C152 vs Tecnam 2002

[CAVOK2012]

Hi all, I've been a regular non-posting visitor to this site for many years. I've never had any reason to post anything because there is so much good info on here already.

I was looking for some opinions...which would you prefer to learn in, a C152 or a Tecnam 2002JF? I'm about half way in my PPL training (25 hours) 90% of which has been in a C152.

The school recently got rid of the C152 and replaced it with Tecnams. I live a similar distance to another school with a C152, but the hourly rate is £25 more than the new Tecnams in my current school.

Has anyone flown both these aircraft and care to comment on which is a better trainer (if either)?

I had been considering moving to the school woth the C152.....But would I be mental to pay £25 an hour more for an aeroplane that is 34 years older than the new Tecnams?

[bubo]

I have experience on P2002 a C152 - even I admit a limited experience. I see no reason why you would switch school to get a chance to pay more. P2002 has better performance than 152 and unless you are pretty high (head room) you would be really comfortable in Tecnam. The biggest issue and difference is braking - brakes for Tecnam are operated by a level between seats, not by pedals. So it will take some to establish "hand operating system". Stay with Tecnam and enjoy flying a new airplane with a chance to look around - not to hind underneath the wing.

[Jan Olieslagers]

If your ultimate goals is to fly an humble two-seater, the Tecnam will be quite ok. AIUI, the C152 was conceived as a generic PPL trainer, it might be better suited if you intend to get into serious travelling, which would involve a 4-seater and likely something more than strict VFR.

[CAVOK2012]

I see no reason why you would switch school to get a chance to pay more.

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif This seems like sound advice. I should have said in my opening post however that I have flown for around 30 minutes in the Tecnam around 2 months ago....and I did enjoy it. It did seem noticeable lighter than the C152.

The biggest issue and difference is braking - brakes for Tecnam are operated by a level between seats, not by pedals. So it will take some to establish "hand operating system".

I'm fairly sure the brakes were similar to the C152, as in tops of the rudder pedals...maybe it's a slightly different model than the one you have flown in? :rolleyes:

If your ultimate goals is to fly an humble two-seater, the Tecnam will be quite ok. AIUI, the C152 was conceived as a generic PPL trainer, it might be better suited if you intend to get into serious travelling, which would involve a 4-seater and likely something more than strict VFR.

This is a good point; I fully intend to fly four seater's once I have finished training - taking family and friends for 'bimbles' and what have you....and I'd never rule out IMC rating or night flying later on. My current school have capable 4 seaters, which might another reason to stay.

[mad_jock]

the transfer to 4 seaters is not an issue.


And personally i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152.

[CAVOK2012]

Chances are you will need another 25 hours to complete your ppl. Opting for the C152 is going to cost you in excess of £600 vis-a-vis the Tecnam. If there are no other issues with your school, move to the Tecnam and complete the course. I've only flown the Tec on a demo flight. It is different from your 152, it feels 'microlighty' but that said it might be a great experience to embrace the change and an opportunity to try flying something different. Good luck with whatever you choose!

Thanks justmaybe. 'Microlighty' is a good way to describe it; although in fairness I enjoyed it, albeit a short experience and over 2 months ago...relieving myself of an extra £600 is probably just foolish.....especially since I haven't properly given the Tecnams a chance :suspect:

[CAVOK2012]

And personally i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152.

Haha, fair enough :D

[B2N2]

Does the school offer you any financial incentive to stay with them?
How much more do they charge for the Tecnam then for the 152?
Did they offer you to finish on the Tecnam for the "old" 152 price?
I have about 10 hrs in a Tecnam, somewhat enjoyable but "jittery" compared to the slo-mo 152.
You will definitely need some transition time so it might be a wash depending on what they charge for the Tecnam vs the gold plated 152 the other place is using.

Example; Tecnam is 100 and the 152 is 125.
You need 5 hrs in the Tecnam to transition and become equally proficient as you were in the 152.
Cost is 500.
You move to the other school and need another 20 hrs to finish your PPL, the extra cost is now a wash.

[smarthawke]

The P2002-JF initially was only offered with the single brake lever between the seats. For the last few years, an option is to have pedal operated 'toe' brakes.

Another option is for a single throttle in a quadrant in the centre of the instrument panel. The 'standard' fit is two plunger type throttles a la Robin or Rallye.

I have 300hrs or so in C152s and 20 hrs in a P2002-JF. I'd take the Tecnam every time. Our instructors feel it is a superior trainer in that you have to use the rudder a bit and fly the aircraft - more like a PA38 than a C152 or Warrior.

