![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think people complaining that the Cessna LSA isn't competetive in terms of useful load are missing something.
They've obviously targeted the training market and as such probably have ruggedized the airframe and systems to withstand the abuse of legions of students learning to aviate. It's not a weekend toy to be babied by a private owner like most of the other LSAs but a machine to train pilots and make money for the training operators while doing it. That being said they could've come up with a better name. Just calling it the 162 would've been better. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "miffich" wrote in message ... I think people complaining that the Cessna LSA isn't competetive in terms of useful load are missing something. I was sort of hoping that (what?) 50 years of aviation technology advances had bought us something. I happen to have a POH for a 1978 152. It has a maximum useful load of 589 pounds compared to the 162's 490 pounds. I fly that 152 all the time and I can tell you that its useful load is margional for training today's "supersized" pilots. The 162 gives up 99 pounds compared to that 152. This is serious stuff!. They've obviously targeted the training market and as such probably have ruggedized the airframe and systems to withstand the abuse of legions of students learning to aviate. Do we really know if the above is true or just wishfull thinking? In fact, is it a trainer at all? I could have missed something, but the brochure didn't mention training once. It it beng marketed to FBO's as a trainer? It's not a weekend toy to be babied by a private owner like most of the other LSAs but a machine to train pilots and make money for the training operators while doing it. Really? It being marketed as a personal airplane. Cessna's add copy says,"very personal", and "This time it is personal". That being said they could've come up with a better name. Just calling it the 162 would've been better. I agree, and I predict that is what it will be known as. Regardless of what I have said above, when my FBO gets one, you can be sure that I will be in line to check out in it. After that, I may (or may not) go back and rent my favorite old 152. Vaughn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 107 | September 23rd 07 01:18 AM |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Owning | 110 | September 23rd 07 01:18 AM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer" | [email protected] | Piloting | 49 | November 13th 05 02:29 PM |