"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

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?

Maybe because the 162 is aimed at the flight schools, not the general
public, and they want their A&Ps to be able to maintain it?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher". But then again, I like "Indefagitable"
too.- Hide quoted text -


Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already. Still not seeing how composites are any less maintainable by
flight school A&Ps - unless there's some issue with long term weather
exposure from outdoor tiedowns?

BTW, you *did* mean Indefatigable right?

My thinking is that an FBO in Resume Speed, Iowa is a lot more likely to
have an A&P on staff that is used to sheet metal repair than one that is
versed in composite repair.


Yes, "Indefatigable". Interesting, there are a lot of official places on
the web that mis-spell it the way I did.