What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Cessna "Sky Catcher" Continental 200d

Heck yeah, A little pricy though! I recall cessna saying they wouldn't build it if they couldn't build it for under 100K. 112K seems steep, but it'll make a good 152 replacement. I can't wait for our flight school to replace their ageing fleet.
 
What happened to the Rotax? That might have influenced the price a little. Guess the figure more people know the Continental.
 
Heavy!

That O200 certainly eats into the useful load. You would be hard pushed to get two people and full fuel into this plane, never mind baggage.

Hope the RV-12 does better.

Cheers...Keith
 
Not really that bad. Still way better than a 150. And for those who work on them the O200 is a lot more user friendly. I like the idea behind the rotex, but the execution is less then maintanence friendly.
 
I guess Cessna couldn't keep that price "well south of $100,000.00" for the SkyCatcher like they said at Oskosh in 2006. It's a beautiful looking plane...but a 490 lb. useful load is a bit light. I weigh 250 lbs. and my wife weighs 180 lbs and 24 gallons of fuel @ 144 lbs. adds up to 574 lbs or 84 lbs.over max useful load. If I fly with 10 gallons aboard I should make it. I could go on a serious diet...naww, that's out of the question. It would be easier to divorce my wife of 40 years and marry a younger woman who weighs 96 lbs. or less. Yeh, that's the ticket!
Better hurry if you want a SkyCatcher, the first 1000 sold are at $109,500 and then the base price jumps to $111,500.
I do like the gull wing doors, joystick controls, armrests and rotating-removable seats, panel and cupholders.
I called Cessna this afternoon about the $5000.00 deposit and discovered that it is non-refundable...better be sure before you "pull the trigger"
Delivery on the SkyCatcher is about mid-2009...I might have a completed RV12 quickbuild done by then...who knows?
 
Last edited:
Rotax vs. Continental in weight

I was told by fine folks at Cessna that once you add the accessories to the Rotax engine that the Continental engine was actually lighter.

I did not do the math, just telling you what I was told last week.

Pat Garboden
Ozark, MO
RV9A 942WG reserved paint stage (only have VS and rudder to paint then reassemble)
RV9A 942PT reserved wire stage
 
Garmin G300

The website mentions a Garmin G300 panel. Anybody heard about this yet? I don't see anything on Garmin's website about it.

I'll be at Airventure on Friday! :D

DJ

RV wannabe
 
he he he

:p

Ahh, but check out that nose gear. It's doomed for failure.
(sorry, I couldn't resist. :D )


Jeff
RV7(holding pattern)
 
Highly affordable???

......to quote Cessna:

"Skycatcher ? our sporty, highly affordable, very perso.....". Yeah right.

$111,000 for this!

Pierre
 
Can You Do Aerobatics in It?

OK, but does anyone know if you can do aerobatics in a Sky Catcher?

How's about in an RV-12?

In any other LSA besides a Lightning and the Sonex Waiex?

In any non-kit LSA (factory finished, in case I'd rather fly sooner)?

Thanks.

John

Oh, you guys 'n gals have a great time at Oshkosh, now! Keep the reports coming for the rest of us please.
 
Regardless of the aircraft capability, I don't think you will see aerobatics approved in any S-LSA because of liability issues. For example, the American Legend Cub is perfectly capable of acro, but the operating limitations say "NO!"
If a company approves their aircraft for aerobatics, they are opening themselves up to a lot of liability.
 
Garmin system in Sky Catcher

In talking to one of Cessna project directors back in June '07, he said at that time that Cessna was still trying to decide on making the Garmin exclusive to Cessna or write their contract with Garmin to allow the product to be sold to homebuilders. Apparently for now it's an exclusive product for Cessna. That could change in the future. He also commented on how affordable this product would be compared to similar products on the market now.
 
Wow. This isn't what I was hoping for - it's a bit heavy and spendy.

