I am a little surprised at the Cessna 162 designation! I think this design will sell at least as well as any competition, and upgrades and improvements will be forthcoming over the next few years (and decades?). What will the designation be for the "Skycatcher II"? The Cessna 165? At any rate, I'm pleased to see that the O-200 will continue life in a new airframe, ensuring parts availability and possible upgrades for our engines for the foreseeable future.
This airplane should have been called the Cessna 160 (although I think an earlier unsuccessful design already had that designation)! Then the Cessna 162 would have been the logical next step, in keeping with Cessna tradition. I agree, Jim! We will eventually become the Cessna 150-152-162 Club!
If this aircraft is as successful as I expect it to be, I think there will eventually be a heavier, more robust version for the trainer market (probably IO-240 powered), certified in the normal/utility categories for the private pilot market as well.
I admit I was shocked to see the "glass" panel! This drives the cost up, I think, but it is a logical step forward in weight reduction.
I already visualize a tailwheel STC for the Skycatcher. It seems to just beg for one! I hope there is enough structure there to allow it without the additional weight of reinforcement.
