More than likely, I am in the market for an LSA; perhaps one or two years out. I went to Oshkosh with a hot checkbook in hand and every intention of filling out one of those checks from what I saw at Sun 'n Fun, but I held back based upon what I saw at OSH. The C-162 presentation was mis-thought in that it was displayed under a low and rather dark canopy and the colors selected were cool, but dark and made the craft look much smaller. For a "milestone" event, this was a poor presentation. Every "prototype" cherry max rivet was visible and apologists were everywhere explaining that this was just a non-functioning prototype...OK, I understand.
For me, it did not bring the nostalgia similar to the introduction of the Mazda Miata or the NEW VW Bug; at least not that level of professionalism. I wanted to see a really modern C-150/152 of lighter weight and more capability. I am sure this will happen as we increment through the various versions.
In defense of Cessna, the choice of the 0-200, albiet dated, was a master stroke, although an 0-240 derrated with a longer TBO would have been better. The use of high rpm engines like the Rotax are a turn-off for old pilots like me. There are a few LSA's out there that I would consider buying if they didn't use the Rotax type engine. I have a chain saw at home, but I rarely crank it up in my 150 to get the Rotax effect.
Cessna's choice of the hypothetical Garmin 300 is wise and clever although I think only one unit comes with the basic model. A few backup steam gauges will be a requirement for me, but they got the general idea. Two areas on each side of the panel are cup holders. It took BMW 10 years to figure that out.
The choice of seats was certainly not retro, but acceptable. Mostly formed plastic with a few soft areas. I would rather have leather at my age.
I understand what Cessna has done and I applaud them for it. I think the publicized idea that Cessna will want new owners to upgrade to more sophisticated aircraft is ironic since true LSA pilots would not have such an option...this is their (pardon) terminal aircraft. Perhaps Cessna's marketers were aiming more at the younger crowd at the flight schools (the majority of their orders at OSH were flight schools) than the old geezers who question their medical viability. This might be an indicator that Cessna is not so confident in the purpose of LSA, but is pursuing a new avenue; the younger. But, the problem with that is that most younger flyers won't be able to afford the 162 for 30 more years and the rich youngsters that can will go to Cirrus etc.
Summing up, I am ready to take a position in the Skycatcher, but I want more confidence that they are really making a plane for me; an older pilot who now wants to putt around VFR. Give me what I want (and you are 95% of the way there) and I will buy. But right now, I am still a bit shy.
At OSH the most impressive Cessna 150/152 look alike was the Tecnam Bravo. It is a drop dead gorgeous all metal plane that has everything and supposedly handles like a 150 and is also IFR certifiable. However, it does have the Rotax, which I am dubious about. I did return to look at that airplane three or four times during the show.
My experience at personally flying LSA's has not been good. With two different models under my belt (one with an 0-200 and one with a Rotax) they are very, very sensitive on the controls. Much like driving an old WWII type Jeep on a soft and sandy road with its wide stance and a short wheelbase; a candidate for roll over. The high rev (6000 rpm) in the Rotax was unnerving. It is beyond my belief that a Light Sports certificate would be granted to someone in one of those airplanes with only 20 hours. It would take me, with 900 hours at least that long, if not longer, to adjust to the quick and unpredictable response of the aircraft. But perhaps that is where the ab initio aspect of LSA training might be a strong suit. For pilots experienced in other certified aircraft the learning curve is certainly steeper.
It seems the LSA license has introduced some new pilots to a generation of planes that are quirky and more difficult to fly than our generation of 150, 172, and Cherokee types that are slow, mushy and absolutely forgiving. I really think there are problems here in design, certification, airworthiness, and certainly consistency. There must be a better compromise somewhere.