A 500lb useful load isn't wonderful. Yeah, it's better than the 150, but is that the standard for LSA? Better not get a milkshake if you stop at Brenham. We did a short flight and some patterns in the CT at BZN today, 30 gal (5 + 1 endurance), 2 people, 20 lb of bags and were 70 lb under MGTW. We were making the crosswind turn (600agl) by the end of the runway. Not RV-6/7/8 performance, but not bad for a LSA at 7500' DA. In the Cessna, you'd be over MGTW, and no idea what performance you'd see, never mind being legal.

$110k isn't exactly a bargain either. Yes, that's a well equipped price, but you can get a good used DA20-C1 Katana or C172 for that, either of which is a more capable airplane. Still, it's competitive with the Euro LSA that are all suffering from the exchange rate.

The O-200 is a bummer, since it's not the version with FI and EI that continental is supposedly developing.

Cessna will sell a number of these, but it's not a great leap forward for LSA.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
The O-200 is a bummer, since it's not the version with FI and EI that continental is supposedly developing.


TODR
Click to expand...
Just what IS the O-200D? I don't find it listed on Teledyne Continental's web page. Legend Cub uses the O-200A, which is the old standard.

BTW, the Continental O-200 is CONSIDERABLY heavier than the Rotax with all accessories.
 
The "D" as far as I can tell is the new lightweight version of the O-200. They've been working on it for awhile. I think Cessna realised that they can't sell the LSA with the Rotax to flight schools in the US, but that is where a lot of their sales will go to, so they had to wait for the O-200. I know they flight school I work for wouldn't buy them with the Rotax, but are VERY interested with the Continental.

One thing that bugs at me for primary training is lack of ANY vor system. That SL40 would have to become a SL30 for the flight school to buy them. G300..? Whatever, we don't need glass in this airplane.
 
Upgrade

It would seem that Cessna may, with a few slight changes, offer another model, appeal to another crowd, and sell more of them. What if they did not work so hard to stay LSA. How about an IO-240, up the gross weight and slick it up a bit for a higher a higher cruise. Much more appealing to the private pilot crowd, still certified (not everyone will fly an expiremental you know) and probbaly not a bad performer with pretty good fuel economy. Sould not be much more expensive than the LSA offering.
 
Not impressed

I'm going to look at the Skycatcher this way; reputation and engine are going to carry this bird because performance sure isn't.

Here is my thinking on what will sell an LSA. I'm sure all LSA's are going to meet the max speed limits so you can't use speed to sell the plane. Stall? Same thing! Everyone will be at the mins and max for stall and the one that boasts slowest stall speed can't really use that to sell the plane. So what sells these planes? These four things, creative features, useful load, price, and looks, are what will sell the planes. My thoughts of these four points are thus:

Looks are subjective. We all know that someone will buy something just because it looks better to them, than to buy something else that is proven to be a better performer.

Price is supposed to be what LSA is all about, right? Cessna Skycatcher $115,000??????????)

Creative Features. Wow, with that plane, I can trailer it home and not pay high priced hanger fees. I can use 93 octane in this one, etc, etc, etc.

Usefull load. Every plane I have looked at can go 118mph, and all have six GPH advertised, and all stall at xx speed, and all have two seats, but this one can carry some baggage with full fuel, hmmmmmm!!

Just my humble opinion.

Comments welcome.

McStealth
 
New C-162

:) Saw the earlier version last year and it sure looked sweet - this one looks even better. Did I miss it - stall speed? Also, if the new Contiental 200 installation is really lighter than the complete Rotax installation then someone (many of us) might install it in the 12 (if Contiental will sell one to us).

All that said, those of us who prefer a 'low wing' aircraft probably won't think twice about the new C-162. I really like Van's awesome pilot forward positioning in the 12. And the C-162 wings apparently aren't removable and the aircraft apparantly won't fit a trailer. Suppose that the flying schools will purchase tons of these though. Where's Piper?

