Cessna Skycatcher has "no Future" from Cessna CEO

Well, it's the end of a long line of sport flying airplanes at Cessna. Probably the last two seat airplane to be produced by the big three of the 1950s. Killed by a wrong engine choice, which added 100 pounds to the empty weight and 3 GPH extra fuel flow. And some development issues that showed that Cessna didn't read "Design for Flying" and made a vertical tail that lacked area below the stabilizer. Plus the China production, which had some people all upset.

A good little airplane, could have been a contender. Cessna is reportedly shopping the design around. But I'm sure that the current management isn't going to let it go cheap. I just hope that the 90 or so planes they have in Wichita don't get chopped up for a tax write off.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...essna-CEO.aspx

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...r220834-1.html

The biggest problem I see with factory LSA's is the cost. When we can buy really nice vintage factory planes for 20k it's just too hard to pay 120k. If they could have pushed the cost down to even half of what they're trying to sell the new airplanes for they'd probably be selling them. However, this just isn't going to happen.

And the Groundcatcher was never intended to be an inexpensive plane. The G1000 and all. I suspect they were hoping for a bunch of Cessna Pilot Centers and other flight schools to run out and snatch them up as trainers. THose days are pretty much gone (and Cessna/Textron managment is hosed up to even think that).

In addition to saying there's no future for Skycatcher, CEO Scott Ernest also said, "that program didn't have a business model that worked." Well, I don't know about that but what I do know is that Skycatcher went from $110K to $150K within just one year after the first production customer delivery. And for what? A 2 place airplane with no interior, 100mph cruise and a highly questionable useful load.

So it appears that Cessna will shortly follow in the footsteps of Cirrus and Piper(and others of far less note) in getting out of the SLSA category. When introduced 7 years ago at Oshkosh, Cessna Skycatcher gave the naisent LSA category instant and immense credibility and a reason to believe that LSA would prosper and grow and attract overwhelming investment. Despite the continuing optimism about the current and future viability and vitality of SLSA from LAMA Chairman of the Board/President and chief LSA mouthpiece Dan Johnson, deliveries remain very small(like certified piston GA) and the anticipated growth of the sector has just not materialized.

The latest yearly figures showing SLSA sales stats are from year-ending 2012, a total of 259 new registrations(LAMA uses info compiled from the FAA registry database, not actual sales figures from their members-must be hard to get?). To date Cessna has sold a total of only 296 Skycatchers since first delivery. That's a far cry from the over 1500 orders they first gushingly showed on that red digital tote board in their tent at Oshkosh 2008. We found out a little later that this was misleading as the greatest majority of these were from Cessna dealers and Cessna Pilot Centres who were obligated to order/buy them. Seems they opted out pretty quickly when they discovered customers didn't want them and flight schools didn't want them because of the high cost of acquisition(and the low turn out of SP aspirants). The latter also found out pretty quickly that using Legacy LSAs(Cubs, Aeroncas, etc.)meant they could keep fixed and operating costs at levels that would result in profits for SP training.

Perhaps ICON with its over 1000 orders/deposits will give LSA the much needed shot in the arm when they begin deliveries next year. Perhaps solid, well respected manufacturers like Flight Design, Cubcrafters, Pipistrel, American Legend, Aerotrek and Searey will deliver more airctaft as the economy improves. But can they hang in? Four of the aforementioned companies are selling new aircraft with price tags close to and way above $200,000. There is currently an ad on Barnstormers for a 2011 used(90 TTSN) Cubcrafters Top Cub Amphibian SLSA, asking price is $312,000(that's dollars not pesos). That's @#&%*&* insane!

So, what's the future hold for SLSA? If Cessna couldn't make it work with their deep pockets and unlimited corporate resources, who can? With cessna about to be gone from the LSA landscape, what are the implications for those that remain and for the category itself? Prices are not coming down to reasonable or heretofor intended acquistion levels. Nevertheless, that very well attended LSA/Sportplane expo in Germany every April continues to churn out dozens of new models and companies every year, many of which are destined for North American markets. My trusty crystal ball tells me that ICON, within the next 5 years, will turn their collective attention towards designing and building Part 23 Certified airplanes(like Flight Design is doing with their in development C4) because the associated present astronomical costs for the certification process is about to become drastically reduced.

Maybe the CEO knows something that the rest of us don't. I've always said that if they get rid of the Class 3 medical, that it will kill LSA. Maybe that is close to happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

And the Groundcatcher was never intended to be an inexpensive plane. The G1000 and all.

---

The 162 has a Garmin uncertified G300 (basically the same as a G3X) not a G1000. I have a G3X in my RV-10 and have been training behind a G1000 for my IR. Huge difference in price and capability. If the 162 had a G1000, the price would have been north of $200K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Finney

Maybe the CEO knows something that the rest of us don't. I've always said that if they get rid of the Class 3 medical, that it will kill LSA. Maybe that is close to happening.

