The only thing that is a little disappointing to me is.... that the skylight in the roof is above the Baggage area , to my way of thinking - its probably more important for the pilot to see where he/she is going through the turn, than their luggage ok, its only there to add a bit more light, but why not make it a little more functional
Now...as a taildragger, with a set of creative legs, it would probably look a little like this
I did a little more research on the Cessna 160. It was a prototype 4-place airplane supposed to fill the niche between 150's and 172's, powered by a 125 hp Franklin engine, and cruised at 134 mph. They considered a military version with a 210 hp IO-360 that in theory would have pushed the envelope to a 174 mph cruise.
There are reports that the prototype was scrapped, but supposedly a mechanic in Kansas now owns the remains of this one-off airframe. Cessna still should have used the 160 designator for the LSA (It wouldn't be the first time they used a designator twice!)
Hmmmm. If I can keep my medical for 21 more years, and if I spent $5,000 a year on "My Other Sweetie," (a) it would be one really sweet 150, and (b) I'd be 84.
Conclusion: tempting though it be, the price of one would keep me flying the rest of my days.
And one other thought: lighter planes are more like kites. At that weight, you'd only launch in WX where you could launch a hot air balloon. Sour grapes? I guess so, because I know I'D LOVE TO HAVE ONE!! Meanwhile, stay healthy, everybody!!!
"The most beautiful thing on earth is the sky above it." -- Joanna Fink
The only thing that is a little disappointing to me is.... that the skylight in the roof is above the Baggage area , to my way of thinking - its probably more important for the pilot to see where he/she is going through the turn, than their luggage ok, its only there to add a bit more light, but why not make it a little more functional
Now...as a taildragger, with a set of creative legs, it would probably look a little like this
I LOVE the Wilga...my idea of a rough, tough, get-er done airplane!!!
Dan
Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities. (Mark Twain)
And one other thought: lighter planes are more like kites. At that weight, you'd only launch in WX where you could launch a hot air balloon. Sour grapes? I guess so, because I know I'D LOVE TO HAVE ONE!!
I was surprised to find out from Hung's post that the Cessna 162 has a slightly higher wing-loading than a 152. So it'd be no more bouncy in windy conditions than our current models.
Higher wing loading would make it LESS bouncy....assuming of course we are using the same definition. High wing loading (using Jeff's def) is more lb's per sq in of wing. These are typically (barring aerodynamic differences) more stable and generally a faster wing, due to lesser surface area.
OK...maybe I am wrong, but what is a debate without two parties involved?
ok, its only there to add a bit more light, but why not make it a little more functional
