Cessna developing new LSA

[Kingfish]

Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
legitimize the LSA segment (not that it needed it). Between this plane
and the "Cirrus Killer" and a new jet sized below the Mustang, the
Cessna product planning crew must be working overtime these days...

Here's a link to the company press release:

http://www.cessna.com/news/article.chtml?ID=uNeM5dkFJMRDtaEFYIxDyrDvxYh2Zrr08 DQj5rb0IwV1R6VtDK

[Jay Honeck]

> Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
> kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
> legitimize the LSA segment

Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

I flew it a couple of weeks ago, and am now counting the days until my kids
are grown and I can justify buying a 2-seater. It is a really fun plane to
fly -- and, being made entirely from carbon-fiber -- it feels like a "real"
plane, not a glorified ultra-light like so many current LSAs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ET]

"Kingfish" > wrote in news:1149702942.302087.9400
@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
>> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
>> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
>>
>
> I suspect Cessna's plane will look a lot less like something Dr. Seuss
> would have designed than the CT : )
>
>

Yup, ever since I first saw/flew the CT, I've said it should have a smiley
clown face painted on it's nose <big grin>

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

Nah. Bad mistake. It still uses a Rotax, which "I" will avoid like the
plague.
>
> I flew it a couple of weeks ago, and am now counting the days until my
> kids are grown and I can justify buying a 2-seater. It is a really fun
> plane to fly -- and, being made entirely from carbon-fiber -- it feels
> like a "real" plane, not a glorified ultra-light like so many current
> LSAs.

Put a O-200 in it, and you might have something.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Kingfish wrote:

> Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
> kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
> legitimize the LSA segment (not that it needed it). Between this plane
> and the "Cirrus Killer" and a new jet sized below the Mustang, the
> Cessna product planning crew must be working overtime these days...
>

Cirrus killer? Nobody needs to build one of those. Just stand back and
try not to get hit with the Cirrii that are currently raining down.

[FLAV8R]

"Kingfish" wrote in message ...
> I suspect Cessna's plane will look a lot less like something Dr. Seuss
> would have designed than the CT : )
>
Now that was the funniest description I have ever heard.
You are 100% correct on that one.

David

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
>>kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
>>legitimize the LSA segment
>
>
> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
>
> I flew it a couple of weeks ago, and am now counting the days until my kids
> are grown and I can justify buying a 2-seater. It is a really fun plane to
> fly -- and, being made entirely from carbon-fiber -- it feels like a "real"
> plane, not a glorified ultra-light like so many current LSAs.

Unfortunately, I can't see myself flying something so ugly :-)

And Cessna, assuming they produce a decent design, have a support
network that is pretty well unparalleled in the industry. They are
likely to still be around in 20 years when I need spare parts. Assuming
I live 20 more years! :-)


Matt

[john smith]

In article <W5Dhg.21385$No1.1745@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I flew it a couple of weeks ago, and am now counting the days until my kids
> are grown and I can justify buying a 2-seater.

And you can still attend OSH and SNF.
I have flown the Champ to both. You learn to pack only the essentials.
If you aren't going to use it more than once, you don't pack it.

[ET]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152"
>> is already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
>> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
>
> Nah. Bad mistake. It still uses a Rotax, which "I" will avoid like
> the plague.
>>
>> I flew it a couple of weeks ago, and am now counting the days until
>> my kids are grown and I can justify buying a 2-seater. It is a
>> really fun plane to fly -- and, being made entirely from carbon-fiber
>> -- it feels like a "real" plane, not a glorified ultra-light like so
>> many current LSAs.
>
> Put a O-200 in it, and you might have something.


There is nothing wrong with the Rotax, but you CAN get an LSA with an
0-200; the 601XL from AMD. --
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Dave Stadt]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>>> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152"
>>> is already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
>>> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
>>
>> Nah. Bad mistake. It still uses a Rotax, which "I" will avoid like
>> the plague.
>>>
>>> I flew it a couple of weeks ago, and am now counting the days until
>>> my kids are grown and I can justify buying a 2-seater. It is a
>>> really fun plane to fly -- and, being made entirely from carbon-fiber
>>> -- it feels like a "real" plane, not a glorified ultra-light like so
>>> many current LSAs.
>>
>> Put a O-200 in it, and you might have something.
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with the Rotax, but you CAN get an LSA with an
> 0-200; the 601XL from AMD. --

And the Champ from Americam Champion. The unugly alternative.


> -- ET >:-)
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-07, john smith > wrote:
> And you can still attend OSH and SNF.
> I have flown the Champ to both. You learn to pack only the essentials.
> If you aren't going to use it more than once, you don't pack it.

