LSAs will quickly evaporate. New S-SLAs are commonly around $200k new and used S-LSAs around $100k these days, whereas there are used C-150s for under $50k (and some under half this, and not all are run-out high-time trainers) in Trade-a-Plane every day of the week, plus they are a known quantity to work on. Also, the C-162s formerly at my local flight school sat on the tarmac whenever there was any appreciable wind, and any rental aircraft only earns revenue when the Hobbs meter is rolling. I recall going out with my instructor in a C-150 to practice cross-wind landings in strong gusty Fall winds in SoCal, which was as "sporty" as I ever want to get in a light single. Remember. manufacturer's recommended crosswind limitations are determined by experienced test pilots, not low-time students, so it's always a good idea for flight students to take them with a 55-gallon drum of salt until sufficient competence in that specific aircraft is gained as determined by one's instructor!
The Cessna 150 had the Continental O-200, not the Lycoming, engine. The 152 had the Lycoming O-235. I think part of what shrunk the market for production Light Sport planes was the enactment of Basic Med by the FAA. Withhout a Class III medical pilots can fly anything up to 6000 pounds with less than 6 seats so it opens up a whole new set of possibilities. You can find a perfectly good, albeit older, 172 for the price of Skycatcher. You can fly that 172 a few years, get your Private ticket, and sell it for what you paid for it. Skycatchers are still new enough that all they are going to do is depreciate.
Sport Pilot was doomed to fail the moment they set the max takeoff weight for LSAs at 1320 lbs. Some flight schools in competitive markets took a chance with LSAs, but your average Mom-and-Pop Part 61 flight school at your local airport wasn't going to risk $150,000 on an airplane meant for a market that might not materialize, especially when their trusty workhorse 152 was doing just fine as a primary trainer. Still, it did way better than Recreational Pilot, just not anywhere near as good as predicted. LSAs are actually selling quite well, but most of them are kit built airplanes that can't be used by flight schools for training.
In short, the light sport market never materialized. And my flight school has gone to late model, fuel injected 172s, now that it's a "Cessna training center".
If Cessna is that concern about weight, the engine they should have chosen was the Rotax, the current weight champion. Everyone mentioned the failure of the airplane, it is not, the root cause is the company. Cessna is a far cry from the smaller company that designed the 172 more than 1/2 century ago. As with many American corporations, big companies are not as agile and executives can only see from quarter to quarter. They wanted a short cut to high performance, and bought an airplane design without giving it the many slow incremental improvement to get a winner. Some wise guys think all it takes is a change of names. I remember at Oshkosh years ago I added the weight of a full tank, and there is enough left for an FAA adult and a kid. Their core small products are long in the tooth. I call it the Wichita Insult, a big company taking an obsolete product, just upgrade the panel and price and had lawyer redesign the details , and offer it to the public with a take it or leave it attitude. Their heart is no longer in small planes. Another plane with a big question mark is the PC12 clone, they are just a decade+ late copying it. Seems to be a delay to market now. A big North American company ,need a big threat to them to wake up, most likely from Japanese?
It didn't help that the FAA instituted the rule that sport pilots could not get that rating if they had failed regular medicals. The message to old pilots was clear: switch now or lose your licence completely. The 162 competed with the 150/152, of which there are a great quantity essentially rotting to scrap at airports across the USA. The training outfits in my area all moved on to 172S and later models, and jacked up their prices. This all fits with a pilot population that is slowly declining.
Doors ripping off, wing spar AD's on brand new planes, fuselage cracks, and directly being lied to by Cessna about China till after orders were received. That and the tacked on ventral fin after spin/stability issues really make the new plane a bad investment.
@@rhenry86 Well, me and the airplane market. People were sold a bill of goods and Cessna dropped the ball. I forgot to mention that it was a single place airplane when you fueled it...
@@arthurfoyt6727 are you 350lbs? have you seen the plane overweight? still flies just fine. 1320 rule wasn't Cessnas... and they later wanted it approved for 1500.
The comfort factors discussed at the beginning, noise, lack of heat, poor ventilation alone are matters that can affect a pilot's concentration and degree of fatigue, hence safety. These are easily underestimated. As for the rest, what were they thinking?
Noise? A good headset cures that. I find the ventilation just adequate, on really hot days it can get a little warm. Haven’t tried the heat yet, but I have winter clothes. It’s a blast to fly.
It's not the plane that is the problem. It's that the typical person in the US weighs 50 lbs more on average than the typical person 40 years ago. That means that you need the power of a 172 to carry the weight of a typical student and CFI now. I'd love to buy a 162 for a personal aircraft, but a used and refurbished 150 is just so much more affordable. And building in China was stupid and short sighted.
Ok, it has "manual" flaps but "electric" trim?? I have never met an electric trim that I liked. I always found it difficult to get it perfectly set. I was always wind up chasing the trim up and down because I could never quite find that sweet spot. With manual trim wheels that most single engine Cessna's I've flown have, this was never a problem. I've flown manual and electric flaps. Those are six of one, half dozen of the other but I'll take a manual trim over electric trim any day of the week.
Well I think you could legitimately call the whole LSA fiasco a failure. The killer was the 1320 pound weight restriction. If they had made it 1600 there would have been a lot of eligible existing airplanes including all of the old 150's and even the new designs, including the 162, would have been better.
Personally I think all LSA’s fall short in one area. If your anywhere close to 200lbs you can’t use them. I’ve been trying to get into private aviation for 7 years (since I got my PPL) but I don’t fit in anything smaller than a 172 with a passenger (or instructor) and between that, any clubs in my area wanting 100hrs which I don’t have and the flight schools not renting planes if your not specifically doing training I can’t just go fly for fun unless I buy a plane… which is expensive now and there’s no hangar space so it’s just going to get wrecked outside anyway. The 162 catches my eye and seems like a good deal price wise for what it is but with the LSA weight restrictions and what may be a lack of support due to low production numbers it’s not a realistic plane for me.
Hi... I'm sorry I totally missed that.... I'll credit you right in description... What do you want me to write? The Aero Experience? Or Carmelo Turdo? Meanwhile, if I flip the d in your name, it becomes Turbo, I think I'm begining to love that. I'll credit The Aero Experience right now. Till you reply..
