Light Sport Aircraft Entry Cessna 162 Skycatcher versus the Cessna 150/152
I'm really looking forward to this Sport Pilot thing to take off, pun intended. I've always wanted to fly, took lessons numerous times, and in one occasion made it past the solo stage. But lack of money, need to relocate and other issues always thwarted my dream of getting my Private Pilot's License.
But the PPL requires a big commitment in terms of time and money. And some of the skill sets you are required to demonstrate proficiency in during the check-ride I am confident I wouldn't be applying during the first few years after I get the license. That is, I would be content to, for a while, just fly around in a small airplane sightseeing and landing at airports near my home base.
This kind of flying is what the Sport Pilot license was created to promote. Right now, although there is a healthy variety of aircraft that qualify under the Sport Aircraft rule, not all flight schools are offering this type of training on the menu.
But one can still plan and try to get informed, and knowing as much as possible about the aircraft choices available should one embark on the Sport Pilot journey is of paramount importance. Most offerings come from small and relatively unknown companies, many based in Europe where their products have been flying for a while. That is because operating costs for general aviation are much higher in the Old World than here in the US, which creates a market for cheap, unsophisticated aircraft.
The biggest and most respected manufacturer of trainers in the US, Cessna, has decided to enter what it see as a lucrative market and announced the imminent addition of an LSA aircraft to its stable, the Cessna 162 SkyCatcher. The prototype is slated to fly this year.
In number and looks, the aircraft appears to be an update to the venerable Cessna 152, a widely used trainer in which I had the pleasure of getting about forty hours of dual instruction and solo flying.
I'm going to compare the two aircraft based on the specifications published on the Cessna website and a 1976 Cessna 150 POH that I have around the house. The 150 was the predecessor of the 152, and since it is a more basic aircraft, I believe it is closer to the Sport Pilot limits than the Cessna 152.
The biggest difference is the Maximum Gross Weight. The 150 comes in at a 'hefty' 1600lb while the 162 weighs only 1320lb...which not coincidentally is the maximum gross weight allowed for Sport Pilot aircraft. While obviously this is just a regulatory number, and it is likely that the 162 can fly at a higher gross weight, it turns out that the SkyCatcher is truthfully about 300 pounds lighter than the 150 Commuter, if we compare the empty weights: 830 pounds versus 1104.
This is definitely good news, since both aircraft use variations of the same engine, the Teledyne O200 rated at 100BHP. In terms of performance, the 162 beats the 150 in both cruise speed and rate of climb. In terms of range, the 162 again beats the 150. The 162 has 24 gallons of usable fuel while the 150 only has 22.5, with the option of adding long range tanks for a total of 35 gallons. At the same time, the useful load of the 162 is only slightly less than that of the 150, 490lbs vs. 496lbs.
The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher is equipped for day and night VFR flying, and sports a glass cockpit with two displays. No doubt some of the weight savings that allows this airplane to outperform its ancestor came from the instrument panel, and part of that was realized through technological advances, and the rest through sheer simplicity. After all, a Light Sport aircraft does not need to be IFR certified :)
Let's hope that the SkyCatcher is as sturdy as the 152. I've made some pretty bad landings in that little plane, and it stayed in one piece. In fact, there is a version of the 152, called the Aerobat , which has been certified for aerobatic flying.
I'm looking forward to reading the specs on production 162s and I hope they will not change, because right now it seems Cessna has a winner in their stable.
