Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skycatcher news

Heheheh...

Helen, I would LOVE to have a brand new 172SP instead of the 1968 172i, are you kidding me? ;)

But I spent all my money on other things and all I had left was a measly $35K.

I SURE as hell wasn't going to BORROW money to buy a toy! Then I'd have to make payments, probably need to get a job or something ;(

 

Yes, the IO engines ARE harder to start when they are warm, but the exageration that they REFUSE to start kinda puts the credibility of the whole rant into question, see what I mean?  And what did you say the useful load was on yours? mine's 850#,  about the same as the new ones. The GROSS weight has gone up, but in the useful load has stayed fairly steady.

 

And NO, my seats don't bend. Yours do?  I forget, what year is your 172? Did they use lighter steel in the frames that flex easier?

 

Anyways, good to hear from you, I like to read your posts.

Keep training those Light Sport pilots so they can all go out and buy new airplanes. I don't care WHAT model they pick :)

 

Rick

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Helen Woods

To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:15 AM

Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skycatcher news

 

Yes. There are 5 sumps under each wing and 3 under the nose.

1968 Cessna seats were designed to bend forward and backward. If yours
don't, I suggest you have them serviced.

I have a good deal of time behind an IO-360 and I haven't found one yet
that was easy to start when hot.

As a Cessna owner and card carrying member of Cessna Pilots Association,
I think I have earned the right to gripe about what the current company
has done to what was once an excellent line of planes. The 50's and
60's planes were awesome but they've gone down hill from there,
especially after the break in the production line in the late 80's due
to lawsuits. I am guessing that is why you and I both own 1960's
Cessna's and not modern ones.

Helen

Rick Pitcher wrote:
>
>
> 13 fuel sumps just so the lawyers can't prove that you checked them
> all for water? Really? The checklist only shows the normal wing tank
> and fuel strainer. Are you saying there are MORE of these sumps? Where?
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/903694/Cessna-172-SP-Checklist
>
> And the seats don't bend so you can reach things in the back seat? My
> 1968 172i seats don't bend either, do the seaats in your older 172
> bend? wierd...
>
> The fuel injected engines refuse to start when warm? Funny, the 3
> 172SP's at EAFB flying club all seem to start and run OK when warm, so
> do all the other fuel injected engines that I see fueling up next to
> me at the fuel pumps.
>
> And the useful load on the SP is still around 850 pounds, same as my
> 1968 172i. How much does your 172 carry?
>
> I know that you are selling other airplanes, but it just seems little
> disengenuous to pick nits on everyone else's airplanes.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Helen Woods <mailto:Helen_Woods@verizon.net>
> *To:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2009 7:25 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skycatcher news
>
>
>
> The 13 fuel sumps for one so the lawyers can't possibly prove that
> the
> pilot checked all of them for water. The fuel injected engine that
> refuses to start when hot to prevent law suits from pilots who don't
> know how to identify and resolve carburetor ice. The giant super
> heavy
> seats that won't bend so you can reach anything in the back that you
> might need in flight but presumably prevent wiplash lawsuits for
> another. I could go on. They've added so much lawyer proofing on
> their
> current 172 that its so heavy as to be a two person bird.
>
> Helen
>
> Rick Pitcher wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Helen Woods
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 5:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skycatcher news
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> You know, one thing that no one has talked about that is going
> to be
> >> really interesting is what type of service Cessna is going to
> provide to
> >> owners looking for LOAs. Since the restart of the Cessna
> production
> >> line in the 90s, Cessna has been hyper concerned about
> liability, often
> >> to the design detriment of their aircraft. A quick comparison of a
> >> C172SP against any P or earlier model of C172 illustrates what
> I mean.
> >>
> > I> can easily see them refusing to offer any sort of LOAs or
> modification
> >
> >> support to owners.
> >>
> >
> > That's an odd sounding statement, what does it mean?
> > What kind of design detriments did they make for liability purposes?
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2483 - Release Date:
> 11/05/09 11:52:00
>
>
>
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2483 - Release Date: 11/05/09 11:52:00

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___