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

On Jul 23, 4:24 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Cirrus Design is entering the LSA market. At 9:30 this morning they
unveiled, appropriately hidden beneath a parachute, their Cirrus SRS. The
aircraft will be produced in conjunction with Fk Lightplanes based in
Speyer, Germany, with production facilities in Poland. The aircraft is a
low-wing two-place side-by-side aircraft powered by a a 100 HP Rotax 912S
engine. First deliveries are expected in approximately one year.

Those familiar with Fk Lightplanes airplanes with recognize it as the FK-14
model. Alan Klapmeier, president of Cirrus, said "We're going to Cirrus-ize
the airplane a bit to create what we believe is the best aircraft for the
LSA market." He went on to say, "We believe it's important for every
aircraft manufacturer to grow the market to bring more people into flying
and that's why we decided to bring an LSA into our family of aircraft." For
more information, visitwww.cirrusdesign.comorwww.fk-lightplanes.com

Nice plane. And the empty weight of the FK-14 is 626 pounds, which
means it has a useful load under LSA rules of 694 pounds! And that
includes a steel safety cage around the passenger compartment and a
ballistic chute. It is pretty clear that composite construction is
the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

"Phil" wrote

It is pretty clear that composite construction is
the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

Not necessarily. You can build just as light with aluminum, steel tube, or
wood. Just look at the 601 and 701, or Kitfox. There are examples in wood,
also.

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

On Jul 25, 5:58 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Phil" wrote

It is pretty clear that composite construction is
the way to go if you want to get a lighter aircraft.

Not necessarily. You can build just as light with aluminum, steel tube, or
wood. Just look at the 601 and 701, or Kitfox. There are examples in wood,
also.

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!

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.