drseti, I completely agree as to performance.
But we still have the question of visual recognition. Which is exactly where my argument breaks down (about calling in as a type "C172"). It could be an issue in some circumstances.
My point above was that anybody (pilot, controller, or interested bystander) can take a few minutes if they want to, look up an unfamiliar airplane, and become rather expert instantly. Even recognizing that most controllers are not pilots, they are still interested professionally in airplanes and they do have web access. It seems natural to me to augment interest with knowledge, especially when a wealth of knowledge is easily available around the clock: images, specifications, and videos.
A busy pilot or controller might not have the time at any given moment to research anything. But a simple scrawl on paper of "Sting 3" or "CTLS" can be pocketed and looked up later. Likewise, as pilots, I think our recognition of each other's airplane type is equally important. I'm a safer pilot to share the sky with you if I know something about your plane.
Anyway, I'm for calling my plane in to tower with something like "Lollipop Tower, Flight-Design-CT, 1234 Whiskey at Palisades with Juliet for landing." That says it all, at least to me, and probably to you. If a controller is not acquainted with my airplane type, let her say something like "34 Whiskey, Lollipop, unfamiliar type CT, clarify." I respond "Looks and flies like a Cessna 172." Everybody's happy. Like in Colorado. And next time, she knows what a CT is.
So what's the fly in my particular ointment?
I am concerned about a controller not getting the picture right away but also not having time to request clarification on the frequency in highly congested air traffic. Then what? My unknown airplane gets sequenced in between a couple multi-engines or jets, maybe. Nice and sweaty unraveling that, I guess. Just saying.
And, as a bonus bite of crow for me,
I would like to state that controllers are the best people in the world when the spit hits the fan while I'm upstairs. Life-saving men and women of steel they are. And they all make tons of "little saves" daily. My goal is to avoid putting a controller in unnecessary confusion over my brand-name preference. I certainly will call myself "Flight Design CT" when I think it's appropriate. I will educate where I can. I just wont insist on it, any more than I would insist on the right-of-way in a tricky situation.
And I like your idea about all of us LSA's just calling in as "LSA" or "Light Sport" since we all fly about the same numbers. "LSA" does give less information than "Remos G-3," or "Allegro 2007," or "Sting 3" ... if a controller knows that all three are, in fact, LSA. So perhaps at the present time "LSA" would be a good compromise. That gives any controller the basics about the plane's performance, but nothing about appearance.
I'm sure that there is no universal answer for all pilots, all conditions, all localities, or all controllers, unless that answer would be universal education. I'm enjoying exploring the possibilities that arise in this complex discussion. And I find everyone's input meaningful. Thanks.