The flycatcher is probably one of the funnest planes I’ve ever owned. I had one from 2014 till 2020 I catch myself looking at controller and barnstormers for another one. Even though they have about doubled in price in the last two years they are still the best bargain in aviation. Always tell everybody it’s like a little sports car if you’ve ever come out of a 152 or a 172.
Able to compare to an RV12 by chance? I had one, LOVED it, sold it, miss it...dumb. For some weird reason the skycatcher is holding my interest now. Can't put my finger on why though.
Just wondering, since there is not of sound insulation in the 162, does your noise cancelling headphones cut out most of the noise, as say compared to a 172? thanks!
@@CiscoMedia76 Thanks for the reply..I have the ability to start training for my private pilot license in a 162, but since it is so light I wonder if it would be stable on crosswind landings and taxiing etc, I like the cost for renting the plane and even the Garmin 300 gps's. Wonder if you would have any quick thoughts, heard that there is no a lot of ventilation in the 162, but it looks like a lot of fun to fly as opposed to a30 or 40 year old cessna...thanks for your time!
@@kenmonroe2474 I’d say go for it if the price is less than a C172. Flight characteristics of the 162 are very good. It’s easy to fly and handles great on the ground and in the air. And it’s fun to fly. BUT ventilation is nowhere equivalent to a 172. Depending on where you live and your weather, it can be very uncomfortable. Also depending on your size. I’m 5’11” and I couldn’t fly more than a couple of hours. It’s really not comfortable for bigger people for extended flights. So think about that when you have to put 20-40 hrs in it. Where I rent, it’s $20/hr cheaper than a 172. So that adds up to allot of savings if you’re getting your ticket. So it’s well worth it.
@@CiscoMedia76 Thank you for your thoughts on this, I can rent the 162 for $110hr/wet. I can rent their warrior 2 with 180hp engine for 160 hr/wet. I have flown with friends in a 172 before and the breeze from the vents near the wing roots blew a lot of air across my face which felt good, not sure why the 162 would not have the same breeze. I live in the KansasCity area. I may have to go up on a discovery flight to try the 162 out.
@@kenmonroe2474 Excellent question and you would think the airflow would be equivalent. But it's nowhere near that of 172 design. That was the first thing I noticed after going back to the 172 after several flights in the 162. And that is a big spread in the cost. So if there's nothing between those two options, definitely go with the 162. $50/hr will save you a LOT during your training.
The flycatcher is probably one of the funnest planes I’ve ever owned. I had one from 2014 till 2020 I catch myself looking at controller and barnstormers for another one. Even though they have about doubled in price in the last two years they are still the best bargain in aviation. Always tell everybody it’s like a little sports car if you’ve ever come out of a 152 or a 172.
Couldn't agree more.
Able to compare to an RV12 by chance? I had one, LOVED it, sold it, miss it...dumb. For some weird reason the skycatcher is holding my interest now. Can't put my finger on why though.
I currently own one, got it before the price doubled. Best purchase I’ve ever made.
Just wondering, since there is not of sound insulation in the 162, does your noise cancelling headphones cut out most of the noise, as say compared to a 172? thanks!
I find the noise level to be the same on both planes, with my Zulu headphones. And that’s nearly silent. The ANR on them is excellent.
@@CiscoMedia76 Thanks for the reply..I have the ability to start training for my private pilot license in a 162, but since it is so light I wonder if it would be stable on crosswind landings and taxiing etc, I like the cost for renting the plane and even the Garmin 300 gps's. Wonder if you would have any quick thoughts, heard that there is no a lot of ventilation in the 162, but it looks like a lot of fun to fly as opposed to a30 or 40 year old cessna...thanks for your time!
@@kenmonroe2474 I’d say go for it if the price is less than a C172. Flight characteristics of the 162 are very good. It’s easy to fly and handles great on the ground and in the air. And it’s fun to fly. BUT ventilation is nowhere equivalent to a 172. Depending on where you live and your weather, it can be very uncomfortable. Also depending on your size. I’m 5’11” and I couldn’t fly more than a couple of hours. It’s really not comfortable for bigger people for extended flights. So think about that when you have to put 20-40 hrs in it. Where I rent, it’s $20/hr cheaper than a 172. So that adds up to allot of savings if you’re getting your ticket. So it’s well worth it.
@@CiscoMedia76 Thank you for your thoughts on this, I can rent the 162 for $110hr/wet. I can rent their warrior 2 with 180hp engine for 160 hr/wet. I have flown with friends in a 172 before and the breeze from the vents near the wing roots blew a lot of air across my face which felt good, not sure why the 162 would not have the same breeze. I live in the KansasCity area. I may have to go up on a discovery flight to try the 162 out.
@@kenmonroe2474 Excellent question and you would think the airflow would be equivalent. But it's nowhere near that of 172 design. That was the first thing I noticed after going back to the 172 after several flights in the 162. And that is a big spread in the cost. So if there's nothing between those two options, definitely go with the 162. $50/hr will save you a LOT during your training.
Call ATC and declare a PEE Emergency 11
Ha, I have N6057U