Visibility is superb in the Tecnam compared to the C152 and the Rotax is a delight to fly behind.

For the operator, it is certified to run on Mogas (including flying training in the UK - there is no difference in fuel spec contrary to the rumours) and burns 4 or 5 lits of fuel less an hour than the C152's Lycoming.

[CAVOK2012]

You move to the other school and need another 20 hrs to finish your PPL, the extra cost is now a wash.

Interesting perspective B2N2. I was rather hoping that the transition period would be a bit less than 5 hours to cross over to the Tecnam. I did 3/4 circuits, stalls and a glide approach (worked well) during my 30 minute flight in the Tecnam, and was hoping that a few more circuits with an instructor and some PFLs on the way back from up-coming navex's would absorb the transition period somewhat. At least that's what I would hope for if I stay where I am. :rolleyes:

[CAVOK2012]

The P2002-JF initially was only offered with the single brake lever between the seats. For the last few years, an option is to have pedal operated 'toe' brakes.

Another option is for a single throttle in a quadrant in the centre of the instrument panel. The 'standard' fit is two plunger type throttles a la Robin or Rallye.

My current school have the toe brakes and the single quadrant in the centre - I actually really liked the airliner-esque feel to that.

Also with my limited experience I do recall having to give it plenty of right rudder pressure climbing out....I suppose that can only be a good thing, i.e. 'proper' stick and rudder flying at these early stages of training.

[riverrock83]

Depends on the person in how long it takes to transfer - and getting used to flying different aircraft will enable you to become more of a pilot and less of an operator of a single type of machine.
I'm in the middle of my PPL and I'm now on my third type of plane. I've probably spent (I could say wasted but I don't think its a waste of time) around 3 hours total moving from one to the other - and I was landing each one straight away. But it does also depend on how you've been taught. I've been taught in a generic non-plane specific way, with a number of key mnemonics rather than plane specific checklists. I just skip out setting the variable pitch prop when I'm in a PA28...

If you have the opportunity to try different types - I say go for it.

[Pilot DAR]

i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152

Hey MJ, I've got a 150 (with leather seats!) How many hours can I sell you not sitting in it?;)

(I'm happy to offer block time not sitting in deals too!)

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you fly is much less important than who you fly with. The most important consideration when deciding where to learn to fly is the quality of the instruction. My experience is the per hour cost of the aircraft has the least effect on the total cost of a license.

The quality of the instruction, the extent of ground delays, the distance to the practice area, cost of landing fees, the servicability of the aircraft, the organizational competence of the school and how much work you put in preparing for every flight will determine how much your license costs. Unless the per hour cost is grossly disproportionate the more expensive aircraft will not in itself, have a huge impact on total training costs

[Pace]

B2N2

Example; Tecnam is 100 and the 152 is 125.
You need 5 hrs in the Tecnam to transition and become equally proficient as you were in the 152.
Cost is 500.

You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!

You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

B2N2


You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!

You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.

Pace

An aircraft conversion will be "simple" for you but for a ab intio pilot transitioning to type with very different flying characteristics could IMO take up to 5 hours.

When I worked as a full time instructor the school had 5 C 152's and 1 C 150 Aerobat. The general rule was to not book presolo students who had been flying the C 152 on the C 150. The cowl design is different ( C 150 the cowl slopes down, C 152 the top of the cowl is flat) and so the "look" of the level flight/climb/turn attitude is a bit different. If you took a presolo C 152 student on the C 150 you wasted the first 30 minutes teaching them the new sight picture.

Until you have actually taught ab intio it is hard to appreciate how quite simple small changes can initially discombobulate a new student. The difference in the flap control between the C 150 and C 152 is a good example

[CAVOK2012]

Unless the per hour cost is grossly disproportionate the more expensive aircraft will not in itself, have a huge impact on total training costs

I personally don't think it will be the case that the time it takes me to get used to the new aeroplane will make up for the extra cost of the C152 at the other place. As I mentioned before I have flown for 30 minutes, and covered stalls, 2 normal approaches and 1 glide approach which all went well, a couple more circuits and PFLs during dual navex's should see me ready to fly solo in the Tecnam. That's speculation on my part but I got the impression from my instructor that this should be the case following our brief introductory flight.

The most important consideration when deciding where to learn to fly is the quality of the instruction.

