What's new
Van's Air Force

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

"Skycatcher"? excuse me...

B

Bob Axsom

Well Known Member
This is kinda off the RV subject but current aviation topical. Where did Cessna come up with that name for their new LSA? Names create image and are extremely important to action product appeal and yet in recent years over and over I see action products introduced with these unappealing names. OK maybe I can understand Ford having imagination brain lock but it is surprising in the aviation world.

Bob Axsom
 
"Sky-scratcher"

Someone already came up with this nickname on a previous post, but I can't help but repeat. I think a full load and hot day you might be lucky to "scratch" the sky in one of these things. But I should talk, I fly a C150.
 
I was in the Cessna tent on Thursday. I noticed a "now serving" counter up on the wall. It read "497". The Cessna rep said that was how many Skycatchers were sold since the prior Monday. Musta been internet orders because I didn't see a line of people at the order desk.
In all fairness, the quality on the Cessna was top of the line. No Lowes Depot screen door harware in sight, as you should expect for $109K.

Confirmed by Van, the wheelpants are RV units.

Steve
 
Could be worse?

Let's see "Skycatcher" could have been:

Dream-catcher
Sky-dreamer

Probably will be a "Cee-One-Sixty-two" or Cessna LSA for most. The C-152 "commuter" nerver caught on. Cessna is known for "Sky-something", Skyhawk, Skylane.... May be it should have been Sky-Lite..... :eek:
 
Kudos Cessna

I sincerely wish the Skycatcher well. Cessna is typically the aviation entry point for PPL's, I got mine in a 172. They have a solid reputation in stable entry-level aircraft. I wish the price was a bit lower though. Not because I'd buy one, but because I think a lot of others would. More people interested in aviation is better for us all. It keeps airports open, lowers taxes, and eases regulatory issues.

I hope they sell a million.
 
I was just thinking the other day about military aircraft names. Like, why would you call an airplane "Raptor" (F22) or "Lightning II" (JSF35)? It then dawned on me that all the cool names (Mustang, Hellcat, Warthog, etc...) have been used.
Or is it just lack of creativity?

Should I start practicing....."Perry traffic, RV9DB extending left downwind for 36. Number 2 behind Skycatcher. Perry traffic"

At least they kept it to three syllables.
 
With nearly 600 orders I was wondering how long it takes for them to produce a single "Skycatcher".

If the production line is fully manned, equipped, and humming along, how many do you guys think they will produce in a day (week or month)?
 
Don't let this happen to you.

What do you fly? I have a Skycatcher! Oh, do you like it? It's ok, I wish I had saved the money and went with a RV12, my friends call it a dogcatcher.
Yeah Van's really did a nice job redoing the "proof of concept" and surprising everybody with the low price.
 
Just as "Commuter" never stuck with the 150/152, I predict that "Skycatcher" will also not stick and you will hear "Cessna Light Sport" or "Cessna 162" instead.
 
The Airplane Itself Will Be Outstanding

The Cessna 150 and 152 are outstanding airplanes for their purpose and regardless of the LSA categorization the flight schools around the country will be buying the the new 162 like crazy. Eventually, they will trickle down to personal owners just like their predecessors. At one time at least the name "Commuter" was applied to a high end model 150. It seemed appropriate and something I thought added a little class to it. "Skycatcher" is a very negative aerodynamic drag synonym. It's like naming a car "Escargot".

Bob Axsom
 
Price???

I know this thread is about the name but hey what happened with that price? $109,000 for the entry level. . . well equipped $119,000+!!!

The last time I heard official word out of Wichita was they were going to be "somewhere south of $100,000"! Now they are on the fast track to the North Pole with these prices! :mad:
 
Yeah, marketing needs to go back to the tea leaves. "Skycatcher" made me immediately think of some sort of bug zapper. Sounds hokey.

For price, $110K is cheap for a certified anything. Cessna also intends the 162 (bet this sobriquet sticks) as a 152 replacement - that's why it has position lights.

What really appealed to me was the Garmin 300 that will be available to all, not just Cessna, in two years. It's oriented the way a Dynon D-100 ought to be, vertical (AI above DG), so better fits a cramped panel in a 6-pack configuration without wedging apart the ASI and Altimeter and forcing small guages.

John Siebold
Boise, ID
 
I was impressed by the C-162. Tidy little airplane. It is all aluminum which means is has to be banged together just like our RV's. The difference is we work for free. The employees of Cessna do not. I don't know what folks budget for their airplanes these days, but my -8A budget is just above 80K.
Mine will have a new engine & CS prop, efis/engine moniter, a 496, a nav/comm and xponder. Nothing over the top. Now the new 0-200 MAY be cheaper than the XO-360 going in my RV, but the avionics package in the 162 has to cost at least as much as what I have planned. Then the folks at Cessna have to certify it and pay liability insurance. I don't know how they will make any money at 109K. Don't mean to insult our leader, but Cessna's little airplane is WAY BETTER looking than the RV-12 (IMHO).
 