@@Dwaynesaviation Hi and thanks. The Aero Experience is correct. After the flight I came up with the same basic conclusion. Performance was more than adequate, but the squirrelly crosswind approaches and lack of fleet support led to the cancellation of the leaseback to the flight school. BTW we have a large archive, so if you are looking for something for your videos we may be able to help. Thanks.
The 162 didn't live up to expectations, making a lot of people wishing they bring back the 150... Meanwhile, I'm happy to hear you have a large archive... How can I partner with you on future videos?
My school had a 162 for awhile. I flew in it 2-3 times. It was a blast! Very fun to fly. The three biggest issues I noted were that it was really hard to land in a crosswind, which in Kansas is frequent. It was really easy to approach that max weight and sometimes I couldn't top it off depending on passenger weight. Lastly, that Garmin panel was really hard to read in the sunlight. Still overall, I thought it was great plane.
I would regularly fly it overweight and all it did was take a tiny bit more runway, which was always less than 1000ft. These planes were overbuilt and had later plans to be in a new category with 1500lb mtow
Such an annoying voice. Sorry, I'm interested in the subject but the narrative is more than I can stand. Just talk normally without all the excessive emphasis.
It could have been great but it wasn’t ready yet and the light sport rules are difficult to abide by. Now build a two seat 172 designed to train new pilots that is certified and costs less than the current 172. That’s just my opinion. Get the fuel burn down a little more and the purchase price down and may Cessna build them forever!
The base cost on trade a plane is about $80k for aveage builds with sub 1000 hours. If they were 100-150k new, that is some pretty crazy depreciation! Cessna should just make more 152's. They would sell like crazy.
Well if the 172s new are going for 500-600, that would mean new 152s would probably be in the 300-400 range. 150 is a very fair price for a brand new Cessna trainer, today they would likely be 200+. 80k is due to them being orphaned. Lots of plane for the money, especially if they’re loaded.
Bummer it was a bust. The price is a killer however. A light plane design I always liked was ether the DA-8 or the DA-11-2 . Sheet metal and kinda fast. Might make a good primary trainer.
I think that the main failure was testing as a standard category aircraft and certifying as a light sport aircraft. A light sport pilot can fly anything that meets the restrictions of a light sport plane but the additional testing made it heavy for a light sport. Many students don't realize that you can get general pilot license in a light sport. Yes I took my check ride in a light sport.
Why would Cessna completely drop this potentially great aircraft? The basic airframe is quite good. Since they already wrote off their r&d, why not roll it into a new model? Drop the LSA designation, fix the windows, cabin cooling, basically solve the existing problems and release a new aircraft at a fraction of the r&d cost. No? It would have to come in at maximally half the cost of a 172, which is so widely unaffordable.
Cessna ought to give it another shot, and keep CHINA out of the equation. Using a ROTAX would give you some more room on weight. Increase the vertical tail and rudder and employ a lock on the doors to keep them closed in flight.
High price, parts availability and poor passenger cabin heating and cooling. To many compromises to the other airplanes on the market. It’s low useful payload lift capability may have also hurt it. The lower rear tail fin/skeg assembly limiting rotation on landing and takeoff probably did not help. I like the overall look of the plane, the roomy cockpit. But I don’t like the interior colors and upholstery fit out and the big rear skeg which easily can snag the ground. Plus selling a $100k plane for $150k+ also seriously hurt it probably more than anything else.
Yeah this plane could have really been the Honda civic of the sky. Simple, inexpensively built. But one of the things that has made the Honda civic the best selling car is it’s price point. If you’re going to market any airplane as an “every guy” plane, it needs to be able to be affordable for every guy to buy.
Thank-you. As a mere crew-member of fixed wing aircraft… man-oh-mam, I could have assisted Cessna on this project. Cessna is too stubborn to allow anything, even minuscule, outside the box📦. Yet the ate from inside the Chinese box 🥡. 😳
A shame they didn't hold on to it because as Cessnas go it's the absolute cheapest and GA desperately needs newer birds. They should have made it composite though as that has much greater potential for both ease and speed of manufacture and being weight and shape optimal. A double curved CF structure can be rigid as just a very thin shell and that's hard to beat on any parameter. Composite doesn't fatigue either. If you could get to a production method of pretty much stamping out CF in thermoplast matrix it could be a matter of seconds to make a fuselage.
The aircraft is a peace of c#$p the 150 / 152 are far superior by far in real life. I hope Cessna will see and know this truth and not give up on the reliable 150 series !
It just seems one can just buy an old 152 and put modern avionics in it and do a fuel injection retrofit. I saw an old 152 with modern avionics, and a retrofitted fuel injected engine. It was quite impressive for $22.000! For the price of a used automobile, that plane could not be beat. I should have purchased it.
Not to worry. With the coming economic implosion, labour will once again be affordable in America. Problem is, the middle class will be nearly wiped out as a result, including most of the low end general aviation market.
I did a fight review in a C162 and with no previous experience I found it was easy to fly and flew really well. I also fly a lot of ultralights so I'm used to light handling. I also felt the one reason for its failure was its lack of load carrying ability, if it had been fitted with the lighter 100hp Rotax 912S it could have carried more load and had more sprightly performance. On the other hand a lot of GA pilots seem very anti Rotax and light sport so perhaps the cards were against it right from the beginning.
Yeah, the Rotax is a great little engine. I have a friend who had an Aeroprat on floats in FL with the Rotax. It’s a fine performing engine plus with certain kit mods by people that do it, you can increase its hp. I fly with my buddy at times and I am a believer in that engine. If you go to Oshkosh or Sun N Fun just spend some time at the Rotax booth. Talk to them and learn about it. Ask them about the procedure to “burp” it. Pretty interesting. Plus the block is made of a single piece of aluminum alloy.
It is the flight school market that doesnt want the Rotax. US trained mechanics are unfamiliar and parts availability is limited compared to Continental. Fleets need to keep them in the air to make money.
You know what would get people to go out and earn their LSA cert? The damn cost of flight school going down lol I'd love to get an LSA cert, but my wallet said "nah"
One reason for the failure- it was hard to find a FAA DE for the check-ride whose weight combined with the applicant didn’t exceed max cert weight. America is the country of obesity.