---

Or maybe they will just raise the light sport gross. If Big names are out of the LSA game, why would they care if a Cessna 150/152 or a Piper Colt becomes eligible.

This was just excellent.... I hope that the current EAA president reads this and knows he was greatly appreciated at the helm of Cessna....

From AVweb

Unusual Performance By Cessna's CEO

I think one of the defense mechanisms we in the aviation industry have developed is the ability to not take ourselves too seriously. By many normal standards, it can be a preposterous business where the leadership roles are populated with wide-eyed dreamers who almost invariably make their money in more mundane enterprises and promptly squander it on their passion. We tolerate it, sometimes even celebrate it, because it occasionally works spectacularly for the benefit of the whole industry. Where would the homebuilt industry be without Vans? What if the founders of Garmin had stuck to the far more profitable marine and consumer sectors? What if Bill Lear had settled for a piston twin? And what would we do without Cessna? It's a question that entered the collective consciousness when Cessna's current CEO Scott Ernest stared down some aviation media reps and pretty much hung some of his executives out to dry in an uncomfortable exchange at NBAA in Las Vegas on Monday. We're the first to admit that aviation journalism is not generally a hardball affair. We're mostly here to relay the positive developments that companies announce and keep pilots and others in the industry abreast of the latest and greatest. We do have the ability and the responsibility to ask some tough questions at times and it's squarely in the CEO playbook to deal with those issues in a manner that best reflects their company. In my opinion, Ernes gave petulant and peevish answers to legitimate questions about the future of the Skycatcher and Skylane diesel projects on Monday and these were as surprising as they were unsettling. It's no secret that the Skycatcher program has been in trouble since the first one got off the ground in 2006 but Ernest's snippy and dismissive "no future" comment was, in my view, both uncalled for and ill advised for a company that still has about 100 of the little airplanes left to sell. Those who have the responsibility to turn those airplanes into money must have been even more surprised than us. Ditto his dismissal of questions surrounding the off-airport landing of the diesel last month. There are a lot of people watching and hoping that a name like Cessna can create a new heavy fuel aircraft that works in the real world, just like its entry into the LSA market helped legitimize that part of the industry. Part of that means addressing the bumps and bruises of aircraft development with honesty and, frankly, a little dignity. And that was part of the problem with his performance Monday. CEOs come to NBAA, in part, to put their companies in the best light. Ernest, in my estimation, did just the opposite. He clearly likes the fast and flashy stuff his company produces but his attitude toward some pretty benign questions about the Skycatcher and Skylane suggested contempt and derision for at least some parts of his company and his staff. It was an embarrassing public episode that should get the attention of the Textron board, in my view. But because it was Cessna, that attitude reflected not just on the company but on the industry as a whole and that was the other part of the problem. Like it or not, when someone takes over the biggest little airplane company in the world, his responsibilities extend far beyond his own shop floor. Cessna is an industry leader and should behave like one. Ernest knows that because he told me so. Two years ago when he was newly installed in his job I interviewed him at NBAA and commented that it was important for us to get to know him because "as Cessna goes, so does GA." He agreed enthusiastically and said: "That's absolutely right; as Cessna goes, so does GA." Which brings us to the fact that Ernest is not a pilot and based on his post-press conference exchange with one of the reporters who challenged him during the news conference, appears to have little interest in becoming one (even though he has said in the past that he intended to learn to fly). Now, it's quite possible that Textron chose Ernest to replace Jack Pelton specifically because he is not a pilot and the board wanted someone whose judgment wouldn't be clouded by passions or perceived alliances that might not be productive to the Textron bottom line. Fair enough, but the pilots before Ernest who led Cessna to its current position did so in part by using that passion and those alliances to their company's advantage. When they made the inevitable tough decisions necessary in any business, they did so with the respectful understanding that their actions would be felt throughout the industry. As pilots, they were part of the world that could be shaken by an announcement like the death of the Skycatcher. Even so, it's probably not absolutely necessary for the leader of Cessna to be a pilot. He or she should, however, at least be polite.

Well, duh ...... for a 'toy' they're too expensive for the average pilot. Even the new Aeronca LS is around $90,000 and probably not selling that well. If we want to increase the number of pilots it will be necessary to lower the costs for the average pilot. That means raise the GW above 1320# and go to some kind of owner maintenance. No reason Cessna 150s, Cherokees, etc. should not be light sport and while they're at it....drop the third class medical for light sport. Of couse that takes common sense.

Remember this entire LSA soap opera played out during a horrible economy, where millions of people lost jobs, and tens of millions of people took pay cuts, and hundreds of millions of people cut down or postponed their disposable income.

