Cessna 162 SkyCatcher Forum

[Tungsten]

cessnaguy wrote:
If you look at other aircraft pics in magazines with the aircraft in level flt. attitude,
the pilot's line of sight is just a smidgeon above the glareshield. The Glasair 111 would be an example.
The glareshield and forward to the windshield follows the engine cowl line, aft in a straight line in many aircraft, and they come up too high into the windshield blocking a chunk of it out.

I know what you mean. Especially in aircraft intended for IFR ops the panels can get pretty tall to accomodate all the instruments.

The 162 glareshield is a unique shape that makes it look taller than it is. The seat back is also not as tall as you'd think from looking at the pictures which throws off the scale of the panel.

[cessnaguy]

I'm 5' 11" and well built with an average sized back and have no problem with the FOV; (Field Of View) in my 150M.
But, I see some people almost splitting their view out front by the glareshield as they are sitting too low in their aircraft.
That's why I carry an extra seat cushion for short backed pax friends.
There again, some aircraft glareshields are too high, even Boeings that I'm familiar with slope up too much.

[twoeggsup]

cessnaguy wrote: I'm 5' 11" and well built with an average sized back and have no problem with the FOV; (Field Of View) in my 150M.
But, I see some people almost splitting their view out front by the glareshield as they are sitting too low in their aircraft.
That's why I carry an extra seat cushion for short backed pax friends.
There again, some aircraft glareshields are too high, even Boeings that I'm familiar with slope up too much.

Been too long since I've flown but I do recall a few things that I'll call pet peaves and visability over the panel is one, the other is control forces.

Depending on how hard my last landing was and how long it's been since I've been to a chiropractor I'm 5'8" to 5'10" ish and I always noticed that
going from a 150 or 152 to a Skyhawk or Skylane that the panel always seemed bigger and taller than it had to be. Usually put the seat up as far as
I could and still have full up elevator against my chest. What really bothered me though was the 'weight' of the controls. Particularily with the 182, as if they dialed in heavier control forces than they had to be, just to give it a BIG airplane feal. I would hope the C162 will be much more like a 150 than a 182 as far as control forces are concerned.

Actually I had a different impression of the panel photo, to me it looks like it will give a better view than a 150/152 if the height of the sticks in the mock up photo is comparable to the height of a yoke. The one photo of the C162 on the grass shows the panel even with the cowl in the center and the photo with the pilot shows what looks like shoulder height about half way up the 'A' pillar. It also appears to have a forward rake, like taxing a rental 150 with a collapsed nose gear strut.

The full castering nose gear should make it a weather vane just like a Grumman... Just untie it and wait five minutes. Who needs a windsock?