![Cessna 162 vs 172](https://kumkoniak.com/118.png)
![cessna 162 vs 172 cessna 162 vs 172](https://aerocorner.com/wp-content/uploads/1060-130x80.jpg)
The farthest a student needs to go for training purposes is maybe two hundred miles. They are for economical primary student training and flying.
- These airplanes are not meant to be long cross country airplanes.
- Hey if you like one or the other that's fine, but base it on facts and let the facts speak for themselves. I haven't actually flown a C-162, and the only one I've seen on our field was in the shop having the nosestrut and firewall repaired after this: WPR13CA421 I wish them well, but I'm happy that Van's is available as an alternative. I am sure the RV-12 will be supported decades into the future (a question mark for the Skycatcher).Ĭessna seems to keep stumbling in the GA market. I can also walk to the factory (across the flightline from us) to see who makes them and how they are made. The flying qualities probably aren't far apart, but the fact that Cessna's Skycatcher has such a high empty weight and limited payload made the RV12 the only S-LSA that made sense to us. That is an apples to apples comparison (or maybe lard to lard). Five of our ten instructors are over 210 lbs. The weight of the average US male is 196 lbs:Īmericans are getting fatter: poll | New York PostĪdd shoes, clothing, and a headset, and you are looking at 200+ lbs for a typical student. IMO, that is the greatest design flaw of the Skycatcher.
The biggest drawback to the C-162 is the ability to carry two American sized adults and still have fuel to reach a cross-country destination. Not that much difference, it's more like apples to oranges.they are slightly different airplanes with slightly different design features.Not quite.
I haven't flown any of those "European crap LSAs", but I think they have a few new ones that rival the RV12, although I don't think they can match the $115,000 price of the RV. The RV12 has more room inside, and with the canopy doesn't have the claustrophobic feel of the C-152. Most importantly, our RV12 can carry two 220 lb individuals with a full tank of 4 1/2 hours fuel.
The main advantages of the RV12 over the C-152 and C-162 are that it outperforms both Cessnas in climb, speed, and fuel-burn. We have flown about 300 hours with our RV12s and are very pleased with them. We use it in our Private Pilot program and had a kid go from zero hours to Private Pilot in 70 days. The control harmonization (with stick!), honest flight characteristics, incredible visibility, Dynon Skyview EFIS with traffic monitoring, and overall performance make the plane a great trainer. Talk about a religious experience giving instruction in those death traps to 70+ year old student sport pilots.I'm instructing a near 70 year old retiree in an RV12 S-LSA. Just using a Continental O-200 engine versus the Rotax would be a advantage over typical LSAs. From what I have read, the Sk圜atcher is a better trainer than the European crap LSAs I have flown.