"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
articles, the more I wonder. For example:

1. Fingertip brakes next to the throttle. I know magazine reviewers are
reluctant to criticize any plane, so when the AOPA pilot reviewer wryly
said that surgeons and concert pianists would have no problem with these
controls, I had to wonder.

I flew the plane, and this was not an issue for me. I would think this
would limit short field landing performance though.


2. Currently life-limited to 225 hours (that's right, 225). And we in
this newsgroup were criticizing Cirrus for the 4350 limit on the SR22. I
know they plan to increase this number as the fleet ages, but this means
no one knows what the number will ultimately be, and everyone who puts a
lot of time in a Liberty is a certification test pilot.


This is a real problem because frankly, after the way their sales people
treated me, I do not trust this company. It was not just one sales person
either, I dealt with 3 different ones. So I don't trust them to fix it fast
enough, or make it long enough. The whole group seems not to execute well.

3. Challenging to get into, it's not clear they will be putting steps on
the production models.


This is definitely strange, and will not help you get more people out to
fly. It sets a bad impression from go. Also, if the wing is wet or even the
slightest bit dirty...


4. On the test flight with AOPA pilot, the designer suggested slowing
down to pattern speed before descending, because the plane is hard to
slow down.


Cruise speed and drag are a tradeoff. I find concerns about "hard to slow
down" generally over blown.

5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
not everyone likes the same seatback angle.


Once again, a weight tradeoff. Also, safety. You could not certify the 152
in today's rules unless you got it grandfathered. Also, why would you not
be willing to have your seats fitted for you after spending 150k on the
plane? Unless you are too big, its not an issue. While on this subject, I
found the shoulder and headroom was much less than the cockpit width would
lead you to believe.

The biggest plus is the pure FADEC engine, all you have to do is move
the lever and mixture, carb heat, etc are automatically done for you.
That's a big plus and is probably this plane's best innovation. Also
gives efficient cruise.


Fadec is neat, but what happens with pilots who train in FADEC, and then
want to fly a regular engine? I hope everything goes Fadec, and we
eliminate this problem.

I know some people who feel we should support the manufacturers who "do
something new" would think it's heresy, but at what point to
"innovations" become "quirks."?

Let me be the judge

Let's see, this plane is hard to
taxi,

Actually it wasn't, but finger breaks are likely a quirk

hard to slow down,

This is not an innovation, its a choice, and its really subjective. I had
NO issues with this at all. However, if you don't like, don't buy it.
However, try it before you agree with this claim from the reviewer. On the
other hand, 130 knots on 125 hp IS an innovation in a stable, certified
plane with otherwise good manners.

hard to get into,

quirk

and is life-limited to a
small number of hours (and no one knows what the final limit will be. )

quirk, and frankly, not a sign of a good group of engineers and managers.


I guess if you own one you adjust to all the quirks, but I can't help
but think whenever I read a review of a plane like this what kind of
capability the same price would fetch on the used market in a plane that
is easier to get into, taxi, and slow down.


Price is not the end all be all of airplane ownership. You can get a twin
for that amount, but I bet there are twin owners that would consider the
trade to the Liberty..


Has anyone flown one of these? If so what do you think of it?


I compared it to the Diamond 2 seater, and expected it to be similar but
with IFR. The quirks did not bother me as much as the build quality (it was
the prototype though), company image (lousy sales people, later and later
certification), and the ergonomics (which is a completely personal issue for
everyone).

The Diamond won hands down, and the IFR was just not worth it. I ended up
waiting until I could get a bigger plane, and did not buy either of these.
The Diamond is a great rental, and perhaps the funnest certified flying
short of aerobatics.

That all said, this plane could be a good choice for someone who wants a
cheap to own IFR cruiser. I wouldn't want to fly either one near any real
weather, but at least the Liberty lets you in and out of low level
obscuration. Also, I was intrigued with the combination of metal wing and
composite fuselage. This made good economic sense, but the savings do not
seem to be materializing in the price.