As for this, I do get bounced around between instructors fairly regularly...only once have I ever 'disliked' one; I found both his style of teaching and attitude to be flawed, and at one point I was ready to tell him to take me straight back to the airfield :oh: So far I feel like having various instructors hasn't held me back...except that once in a while I want to hear one telling me to get a move on with the ground exams. :O

[mad_jock]

:D it should be a reflex with instructors to nag every student they see about the ground exams.

[richs3]

I fly both the p2002 and c152 regularly and as with many of the guys above would choose the p2002 every time. As someone quite rightly points out there will be some element of transition however this should stand you in good ground once you get your PPL – I can’t imagine you’ll be wanting to fly a c152 for ever.

[mad_jock]

The 30 seconds exposure taken to walk past one is more than enough for most people.

And DAR as much as I would love to take you up on your offer of not sitting in the only none smelly best cared for C150 in the world I will have to go and sit in something which comes with another engine as standard and I get payed to sit in that one as well. :p

[B2N2]

You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!

You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.


Not if you want to do it right that is.
I have flown the Tecnam with 9 students/customers with various degrees of experience.
I would have signed off only two of them for solo rental after one (45min-1 hr) flight. One is a 10K hr Airline pilot the other has 600 hrs of which 200 hrs Pitts.
One student I flew with i would have soloed in the thing with another hr of instruction. He had 27 hrs and just soloed on a DA-20.
The remaining six would have needed anywhere between an additional 3-6 flights prior to solo rental. And yes these 6 are all rated "pilots" with either a PPL or PPL+ IR.
One of them got me in a spin entry after a botched panicky stall recovery.
The Tecnam is NOT a benign aircraft like the C150-152 series. It has light "twitchy" controls and drops a wing with very litle provocation.
It has very little enertia due to its low weight so speed is lost very rapidly in steep turns when distracted. Same applies for landings and go-arounds.
Despite the fact that it looks like a toy aircraft it is perfectly capable of killing you.
I have spoken at lenght with a rep from the insurance company, his verdict:
people that do a 1hr check-out we will hear from garanteed, people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
So I was being kind with 5 hrs.

Until you have actually taught ab intio it is hard to appreciate how quite simple small changes can initially discombobulate a new student.

True words......

[Pace]

people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).

B2N2

Was not sure what you meant by that quote until I read " In a good sense ":E
What is this Tecnam a space shuttle?

You can do a multi engine rating for half that time so am I missing something ;)

I am sure while it maybe light or even twitchy 12 to 15 hrs is ridiculous.

Maybe I come from the old school where you were thrown a set of keys to a complex single and told "take that"! on an aircraft you had never flown before and expected to get on with it! And yes flying different singles raw was common to me.

Of course it suits the hirer to sell you 10 plus hours on a so called requirement ?!? not our fault gov caugh up!!!

Pace

[mad_jock]

they actually look a half decent trainer if they will stall properly.

The nose gear looks beefy enough, sprung gear, only issue would be the rotrax engine. Which for some in the UK would be an issue.

[mad_jock]

how does it compare to the tommy?

[FlyingStone]

I have spoken at lenght with a rep from the insurance company, his verdict:
people that do a 1hr check-out we will hear from garanteed, people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
So I was being kind with 5 hrs.

Here in JAA/EASA land CPL training consists (among other things) of 5 hours in a "complex" single (4 seats, VP prop, RG), after which you should be able to pass a CPL skill test in the same aircraft. The usual standard to pass the checkout for renting an aircraft is that pilot is able to safely fly and operate the aircraft he's renting, where a CPL skill test requires certain degree of proficiency - not just safe flying. And if one can fly a "complex" aircraft proficiently after 5 hours of training, I don't see the reason why transition from one simple (well, relatively speaking) to another simple non-complex SEP should last more than that. One could even get MEP after 6 hours of training without previous experience on "complex" singles...

I've never flown the P2002, but if I ever do - I'll really check what all that fuss is about. If people can solo (ab-initio) Tommy in 10 hours, why would conversion to a quite similar type take even longer than that? And we aren't talking about some fast high-workload turboprop, just the usual spamcan with its own tricks. Maybe you can talk EASA into requiring a differences training for P2002 if it's that different from the usual SEP spamcan (like the one you need for RG, VP, EFIS, SLPC, ...), in case proposition for type-rating requirement for P2002 wouldn't go through.

[Cows getting bigger]

I've flown the P2002JF a couple of times. It is a thoroughly pleasant aircraft with no real vices. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that our OP is talking about the new Tecnams at Newtonards. Considering the fact that the club used to do the vast majority of their PPL training on 172SPs, the Tecnam is by far a better aircraft for ab-initio students to learn on. I will also stick my neck out and, having looked at the Ulster Flying Club website, I note that a student has recently solo'd after a total of 8hrs on the 152 and only 3hrs more on the Tecnam. Unless someone wishes to accuse the instructor of being reckless, I would suggest that this is evidence enough that the Tecnam is a very good aircraft for student training.

Paraphrasing Pace's thoughts - it is a simple single engined aircraft. Sometimes we try to complicate things that don't need complicating.

[neilr]

I have over 400 hours instructing on tecnams from a 400m tarmac strip, before that we had rallyes. I think they are great training aircraft and would highly recommend them

A few students and PPLs found the transition a bit of a challenge but the majority were cleared in about 3 hours

My advice - GO FOR THE TECNAM !!

[B2N2]

J'ACCUSE......
What's up with this hang'em high attitude around here.
I quoted (ver batim) an agent from our insurance company.
He said (and I will repeat for those who are hard of reading);" ..those who chose to do a 12-15 hrs transition course we (as an insurance damage adjuster) never hear from again..."
As in those who feel that 1 hrs is enough they sooner or later roll a Light Sport/Ultralight/Microlight into a ball.

Not my words..HIS.

Before we get into the whole FAA vs JAA debate (FAA training is better hands down) I had a chuckle reading this:
Air Accidents Investigation: December 2011 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/december_2011.cfm)
My side of the pond equally sobering:
The Light-Sport Safety Record - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/ntsb-debriefer/the-light-sport-safety-record)
http://www.eaa72.org/announcement_files/FAASTeam/LSATri-fold.pdf

No surprise, the majority are not even "complex, "real" airplanes but "simple" spamcans like ultra light, micro light, light sport or whatever the flavor of the day is for these "are not a space shuttle". Apparently they are hard enough to keep the pointy bit in front and the oily side down.
Most of you are no astronaut or Chuck Yeager material either that's for sure.

The second surprise: Accident-wise, how well are LSA pilots stacking up against general aviation pilots? The answer is...not so well. “We’ve determined the frequency of loss in tricycle-gear LSA to be twice as bad as the general aviation fleet. Compared to Cessna 152s and 172s, Piper Cherokees, Grummans and so on, an S-LSA has the potential for an accident twice as often as a general aviation airplane.” Furthermore, Adams reported, tailwheel S-LSA models have a frequency of loss 4.5 times as bad as their GA counterparts

Source: Light-Sport Chronicles: CSI Insurance: Excogitations On LSA Crashes, Part 1 - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-csi-insurance-excogitations-on-lsa-crashes-part-1)

*** Drinks at the bar will be accepted in lieu of formal apologies ***

[mad_jock]

FAA training is better hands down

Aye

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/474005-robert-weaver-sky-ferry-ferry-bad-experience-106.html#post6993918

You get good and bad instructors with both systems and also useless knobs that can't fly aircraft as well.

As for the LSA types I am really not suprised, you just have to look at the amount of metal involved with the landing gear on alot of them and its a matter of when not if an accident will happen.

As for the amount of time to cross over. Well its not set in stone. If the pilot has been taught to fly properly in the first place there won't be much of an issue. If they have got through so far by the skin of thier teeth and the fact that the cessna is such a docile wet fish of an aircraft they are going to struggle going to something that needs to be flown poperly or even semi properly.

Saying that I can quite believe that the insurance companys will see a difference. 10-15 hours is enough to cover exercises 1-14 again funny that.

[B2N2]

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Tecnam%20P2002-JF,%20G-CDTE%2004-10.pdf

34 hours (of which 7 were on type)
Last 90 days - 7 hours
Last 28 days - 7 hours

He reported that the nose gear leg had been replaced approximately five months before

So this was a nose-gear related incident 5 months after it was replaced.

[Cows getting bigger]

No, read the full report and don't just quote a few select sentences from the student pilot. To me, this is a loss of control due to incorrect pilot technique. Abandoning one method of directional control before the other becomes effective is just asking for trouble.

Interestingly, this isn't the only loss of control on take-off at Old Sarum. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Aero%20AT-3%20R100,%20G-DPEP%2003-09.pdf

One might wish to take a look at what is being taught rather than immediately zeroing-in on the aircraft.

[B2N2]

No, read the full report and don't just quote a few select sentences from the student pilot. To me, this is a loss of control due to incorrect pilot technique. Abandoning one method of directional control before the other becomes effective is just asking for trouble.

