On Jul 25, 6:43 pm, Phil wrote:

I can't figure out how Cessna came out with such an overweight pig for their LSA offering. It does not make sense. Sure, they want to make it rugged for training and rental, but there needs to be
a middle ground.
--
Jim in NC

Well the Kitfox is fabric covered so I would expect it to be lighter.
But you are right about the 601 and 701. The 701 has an empty weight
of 580 pounds, although that doesn't include a safety cage or
ballistic chute. Since it has a configuration very similar to the
Cessna 162, it really makes you wonder why the Cessna comes in at 830
pounds. It must be built like a tank. Maybe they should have called
it SkyPanzer!- Hide quoted text -


Agree with both points here. Cirrus & Columbia showed that composite
fixed-gear singles can go just as fast as complex twins. Why wouldn't
Cessna go with composites then for the 162? I'm sure they had a
reason, just have no clue what it might be. Also, what's with the
goofy "SkyCatcher" name?