I like Sky-Critter

...don't think that would have done well with the target audience though.

"Hey baby, how 'bout a ride in my Sky-Critter?"
 
It's not that bad

I don't think the name is all that bad. Sounds like it may be marketed to folks who have never flown before anyway. "Catch the Sky, folks." It also fits in with Cessna's naming of planes anyway (Skylane, Skyhawk, Skylark, Skymaster, etc.) I hope Cessna can sell a lot of them and that they last like the 150's and 172's. Some examples of those are getting pretty long in the teeth and that's not something someone new to aviation who drives a nice modern car or loves new technology really would want to learn in.

I still fly Cessnas. They're OK. Beats no flying at all.
 
Cessna wanted to use an animal name but decided against it. Seems the only animal not already so-honored was the groundhog.

Bob Kelly
 
I'm just thinking out loud here...but how do you guys figure any flight school will buy the 162 when they could buy 3 or 4 150/152's with a spare motor for each for the same price? And what are rental rates will be on a $120k plane that will be carrying $120k worth of hull insurance because you know students beat up trainers sometimes? Maybe I'm missing something, but untill the 150/152 fleet gets really scarce, I cant imagine a rental rate for the 162 anywhere under $100/hr, probaly more. Shoot, a $50k 172 is 100-120/hr nowdays.
 
Not everyone is as cheap as me....

I worked at a flight school for 4 years. We had 4 cessna 152's and 2 new cessna 172's. The new 172's rented for twice that of the 152's. We had to practically beg people to fly the 152's because the new 172's were always booked. A lot of people learning to fly simply will not drive their $85K+ Mercedes to the flight school to fly a 30+ year old airplane that looks every bit it's age. Period. There are exceptions to that rule. However, today, that school has 4 new 172's and 1 C-152. They said it is just about perfect. I think the Skycritter will do great at a flight school, particularly with the new Garmin glass.
 
To me the name didn't matter - I liked the plane

My daughter has shown more interest in aviation lately so I had her sit in the plane to see how she liked it. She said it felt good to her as far as room. I liked the panel in it which I'd like to copy in my 9a. The plane there wasn't a complete plane and didn't fly. I believe a large part of the sales now are to the Cessna Pilot Centers for a training craft. If the center closest to me gets a version I will probably get her some time in it while I'm finishing mine. I have to admit I didn't care for flying around in 40 year old 172's while getting my license, which is probably why I'm building my own new airplane. I too was disappointed that the price didn't stay beneath $100,000 but the market will probably bear this price point for Cessna. The rep at Cirrus said their version of the LSA will be around $100,000 also. If I had that kind of money and didn't want to build I would go to either of those two companies for an around the patch new plane. But I'm enjoying the build so I can see a RV-12 down the road for me.
 
The cup holders really did it for me. Nice touch.

The other manufacturers were VERY pleased to see Cessna come out with a LSA. Cirrus said they had already committed to one but when the 162 came out they felt much better about their decision. They said that since Cessna is entering the fray, it lends credibility to the LSA breed.

Cirrus' opinion, not mine.

My opinion is that if they don't find a way to bring the prices down LSA is going nowhere.
 
Names ...

It can be hard to imagine how product names will be perceived in the marketplace. A coworker is half owner of a C172. His partner is not familiar with the various amateur-built aircraft models. I conned my coworker in flying us to OSH 2006, so he now knows some of the major product names. Earlier this week he sent me the following description of an event on their flight last weekend:

We were coming back from Kingston on Sunday and established on the ILS 07 when a guy with slightly muffled radio came up on the frequency (guess they were working 127.2 and 135.15 together) and asked for transit through the zone. ATC asked him to confirm his aircraft type and he responded "It's a Kitfox experimental aircraft".

My buddy who was the pilot flying and who was supposed to be concentrating on converting the ILS 07 into a landing on 04 burst out laughing, which is a bit unusual for him as he is pretty serious in the air. Once he and the approach were both stabilised I inquired as to what produced this unexpected response he said "Well that guy just said he was flying a $hitbox!" whereupon it was my turn to dissolve into uncontrollable laughter. We managed, or rather he managed, a respectable landing on 04 notwithstanding the non-pertinent discussion.

Clearly it is time that my buddy went to Oshkosh to make a greater connection with the experimental aircraft world.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top