Cessna Skycatcher has "no Future" from Cessna CEO

[Mike Switzer]

It still gets back to my original post they're too expensive for the average 'sport type' pilot and there's basically no utility other than boring holes in the sky and I can do that with my $30,000 Aeronca.

Exactly. If all I wanted to do was bore holes in the sky I would make the guy the next airport over an offer he couldn't refuse for his Swift (that is in in many pieces, is really small, but I would still probably fit in better than the current crop of LSA's). I like to go places, if I want to spend a lot of money on a really expensive hobby I will re-join SCCA & spend my money on Porsche & MG parts. Or maybe spend even more money on antique tractors.

[martymayes]

I know someone with a Flight Design CTLS and he can cover 700 miles at a time boring holes at 172 speeds. I'd say that's pretty good utility. Plus, it's a very comfortable airplane to fly in. He covers a large chunk of the country and absolutely loves the plane.

[Mike Berg]

I know someone with a Flight Design CTLS and he can cover 700 miles at a time boring holes at 172 speeds. I'd say that's pretty good utility. Plus, it's a very comfortable airplane to fly in. He covers a large chunk of the country and absolutely loves the plane.

If it works for him .... fine and the Flight Design LS looks like it might be a great plane for a flight school, etc. but at $156,000+ most average folks can't afford it. Plus, it's German made and I always think about 'service after the sale' over the long run. Especially for anything that expensive (not to mention insurance). Right now the Vans RV 12 almost makes the most sense and that's around $75,000 in the kit form.

Mike

[Frank Giger]

Most folks can't afford a factory new aircraft period, regardless of make or model.

Keywords: Experimental, Aircraft, and Association.

The CTLS is actually not the best trainer. I learned in one, and while I'm hardly the sterling pilot it's from the lower third of the bell curve that we should judge things (so I'm qualified!).

The disadvantages are that it's a glass panel, so one winds up learning how to work that stupid thing as well as the aircraft that supports it; the composite landing gear that tend to delaminate after a couple hard landings and have to be replaced; the twitchy nature of its crosswind performance.

Then again, I have hated panels ever since the one in the CTLS decided to have a battery fit and go blank. On takeoff. No partial panel training for me - the only instrument I had was a compass, as there are no other backup steam gauges. While I suppose it's good training to just keep flying as long as the airplane is flying, it was rather disconcerting. Pushing three buttons on it got it restarted.

The advantages are it's a hot little LSA for the owner (who defrays the cost by renting it out for training) who definately uses it for long cross country flights. The Rotex engine is reliable, operating is cheap, and if it needs to go to the Mother Ship for maintenance there's a place in florida that is factory certified. His experience with Flight Design has been nothing but positive.

But give me steam gauges, and the fewer the better. For my certified dollar the best plane ever rolled off a GA assembly line was an Aeronica Champ 7AC.

[jjhoneck]

In June I made the leap from certificated aircraft to experimental, when we bought our RV-8A.

I absolutely could not be happier. 200 mph on a Skyhawk's fuel burn, and we can be to 10,000 feet in just a few minutes.

And it cost HALF of what a new LSA would run.