I've gone on a month long fly/camp trip in my Cessna 140 (actually, did
it twice in quick succession). Everything I needed fit in the luggage
space of the C140 quite happily. You just have to travel light.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jay Honeck]

>> I suspect Cessna's plane will look a lot less like something Dr. Seuss
>> would have designed than the CT : )
>>
> Now that was the funniest description I have ever heard.
> You are 100% correct on that one.

Agreed. But that will be its strength as a trainer, methinks. It's "cute"
and non-threatening.

More importantly -- it flies great, has good range, some serious speed, and
burns almost no gas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Nah. Bad mistake. It still uses a Rotax, which "I" will avoid like the
> plague.

Why? It started easily, ran very smoothly, and sipped gas.

What's wrong with Rotax?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> And you can still attend OSH and SNF.
>> I have flown the Champ to both. You learn to pack only the essentials.
>> If you aren't going to use it more than once, you don't pack it.
>
> I've gone on a month long fly/camp trip in my Cessna 140 (actually, did
> it twice in quick succession). Everything I needed fit in the luggage
> space of the C140 quite happily. You just have to travel light.

Mary and I have motorcycle camped coast-to-coast in North America. Without
the kids, we can pack very, very light indeed.

Of course, we're awfully spoiled now -- and older, too.

Okay, we need TWO "CTs" -- and we'll fly everywhere in formation....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kingfish]

I think you're right, but the folks at Cessna must disagree. I went to
the Saab Jet Preview at Oxford, CT on Tuesday and talked with the local
Cessna dealer. He didn't have any details on this new plane other than
what we've already read.

>>>Newps wrote:
>
> Cirrus killer? Nobody needs to build one of those. Just stand back and
> try not to get hit with the Cirrii that are currently raining down.<<<

[B A R R Y]

Kingfish wrote:
> I went to
> the Saab Jet Preview at Oxford, CT on Tuesday

How was that?

I got the card but had other commitments.

[Kingfish]

Kind of disappointment actually. The Mustang and Adam jet were
no-shows, but the Eclipse was there. After seeing the cabin interior I
think any trip much over 1 hour might be too long, unless you're built
like Mini Me.
Cessna's only showing was a 182 and 206, not even a CJ made the trip. I
did go for a demo flight in a Columbia 400 and was thoroughly impressed
with the plane. Just gotta save my pennies and I'll have one <g>


B A R R Y wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
> > I went to
> > the Saab Jet Preview at Oxford, CT on Tuesday
>
> How was that?
>
> I got the card but had other commitments.

[Kingfish]

The LSA class is limited to 120kt - you call that "serious speed"?? Or
were you flying straight down? <G>

>>>Jay Honeck wrote:
> More importantly -- it flies great, has good range, some serious speed, and
> burns almost no gas.

[Doug]

I actually met a couple that did just that -- in Cessna 140's. And they
talked on the radios CONSTANTLY while flying -- about whatever came
into their mind. They learned to fly in ultralights and 50 AGL was
cruising altitude for them. What a pair!!

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ojVhg.22591$1i1.13638@attbi_s72...
>> Nah. Bad mistake. It still uses a Rotax, which "I" will avoid like the
>> plague.
>
> Why? It started easily, ran very smoothly, and sipped gas.
>
> What's wrong with Rotax?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


There is a reason pilots that fly Rotax power are usually nicknamed 'Dead
Stick.'

[Ben Smith]

> There is a reason pilots that fly Rotax power are usually nicknamed 'Dead
> Stick.'

A former co-worker and hangar neighbor had two engine failures in his Rotax
powered Rans S-10. He only survived one of them, though..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020926X05219&ntsbno=CHI02LA268&akey=1

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>I suspect Cessna's plane will look a lot less like something Dr. Seuss
>>>would have designed than the CT : )
>>>
>>
>>Now that was the funniest description I have ever heard.
>>You are 100% correct on that one.
>
>
> Agreed. But that will be its strength as a trainer, methinks. It's "cute"
> and non-threatening.

Might be good to attract more women pilots. The only men who would fly
it are the ones that wear ear rings, nose rings, etc... :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Doug wrote:

> I actually met a couple that did just that -- in Cessna 140's. And they
> talked on the radios CONSTANTLY while flying -- about whatever came
> into their mind. They learned to fly in ultralights and 50 AGL was
> cruising altitude for them. What a pair!!
>

Sounds like they should have stopped talking at least long enough to
read the FARs about minimum legal altitudes.


Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-08, Dave Stadt > wrote:
> There is a reason pilots that fly Rotax power are usually nicknamed 'Dead
> Stick.'

