William Hung wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
:

On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
aa53-
:







On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
b5ff-
:

On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
ever.

I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
HAving
said
that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
do

Bertie

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? *

Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
They do the job, though.

I would sonner buy them over the new one and

just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
that's
just me.

About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
The
150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You got a plane Bertie? Love to see pics if you do. My email is
good.


Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing.