J

jsenft

Well Known Member
The value of your RV-12 just went UP

During a presentation at the National Business Aviation Association's conference in Las Vegas, Cessna CEO Scott Ernest repeatedly said that "no future" exists for the company's Skycatcher LSA program.
 
I saw a post about that on Facebook and thought the same thing. Looks like Cessna is getting out of the LSA market.
 
jsenft said:
The value of your RV-12 just went UP

During a presentation at the National Business Aviation Association's conference in Las Vegas, Cessna CEO Scott Ernest repeatedly said that "no future" exists for the company's Skycatcher LSA program.
Click to expand...

If I had a plane that cost more than twice as much as an RV-12, had less performance, and much less useful load, I too would say it had no future. What amazed me is that there was an earlier statement from some Cessna dude that said building them in China would save them around $60K in cost...so I guess if they built them in Wichita, they might cost $200K +.

I can see why they are selling tens and tens of them, or is that ones and ones of them.
 
C-162

I don't know the internal costs and problems with the Skycatcher, but I can share some real-life experience. My RV-12 is not flying yet, and I had been renting a Skycatcher here locally. I for one, really liked it! It had a stick that was somewhat similar to what I will have in the RV-12, but most importantly, I liked that the castering nosewheel gave me some practice before my RV-12 was done. It's no speed demon, but neither is an RV-12. I was flying the 162 since it was economical to fly and rent. Visibility was outstanding and with the small Continental engine, it had plenty of power for my local flights.

Then one day it is removed from the flight line. There was a mandatory AD from Cessna that required that the leading edges of the wings be removed, additional rib gussets added, then everything riveted back together and repainted. Upon removal of the left wing leading edge, the mechanic at the FBO found a five pound tungsten bucking bar INSIDE the wing, just sliding around at free will. It was obviously inside the wing since they were buttoned up in China. This scared the he** out of me, since I flew it more than anyone else. That bucking bar could have caused some big problems. Once returned to the flightline, I flew it again for 1.5 hours.

The next week I went to fly it and was told the starter had gone out, and a new (warranty) starter was being sent. While installing the new starter a week later, the mechanic did an oil change. The oil was supposedly filled with a large amount of metal shavings. The aircraft sat in limbo for a few months while the FBO fought with Cessna. It never has flown again, and sits in Arlington, TX with a little over 100-hours on the plane.

I liked the Skycatcher for local flying. I was sad to see it go. But on the other hand, I think the fact that it was built in China could have really given the manufacturer a bad reputation.

BTW, as hard as I tried, they wouldn't give me the bucking bar:) That was used as evidence in their fight against Cessna- along with the need for a new engine.

I'm just glad my RV-12 will be complete relatively soon.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like Cessna wants to be "The Citation Company" and leave the spam-cans for sepia toned pictures on the boardroom walls, right next to Clyde Cessna.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna-SkyCatchers-Run-Is-Over220834-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/An-Unusual-Performance-By-Cessnas-CEO-220851-1.html

As many blogs point out, primary trainers are going the way of the Do-Do bird, and with them a fresh supply of GA pilots to employ CFI's, buy gas, use airports and fly to get $100 burgers.

The RV-12 could be a primary trainer, but not in its current incarnation - as discussed in other threads on this board. Beef it up, up the GW and HP somewhat, improve its maintainability - and it could be. Something that could be pounded onto the pavement 8 hours a day for 50 years by a bunch of ham-fisted students.

I don't think Vans wants to go and plow that field. Too bad. Somebody should. 1000 planes a year for the next 25 years still won't replace all those Cherokees and C-150s. Sounds like a good business opportunity for someone.

Maybe Honda should have turned over this rock instead of playing around with that goofy-looking bizjet for years and years. While they were at it, they could have made a better GA engine too.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
+++ to you, Bob! Lots of interesting thoughts there! Love my -12 but she is not a primary trainer - she's a bit delicate. Some beefup items I can think of - boarding steps, the canopy (a bit flexi and too much possibility to be a giant arm shear,) better ground ventilation - engine preflight access, what else? Those are pretty minor things actually and unlike the C-150 the -12 is actually a decent 2place x-country machine. If you learned in it you might still want to rent it after you get your license - unlike the C-150.
 
I agree, very well said Bill.
Bill_H said:
+++ to you, Bob! Lots of interesting thoughts there! Love my -12 but she is not a primary trainer - she's a bit delicate. Some beefup items I can think of - boarding steps, the canopy (a bit flexi and too much possibility to be a giant arm shear,) better ground ventilation - engine preflight access, what else? Those are pretty minor things actually and unlike the C-150 the -12 is actually a decent 2place x-country machine. If you learned in it you might still want to rent it after you get your license - unlike the C-150.
Click to expand...
 
Bill_H said:
+++ to you, Bob! Lots of interesting thoughts there! Love my -12 but she is not a primary trainer - she's a bit delicate. Some beefup items I can think of - boarding steps, the canopy (a bit flexi and too much possibility to be a giant arm shear,) better ground ventilation - engine preflight access, what else? Those are pretty minor things actually and unlike the C-150 the -12 is actually a decent 2place x-country machine. If you learned in it you might still want to rent it after you get your license - unlike the C-150.
Click to expand...