At the time i was invovled with LSA and ELSA we had zero interest from youg people that were signing up for flight school and chose 172s. The majority of craft sold were to 50/62 YO men and their drivers license. We waited for the 100 Grand 162, and when anounced China build, price was up. Comprable planes from europe were 70/85 Grand, this was a period when only junk came from china. Maybe should have added a few bucks and went part 23 certified. At that time a super fine low hour restored re engined152 was well under 30,000 $130,000 less than 162 and much easier and less expensive insurance + happy instructors. Thugs in charge at cessna....total fail.
This video shows that airplane manufacturing is not easy, necessitating lots of compromises in order to get a product like this to market. Even after the design is finished you find out later that there are operational problems, there is a lot of pressure to keep going to get a return on your investment. The China manufacturing plant was, in hind sight, obviously a major mistake, but what if the Asian market had materialized after all? You have to take some risk. But even with a good design someone has to buy it. Boeing did a face plant with the 737 Max. As an aside the video comes across as huckster-ish, with a "slick" oily presentation, and gratuitous stock clips of people despairingly looking at graphs, clapping, come on. Could have presented the design, manufacturing and operational problems in half the time.
Clickbait. 5 minutes in, and won't answer the title. This is a long clickbait commercial. Lots of wordy filler words to tick up the minutes watched. All this channels videos are like this. Thumbs down.
As a student pilot, with limited experience in a C172, this aircraft and my 3 hours in it just felt so UN-natural. Combined with a naturally windy airport, I remember even light crosswinds, once again as a student, where nightmarish in this thing compared to the 172. I can't put my finger on it, once again as a guy with low flying hours, but the control and control stick just felt off, the aircraft felt so over-responsive like you had to fight the controls, and being a "Sport" aircraft just felt like a bad idea for low hour pilots like myself.
My son made the comparison switching between the 162 and 172 as going from a motorcycle to a bus. The 162 demands some time to get accustomed to its manners, but it’s very predictable. Side slips with less flaps makes crosswinds up to 10-11 kts routine. Probably wouldn’t go much higher, though, due to how light the plane is.
I agree. I love flying but the cost is outrageous now. The C152 is the Corolla of GA but a used one costs as much as a $80,000. It's just too pricy now to rent one at $150/hour. I guess has just crossed a line cost that make me just say at least I did all this years ago when it was affordable.
@@guitarDad100 Building it just like they have been is part of the problem. Reducing cost of manufacture is essential. Another is hourly cost of liability protection for the FBO and manufacturer. A solution needs to be found to limit liability for all parties. A 152 built today would probably sell for over 200K, perhaps more. A smart re-design to reduce cost and weight might lower the sell price to 150K, competitive with other LSA's. I think Cessna should have taken this approach with the 162, a balanced redesign of the 152 to lower costs and weight, add improvements where needed, retain features and legacy tooling that would keep development costs down going forward. Call it the 155, And build the whole thing here, in one facility, close to vendors and suppliers. This incremental approach, with Cessna Management, labor and overhead, probably would have cost as much to develop as a new design, unfortunately.
Great? Not. The primary purpose was to lower the cost of manufacturing. It is too light except for light and variable winds. It was a disservice to ab initio pilots.
The C162 was never a great aircraft and from concept onwards was never going to be. It was far too heavy to have any ''useful'' load, and this was due to the decision to use the ''in house'' O200 engine rather than the ''buy in'' and far lighter, Rotax 912. Its handling difficulties showed up early in its development and its stall spin characteristics were never properly addressed. Its overall appearance, capabilities and build quality, forced on it in a bid to keep the weight down, were no match for the likes of the Tecnam P2008 or Aerospool Dynamic, albeit that it was considerably cheaper than those aircraft. But if you were a student, the P2008 or Dynamic looked like real aircraft and if you were a 70 year old, looking to keep flying just with your wife, you would choose one of the other LSAs if you could possibly afford to do so.
I had the opportunity as a CFII to train and solo a new pilot in this plane. First of all I totally agree with all the Cons in this video. The most damaging and dangerous handling characteristics of this plane are the real killer for me. Before I give you my reasons just let me say that I was also a commercial piston twin pilot for different entities, restored and upgraded a Piper Apache 235 and a 1972 Cessna 150. Most of my flying was in the mountains and coastal areas from Key West to Nantucket and even Canada. I have thus flown in many different conditions of weather and wind. Also I put over 1,000 hours on my Cessna 150 and flew it everywhere aforementioned and since selling it it is still flying as a trainer with JA Flying Services in IL. Now, regards the Cessna 162, before I flew this plane I read the entire POH plus did a check-ride with the owner of the flight school I was working for. The first odd thing about this plane is the instructions for a power-on stall. Most power-on stalls for this type of aircraft including a Cessna 150 or 172, have you set power around 75%, bring the nose slowly up for a stall while increasing right rudder to maintain directional control in the stall. The aircraft then stalls and as you release the yoke back pressure, apply full power to return to level flight. The 162 advises not to imput full power on stall recovery until it is returned to level flight. Why???
An aeronautical engineer will have to give the exact reason for that but I have an idea why this might be. The power to weight ratio is very great with the power and thus torque factor, that in a stall, with an already existing moment to bank and flip to the left without adequate right rudder control, with full power you could very easily put this plane in a spin. The second item I greatly disliked about this aircraft is that the POH advises against flying it and thus landing it in any crosswind greater than as I best remember, 13 knots. I was told that the plane would be a handful to land. Well one day we went out with a fairly calm sea breeze (was training in coastal FL) but on getting the weather before returning to land the wind had jumped up to a 15 knot crosswind. My student was doing very well at landings and wanted to try it. Halfway down the final he could not maintain directional control and it became my plane. Remember now, I have flown the Cessna 150 in terrible crosswinds and was still able to land well enough. It took all of my skill to bring that plane in safely for a landing. My thoughts are that there just isn’t enough vertical stabilizer and rudder. Just a guess. Once in ground affect it got fairly normal. I can’t imagine a low time pilot with little wind experience not crashing that plane onto the field. I also realize that if one flies the plane strictly within its numbers and is experienced in crosswind landings it might be an enjoyable plane to fly. However, when does the wind always do what weather reports say. Someone would be better off buying a well cared for and equipped Cessna 150. It is a much more stable and forgiving aircraft. Sorry for the long comment but that’s my “rest of the story”. Very good video.
