newer aircraft

[cessnasey]

you see all these american schools with brand new c172 and worriors yet all the schools in the uk seem to offer run down grotty 15-20 year old aircraft. why is this?

is there any london based schools that offer newer aircraft to learn/hire? dont get me wrong i am not having a moan, but as a PPL wannabe with less than 5 hours id like to try a newer aircraft for the experience and to see the difference (or if there is a difference so to speak).

[Henry Hallam]

Don't know about London, but Cambridge Aero Club has four very new (4~5 years) Cessna 172SPs in fine condition, and they are lovely to fly. I'm sure there are other schools around with new aircraft.

Do be aware that you will pay a little more for a new aircraft. There is nothing wrong with 1970's machines as trainers, or indeed for touring on a budget.

[robin]

cessnasey

With less that 5 hours under your belt, I think most of us would suggest you concentrate on getting your licence first, unless you really can't stand the type of aircraft you are flying, the instructor or the school

With the experience you have, you should be learning the basics of flight ready for a solo in a few hours time. You'll have plenty of time to look around for new types late on.

I've just finished an additional rating in an aged C172, but it was stable and well-equipped and was just the job.

[cessnasey]

hey guys dont misunderstand me. i love flying any type aircraft and am totaly happy and confident in the aircraft i fly:ok: i was just wondering as iv never seen any club in london operating newer aircraft and iv checked out a fair few before i chose the club im currently at.

just curious why the schools in the states all seem to be advertising brand new aircraft. i mean it most definitly isnt a necessity to be taught in a newer aircraft, but it would be a nice luxury right!

[wet wet wet]

Some UK schools have invested in new hardware. For example the Coventry Aeroplane Club http://www.covaero,com have some new Warriors.

[FlyingForFun]

is there any london based schools that offer newer aircraft to learn/hire?The last time I was there, White Waltham had two new-model C172s available.

There is a very good reason why most schools don't have these aircraft, though - they cost more, and offer no real benefit. I am an instructor at a school which has a selection of aircraft, mainly Cessnas, including one new C172 and several "run down grotty 15-20 year old aircraft" to use your phrase.

The number of hours required to get a PPL on the new aircraft is exactly the same as on the older aircraft. They are no easier to fly (the only exception being the lack of carb heat), the controls are identical, the reliability is just as good as a well-maintained older aircraft. Of my PPL students who have tried the new C172, two have decided that the slight extra comfort is worth paying a little more for, but the vast majority have said it would be nice to be able to train on it but they can't afford the extra cash, so they continue to train on the older aircraft.

Having said that, this aircraft is the most popular for PPLs to hire to go touring in, because of the extra comfort level.

With aviation in this country being as expensive as it is, I can't see this situation changing until newer aircraft offer a real cost benefit to the schools and the students. This probably isn't too far off - diesel engines and modern composite aircraft designs offer large cost benefits, and a small number of schools have taken them on, but I think most schools are waiting until the technology has a proven track record before investing huge amounts of money in upgrading their fleets.

FFF
-------------

[englishal]

I've given up renting "Steam driven" aeroplanes in England and even America.......Especially when you can rent a brand new DA40 with G1000, (XM satellite weather, XM satellite Radio, Traffic info,) in America for half the price of a dodgey old Warrior in the UK with half the avionics missing.....

I own a quater of a steam driven plane in the UK, but all the avionics work, and it only costs me £40 per hour to fly; which is about £100 per hour less than the dodgey old warrior with half the avionics missing that the local flying club likes to rent me, which has similar or worse performance than my plane.

Given the choice between renting a new Glass cockpit TwinStar or old UK Warrior, I know which I'd rather fly.;)

[High Wing Drifter]

I'd take a Twinstar with Analogue gauges over almost any other type of light single or twin, never mind the glass.

[soay]

Reasons why I prefer to fly the 5 year old C172 at my flying school, rather than the 20 year old 172 and 152s:

26g seats;
inertia reel shoulder harnesses for all seats;
a carburetor ice-free, fuel-injected engine.

Secondary safety has been a feature of cars for so long that I was shocked to realise that neither it, nor ergonomics, featured in the C150 I first flew in. I wouldn't choose to drive a car without a collapsible steering column, so why take any more risks than I have to in an aeroplane?

Interestingly, the "modern" aircraft manufacturers - Cirrus, Columbia and Diamond - all have information about safety on their websites, unlike Cessna.

[robin]

.... and then one day you are offered a flight in a 30-40 year-old aircraft, love it to pieces and buy into it.

Your training does not prepare you for the joys of an iced-up Arden VW or Continental.

[Small Rodent Driver]

.... and then one day you are offered a flight in a 30-40 year-old aircraft, love it to pieces and buy into it.
Your training does not prepare you for the joys of an iced-up Arden VW or Continental.

Was offered a flight in a 60 year old bird a while back and bought it on the spot!:)

The newer stuff whilst very pleasant to be in does not (IMO) offer anywhere near the same degree of involvement or just plain old charm.

[cessnasey]

flying for fun

my phrase "run down grotty 15-20 year old aircraft" was not ment to offend or annoy... im sorry if this annoyed you.

i see your point in that theres no real benefit for a flying school to operate new aircraft, and i am aware its not a must, but c'mon, to learn in a new aircraft would be a great luxury for students.

also another thing i dont understand is why they cost more to run? to buy ok, but in terms of maintaining/running i would expect it to be cheaper as theres less mainanence cost and less chance of things to go wrong. can anyone explain this? sorry if this is a silly question, bear in mind im new to flying.

when i was searching for a club i visited one club in london that showed me one of there pa-38s they teach in. this was the worst example of any aircraft in service i had ever seen. i got in, tried to close the door and the seal fell off! i had to hold the seal up, pull the door wich was hard as the door wouldnt close cos my hand was in the way! after fighting with the door for a while, i managed to get in and take a seat the seat was wobbling all over the place, the interior left allot to be desired and it didnt look like a well maintained aircraft at all.

as a buisness, they are not doing themselves much justice in advertising this particular aircraft. maybe this is exceptable to some, but i would not feel safe going up in that aircraft as a newbie or as an experienced PPL.

i would think that operating new aircraft would offer greater benefits in terms of people choosing a club. i mean, on one airfield if theres 5 schools (assuming all are equally good), i would most definitly go to the one with the newest, best maintained fleet.

[jabberwok]

An interesting thread and it sadly shows what sort of mindset we have all got into.

Our club bought a brand new PA28 in 1973 and I flew it a few days later. It was a real pleasure to sit in an aircraft without scuffs, worn upholstery, scratched perspex and a a tired panel. 33 years later and the same aircraft is still going. It is still nice to fly but time has not been kind to it and it looks tatty.

The really sad thing is that many pilots accept this. Some may have flown their whole life in such aircraft and never question the situation. It's a different matter for passengers and I have seen some rather questioning looks from people who are flying in a light aircraft for the first time when they see the inside of the aircraft. You know exactly what is going through their minds too as they try to relate the fact that your expensive hobby is not really relected in what they are sitting in.

In what other sphere of life would you accept a similar situation? For example would you like to envisage all car development for the last 30 years to be scrapped and go back to driving your Cortina/Anglia/Austin 1100? Apply the same rule to washing machines, vaccum cleaners, radios or anything else you own. Apart from a few people who like to collect "memorabilia" (I have an MGB myself) we all have relatively modern and good looking possessions.

The real question is why has this situation developed. I know many of you will be very protective of the aircraft you fly (however old) but wouldn't you really like to enjoy the chance to sit in a brand new version instead of the sad aircraft you have become used to? Wouldn't it be nice to take passengers out to an aircraft that looks smart for a change? I certainly would.

The reason why we are all flying around in old hacks has been covered in many earlier threads. GA went into the doldrums a decade or two ago (product liability, oil prices etc, etc) and it hasn't really recovered from it. New designs stopped and so we are still left with ancient Cessnas and Piper with ancient engines. Change is finally in the air but it has been a long time coming.

Don't get me wrong because I will be sad when our ancient but venerable Cherokee gets put out to grass - but it is a long time overdue. It is time for GA to move on and to see new designs replace our ancient steeds.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why do newer a/c cost more to run? Simple, they cost more to buy.

There are not many places that could simply go out and buy an entire new fleet, especially with PA28 or C172's going for over £150K.

When you factor in the finance costs of borrowing that amount of money, the hourly rate goes through the roof. The simple fact is that new a/c don't cost significantly less to run than old ones, so where's the benefit? In an already tight market, there is very little margin.

The only machines it makes sense to buy are the modern types with Diesel engines. The economics then make sense as you are making a huge saving on the fuel costs and this can then offset the finance. It doesn't make it any cheaper for your average renter (yet anyway) but when the machine is paid off, the hourly rate can then come down.
New a/c are often no more reliable than "old" ones, infact I've always had more trouble in the first two years of a machine, than in the latter years. There is an old adage in aircraft procurement "Never buy the -100 series of anything." This is equally true in GA, infact the build quality of many new machines would shame even B.L in the 70's.

One last thing, most flying schools in the US have a/c that I wouldn't get into, there are a few with modern equipment, but these are further apart than the marketing pamphlets would have you believe.

All flying schools would love to get rid of the old clunkers, but reality gets in the way somewhat.

[Julian]

I think Jaberwok sums it up! Why have renters let themselves get in the mindset of 'thats how it is!'.

If schools are taking £x per/hour for the aircraft then they should be using it to maintain them. To get in an aircraft and have the door seal fall off followed by a seat that isnt secured would have me getting straight back out of the aircraft and back in my car.

I did a checkout a while back at a well known West London club paying around £130/hr for the aircraft (instructor about another £35) and was amazed that for that price half the kit didnt work in the thing!

On top of that some schools now have the cheek to add on a 'fuel surcharge' of i.r.o. £10/hr instead of just admitting that the aircraft is in fact £140/hr not £130/hr as advertised!

I have bought into a group now and for £90/hr (wet) we get a fully equipped Piper Arrow IV, Garmin 430, AP, full airways, retracts, VP Prop, new interior and its just gone off for a new paint job(ok we are going have to contribute a bit for that!).

All for less of a capital outlay than most people pay for their family car and without the ski jump depreciation!!!

As you can probably tell I am completely hacked off with the renting game in the UK, which sent me down the group pathway, I have to say I agree with Cessnasey comment though that rental aircraft in the US in my experience are in a much better state of affairs and do tend to be newer. Wether this is down to them taking more care of them (not just bare minimum maintenance), higher return on aircraft due to fact they are in the air more often due to lower prices/decent weather or the fact that a lot of schools over there push and take advantage of lease back options wit private owners you can debate all day - but to the punter handing over his money to the FBO the difference is obviously visible and noticed...

Julian.

[IO540]

S.A.S.

You should get a 2 year warranty on a new plane, and if you really (I mean really) make sure this is honoured on even the smallest item that isn't 100% right (the dealer probably won't like that) then you should end up with a very low operating cost after that, plus of course during the warranty because the defects are covered. But you must know this....

I think this is a very difficult time for a school which does want to modernise. Nobody with sense is going to buy a new Piper or Cessna because, to the average punter, they look like something out of WW2 - which, apart from a GPS in the panel, is probably close. They do look rather agricultural. It's also hard to get in/out of a PA28.

And the diesels (the DA40, basically) are far from proven in reliability.

A few years from now it will be a lot better. If Diamond and Thielert (or whichever diesel Diamond will be using in the DA40 - weren't they dumping Thielert?) are still in business, there will be a very good and proven plane.

Of course the biggest problem is that most of the customers are skint. One needs to draw in people with more money. Haven't we had this debate before? :O

[Say again s l o w l y]

We certainly have IO!!

Warranties are often rubbish and they certainly don't cover you for the loss of business when the a/c is sat in a hangar.

DA40's and the like are fine, but I have to say I was a bit dissapointed with it when I test flew one last year. The interior was very utilitarian and the fit and finish was not as good as a Ford, let alone something costing the thick end of £160K. Add this to the fact that the service we recieved was pretty poor. It really put me off getting one.

I'm not convinced by Cirrus' either (despite the lovely looks and interior) so until something else comes along, we're stuck with the very well cared for and well equipped machines we use now. Not too much of a burden!

I do love it when people say "I only fly for £90/hr wet" in something with lots of kit and expensive parts. When you go through EXACTLY what you have spent over the years Monthly fees, Annual costs, Maintenance, Upgrades and not to mention unexpected bills etc. and then divide by the number of hours flown. I'll lay money it comes to much more than £90 an hour!

[englishal]

I can't understand why a new aeroplane should make the "hourly rate go through the roof"? Why is it then that I can go an fly a $260,000 aeroplane in the USA for LESS than I rent a rickety old Warrior for here? I know fuel is cheaper there, but even a 180HP Lycoming will probably burn less than £50 per hour in the UK (my 160HP burns < £40 worth of fuel).

My rough calculations say that you should be able to rent / run a brand new DA40 (petrol) for ~ £110 per tacho hour (and over estimating my calculations) including fuel, maintenance, insurance, parking, engine and still make a profit, and pay off the aeroplane over 10 years (based on ~500 hours per year). Especially with Diamond giving 2 years free maintenance, warranty, finance etc.....

[Say again s l o w l y]

There is no way on earth we could get something with the fuel burn of an old type of aircraft and still put it out at the same rate as an old shonker.

If you average 30 Hrs/month, then the finance on that sum will be around £2500/month, fuel at 35 litres/hr, hangarage (£300/month), Insurance (£300/month) Maintenance (£20/hr).

These aren't accurate figures totally, but a good ball park given our operation.

So an hourly cost of £159.50 using my figure for the club. That's not taking into account things like depreciation or any profit......

Still think it makes sense? If it were a diesel buring £8 of jet A1, then the numbers work, otherwise......

[IO540]

The answer to the US prices being lower is probably in several parts:

1) Utilisation.

In Arizona I saw them do a good five 1hr flights per day, 360 days a year. That's most of the way to TBO every year. The airframe manual was full of 100hr checks... The instructors don't seem to mind, either - despite being somewhat knackered at times :O

One can't do much about the weather here in the UK but I have never seen a school do what I would describe as half decent marketing, aimed at people who can actually afford to fly.

2) Parts.

Here in the UK, the average small item is probably double the cost v. the USA. I have not had significant bills for airframe parts myself but have seen comparative avionics costs, and here one certainly pays 2x as much. The US distis are banned (by Garmin etc) from selling direct overseas, which protects the revenue of the European distis, who in turn look after the margins of the UK avionics fitters. And, on the old planes that nearly all training outfits around the world operate, there is a constant stream of parts to replace.

3) CAA maintenance

Without a doubt the CAA 50hr check is a significant cost. When I was on G-reg this added about £10/hr (inc VAT) to my direct costs, and that was a new plane, with very little remedial work. The 150hr check added another £10/hr. Whereas in FAA-land, the 100hr check (comparable to the CAA 150hr one; both are similar to the Annual, on most types) isn't necessary for self fly hire; it is required only if one is training other people in the plane. I don't know how many US schools take advantage of this, but it does mean that if a plane is approaching the 100hr mark, and they have enough planes for their training requirements, the aforementioned one can be set aside for self fly hire only.

4) Leaning

Not sure how widespread this is but it was routine to lean in cruise in the US. My UK training experience is that it was never done. This adds best part of £10/hr to a PA28. I know UK schools prefer people to fly full rich because the engine runs cooler etc etc (& all the old arguments about leaning etc etc) but the end result of the UK training scene routinely flying full-rich is that the wet rate gets inflated throughout the industry by this much, and everybody pays for it.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It's unfortunately a bit of a viscious circle, where the more you fly, the cheaper it becomes, therefore the more people you'll get to fly in the first place.

Marketing is poorly done industry wide (there are some exceptions to that though.) with usually a line in Yellow pages being about the most of it.

CAA costs (direct and indirect) combined with ridiculous fuel prices, ruinous maintenance, huge bills for parking and landings.... You start to see a picture forming!

The fact GA even survives at all in this country is somewhat of a miracle.:{

[jabberwok]

An idle few moments on G-INFO looking for the workhorses of GA (PA28, C150, C172) showed that the oldest PA28 still active was built in 1961 (G-ATDA) and oldest Cessna was built in 1960 (G-ARID). 46 years activity for the latter.

Age of powered flight = 103 years.
Age of Cessna = 46 years. (51 if we count the type's first flight)

So, for almost half of the total span of man powered flight we are still flying around in the same aircraft. It makes me weep..

[kms901]

almost got put off learning to fly again by the state of some of the aeroplanes. After my instructor said "ok, let's see what is wrong with this one", I started to lose heart. What was wrong was the strong smell of burning oil when using full power. If I the same thing happened to me in a car, I would pull over and stop immediately.

[Julian]

SAS,

I did not say "I only fly for £90/hr wet", I actually said "and for £90/hr (wet)", I also said we were all chipping in for the respray. However with my monthlies at £110 (inc. insurance, hangerage, etc) it is still less than 1 hours flying at a flying school and this includes the engine fund - which by the way is brand new so cant see us needing it in the near future....

Even with all this taken into account I am still handing over less of my income per year in running the aircraft than I would if I was renting it on a per/hr basis from a flying club/school. I would also hazard a guess that a group memeber will fly a hell of a lot more than a renter as it is so much cheaper. The aircraft is also be in a lot better state of repair and I also have the confidence that as it isnt being used for training and none of the other guys in our group are muppets that I am going to turn up time after time to find things falling off it or it in maintenance again!!! Its not just about something with lots of kit and expensive parts its about the fact that these things actually work and dont just take up space in the panel and add weight to the aircraft :bored:

We both have the same direct costs, i.e. fuel, mtce, landing fees (although most clubs I have been to make the renter pay these anyway).

