Ron Wanttaja wrote:
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.

They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
were Cessna dealers then.

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

When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on. You cannot
really train pilots without requiring spins and a certain amount of
full-inverted aerobatics: the military knows this which is why the
bomber-tanker-transport guys had to have specially beefed bizjets
built.