The real killer (potentially literally) is that this aircraft was designed for a category of pilot who is LESS experienced, has LESS training, and LESS skill, so that they can still own and fly an aircraft of their own. The fact that it requires that much more training, skill, and experience to fly safely is downright dangerous when combined with its marketing materials.
Thanks.
I agree with most of your comment however, the power on stall recovery you describe is normal, you never want to add full power while the nose is pointed toward the ground, with any airplane. Also, the POH does not advise or discourage against any specific crosswind speed. The maximum demonstrated crosswind is 12 knot, exactly the same as the C152. The POH states "The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability as well as airplane limitations. Operation in direct crosswinds of 12 knots has been demonstrated (not an operating limitation)." and "Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity is the velocity of the crosswind component for which adequate control of the airplane during takeoff and landing was actually demonstrated during certification tests. The value
shown is not considered to be limiting." This is standard Cessna verbiage, not specific to this airplane.
I was training in one.
The next day we went to fly it again, it was dripping fuel right onto the pilot seat.
I don't like a design where if there's a problem with the fuel it pours right onto the pilot. Imagine if there's a fire.
@@acasualviewer5861 Easy, light up a cigarette and relax.
Bought this plane two months ago (Oct 2023) with zero experience to get my PPL in and absolutely love it. Don’t have much to compare it to but I’ve found it super responsive, insanely difficult to stall, burns very little fuel, climbs way over 1000fpm with just me in it, and lands great when you learn how. Just passed my checkride and have no plans on getting rid of her! Has dual displays and autopilot, couldn’t ask for much more. Plan on throwing an icy breeze in the back in summer. Everyone who’s been in the plane loves it, it’s too bad they aren’t around.
I did my initial flight training in the 162. I heard all the objections and reasons why it was a failure, such as those mentioned in the video. But I really enjoyed flying it, it had great avionics and was nice and responsive on the controls, overall a blast to fly in my experience.
Was a bit "hotter" than a c150 some said. LOL. Wowwww, so hot, im burning, woooooowwwww..!! Girly cowards could not land 6 knots faster? ..
Yes
Yeah. That's why the title says "despite being great" and not "because it sucked"...
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 OK boomer. Are you gonna be in every comment thread on this video with your mysognism and weird cessna hate? Go take your pills and go to bed, granpa
I had a similar experience with the skycatcher. The school sold her right out from under me half way through training and I switched to a 172 though,
I cant even finish my sport pilot now because the plane can't get parts. I haven't flown in a year and hope they update to let us fly in 172.
The 162 failed because it was manufactured in China and Cessna switched to the O-200 from the 912.
This comment for the win!
I don't care where an airplane is manufactured, as long as it's safe and affordable. Thus cessna wasn't either.
China makes iPhone 17 also ….. what’s your point ?
oh yes.. the 162. I flattened the rear tie down eye hook trying to land it .. got to watch that tail while coming in for the flare ! it now has that piece of metal protecting the tail like I see in some of these pictures.
I really miss flying these. Taxiing them was a pain, but in the air I had a lot of fun. I really enjoyed the quick, and responsive controls.
I have approximately 700 hours in a dual screen 162.
And probably have around 4000 total hours in GA. And after about 50 hours of flight time in my 162 I fell in love with that little plane if you’re coming out of a 172 or even a 150 sure you can beat this little plane up, but if you put 20 or 30 hours on it it begins to grow on you, the little plane is a pretty good performer.
Drawbacks, it’s pretty light and pretty bumpy, has almost 0 airflow in the cabin for these Texas summers, and crosswind component is terrible, taxiing above about 12 to 13 miles an hour cross wind is pretty sketchy.
My first flight was in a C150 in 1981. I got my private pilot certificate in 1982, in a Cessna 172. It took over 30 years before I was able to buy my own airplane, a 1974 Cessna 172M. Other than the radios, it has it's original panel. I absolutely hate those brightly colored video game panels. They look like something out of Star Trek, and I find them very confusing and disorienting. I love old school analog instruments. Not having a conventional yoke is another negative issue. Despite having GPS, my panel still has the original VOR indicator. I have been looking at the light sport category, because I fly almost entirely for recreation, am about to turn 64, and am starting to develop some minor medical issues that I don't believe present any danger as far as flying goes, but I foresee a time when I may not be able to pass a private pilot medical exam.
If the FAA would allow the 150 & 152 to fall under LSA, maybe Cessna could revive them. I really like the stoke over a stick.
Yeah the stoke is great.
In Australia LSA has a weight limit increase to 760kg (1675lb)approved. Think still waiting on details to be sorted last I looked. Hopefully GA under that weight will be allowed into LSA.
New 172 costs half a million dollars, almost same assembly labor hours as 152. Cant build it that much cheaper.
I did the first half of my PPL in the 162 before the school got rid of it and I was forced to move to the 172. The plane was certainly different from what I expected when I started my training, and difficult to land when I started learning, but overall I loved flying it. It was so responsive to control inputs that having the stick instead of the yoke on top of that made it feel like you were flying a fighter plane.
Big mistake....should have kept the 150 or 152.
I flew 162 a lot in its days. It was one of the best GA aircraft I’ve flown. Light, fun, and extremely safe. Comfortable and easy for cross country. Yeah, it is a cheating sending this with a student for cross country. Cessna mismanaged this so royally, it doomed itself. This could have been a Honda civic of a modern GA, had they managed it right.
Agreed, this could’ve been a Honda Civic of the sky. And by every account should’ve been. It’s about as simple as you get without flying a Piper Cub. No frills, about as comfortable as an aluminum row boat inside. A relatively inexpensive glass cockpit. If Cessna had price pointed these at $30,000-$40,000 range, they’d be flying (pun intended) off the shelves. Even as a person over 6ft I’d cram myself in one of these. Maybe Cessna will readdress the need for an inexpensive two seat trainer made in this century. It shouldn’t cost more than a new car for such a basic aircraft.
I really wanted to like the 162 but it just looks "off", the 152 is much more aesthetically pleasing
My memory is that final assembly, when it got to the US wasn't at the factory, but across the field at Yingling the Cessna FBO. Always wondered about that.