If the LSA "Revolution" had happened in better economic times, it may have been different.

That being said, small sport airplanes that cost as much as a house, but are not "working" bush planes or cargo planes or exec transports... don't make that much financial sense even in a good economy. The few really outstanding SLSA designs have survived (Pipistrel, Flight Design, Cub Crafters), and dozens of rather crude or cosmetically challenged airplanes did not.

The LSA world had found out what the Part 23 world had already known for years: there are many viable used airplane options for a whole lot less cost than a factory new airplane, and that $75,000 difference in cost buys a whole lot of gas. I don't have any ivy league post-doctoral marketing or advertising degrees on my wall, but I could have told them that :)

As EAA members, we should be somewhat overjoyed at all this, because it has kept homebuilding and classic restoration strong in a bad economy. I for one was glad to see the Champs and Chiefs and Ercoupes and T-crafts become relevant again.

Now I have an important question that I hope someone has a positive answer to: What finally happened with the EAA proposal to amend the "driver's license medical" category, to include the heavier airplanes up to 180HP??? I have not seen an official yes or no on this.

The answer with LSA and the recreational license ...yada yada was it was supposed to be a saviour because it was cheaper. The sad answer is in most cases, it is NOT. Flight instruction wise, the problem is the time consuming (and hence expensive) part you have to learn even as a Sport Pilot. Cross country is a breeze once you can operate in the pattern. As shown, the aircraft (at least in the litigious US) aren't substantially cheaper, especially compared to the used conventional market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

When introduced 7 years ago at Oshkosh, Cessna Skycatcher gave the naisent LSA category instant and immense credibility and a reason to believe that LSA would prosper and grow and attract overwhelming investment.

---

Yeah, the numbers of ignorant owners and pilots were pretty sad. They ignored all the good LSA airplanes and hoped for this abortion to make good, and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

If Cessna couldn't make it work with their deep pockets and unlimited corporate resources, who can?

---

Remember that corporate resources are composed of people. Jack Pelton marshalled corporate resources to support the 162 against the collective will of the said resources, and was kicked out. If you are a mid-level manager at Cessna, would you rather work on a program with market in 33 million (!) in 3 years or sales, or a program in billions? Just think about it. Your career sense answers the question. Once the top turned hostile to Skycatcher, the program turned into a ghetto for losers and shriveled quickly. So much for "corporate resources".

In contrast, a smaller company whose fortunes are wedded to small airplanes has a much better chance of a go for it, from the human resources standpoint. They may not have the capital resources, unfortunately.

I think a great portion of the “potential success” is the attitude of the users…

In my area we have 2 flight schools. One is a long established full service FBO and they have a Skycatcher as well as 7AC Champ for training and a C-172 G1000.

The Champ is Rarely flown ($85/hr), the C-162 ($115/hr) is booked for 3 or 4 flights per week and the C-172 ($150/hr) is lucky to fly once a month!

NEXT DOOR is another FBO that does sales, service & flight training only. They have 2 LSA aircraft available ($115 & $109/hr). But both aircraft fly 5 to 7 times a week!

What is the difference? - ATTITUDE!

The LSA Dealer has been in this from the beginning and is positive and enthusiastic.

The other FBO is like walking into a funeral home.

I was once referred to there as ’...the guy who flies the Skycatcher’
(they want 12 hours in type for the Champ and while I have hundreds in other tailwheel, it isn’t worth $1600+ for me)

If the 3^rd Class Medical is eliminated, it won’t be the end of the LSA but it sure will be another rock thrown at it!

Given the choice of well performing LSA against some worn out ramp wreck...

Except, it's not a choice between a "well-performing LSA and some worn out ramp wreck". For the price of a newer LSA you can purchase a four-seater in very good condition. And let's be honest, "well-performing" when describing most LSAs is quite the stretch.

Undoubtedly it's possible to run a school with LSAs. There's a Remos GX for rent at KSAF that's booked solid weeks ahead. They train both Private and Sport in it. That Remos was $135k new and the owner says it easily covers the terms of its financing. If you can make that Skycatcher run 200 hours a month, it will break even even at the new inflated price. It's just that most of Skycatcher buyers already had plans for the $109k price and sudden re-price shook them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons

Except, it's not a choice between a "well-performing LSA and some worn out ramp wreck". For the price of a newer LSA you can purchase a four-seater in very good condition. And let's be honest, "well-performing" when describing most LSAs is quite the stretch.

---

A Sport Pilot or Recreational Pilot cannot fly any 4 seat aircraft... A 3rd Class Medical is the price of admission to that seat.

High power cruise is 130 mph (115K) in the LSA and there are FEW 4 seat aircraft that are capible of that, not to mention the 6 gph of Mogas ;)

It is a big sky out there, there is room for all.

Reading some of the replies above, a few thoughts occur to me.

One reason that Cessna got involved with the Skycatcher and Piper formerly with the Cadet was to get some sort of brand identification. The thought was that a student pilot would want to stick with the brand he or she first learned in.

If there is no step-up to a four seat version of an LSA, then there will be no brand affiliation when it comes time to move up. The Skyhawk and Cherokee lines are not in competition with the LSA manufacturers for that market.

A student CAN get an LSA, a recreational, or a private pilot license in an LSA aircraft. Therefore, it makes sense for a flight school to invest in an LSA for its initial entry students. IF, that is, they believe they will have enough initial entry students to make the payments on the airplane without having to use the same airframe for both initial entry and instrument training.

It is just my personal opinion, but a full glass cockpit for initial entry is a bad idea. We want them to keep their eyes outside the airplane as much as possible. But then again, I may be out of touch on that...I think that all pilots should get some glider (sail plane) time, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Hardin

A Sport Pilot or Recreational Pilot cannot fly any 4 seat aircraft...

---

A Recreational Pilot can fly a fixed gear, 4 seat 180hp airplane which covers the typical Cherokee/C-172 class of airplane. They are limited to carrying only one passenger. And yes, they do need a medical. But here again, if some of the proponents of getting rid of the 3rd class for recreational purposes would be willing to compromise........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

It is just my personal opinion, but a full glass cockpit for initial entry is a bad idea. We want them to keep their eyes outside the airplane as much as possible.

---

I think the flat panel displays are great and absolutely essential in going forward, as are good instructors. Ever since I have been instructing (35 yrs) students want to look at the panel too much. So you don't let them.

It still gets back to my original post they're too expensive for the average 'sport type' pilot and there's basically no utility other than boring holes in the sky and I can do that with my $30,000 Aeronca.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Berg

It still gets back to my original post they're too expensive for the average 'sport type' pilot and there's basically no utility other than boring holes in the sky and I can do that with my $30,000 Aeronca.

---

Exactly. If all I wanted to do was bore holes in the sky I would make the guy the next airport over an offer he couldn't refuse for his Swift (that is in in many pieces, is really small, but I would still probably fit in better than the current crop of LSA's). I like to go places, if I want to spend a lot of money on a really expensive hobby I will re-join SCCA & spend my money on Porsche & MG parts. Or maybe spend even more money on antique tractors.

I know someone with a Flight Design CTLS and he can cover 700 miles at a time boring holes at 172 speeds. I'd say that's pretty good utility. Plus, it's a very comfortable airplane to fly in. He covers a large chunk of the country and absolutely loves the plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

I know someone with a Flight Design CTLS and he can cover 700 miles at a time boring holes at 172 speeds. I'd say that's pretty good utility. Plus, it's a very comfortable airplane to fly in. He covers a large chunk of the country and absolutely loves the plane.

---

If it works for him .... fine and the Flight Design LS looks like it might be a great plane for a flight school, etc. but at $156,000+ most average folks can't afford it. Plus, it's German made and I always think about 'service after the sale' over the long run. Especially for anything that expensive (not to mention insurance). Right now the Vans RV 12 almost makes the most sense and that's around $75,000 in the kit form.

Mike

Most folks can't afford a factory new aircraft period, regardless of make or model.

Keywords: Experimental, Aircraft, and Association. :)

The CTLS is actually not the best trainer. I learned in one, and while I'm hardly the sterling pilot it's from the lower third of the bell curve that we should judge things (so I'm qualified!).

The disadvantages are that it's a glass panel, so one winds up learning how to work that stupid thing as well as the aircraft that supports it; the composite landing gear that tend to delaminate after a couple hard landings and have to be replaced; the twitchy nature of its crosswind performance.

Then again, I have hated panels ever since the one in the CTLS decided to have a battery fit and go blank. On takeoff. No partial panel training for me - the only instrument I had was a compass, as there are no other backup steam gauges. While I suppose it's good training to just keep flying as long as the airplane is flying, it was rather disconcerting. Pushing three buttons on it got it restarted.

The advantages are it's a hot little LSA for the owner (who defrays the cost by renting it out for training) who definately uses it for long cross country flights. The Rotex engine is reliable, operating is cheap, and if it needs to go to the Mother Ship for maintenance there's a place in florida that is factory certified. His experience with Flight Design has been nothing but positive.

But give me steam gauges, and the fewer the better. For my certified dollar the best plane ever rolled off a GA assembly line was an Aeronica Champ 7AC.

In June I made the leap from certificated aircraft to experimental, when we bought our RV-8A.

I absolutely could not be happier. 200 mph on a Skyhawk's fuel burn, and we can be to 10,000 feet in just a few minutes.

And it cost HALF of what a new LSA would run.