That's really a problem inherent to all two-strokes though. The four
stroke Rotaxes seem perfectly reliable. The Europa crowd around here
seem to get on very well with the 912 and 914S for a power plant - seems
just as reliable as a Lycontisauraus Rex (and uses less fuel).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
> > kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
> > legitimize the LSA segment
>
> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

$92,900 for the base price does not sound like "less than $90K." :-)

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
> > kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
> > legitimize the LSA segment
>
> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

$92,900 for the base price does not sound like "less than $90K." :-)

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
> > kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
> > legitimize the LSA segment
>
> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

$92,900 for the base price does not sound like "less than $90K." :-)

[Matt Whiting]

cjcampbell wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
>>>kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
>>>legitimize the LSA segment
>>
>>Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
>>already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
>>http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
>
>
> $92,900 for the base price does not sound like "less than $90K." :-)
>

We got it the first (two) time(s)...

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-06-08, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>> There is a reason pilots that fly Rotax power are usually nicknamed 'Dead
>> Stick.'
>
> That's really a problem inherent to all two-strokes though. The four
> stroke Rotaxes seem perfectly reliable. The Europa crowd around here
> seem to get on very well with the 912 and 914S for a power plant - seems
> just as reliable as a Lycontisauraus Rex (and uses less fuel).
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Then why did Diamond dump Rotax in favor of Continental. Besides being
unreliable Rotax has nearly no after sale customer support. Fly into Podunk
and try to get a Rotax fixed. The 4 strokes by Rotax I have been around
have been anything but reliable.

[cjcampbell]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
>
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>>Cessna is working on a LSA to be unveiled at Oshkosh this year. It
> >>>kinda sounds like a modern 152. If this enters production it would help
> >>>legitimize the LSA segment
> >>
> >>Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
> >>already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
> >>http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
> >
> >
> > $92,900 for the base price does not sound like "less than $90K." :-)
> >
>
> We got it the first (two) time(s)...
>

I have a problem with stuttering. Or at least Google Groups does.

> Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-09, Dave Stadt > wrote:
> Then why did Diamond dump Rotax in favor of Continental.

The Continental engine is much more powerful - 125hp IIRC. That little
85 hp engine was never enough for the Katana. The issue of a very
conservative US market which won't buy anything other than
Lyc/Continental probably didn't help, and as you point out the
lack of decent after sales service in the US just compounded the problem.

We'll probably see the same thing with Thierlert - they will do well in
Europe but despite burning half the fuel of a Lycontisaurus, probably
won't sell at all in the US.

Kept properly maintained (just like any other 4 stroke engine), the 4
stroke Rotaxes are reliable.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2006-06-09, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>
>>Then why did Diamond dump Rotax in favor of Continental.
>
>
> The Continental engine is much more powerful - 125hp IIRC. That little
> 85 hp engine was never enough for the Katana. The issue of a very
> conservative US market which won't buy anything other than
> Lyc/Continental probably didn't help, and as you point out the
> lack of decent after sales service in the US just compounded the problem.

It isn't a "conservative US market", it is the lack of an overall better
product. The same was said about Japanese cars in the 70s. Nobody
would ever buy Japanese cars. Well, you don't hear that much now. They
got their act together and made a better product. There is certainly a
time lag as folks catch on to the product being better, but Rotax has
been around long enough to overcome that ... if only they had a better
product.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> Cool. But if you've flown the "CT", you know that the "modern 152" is
>> already on the market, brand new, for less than $90K.
>> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
>
> $92,900 for the base price does not sound like "less than $90K." :-)

They were selling for "only" $86K here in Iowa City...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

Actually, its sounds like they're going to have a scale model, not a
full size mockup. I could be wrong though.

[John T]

You must be thinking of 2 stroke rotax's. The 4 strokes are very
reliable. Lots of 2 strokes of different makes deadstick, mostly due to
old fuel.

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2006-06-09, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>>
>>>Then why did Diamond dump Rotax in favor of Continental.
>>
>>
>> The Continental engine is much more powerful - 125hp IIRC. That little 85
>> hp engine was never enough for the Katana. The issue of a very
>> conservative US market which won't buy anything other than
>> Lyc/Continental probably didn't help, and as you point out the lack of
>> decent after sales service in the US just compounded the problem.
>
> It isn't a "conservative US market", it is the lack of an overall better
> product. The same was said about Japanese cars in the 70s. Nobody would
> ever buy Japanese cars. Well, you don't hear that much now. They got
> their act together and made a better product. There is certainly a time
> lag as folks catch on to the product being better, but Rotax has been
> around long enough to overcome that ... if only they had a better product.

And if they had anything approaching a support network.

> Matt

[Morgans]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> You must be thinking of 2 stroke rotax's. The 4 strokes are very reliable.
> Lots of 2 strokes of different makes deadstick, mostly due to old fuel.

Yep, the two strokes are "very" unreliable. The 4 strokes are "just"
unreliable.

Do some looking around, out there in cyberspace. There are plenty of folks
that have had bad experiences with the 4 strokes.
--
Jim in NC