I have fallen in love with this plane, although I am a smaller guy, roughly 5'8. I find the G300 very intuitive and useful (synthetic vision, flight path director, airport information with AOPO, etc. The aircraft is easy to fly, although sensitive. Difficult to taxi, easy to tailstrike on landing, and uncomfortable seats. Overall very fun plane to fly and cheap to rent!
Yeah that tail is way too long back from the wheel-base. And those seats look like outdoor cafe seats, no thanks
@@GlennDavey seats are very comfy even though they don’t look it. I’m 6’ and 250, I love my 162 and have spent the entire day in it without issue.
I like the seats and after you get accustomed to taxi technique it’s quite easy to do. You’ll only strike the tail if you try to flare deep. Just put the nose on the end of the runway.
Just to be clear weight was a problem in the 152 as well. If your student was more than about 150 lbs you had to go to a 172 for both weight and comfort reasons. That said the 152 was an excellent trainer. Later in my career I instructed on the side and the flight school had primarily a diamond fleet.....152's had become scarce. They also had a Remos LSA. I flew it once to get checked out and never stepped foot in the airplane again. It flew like a toy, looked like a toy, was uncomfortable, and was designed to overcome the one biggest objection students have for starting or continuing flight training. Cost. I had no problem selling a student on training in the DA-40 vs the Remos just on looks alone, not to mention the diamond was a roomy 4 seater with the G1000 panel and outstanding visibility. LSA's were a bad idea that never caught on and are all but gone from flight school fleets.
Cessna should try again with a new clean sheet design for a 2 seat trainer. I am absolutely sure there is still a market for 1. Just learn from the mistakes they made with the 162. I think my club would jump on the option of a new 2 seat cessna trainer. They are now still using 152’s for training but I heard replacement parts are getting harder to come by (or perhaps more pricey).
Aviat Aircraft make their own licensed version of the 152.
Yea eliminate the ccp from the equation
We'll see what they do when MOSAIC is finalized.
Lol! I have to chuckle at seeing a video captioned "Cessna's Worst Mistake?" open with a shot of my plane. Dwayne's Aviation, I could've sent you a much better shot of my red/white Skycatcher to use! I have 100+ hours in my C-162 and no complaints here. I take it up just about every other day. Headed to Key West in it this weekend.
Ooohhhhhh.... Thank you very much....
Just to ask, have you ever flown the 150? With your experience on the 162, how do you it compares?
@@Dwaynesaviation I have a Sport Pilot Cert so I've never flown in a 150, 172, etc. In my opinion it's not really fair to compare the two. Most of the complaints I read about useful weight & handling characteristics are really about limitations specific to all LSA as opposed to the Skycatcher itself. If you're on Sport Pilot Cert, the Skycatcher is a great plane. If you've got a Private Pilot Cert, then yeah, I don't know why anyone would look at an LSA then.
You are totally right about, comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges…
I watched video of Cessna employees taking what was left of their inventory and cutting it all up, dumping it all into large dumpsters. People witnessing this extraordinary sight remarked several times about perfectly usable part going into the garbage ‼️😩 Parts that should have been kept as New Old Stock. If parts are hard to get this is one reason why ‼️🤔😩
That was murder. Cessna decided not to even provide parts for the failure they created. They get their profits from jets instead.
Who would buy a plane without insulation or heat???? I wouldn't even rent it!
It has cabin heat
Outside of the US i think many were sad not to see a modern Rotax fitted. The 0-200 is past it's sell by date.
Interesting and well explained story, but you are using too many unrelated and distracting clips to fill the timeline in my opinion. Perhaps a little more C162 footage would have been better.
I totally forgot about the Skycatcher. I was following its development for awhile, but I ultimately stopped hearing about it and completely forgot it ever existed.
Is it stable or unstable? You say both things in the video. I've heard it has no good spin recovery behaviour, and that, for a trainer is a killer.
Ah, the old Groundcatcher. Problems with spin recovery, IIRC.
The entire GA lifestyle is going down hill faster than a racing downhill skier. Schools are not promoting aviation. Airports are getting so restricted, even people with PPL's can't get on them without either and escort or some kind of outrageous federal picture I.D. Top that off with the ridiculous prices of everything aviation nowadays, might as well say GA is dead.
Some FAA employees have told me that, in the interest of safety, they would like to ground all Experimental and Utility category aircraft. 🤨
Agreed 100%. In addition, the whole flight school, CFI, DPE system has had massive flaws for many years resulting in inferior flight training and a bad product. The current rate of GA fatalities is unbelievable.
@@jamesburns2232 They want to make more money for themselves, which they can do if they only have to work with the "Big Boys of aviation," the airlines.
@@blue81blue81 Might help to check the AOPA "NALL Report."
@@doylefrost4314 mmmm Why do you want me to look at NALL report??? You do realize I was agreeing with you...
Let's face it, if the proposed MOSAIC changes go through and a Sport Pilot can fly a C150 and possibly a C172, the market for S-LSAs will quickly evaporate. New S-SLAs are commonly around $200k new and used S-LSAs around $100k these days, whereas there are used C-150s for under $50k (and some under half this, and not all are run-out high-time trainers) in Trade-a-Plane every day of the week, plus they are a known quantity to work on. Also, the C-162s formerly at my local flight school sat on the tarmac whenever there was any appreciable wind, and any rental aircraft only earns revenue when the Hobbs meter is rolling. I recall going out with my instructor in a C-150 to practice cross-wind landings in strong gusty Fall winds in SoCal, which was as "sporty" as I ever want to get in a light single. Remember. manufacturer's recommended crosswind limitations are determined by experienced test pilots, not low-time students, so it's always a good idea for flight students to take them with a 55-gallon drum of salt until sufficient competence in that specific aircraft is gained as determined by one's instructor!
The Cessna 150 had the Continental O-200, not the Lycoming, engine. The 152 had the Lycoming O-235.
I think part of what shrunk the market for production Light Sport planes was the enactment of Basic Med by the FAA. Withhout a Class III medical pilots can fly anything up to 6000 pounds with less than 6 seats so it opens up a whole new set of possibilities. You can find a perfectly good, albeit older, 172 for the price of Skycatcher. You can fly that 172 a few years, get your Private ticket, and sell it for what you paid for it. Skycatchers are still new enough that all they are going to do is depreciate.
