Cessna 162

[C-150]

Just wondering if anyone has flown one the new Cessna 162 aircraft. I saw one up close and personal a few days ago. I know it is LSA and some people still think those are hoped up ultralights, but this thing has more cabin width than a 150 or 172. Very nice. It has 100 HP just like the old 150 and very close in performance stats. Now before I get hit with CAP can't use them stuff....that is not what I am asking. I am asking for an oppion of the plane from someone with stick time in it.

[vento]

Are you sure you meant stick time? That thing may look like a stick, but it almost works like a yoke. 
I am actually looking forward to fly one. My FBO has one on order to be delivered early next year.

[C-150]

You are right. The stick actually works like a yoke. The guy I spoke with was a factory pilot taking it on around to FBOs to show it off. He said it was really easy to fly with that setup once you get used to it. LOL....for us old dogs it might take a lot of hours to learn that new trick. Anybody actually fly one give us PIREP on it. Like I said the guy I saw is not only a pilot, but a salesman too. Need an unbiased oppinion.

[Thrashed]

It's a "stoke". 

I'd like to fly it and see.  I'm glad they went for cabin width.  I'm tired of trying to teach in the C150 series. My shoulders overlap the other person quite a bit.

[C-150]

It's a "stoke". 

I'd like to fly it and see.  I'm glad they went for cabin width.  I'm tired of trying to teach in the C150 series. My shoulders overlap the other person quite a bit.

Very true. My son is 13 now and when climb into a 150 are shoulder to shoulder. Neither one of us are large just average size. With a wide cabin and Cessna's ability to produce great aircraft this one has to be awesome. Cessna will probably take over the LSA training market with it. More too probably. I was told you cant get an IFR version which will lead to a greater market.

[simon]

I've flown a few LSA's.

IMC, they'd be about as safe as Lawnchair Larry.

[Thrashed]

This is the biggest problem with the 162: Not that I'll ever buy a plane, but I wouldn't buy the 162 for this reason alone.

Chinese production controversy
On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[17] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[18]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[19][20]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009, with customer deliveries expected by the end of 2009.[20][21]

[C-150]

This is the biggest problem with the 162: Not that I'll ever buy a plane, but I wouldn't buy the 162 for this reason alone.

Chinese production controversy
On 27 November 2007 Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 would be made in the People's Republic of China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium of aircraft manufacturers.[17] By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced. A second reason cited for moving production to Shenyang Aircraft Corporation was that Cessna at that time had no plant capacity available in the USA.[18]

The decision to produce the aircraft in China has been controversial and Cessna has received a high degree of negative feedback from Cessna 162 customers and potential customers.[19][20]

The first production Cessna 162 had its initial flight at Shenyang Aircraft in China on 17 September 2009, with customer deliveries expected by the end of 2009.[20][21]

Didn't know that. I thought Cessna of all companies would build it in Wichita. I know most if not all LSAs are foreign built even the new Piper Sport. Cessna could have found factory space if they had looked. Empty factories are all over the country from companies closing down and moving to foreign soil.

[sparks]

The C162 is just the latest in an endless stream of jobs sent to China. I didn't care for the decision either but in Cessna's mind government subsidized Chinese production made the price competitive with Other LSAs.

I suppose they are built ini China then disassembled and crated to the US. I'm not aware of the reassembly point, maybe Mexico!

To answer the original question, I haven't flown one either, just looked at the only airframe that was in the factory hanger. They didn't want anyone sitting in it at that time so no seat time either! 

[Thrashed]

It's not about factory space, its about making money.  It's cheaper in china. Cessna will make more money. Same thing as Walmart. The 162 should be sold at Walmart.

Didn't know that. I thought Cessna of all companies would build it in Wichita. I know most if not all LSAs are foreign built even the new Piper Sport. Cessna could have found factory space if they had looked. Empty factories are all over the country from companies closing down and moving to foreign soil.

[BillB]

There is at Gainesville FL, a 61,000 square foot hanger that was built for Eclipse Jet for repair and assembly of aircraft. It sits vacant after Eclipse went bankrupt. It would be ideal for Cessna to assemble the 162 in the United States. It even has a covered canopy to display completed aircraft for sales. It's 75 miles from an international seaport, seven miles from a major interstate highway. On an airport in controlled airspace, and in one of the states that has year round flying. Why doesn't Cessna look around for a site to assemble the 162?

[sparks]

Higher profit margins was more than likely the real reason to go to China for the C162. There is no lack of empty production buildings/hangers around the country so that excuse isn't really believable.

Didn't Beechcraft just announce closing down a production line in Wichita with a possible move to Mexico?

[a2capt]

..and from the Thielert fallout, China purchased Superior Air Parts. 

Ugh.

It's not that there "was not any space" it was that "Cessna didn't have any space", they didn't want to build more. They are assembled in China, then re-assembled in in the US, by either Yingling, in Wichita, Eagle Aviation in West Columbia, or Southwest Platinum in Las Vegas.

Not sure to what extent, but last time I read into it, it sounded like the US vendors were making mods, essentially applying STCs to the airframes, rather than change the initial design, any fixes and changes are done via STC. That way the whole thing didn't have to be re-certified.