If you average 30 Hrs/month, then the finance on that sum will be around £2500/month, fuel at 35 litres/hr, hangarage (£300/month), Insurance (£300/month) Maintenance (£20/hr).

What sort of aircraft you basing £2500/month loan repayments on - thats £30k year so if you buy a nice aircraft for £60-70k(PA28) it will still be paid off in 2-3 years then its all profit!!! If you have say a PA28-201 you are going to renting out in the £180-200 bracket no doubt so if its hired out 30 hours(using your example) a month you get a return of £6000/month - or £72000 year!!!

A brand new aircraft would no doubt be even more per hour to hire and dont even get started on twins! :} With the Arrow IV having a VNo of 149 KIAS it moves quick enough anyway. I wanted into a group with a proper touring aircraft and was lucky to find one nearby, others may want an aero aircraft or something from the Wright Bros era....

Would you accept the same crappy service from a car hire company if you had just handed them £140 and they wheeled out a car belching smoke and bits hanging off?

Julian.

[Say again s l o w l y]

30K a year is easy if it is something that will cost you £150+K. Even without interest, at that rate it will take 5 years to pay off.

I will not justify people offering clapped out machines for hire, it isn't acceptable to have bits falling off, but club machines do have a harder life than privately owned, so they will often be in not such good nick. (Unfortunately.)

At £90/hr + £110 per month if you fly an average of 5 hrs a month (More than most) it is costing you £112/hr. We hire out a very good machine of as good spec (in fantastic condition) for £120/hr with no further risk to you.

The argument for and against renting is long, boring and ultimately pointless, I know many who love the thought of owning an a/c despite the cost and many others who scoff at the idea because of the risk.

Basically it comes down to this, if you want an a/c you have control over, then buy one. If you just want to fly, then rent. Cost isn't really that much of a differentiator and owning an a/c is NEVER cheap, but it is rewarding.

[slim_slag]

Why is it then that I can go an fly a $260,000 aeroplane in the USA for LESS than I rent a rickety old Warrior for here? Is this plane owned by the flying school or is it a leaseback? Can make all the difference, the actual plane owner will accept less than the actual running costs just to claw back some of his fixed costs. Also for some people there can be tax advantages in buying an expensive plane and then running it at a loss via a flying school. The bottom line to you as a renter of course is that it is cheaper, and that is all that matters.

[englishal]

Most of the new ones I've flown are on lease back, though from my point of view I don't really care who owns it, as long as I get to fly it :) Maybe this is a model than UK flying schools should use, rather than owning their aircraft outright.

Can't wait to fly a brand new $500,000 G1000 DA42 next time I'm over, which will cost the princely sum of about £130 per hour. I wonder how much the D Jet will cost ;)

[slim_slag]

Oh heck Al, don't suggest that, you will get Mr Grumpy out :) I wouldn't recommend a leaseback to any owner, unless there are tax advantages. The people I know never make money on the deal itself, and if they make money it's on the value of the plane going up for resale. I know of leaseback owners in a competitive market who have lowered the price of their planes to lower than break even point just for the cashflow and to help cover fixed costs. No for profit flying school can compete with that for long, makes it much cheaper for renters though.

[IO540]

Perhaps a qualified accountant could comment what might be the advantages of leasing one's plane to a school, under UK rules.

Assuming the owner is an individual, not VAT registered, and not carrying on some other business which is alone sufficiently profitable to make it worth incorporating the plane's capital allowances into the owner's main business.

And assuming that the owner's own flying is mostly private, and that he wants access to the aircraft on terms somewhat better than renting it back from the school he's renting it to :O

And, finally, assuming the owner does care about it not getting completely wrecked.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think people need to differentiate between 'old' aeroplane and 'badly maintained' aeroplane.

How old are the youngest Tiger Moths, Spitfires, etc....do they not look and are they not in everyway better than the day the rolled from their respective factories?

If the average Piper,Cessna or Beechcraft were maintained as well as 60+ yr old collectable aircraft you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 5yr old one and one 35 yrs old.

People will say it's not worth spending the money and the market dictates that having spent the money the aeroplane is not worth what you have spent...they are morons.

Buy any basically sound spam can and give it new radios, interior, wiring, paint, windows and you will have spent way less than half the cost of a new one, if they still build new ones of that type....and the average pilot will be hard pressed to tell what year it was built.

Go and buy a new one, and yes they are beautiful, and see what it's worth to sell 6-12 mths later.

What's the difference?