Sport Pilot was doomed to fail the moment they set the max takeoff weight for LSAs at 1320 lbs. Some flight schools in competitive markets took a chance with LSAs, but your average Mom-and-Pop Part 61 flight school at your local airport wasn't going to risk $150,000 on an airplane meant for a market that might not materialize, especially when their trusty workhorse 152 was doing just fine as a primary trainer. Still, it did way better than Recreational Pilot, just not anywhere near as good as predicted. LSAs are actually selling quite well, but most of them are kit built airplanes that can't be used by flight schools for training.
In short, the light sport market never materialized. And my flight school has gone to late model, fuel injected 172s, now that it's a "Cessna training center".
If Cessna is that concern about weight, the engine they should have chosen was the Rotax, the current weight champion. Everyone mentioned the failure of the airplane, it is not, the root cause is the company. Cessna is a far cry from the smaller company that designed the 172 more than 1/2 century ago. As with many American corporations, big companies are not as agile and executives can only see from quarter to quarter. They wanted a short cut to high performance, and bought an airplane design without giving it the many slow incremental improvement to get a winner. Some wise guys think all it takes is a change of names. I remember at Oshkosh years ago I added the weight of a full tank, and there is enough left for an FAA adult and a kid. Their core small products are long in the tooth. I call it the Wichita Insult, a big company taking an obsolete product, just upgrade the panel and price and had lawyer redesign the details , and offer it to the public with a take it or leave it attitude. Their heart is no longer in small planes. Another plane with a big question mark is the PC12 clone, they are just a decade+ late copying it. Seems to be a delay to market now. A big North American company ,need a big threat to them to wake up, most likely from Japanese?
It didn't help that the FAA instituted the rule that sport pilots could not get that rating if they had failed regular medicals. The message to old pilots was clear: switch now or lose your licence completely.
The 162 competed with the 150/152, of which there are a great quantity essentially rotting to scrap at airports across the USA. The training outfits in my area all moved on to 172S and later models, and jacked up their prices. This all fits with a pilot population that is slowly declining.
Doors ripping off, wing spar AD's on brand new planes, fuselage cracks, and directly being lied to by Cessna about China till after orders were received. That and the tacked on ventral fin after spin/stability issues really make the new plane a bad investment.
Says you. Nobody who flies this plane doesn’t enjoy it. Zero bad habits
@@rhenry86 Well, me and the airplane market. People were sold a bill of goods and Cessna dropped the ball. I forgot to mention that it was a single place airplane when you fueled it...
@@arthurfoyt6727 are you 350lbs? have you seen the plane overweight? still flies just fine. 1320 rule wasn't Cessnas... and they later wanted it approved for 1500.
The comfort factors discussed at the beginning, noise, lack of heat, poor ventilation alone are matters that can affect a pilot's concentration and degree of fatigue, hence safety. These are easily underestimated. As for the rest, what were they thinking?
Noise? A good headset cures that. I find the ventilation just adequate, on really hot days it can get a little warm. Haven’t tried the heat yet, but I have winter clothes. It’s a blast to fly.
The problem is that the LSA restrictions, particularly regarding weight, proved impossible for anybody to build a useful, durable aircraft.
It's not the plane that is the problem. It's that the typical person in the US weighs 50 lbs more on average than the typical person 40 years ago. That means that you need the power of a 172 to carry the weight of a typical student and CFI now. I'd love to buy a 162 for a personal aircraft, but a used and refurbished 150 is just so much more affordable. And building in China was stupid and short sighted.
Ok, it has "manual" flaps but "electric" trim?? I have never met an electric trim that I liked. I always found it difficult to get it perfectly set. I was always wind up chasing the trim up and down because I could never quite find that sweet spot. With manual trim wheels that most single engine Cessna's I've flown have, this was never a problem. I've flown manual and electric flaps. Those are six of one, half dozen of the other but I'll take a manual trim over electric trim any day of the week.
i did most of my commercial in a 162. such a fun plane to fly..a bitch in a crosswind
Well I think you could legitimately call the whole LSA fiasco a failure. The killer was the 1320 pound weight restriction. If they had made it 1600 there would have been a lot of eligible existing airplanes including all of the old 150's and even the new designs, including the 162, would have been better.
And where was it built?
FYI, the use of all that stock footage that contributes nothing to the presentation cheapens the video and makes everything said less credible.
Personally I think all LSA’s fall short in one area. If your anywhere close to 200lbs you can’t use them. I’ve been trying to get into private aviation for 7 years (since I got my PPL) but I don’t fit in anything smaller than a 172 with a passenger (or instructor) and between that, any clubs in my area wanting 100hrs which I don’t have and the flight schools not renting planes if your not specifically doing training I can’t just go fly for fun unless I buy a plane… which is expensive now and there’s no hangar space so it’s just going to get wrecked outside anyway. The 162 catches my eye and seems like a good deal price wise for what it is but with the LSA weight restrictions and what may be a lack of support due to low production numbers it’s not a realistic plane for me.
Sounds to me like it turned into the Yugo of airplanes.
You used my photo at 3:50 - credit The Aero Experience.
Hi... I'm sorry I totally missed that.... I'll credit you right in description... What do you want me to write? The Aero Experience? Or Carmelo Turdo?
Meanwhile, if I flip the d in your name, it becomes Turbo, I think I'm begining to love that.
I'll credit The Aero Experience right now. Till you reply..
@@Dwaynesaviation Hi and thanks. The Aero Experience is correct. After the flight I came up with the same basic conclusion. Performance was more than adequate, but the squirrelly crosswind approaches and lack of fleet support led to the cancellation of the leaseback to the flight school. BTW we have a large archive, so if you are looking for something for your videos we may be able to help. Thanks.
The 162 didn't live up to expectations, making a lot of people wishing they bring back the 150... Meanwhile, I'm happy to hear you have a large archive... How can I partner with you on future videos?
My school had a 162 for awhile. I flew in it 2-3 times. It was a blast! Very fun to fly. The three biggest issues I noted were that it was really hard to land in a crosswind, which in Kansas is frequent. It was really easy to approach that max weight and sometimes I couldn't top it off depending on passenger weight. Lastly, that Garmin panel was really hard to read in the sunlight. Still overall, I thought it was great plane.
I’ve found that it’s not bad in a crosswind if you crab to the fence then side slip. You have to stay atop the rudder correction.
