Cirrus in LSA as of this morning. But not with a new design

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?

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?


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.

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?

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".

Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already.

Cessna 175....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish
wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".

Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already.

Cessna 175....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175

Ron Wanttaja

I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?

On Aug 2, 10:54 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:13:39 -0700, Kingfish
wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:42 pm, "Ken Finney" wrote:

...Also, what's with the goofy "SkyCatcher" name?

Actually, I like "SkyCatcher".

Skylark might have been a better choice, unless it's been used
already.

Cessna 175....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_175

Ron Wanttaja

I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There were some variants that were named. Off the top of my head, I
recall the "Commuter" and the "Aerobat", there might be others.

Take care . . .

John

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:



I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?

Yep, it's the Commuter.

("Newps" wrote)
I'd forgotten that. Did the 150/152 have a name?

Yep, it's the Commuter.


I've always liked the 152(II), too g

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/landof10klakes/album/576460762322803945/photo/294928803262362356/30
One of our Young Eagle pilots @ ANE in his Cessna152(II)


Paul-Mont

Kingfish wrote:
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?



Buick used the name Skylark for what was a very blah car.

"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.