Cessna's response to negative feedback on Skycatcher being builtin China

On Jan 5, 4:08*pm, William Hung wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:59*pm, "Morgans" wrote:





"William Hung" wrote

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? *I would sonner buy them over the new one and
just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but that's
just me.

Nope. *Too heavy.

That was one of my major complaints about the new (was new) LSA rule. *IMO,
the rule should have had a high enough weight limit that the 152 was light
enough to qualify.
--
Jim in NC

Shame that. *I really like the C150/2s. *I'll still try to save up for
one anyways.

Wil- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yeah, if I can get a hanger space or a tiedown nearby.

Wil

William Hung wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
:

On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
aa53-
:







On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
b5ff-
:

On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
ever.

I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
HAving
said
that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
do

Bertie

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? *

Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
They do the job, though.

I would sonner buy them over the new one and

just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
that's
just me.

About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
The
150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You got a plane Bertie? Love to see pics if you do. My email is
good.


Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing.

On Jan 5, 4:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
:







On Jan 5, 4:03*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:aee7c0b2-0f20-46cb-
aa53-
:

On Jan 4, 10:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:f410af67-3d69-42ec-
b5ff-
:

On Jan 4, 10:29*am, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html

I brownsed the gallery. *That's got to be the ugilest Cessna
ever.

I have to say, none of those new LSAs look very good at all.
HAving
said
that, I haven't flown one, so I really ought to see what one will
do

Bertie

Not that what I think matters, but I think that the 150/2s are
great
looking, even better looking than the 172s. *Doesn't the 150/2s
qualify for LSA status? *

Nah, way too heavy. I thnk LSA max is 1320 lbs.
I like the look of the older razorback 150s, but the rear window ones
are a little, uh, dumpy looking.
They do the job, though.

I would sonner buy them over the new one and

just use the balance to fully pimp it out(zero time engine, new
prop,
new interior and paintjob, new toys for the panel...etc.), but
that's
just me.

About the only previsouly certified airplanes that qualify are things
like Chiefs, Luscombe 8A (the 8E is too heavy) and stuff like that.
The
150 grosses around 1500, maybe a bit more.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You got a plane Bertie? *Love to see pics if you do. *My email is
good.

Yeah, but I don't post pics of it ordinarily.
I sold one iu had for years a while back, but just bought a Citabria (
also not qualified for LSA)
I had a Luscombe, but I don;t think I'd have bothered with LSA
certification even if I had kept it. Not aq lot of advantage for me. I
did most of the maintenance myself anyway so it would have saved me
nothing. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No problem about posting the pic. I can understand why. Anyways, the
Citabria sounds awesome. Would love to get some time in one. One of
these days. Haven't tried aerobatics yet still kind of green.

Wil

William Hung wrote in news:08908750-98ee-42ff-849f-
:

On Jan 5, 4:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:a93bdf26-8724-4930-9edc-
:




No problem about posting the pic. I can understand why. Anyways, the
Citabria sounds awesome. Would love to get some time in one. One of
these days. Haven't tried aerobatics yet still kind of green.

they're lots of fun. I haven't done them for a while except for some very
minor manuevers, so I'm looking forward to doing it again. The citabria is
a real easy airplane to fly.
150s are good airplanes. Just spend a few bucks getting it checked out
before you buy. They;re all real old. You could buy what looks like a good
one for 15 grand and spend that much again on it just getting it up to
scratch.

Bertie

On 2008-01-05, William Hung wrote:
Doesn't the 150/2s qualify for LSA status?

No. Certificated max gross weight is too high (1320 pounds). If it did
qualify, I'd go buy one, instead of looking at new LSAs.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Yes, I meant the majority of the electoral vote, but not 51% of the popular
vote, which of course happened in the last election.

Airbus writes:

What "route" would that be?

Inhaling lead-containing fuel additives, such as tetraethyl lead.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Airbus writes:

What "route" would that be?

Inhaling lead-containing fuel additives, such as tetraethyl lead.


Using leaded fuel in your rice cooker?

I's al starting to make sense now.

Bertie

On Jan 6, 2:47*am, "Morgans" wrote:
"James Sleeman" wrote

Gitmo is a disgrace to the US. *To try and justify it by any means is
ludicrous.

So during a war, you advocate returning prisoners of war?


The US Government has consistently proclaimed that these are not
Prisoners of War. If they would do so, it wouldn't be half the
problem it is for the US now, except of course, they wouldn't be able
to torture the prisoners any more.

"James Sleeman" wrote

The US Government has consistently proclaimed that these are not
Prisoners of War.

Right. They are fighting in a war that is being fought by an arm without
the support a government. They are our enemies, all the same, and they
were fighting, thus they are called enemy combatants.

If they would do so, it wouldn't be half the problem it is for the US now,
except of course, they wouldn't be able to torture the prisoners any more.

Not true. Since they are not in an army supported by a country that signed
the Geneva Convention, they have no protection.

The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian support
people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection, either. The fact
that they are still kept alive is more than they deserve.
--
Jim in NC