On 11 Aug 2006 08:09:50 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0500, Jim Carriere
wrote:
snip.

Getting an inkling on why Cessna is going to certify its new LSA in *normal*
category, not SLSA? :-)

The fact is that Cessna would be better off just to make the airplane
everyone wants-a 150 hp 150 Aerobat with gear hardpoints for tricycle
or conventional gear (or floats)...

Sorry, don't see it. Few people want conventional gear today; no reason to go
through all the work to certify taildragger versions.

Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

If Cessna certified its new airplane as an LSA, their certification costs would
be much lower. However, they would put themselves at legal risk as owners
re-certify their Cessnas as ELSAs in order to do their own maintenance.

On the other hand, by pursuing Normal category certification, they ensure the
planes remain in as-certified configuration and would be maintained and
inspected by fully-trained mechanics. The certification itself costs more, but
it's a process they're very familiar with.

Ron Wanttaja