Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Cessna LSA

Who knows, maybe those gull wing doors are rated to be opened at up to VA, like our windows. That would make it really interesting to lean way outside to deliver the Nerfs.

It does appear to be a castering nose wheel. Ugh. It is a tradeoff, of course. it is less heavy than an air/oil strut assembly, but I don't know how I'd feel about it for anything other than on pavement.

The LCD displays (nevermind the CRTs) in the 15 year old PC12 I was flying, and the 10+ year old TBMs are holding up fine. The tech behind those displays has done nothing but improved since they were manufactured.

I'm going to spitball a guess that the cost of maintenance on those DUs and their associated boxes will be on par with replacing all the steam gauge equivalents in a similar setup. That's not just the sixpack, but will cover any navigation and engine instruments, as well as any annunciations. I think the difference between the two will be a wash.

Yea, there are only two screens, and yea, they do fail. Not often enough that the sky should be falling. I think Cessna is doing the best thing for their potential customers, many of whom, I believe, will be flight schools.

Royson and Jeff, we do understand each other. Please keep in mind that Justina and I still drive a 1971 pickup and 1979 Suburban. We camp in a tent. And we still use dial up Internet. They do the jobs that we require so we just cannot justify paying more. We did pay out $16,000 for our Jetta six years ago. But it has returned us with 60 MPG. Our one extravagance is our airplane. Though, it does provide opportunities which would not be possible without it. And, we paid less for it then most brand ground transportation. So, in the end, I guess it all boils down to attitude, priorities and point of view?

But, I do need to question one thing that you said Jeff? If somebody that can afford $110,000 for an airplane such as the 162 without going into major debt is considered "middle class." I wonder where that puts Justina and me??

I truely wish that Cessna would have put less into "glitz" so to possibly make the 162 more affordable to more people.

The nose wheel is fully castering. One reason is Cessna's hope to eliminate the nose wheel shimmy problem. There are also weight considerations.

As far as the doors, that will either give the nerfadere (not bombadere) a better view, or the nerf will be sucked back into the cargo compartment.

Jeff, I agree with most of what you said. Cessna likely will sell alot of these planes and most buyers will be thrilled with their new hi-tech electronic panel.

I on the other hand, was shocked the first time I saw a glass cockpit in a certified airplane. The first thought that entered my mind was "What happens when that goes blank?" The second was "How screwed are you if you're far from home when it happens?" The third was "What is going to happen when these planes get older?". I think you get the idea. Part of what I do for a living involves staring at prototypes (or drawings) to identify and suggest ways to fix weaknesses. It is just the way I think. That's why you hear me whining so much about not being able to work on my own plane.

All else being equal, I would opt not to have a display like that in my plane and you'll have a heck of a time convicing me otherwise. If I was in a position to by a new 172 or Cirrus, I would consider a glass cockpit or Primary Flight Display a liability, not an asset.

Royson, my intention was not to beat up Cessna's new plane. I truly hope that the new LSAs give General Aviation the shot in the arm it needs.

Bill, I'm with you! If being able to drop 100K on a toy makes you middle class, then I'm not doing as well as I thought I was. Maybe they will come ou with a less fancy model, but it probably won't have a signifigantly lower price. A 152 wasn't really that cheap when new.

As for the castering front wheel, I trained in a Katana that was equipped that way. That is no disadvantage in my book. You'll just need to be a little more conscious of the wind and your use of the rudder on the ground. No big deal.

Bill, You miss interpretted (or I mis-communicated) on two points.

1) I said "so called middle class". In my definition middle class used to be an $800 camper and $2500 pickup truck (value not payment) with a loan on each, and a house or rent payment of $750 per month max, plus $1500 on a credit card balance that I could never get paid off. Today's middle class is $350K house with a 90% mortgage and $3,000 payment, A lexus with a $500 payment, a Suburban or Tahoe with a $500 payment and a boat with a $1000 payment. I don't know how they do it (or why) but it explains a lot of divorces I suspect. Money stress being at the top of the list. I won't even get into the "fam" being signed up for gymnastics, gymnasium and other "recreational endeavors" at another cool $250 per month.

2) I don't think I inferred "no debt" on the airplane. In fact, I was trying to convey just the opposite. Too many young people (and old people) shop payments, not value. The attitude is "If it's new, shiny and latest tech, and I can "qualify" for the payment (even though I may not be able to afford it)....I'll take it".

You don't think all these Cirrus, Columbia and Cessna buyers are ponying up cash do you. Nope...they have "easy payment plans" to make it work.

In fact, when I stopped at the Cirrus display at Arlington a few years back, the guy had the same plan as down at the local car dealer. You know...like... "What can we do to get you into this airplane", and " For the monthly payment of a BMW, you can own the latest technology airplane...and as a banker, we both know you can afford it...right".

My personal conviction is...just because I can, doesn't mean I should. Thus the Cherokee....for the price of a 150/150, I can enjoy something with a bit more performance, and a bit less shade (oh....did I say that.... )

I had an interesting conversation with Mike Nass yesterday (Clinton airport manager). Mike knows the guy who originally wrote the LSA spec for EAA. Mike asked him why the C150-152 was not included in the spec, and the answer was: "We don't want to grandfather in a whole class of airplanes that should have been retired 20 years ago. Our idea is to stimulate new production,new designs, new customers, new excitement, not just cater to the status quo."

Mike noted that the vast majority of new pilots he sees going through Clinton are of above average income, and do not consider it a hardship to pay $160K for a new 172, in fact, they would much rather do that than buy a nice used 172 for $60K.

Presumably, these are the types of customers for the 162 and other $100K LSA models.

I observe that GA seems to be splitting into two economic classes, that of those who have plenty of money for toys, and want new shiny ones. (This is a small group out of society at large, but still several hundred thousand potential pilots.)

The second group is us. People who you might call middle class, watching our budgets much more carefully, and happy for the opportunity to own and fly 30+ year old airplanes, even if they have original paint. Sadly, our group is endangered and probably ultimately headed for extinction. As the price of flying goes up and up, many of us will have to drop out. If most of the new pilots are in a higher economic strata, personal flying will become a smaller and much more exclusive hobby.

Sad. Won't happen today, or tomorrow, but I'll bet we're looking at a gradual decline that will take place over the next 20-30 years.

There will still be 150-152's in my opinion, but the one's left will be pampered collectables, like J3 cubs are today.

A cheery outlook from your resident pessimist.

Buck up, pessimist. There have always been "haves" and "have nots", and the latter has always been far more numerous.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - LSAs will become affordable... when they're used, just like our current crop of 150s and 152s.

It wouldn't surprise me if the ratio of flight schools vs private owners buying new LSAs is the same as when 150s were decades ago.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the grumbling about unaffordable new aircraft started when the Wright brothers peddled their first product and has continued unabated since. Remember that no one built a Pientepol Aircamper because new airplanes in the 1930s were cheap!

I agree. The aging instruments in our planes are only going to get more expensive to replace/repair if keeping original. I think the time the industry has had glass, we have pretty much shown that these things are just as if not much more reliable than the old stuff. Think NO GYROS.... (this must make new aircraft without "black boxes" quite hard for the NTSB folk to determine if there had been an instrument readout failiure). I'm hoping that the MFD will be able to be the redundant counterpart to the PFD like G1000 does...

Well, as we consider the cost of a new C-162, keep in mind the fact that Cessna must now carry a huge liability policy on each plane, for the next 15 years. And we know who pays for that.

And remember that a new C-150 was $15 000, in 1975. That would be $75 000, today.