So, if they claimed a savings of $71K per airframe, then what that really says is tort reform didn't work, because with all that shipping, handling, and outsourcing even on the U.S. side.. you would think it would have been cheaper to build them here.

[Al Sayre]

Not to mention that in China, there are:

No Union problems.
Lower labor costs
Lower material costs
Less stringent safety and environmental laws for factories
No Workers Comp
No unending court battles

I also suspect that in the case of a lawsuit, they can (try to) claim "we just buy them from China and slap our name on it..."

All that saves them $71,000.00 per airframe.

The base model is $112,250.00, would anyone buy it if it cost $183,250.00?

[a2capt]

Heh, yeah- I didn't even bother going there. When the 172 was last sold in 1986, it cost about $45K for a new one. When it came back in 1997, it was $175K.

Now about the same time span later, you would not have been able to get a pipsqueak plastic plane for that much, from the same company.

[Thrashed]

$.57/hour vs. how much in the US?

The number of people working in the manufacturing sector in China is also far higher than most analysts have estimated, according Banister, a consultant working with Javelin Investments in Beijing, China. At least 109 million Chinese are working in the manufacturing sector, far more than the 83 million reported last year. Banister says 109 million is a conservative number.

By comparison, there are 14 million manufacturing workers in the United States and 53 million in the G-7 countries combined.

Millions of migrant Chinese workers are not counted as part of 109 million manufacturing workers. Moreover, companies in China might not be reporting millions of other workers as a means to avoid paying taxes.

"Both foreign and domestic employers who are eager to keep down their labor costs and statistical reporting requirements may prefer that their export-processing factories be classified as rural or TVE (village and town enterprises)," writes Banister in a report titled: "Manufacturing Employment and Compensation in China." When classified as such, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, as opposed to its Ministry of Labor. "Under such classification, they need meet few, if any, requirements to pay social insurance and other welfare obligations for their hundreds or thousands of production and hand assembly workers," writes Banister.

The collection of employment data is also concentrated on the rapidly declining state-owned enterprises, "giving short shrift to the not-yet adequately collected or published statistics on the thriving, growing, dynamic private manufacturing sector."

There is no shortage of workers in China and a steady stream of people from the countryside means the country will have a low-cost labor force for decades to come. There are as many as 200 million "surplus" workers who are jobless in China's agricultural sector, says Banister's report. "As agriculture modernizes in China during the coming decades, hundreds of millions of agricultural workers will need other kinds of employment....Up to 500 million peasants are expected to migrate to cities in search of factory work over the next two decades." Moreover, there are plenty of unemployed workers in the cities seeking better jobs. The unemployment rate in China's rust belt in the northeast is 40 percent. Some estimate the true unemployment rate in China is 25 percent.

As a result, Chinese workers remain among the lowest paid in the world. The average total labor compensation for a Chinese manufacturing worker is 57 cents per hour, with many making far less than that, benefits included.

An average Chinese wage of $0.57 per hour -- or $104 per month -- is about 3 percent of the average U.S. manufacturing worker's wage, according to data collected by Banister. "Equally as striking, regional competitors in the newly industrialized economies of Asia had, on average, manufacturing labor costs more than 10 times those for China's manufacturing workers, and Mexico and Brazil had manufacturing labor costs about four times those for China's manufacturing employees."

The average hourly wage for a worker in a rural setting was $0.41 per hour, and migrant workers are making even less than that.

The average annual earnings for manufacturing workers in cities were $1,347 (11,152 yuan at the official exchange rate) for the year 2002. Manufacturing workers in the countryside averaged $837 (6,927 yuan) for the year. Urban manufacturing workers average 45.4 hours of work per week, "and it is...reasonable to assume that [rural] manufacturing workers average 50 hours of work per week in 2002," writes Banister.

There is a wide variation of pay among industries: textile industry workers averaged about 40 cents per hour (7,268 yuan per year), and garment workers outside of the cities "are paid less than that," according to Banister.

[simon]

I'm guilty of buying a TV made in China but I have to draw the line at trusting my life and that of my daughter in one of their aircraft built down to a weight limit and a price.

I can visualize the PR response: "Okay, so we lost a few. Who hasn't?"

I have just two words that put me off: "Self certified".

And I am not just focusing on the 162. How many of you have flown a light sport? I have. A couple. How do feel about the robustness of their construction. I flew a G1000 182 today on a SAREX and was thinking about this very thing as were flying. It felt like a tank compared to the "butterfly"-like characteristics of a light sport.

This is a secondary issue, but the fact that the first two 162 prototypes crashed doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence. Yeah, I know the circumstances. But these were test pilots and these are planes targeted at super low time pilots.

[Short Field]

This is a secondary issue, but the fact that the first two 162 prototypes crashed doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence.

In both cases, they were aggressively testing stalls and spins and ended up in a flat spin they could not recover from.  Both crashes resulted in design changes.  I like testing that exceeds performance standards to the point of failure.

My biggest beef with the aircraft being build in China is that it is just another case of businesses moving to countries with cheaper labor costs.  Anyone that support that deserves to make 60 cents an hour.  In todays world economy, the US can NEVER compete with another country when the main difference in cost of a product is employee wages.