I would add a composite fuselage (no more need for doublers and stiffeners here and there), which might also solve the hefty manufacturing labor cost (remember the work on the fuselage kit?)
OK, just a pipe dream!
 
I understand the 12 wasn't designed to be a trainer, but at least to this point, ours has done quite well. We plan on putting many more on flight lines across the country doing just that. I don't know about the long-term issues, but we will find out. This we do know: it has the personality of a trainer, it demands enough to turn out competent pilots, and it is affordable. Perhaps a little money should be built in for extra maintenance, but all trainers have that already. Since we may be the only ones using the 12 as a trainer, I can keep you informed from at least one small data point. After 200 hours, all I can say is, "So far, so good."

Bob
 
Last edited:
Good points Bob K - facts are always better than speculation. But Jean-Pierre... composites????!!!! ARGH!!!!
 
Bill_H said:
+++ to you, Bob! Lots of interesting thoughts there! Love my -12 but she is not a primary trainer - she's a bit delicate. Some beefup items I can think of - boarding steps, the canopy (a bit flexi and too much possibility to be a giant arm shear,) better ground ventilation - engine preflight access, what else? Those are pretty minor things actually and unlike the C-150 the -12 is actually a decent 2place x-country machine. If you learned in it you might still want to rent it after you get your license - unlike the C-150.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why the Cessna 150 isn't a decent 2place x-country machine?

Jim
 
I can put another hefty 200 pound guy in my -12 and we are both comfortable. Fill the tank and have 3+ hours cruise and an hour reserve. And also fill the baggage with 50 pounds and still be below gross weight. C-150 compares poorly in all those aspects, plus poor ergonomics and poor visibility. Plus I have Skyview and an autopilot, a C150 is likely to have steam gauges and a handheld strapped to the yoke. Walk a non-flyer up to a C-150, open the door, and observe their reaction. Very different reaction to an RV12! I LOVED the 150 when I was training (1974) but could hardly wait to "get out of it" and into a Warrior or 172. Oh - and I get an honest 120kt on 5 GPH, that extra speed is nice for X-C compard to the C150.
 
Last edited:
Maybe

Maybe Van's should consider designing and producing the 'next generation trainer'. One thousand a year? Sounds like that should keep Van's factory busy. Or even 250 or so = 5 aircaft a week out the door.

Think that Id look hard at a new design. Either a Rotax or one of the new smaller American engines. Pretty hard to beat something like the C-152 even if Cessna won't be able to make a successful 'new' trainer. Maybe Van's can???

What flavor do you want? I'd like mine to be low wing nose dragger with a basic all glass panel. How about a variant that is a tail dragger 'stunt' model for those who want to go upside down, etc. And maybe a variant with a glass IFR panel for those who want to advance ratings. I'd like to have 3.5 - 4 hours fuel and 50#s baggage. How about you?
 
There is nothing wrong with a C-150 that another 50 HP, 200# gross increase, and 4" wider wouldn't fix.

Seriously, they were and still are a good trainer. I trained in them in 1965. But, today there are better options and the potential for better still. When I get in one today, I feel rather confined - and it's not just the extra 30# since 1965. After the great visibility from my CT and from the RV-12, it's just hard to want to go back.
 
Bill_H said:
I can put another hefty 200 pound guy in my -12 and we are both comfortable. Fill the tank and have 3+ hours cruise and an hour reserve. And also fill the baggage with 50 pounds and still be below gross weight. C-150 compares poorly in all those aspects, plus poor ergonomics and poor visibility. Plus I have Skyview and an autopilot, a C150 is likely to have steam gauges and a handheld strapped to the yoke. Walk a non-flyer up to a C-150, open the door, and observe their reaction. Very different reaction to an RV12! I LOVED the 150 when I was training (1974) but could hardly wait to "get out of it" and into a Warrior or 172. Oh - and I get an honest 120kt on 5 GPH, that extra speed is nice for X-C compard to the C150.
Click to expand...

I see can certainly see where your coming from Bill. I guess it's all a matter of perspective and what you want out of flying x-country. I just finished reading a short article on page 72 of the AOPA 08/13 Flight Training mag. It was about a gentleman that, at age 15 with his 17 year old brother, flew a Piper Cub from New Jersey to California. Now that was a great cross country trip in a great cross country airplane! :)
Myself I'm 5'8 and 150 lbs. My main passenger is shorter and the same weight. That gives us a fair amount of baggage and we find the 150 quite comfortable . Plus I can carry my Bike Friday folding bike. I've never seen a handheld strapped to the yolk in a 150. Mine has a Bendix King nav/com.
Now all that said................I'm looking forward to getting my RV-12 in the air so I can enjoy a lot of the things you mentioned in your post. I just haven't figured out how to carry the Bike Friday in it. :confused:

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.