I would regularly fly it overweight and all it did was take a tiny bit more runway, which was always less than 1000ft. These planes were overbuilt and had later plans to be in a new category with 1500lb mtow
A LSA from Cessna would be great, but the barely useable weight limits would be a killer.
Dont be a fat idiot, thats all. Be a man. Non disciplined guys will crash as pilots later on.
Can easily exceed them with zero issues
Excellent stuff bro
Such an annoying voice. Sorry, I'm interested in the subject but the narrative is more than I can stand. Just talk normally without all the excessive emphasis.
I like it...
I also liked the narrative.
Piper Cub is the way to go.
Whatever happened to the electric LSA that Cessna was building
I always wondered why I never heard of, nor saw any 16x Cessnas. Too bad about this model's failure in the market place. Thanks for sharing
New sub ! Liked 🙏☀️👍
It could have been great but it wasn’t ready yet and the light sport rules are difficult to abide by.
Now build a two seat 172 designed to train new pilots that is certified and costs less than the current 172.
That’s just my opinion. Get the fuel burn down a little more and the purchase price down and may Cessna build them forever!
The base cost on trade a plane is about $80k for aveage builds with sub 1000 hours. If they were 100-150k new, that is some pretty crazy depreciation! Cessna should just make more 152's. They would sell like crazy.
Well if the 172s new are going for 500-600, that would mean new 152s would probably be in the 300-400 range. 150 is a very fair price for a brand new Cessna trainer, today they would likely be 200+. 80k is due to them being orphaned. Lots of plane for the money, especially if they’re loaded.
Bummer it was a bust. The price is a killer however. A light plane design I always liked was ether the DA-8 or the DA-11-2 . Sheet metal and kinda fast. Might make a good primary trainer.
I think that the main failure was testing as a standard category aircraft and certifying as a light sport aircraft. A light sport pilot can fly anything that meets the restrictions of a light sport plane but the additional testing made it heavy for a light sport. Many students don't realize that you can get general pilot license in a light sport. Yes I took my check ride in a light sport.
Why would Cessna completely drop this potentially great aircraft? The basic airframe is quite good. Since they already wrote off their r&d, why not roll it into a new model?
Drop the LSA designation, fix the windows, cabin cooling, basically solve the existing problems and release a new aircraft at a fraction of the r&d cost. No?
It would have to come in at maximally half the cost of a 172, which is so widely unaffordable.
Too many problems. No heater in the winter and loud, I think I would just go back to a 1946 Aeronca 11AC Chief, lots cheaper.
Literally every skycatcher has cabin heat
Cessna ought to give it another shot, and keep CHINA out of the equation. Using a ROTAX would give you some more room on weight. Increase the vertical tail and rudder and employ a lock on the doors to keep them closed in flight.
They added a lock. Max weight is limited by law only, the plane can handle much more weight. Why increase tail and rudder? Flies great as is
High price, parts availability and poor passenger cabin heating and cooling. To many compromises to the other airplanes on the market. It’s low useful payload lift capability may have also hurt it. The lower rear tail fin/skeg assembly limiting rotation on landing and takeoff probably did not help.
I like the overall look of the plane, the roomy cockpit. But I don’t like the interior colors and upholstery fit out and the big rear skeg which easily can snag the ground.
Plus selling a $100k plane for $150k+ also seriously hurt it probably more than anything else.
Yeah this plane could have really been the Honda civic of the sky. Simple, inexpensively built. But one of the things that has made the Honda civic the best selling car is it’s price point. If you’re going to market any airplane as an “every guy” plane, it needs to be able to be affordable for every guy to buy.
New sub! Liked 👍🤣😌😌🤣👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thank-you.
As a mere crew-member of fixed wing aircraft… man-oh-mam, I could have assisted Cessna on this project.
Cessna is too stubborn to allow anything, even minuscule, outside the box📦. Yet the ate from inside the Chinese box 🥡. 😳
And the ccp eat them. 🇨🇳
They have the most popular small aircraft in the world, though. Who dares wins.
A shame they didn't hold on to it because as Cessnas go it's the absolute cheapest and GA desperately needs newer birds.
They should have made it composite though as that has much greater potential for both ease and speed of manufacture and being weight and shape optimal. A double curved CF structure can be rigid as just a very thin shell and that's hard to beat on any parameter. Composite doesn't fatigue either. If you could get to a production method of pretty much stamping out CF in thermoplast matrix it could be a matter of seconds to make a fuselage.
Of all the high wing two place LSA designs out there. I cannot believe this is something that Cessna went with.
The aircraft is a peace of c#$p the 150 / 152 are far superior by far in real life. I hope Cessna will see and know this truth and not give up on the reliable 150 series !
What’s this opinion based on? The 162 has better performance, more useful load, and more cabin room than a 150.
It just seems one can just buy an old 152 and put modern avionics in it and do a fuel injection retrofit. I saw an old 152 with modern avionics, and a retrofitted fuel injected engine. It was quite impressive for $22.000! For the price of a used automobile, that plane could not be beat. I should have purchased it.
4:35 udilitarian?
love this plane
Not to worry. With the coming economic implosion, labour will once again be affordable in America. Problem is, the middle class will be nearly wiped out as a result, including most of the low end general aviation market.
I did a fight review in a C162 and with no previous experience I found it was easy to fly and flew really well. I also fly a lot of ultralights so I'm used to light handling. I also felt the one reason for its failure was its lack of load carrying ability, if it had been fitted with the lighter 100hp Rotax 912S it could have carried more load and had more sprightly performance. On the other hand a lot of GA pilots seem very anti Rotax and light sport so perhaps the cards were against it right from the beginning.
Yeah, the Rotax is a great little engine. I have a friend who had an Aeroprat on floats in FL with the Rotax. It’s a fine performing engine plus with certain kit mods by people that do it, you can increase its hp. I fly with my buddy at times and I am a believer in that engine. If you go to Oshkosh or Sun N Fun just spend some time at the Rotax booth. Talk to them and learn about it. Ask them about the procedure to “burp” it. Pretty interesting. Plus the block is made of a single piece of aluminum alloy.
It is the flight school market that doesnt want the Rotax. US trained mechanics are unfamiliar and parts availability is limited compared to Continental. Fleets need to keep them in the air to make money.
