I think that they went with the 162 versus the 155, 156, 158 designation for the same reason they went with the 150 desgination instead of the 142. The two aircraft are different enough to warrent it.
It would be neat to see a certified version that could be used for PP training and some IFR training, but that may be asking too much. As a PP trainer, the current version may be sufficient, perhaps they could add a varient with ye' old steam gauges. But, at least this version offers FBOs and flight schools something that is cheaper than the 172s, Pipers, and Diamonds that they are using now, at least for initial training.
And, will we see any of these show up at Clinton next year? They should be equal in the Scavenger Hunt and maybe the landing competitions. It looks like they won't be able to compete in the nerf drop, unless you can open the door in flight. Maybe we can take the door off.
Pat
Never run out of altitude, airspeed, and ideas at the same time.
I just found out today that I will be recieving #005 of the 162. It seems that Cessna CEO gets #1, EAA #2+3, a CSTAR #4 and me #5. It will be the first CPC delivery.
Another positive - unlike most other LSA's this one has a sizable baggage compartment, one you can actually put a fair amount of stuff into!
For years I've wanted a plane that did everything the Cessna 150 does, just faster. Simple, easy to fly, two seats, roomy baggage compartment, reasonably good short-field capability, inexpensive to own and maintain, and fun to fly... but with a faster honest cruise speed of 120+mph.
I find that many experimentals do so, but almost all fall flat when it comes to the baggage compartment. It's either too small, or too convoluted, or too inaccessible (or all three). And the planes with big enough baggage compartments are usually 4 seaters with all of the attendant weight, bulk, and expense.
This Cessna LSA seems to be what I've been looking for. Granted, the "inexpensive" part is relative, but compared to building an airplane or any of the other LSAs (once loaded with all the required 'options') the price is right in line. Also, I couldn't afford a brand-new Cessna 150 in today's dollars, so I'll look forward to buying a used 162 once the flight schools trade up.
Seems like the Sportsman (GlassStar) would make you happier than the Cessna LSA...unless it's the LSA qualification you find attractive. I don't think the initial investment would be that different and the Sportsman has quite a bit more to offer in every way. You might find a nice used one if you don't want to build. Just a thought.
Dan
Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities. (Mark Twain)
For years I've wanted a plane that did everything the Cessna 150 does, just faster.
Seems like the Sportsman (GlasStar) would make you happier than the Cessna LSA
You're right - of all the planes I've checked out in person at Oshkosh, the GlasStar came closest to what I was looking for. But the fuel burn is significantly higher (as befits the bigger engine) so it's not quite the "150 in all respects, but faster" that I seek. I know, I know... picky, picky, picky!
But, at least this version offers FBOs and flight schools something that is cheaper than the 172s, Pipers, and Diamonds that they are using now, at least for initial training.
Maybe we can take the door off. 
![[Linked Image from visitedstatesmap.com]](https://www.visitedstatesmap.com/image/ALAZARFLILINIAKSKYLAMNMSMONENJNMOHOKPATNTXWIsm.jpg)