And the price - that's about $120,000.00 here in California after the 'State Board of Equalization' finishes taxing the thing. Interesting name - 'State Board of Equalization'. Think that I could find a fairly nice C-182 somewhere for that money if I wanted a C-182. And when it's all said and done, its not an RV!!! To paraphraise the editor of Kit Planes Magazine, it's still just another Cessna. Patiently waiting for the 12. :)


:)
 
Regarding the Rotax vs. Continental 0-200 debate.

I've flown behind the four cylinder continental engines for more than 50 years and have rebuilt several of them. There are some details of of the design that could be improved on, but the engines are easy to work on and service.

The Rotax on the other hand has The ignition system, the induction system, part of the cooling system and the part of the oil system all on the top of the engine where much of it must be dismantled to service individual systems. It rivals a modern automobile engine.
I did a condition inspection on a Rotax powered Kitfox IV, then flew it for two or three hours taking care of some rigging issues. The plane did perform well and it didn't take long to get used to cruising at 4800 RPM.

Modern ignition system, Starter and Alternator could minimize the weight penalty of the 0-200. I like "easy to work on". It makes for lower maintenance bills for those who don't do their own maintenance. Everything comes with a price. We choose which one we want to pay.
 
Looking at this new Cessna bird simply reinforces for me what a great bargain building an RV really is
 
Concerning the weight of the O-200D

Until I see some solid numbers, I will be very skeptical about the Continental weighing less than the Rotax. There are many things that I don't like about the Rotax and will probably never own one, however it is at least 75 or 80 lbs lighter than the O-200A. I can't see any way they could knock this kind of weight off that engine.
 
O-200D Weight

TCM doesn't plan to get the weight down to the same as a Rotax. The goal was a 30 to 35 pound weight reduction from the current O-200A weight. TCM did a LSA project engine last year that they displayed at Oshkosh 2006. It had the top mounted FI and electronic ignition. That engine was too complicated and probably weighed more than an O-200A. The new engine, the O-200D, was probably done for the Cessna LSA and TCM has probably come close to the weight reduction goal.

Jim
 
hngrflyr said:
The Rotax on the other hand has The ignition system, the induction system, part of the cooling system and the part of the oil system all on the top of the engine where much of it must be dismantled to service individual systems.
Click to expand...
I think this depends a lot on the particular installation. We can service the ignition system (helped a friend replace a EI module), oil system and cooling system by pretty much taking off the cowling only. Getting to the alternator is very involved.

As far as weight goes, the Rotax gets heavy if you add a second alternator or vacuum pump, but why do you need those for LSA? Evektor pushes the SD20 alternator for Night VFR approval, but I'm not sure that it's necessary.

Still, the O-200 isn't available with EI yet, a bummer.

TODR
 
IO-200?

I know the O-200's have the option of Fuel Injection but has anyone seen one? I wonder what the fuel burn on something like that is.
 
pierre smith said:
...because it's built in China:mad:

Best,
Click to expand...

Yes, it does say something when Cessna, one of the shining lights in American manufacturing and global aviation influence, has decided it can meet exacting engineering standards and attractive prices in a country other than the USA. Maybe time for a bit more navel gazing. :)

PS. I personally think that Cessna will ultimately regret putting the O-200 in the 162.
 
The prototype C162 had a 912S in the nose but that wasn't favoured much on your side of the Atlantic. Cessna decided to go with the O-200D instead - instantly throwing away 50lbs or so of useful load and 5 LPH (which is a big thing in Europe with the cost of Avgas).

Strange that they went to production with a TCM engine rather than going with the LSA-friendly Lycoming IO-233 - Lycoming and Cessna both being textron companies. The IO-233 has a sort of throttle body injector and electronic ignition.

The O-200 has never been injected. There is an IO-240 in the Diamond Katana and Liberty XL (with FADEC in the Liberty). Apparently the weight of the FADEC/injection system prevented the O-200D going down the same route. So carburettor and mags it is - the way to the future it isn't!
 
IO-233 is even heavier than the O-200D

From what I recall people that know have told me, the Rotax is about 170lb installed, the O-200D is about 200lb and, I believe the 233 will less than 233, but not much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top