Had a chance to fly one, very primitive interior, built quality is so so, flys well tho, but being chinese build didnt help it out one bit..
You know what would get people to go out and earn their LSA cert? The damn cost of flight school going down lol I'd love to get an LSA cert, but my wallet said "nah"
One reason for the failure- it was hard to find a FAA DE for the check-ride whose weight combined with the applicant didn’t exceed max cert weight. America is the country of obesity.
The narrator in this sounds like a caricature of himself.
That's the best comment I've ever read, I think. This guy needs to be narrating low-budget horror TV or something. God it's awful.
A major error was the engine choice....absurd that it didn't use the modern rotax.
I could better imagine spending my $140,000 on a good used 172 that is more stable and useful for more than circling the field on Sundays
I think it’s perfect
Not to mention it's Fugly, and that's a whole lot worse than ugly!!!!
When you tell someone it's going to cost a dollar and then bill them for two it tends to hurt business.
Skip to 13:22 to hear why this airplane wasn't successful.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
At the time i was invovled with LSA and ELSA we had zero interest from youg people that were signing up for flight school and chose 172s. The majority of craft sold were to 50/62 YO men and their drivers license. We waited for the 100 Grand 162, and when anounced China build, price was up. Comprable planes from europe were 70/85 Grand, this was a period when only junk came from china. Maybe should have added a few bucks and went part 23 certified. At that time a super fine low hour restored re engined152 was well under 30,000 $130,000 less than 162 and much easier and less expensive insurance + happy instructors. Thugs in charge at cessna....total fail.
Time To Put It Right Back In To Production In USA
This video shows that airplane manufacturing is not easy, necessitating lots of compromises in order to get a product like this to market. Even after the design is finished you find out later that there are operational problems, there is a lot of pressure to keep going to get a return on your investment. The China manufacturing plant was, in hind sight, obviously a major mistake, but what if the Asian market had materialized after all? You have to take some risk. But even with a good design someone has to buy it. Boeing did a face plant with the 737 Max. As an aside the video comes across as huckster-ish, with a "slick" oily presentation, and gratuitous stock clips of people despairingly looking at graphs, clapping, come on. Could have presented the design, manufacturing and operational problems in half the time.
cessna skyfailer is a great mistake.😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
I'm going to get one of these at somepoint, it's literally a mini 172 lol.
Clickbait. 5 minutes in, and won't answer the title. This is a long clickbait commercial. Lots of wordy filler words to tick up the minutes watched. All this channels videos are like this. Thumbs down.
Ikr he needs to get to the freaking point
If the 162 had a Rotax 912is I would buy
As a student pilot, with limited experience in a C172, this aircraft and my 3 hours in it just felt so UN-natural. Combined with a naturally windy airport, I remember even light crosswinds, once again as a student, where nightmarish in this thing compared to the 172.
I can't put my finger on it, once again as a guy with low flying hours, but the control and control stick just felt off, the aircraft felt so over-responsive like you had to fight the controls, and being a "Sport" aircraft just felt like a bad idea for low hour pilots like myself.
My son made the comparison switching between the 162 and 172 as going from a motorcycle to a bus. The 162 demands some time to get accustomed to its manners, but it’s very predictable. Side slips with less flaps makes crosswinds up to 10-11 kts routine. Probably wouldn’t go much higher, though, due to how light the plane is.
This ^^ best to have an airport with multiple runways to choose from to avoid strong crosswinds. It’s just so light, which is the real only downside
Just build a new 152 just like they still build the 172.Problem solved.
I agree. I love flying but the cost is outrageous now. The C152 is the Corolla of GA but a used one costs as much as a $80,000. It's just too pricy now to rent one at $150/hour. I guess has just crossed a line cost that make me just say at least I did all this years ago when it was affordable.
@@guitarDad100 Building it just like they have been is part of the problem. Reducing cost of manufacture is essential. Another is hourly cost of liability protection for the FBO and manufacturer. A solution needs to be found to limit liability for all parties. A 152 built today would probably sell for over 200K, perhaps more. A smart re-design to reduce cost and weight might lower the sell price to 150K, competitive with other LSA's. I think Cessna should have taken this approach with the 162, a balanced redesign of the 152 to lower costs and weight, add improvements where needed, retain features and legacy tooling that would keep development costs down going forward. Call it the 155, And build the whole thing here, in one facility, close to vendors and suppliers. This incremental approach, with Cessna Management, labor and overhead, probably would have cost as much to develop as a new design, unfortunately.
Why didn't Cessna bring manufacturing back to the US, since the China option failed?
Was a bit "hotter" than a mellow C150. LOL>. Wooow. too hot for most C150 drivers.. LOL..
The Skycatcher lost my interest the moment that Cessna announced that the aircraft would be made in China.
NO THANKS ✈️.
CESSNA WAS SMOKING 🚬 BAD WEED
TO SELL IT AT $100000. 😆 🤣
I LOVE ❤️ MY CESSNA 150J
WITH ALL THE UPGRADES
Cessna needed to make a cheaper SR-22! That’s what people want. The Cessna has too many parts to be cost effective.
@MGD 60D I think they bought them just to shut them down.
Great?
Not.
The primary purpose was to lower the cost of manufacturing.
It is too light except for light and variable winds.
It was a disservice to ab initio pilots.
Should have built it in the US.
Interesting, but with a slow and laborious commentary, and with the intonation of someone who doesn't actually understand what he is saying.
0:45 American...Cessna decided to build it in China. :\
The stock video use to depict office personnel and individual "celebrating" this aircraft are just horrible. Funny, but horrible.
The C162 was never a great aircraft and from concept onwards was never going to be. It was far too heavy to have any ''useful'' load, and this was due to the decision to use the ''in house'' O200 engine rather than the ''buy in'' and far lighter, Rotax 912. Its handling difficulties showed up early in its development and its stall spin characteristics were never properly addressed. Its overall appearance, capabilities and build quality, forced on it in a bid to keep the weight down, were no match for the likes of the Tecnam P2008 or Aerospool Dynamic, albeit that it was considerably cheaper than those aircraft. But if you were a student, the P2008 or Dynamic looked like real aircraft and if you were a 70 year old, looking to keep flying just with your wife, you would choose one of the other LSAs if you could possibly afford to do so.
Just keep building 152's. Time tested, update the avionics.