![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 107 | September 23rd 07 02:18 AM |
| Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 08:48 AM |
| More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer" | [email protected] | Piloting | 49 | November 13th 05 03:29 PM |