-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
162 SkyCatcher crashes
- Thread starter Gregory Paul
- Start date
L
Lionus
Guest
if it's made in china, I won't be surprised that it crashed. afetr all, their cars blow up if you fart hard enough inside..:gossip:
6
6297J
Guest
Yeah, not like those Finnish cars and aircraft eh?
What were they again?
What were they again?
L
Lionus
Guest
Porsches? yeah, Caymans and Boxsters are built here.. as for the aircrafts, I'm not sure. 
6
6297J
Guest
Then there is Nokia of course, the only global company ever to come out of Finland. Ah, hold on, it says my Nokia was made in China :caked:
T
tigisfat
Guest
If the aircraft parachuted down, and noone was hurt, is it really a crash? If a pilot puts his cessna 172 down in a field because the engine lost power, they don't call that a crash.
Brian_Gladden
SOH-CM-2025
From what I read, they were doing spin testing. That is the most dangerous part of flight test. I imagine that something happened that caused the pilot to deploy the aircraft recovery chute.
Also the NTSB is involved because the aircraft was undergoing flight test and the damage incurred to the airframe when the chute is pulled.
A forced landing is not a crash. A whole airframe parachute deployment is. It's designed to save the occupants life, not ensure the aircraft can fly again. Also the Skycatcher was dragged by the wind for a distance, causing more damage. A cirrus, a few years ago landed under it's chute but the people inside were killed as high winds dragged the airplane across rough terrain.
Also the NTSB is involved because the aircraft was undergoing flight test and the damage incurred to the airframe when the chute is pulled.
A forced landing is not a crash. A whole airframe parachute deployment is. It's designed to save the occupants life, not ensure the aircraft can fly again. Also the Skycatcher was dragged by the wind for a distance, causing more damage. A cirrus, a few years ago landed under it's chute but the people inside were killed as high winds dragged the airplane across rough terrain.
cheezyflier
Charter Member
why wouldn't they have some kind of release mechanism to help avoid this?
If the C-162 crashed again when testing out spins, then I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the model....
As Brian said, a C-162 prototype was lost when the Test Pilot was performing cross-control stalls.
Cessna reportedly fitted a larger rudder on to a new SkyCatch to add to rudder control.
As Brian said, a C-162 prototype was lost when the Test Pilot was performing cross-control stalls.
Cessna reportedly fitted a larger rudder on to a new SkyCatch to add to rudder control.
T
tigisfat
Guest
How could they overlook the importance of OBVIOUS stability measures if the aircraft was to revitalize flight training? I'm not a aeronautical engineer, but from what I do know about aircraft stability, I don't understand how this could happen. It sounds like they've dropped the ball.
T
tigisfat
Guest
I have to disagree. It may be to early to judge the production aircraft as a whole---but it most positively and surely brings attention to the design team. After all, they're designing a trainer.
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
We've lost alot of prototypes that were early in production through the years.. The F16 was basically unflyable on its first flight. The F117 was lost twice early in the testing days.. Rudder changes were needed. Flew great after that..
No one lost a Bellanca though to spins.. Huge tail(s)....
I do worry though about companies that are so afraid to spend money to have a quality product that they would even go to China to have it manufactured.. BMW builds cars here in America. They have never been in the red. Should private jets be built in China also?
Paranoia I guess.... arrghh.. I shouldnt talk. Apples are made in America but assembled in China.
No one lost a Bellanca though to spins.. Huge tail(s)....
I do worry though about companies that are so afraid to spend money to have a quality product that they would even go to China to have it manufactured.. BMW builds cars here in America. They have never been in the red. Should private jets be built in China also?
Paranoia I guess.... arrghh.. I shouldnt talk. Apples are made in America but assembled in China.
srgalahad
Charter Member 2022
And thus, we have prototypes...to discover what needs to be done before it becomes a production airplane...
a little web searching shows it's not really unheardof:
http://www.sahilonline.org/english/news.php?catID=statenews&nid=4831&viewed=0
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=1865776
Railrunner130
Charter Member
The old Piper Tomahawk got a reputation from spin testing troubles. I never had a problem with any that I flew, but people were scared of it. Same with the little Grumman Yankee. It had a tiny tail on it and a HUGE warning not to do spins was placarded in the cockpit.
I do worry though about companies that are so afraid to spend money to have a quality product that they would even go to China to have it manufactured.. BMW builds cars here in America. They have never been in the red. Should private jets be built in China also?
GM and Chrysler build cars in the US, and they're doing a fine job of bankrupting themselves, so I don't think where something is made has as much of an impact as the original design of the product and the QA that goes into checking it over.
Building something in China isn't inherently a bad thing, as long as the core engineering is sound and someone checks the quality control of the final product.
The FAA has very specific standards for certifying aircraft, and Cessna is going to pay very close attention to the quality of components manufactured over there, since an airworthiness directive can easily doom an aircraft design, not to mention a company.