![]() Unfortunately, Cessna just didn’t hold up its end of the bargain for this little flier. Bottom line, the only thing the Skycatcher really had going for it versus other LSA was the name Cessna. Not taking non-LSA competitors, like the Cessna 152, into account, there are a plethora of cheaper, better performing, less limited LSA. Not to mention, it definitely didn’t hold a candle to the (in)famous Cessna 150/152 or 120/140 that are so prevalent across the country in spite of production having ended in 1985. While I generally liked the Cessna 162, it was far from ideal as an LSA. In my mind, the 162 fell victim to 3 major pitfalls: better competitors, poor manufacturing decisions, and a shift in corporate vision. I don’t think LSA have taken off like we all hoped they would, but I don’t think that doomed the Cessna 162. I think Flying is partially correct in their assertion that “ a ghost doomed the Skycatcher,” but I don’t think that’s the only problem. ![]() Not to beat a dead horse, but the Skycatcher just didn’t have much hope. How you feel about this really depends on your take on Cessna and LSA in general, but I don’t think anybody can truly say they are surprised. This recent announcement pretty much clears up exactly what CEO Scott Earnest meant when he indicated the Skycatcher had no future at the NBAA convention in October. As you may have heard, it seems Cessna is getting out of the LSA business.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |