On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil wrote:





On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Phil,

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
the competition.

On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.