I know, that's not my point....two nose gear assemblies in 5 months is.
The nose gear assembly is weak, the DEALER told us specifically to tell students not to turn and brake at the same time.:ugh:
Also 7 hrs on type.

[24Carrot]

@CAVOK2012.

You refer to "the C152" (singular) at the other place, and "the Tecnams" (plural) at the current place. Perhaps aircraft availability might be better where you are? 50H checks, tech issues, other calls on that single aircraft mean you are fighting more than the weather while trying to stay current.

Similarly, when comparing places, how much of the flying time will be spent going to/from a training area, stuck at the hold, etc? Will the airfield be shut for most of the winter?

Less currency means more hours to PPL, ie extra cost. In my limited experience of PPL costs, the cost per hour has a smaller impact than total hours flown*.

-----
*You could argue that those extra hours are not ultimately wasted, but I suspect few PPL students put much faith in that!

[Shorrick Mk2]

The club I fly with uses Tecnams for ab-initio. Out of the fleet of three not a single one has had issues with nose-gear failure, and they see pretty intensive use on a grass runway.

[Rod1]

I am not an expert in the US system but my understanding of the US LSA system was that you have an aircraft design code allowing up to 600kg, a reduced licence requirement and a reduced medical. In the UK the US LSA design code is not used, we do not have a reduced licence equivalent to the LSA licence. In Europe we do have a VLA design code – CS-VLA – which allows up to 750kg. A C150 is 730kg, and would probably pass CS-VLA. Using US LSA accident data to criticise European VLA’s is totally flawed. Many US LSA aircraft have been modified to pass CS-VLA and are sold under the same name as used the US. One of the arrears often modified is the landing gear.

My own personal transition to my aircraft – which was tested to CS-VLA – took about 30min. Six years later I have not rolled her into a ball, had nose gear failure or any sort of accident or incident at all. There are at least 8 “VLA” aircraft at my strip, and non-have had an incident. This is operating off an licenced grass strip.

From the factory web site;

The P2002 (JAR/VLA) is the factory produced certified aircraft and the P2002 SIERRA (LAA permit VLA kit) represent the latest development of the Tecnam P96 Golf resulting from on-going improvements and the experience gathered from hundreds of aircraft and prolonged use over many years operating in a wide variety of conditions.

Rod1

[abgd]

As a slight digression, I've been told as a new PPL that it would be likely to take over 10 hours to transition to the C42 - again insurance-driven.

I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.

[24Carrot]

I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.

That sounds about right.

Approx 1H flying, and 1-2H working out how to climb in and out of it.:*

[Pace]

Reminds me of the joke about the guy standing at an airport with a potential girlfriend admiring a Military Hercules coming into land.

The potential girlfriend asked the guy what he flew?

Raising his RayBans he looked at her at pointed at the aircraft.
" See that its a C130 I fly a C150" :)

Pace

[fwjc]

To the original poster, despite the fact that I am a staunch supporter of the honest C152 as a trainer (much better than a PA28, imo), I would definitely recommend giving the Tecnams a go.

As for conversion times, how does that work for single seaters? There's no dual time at all...

[thing]

I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38. Why? Took me 40 minutes worth of ccts and GH. The thing is virtually uncrashable anyway, I reckon you would have to be pretty determined to balls up in a 152. Although before the links to 7 squillion accident reports for 152's get posted I do know that people achieve the near impossible and total them.

[abgd]

I think the idea was partly that the airspace was a bit busier here than where I trained... So the 2-3 hours was partly to familiarise myself with the 152 and partly to ensure I didn't overfly Gatwick.

[A and C]

I can only think that taking 2-3 hours to convert a competent PPL holder who flys a PA28 is financially driven............. By the club or by instructors.

[RookieCaptain]

I may be a little subjective here but you won't regret completing your training in a Tecnam. I have quite a few hours in one of them after my PPL and loved it. Considering all of my training was done in PA28s. You have to fly more precisely in the tecnam as the controls are very sensitive. It costs considerably less than most trainers/self fly hire machines out there. It looks better as well :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can only think that taking 2-3 hours to convert a competent PPL holder who flys a PA28 is financially driven............. By the club or by instructors.

Or because the pilot's skills have slipped so much that they need a couple of hours to sort them out before the club instructor is prepared for them to fly anything!

G

[abgd]

No... If that were the case they could have said 'we can't give you a figure... We'll need to take you up in the air and then judge'. The 2-3 hours was a ballpark figure.

When I first called, I had just gotten my PPL so I hadn't yet had time to de-skill. It's now 3 months since I got my licence and I haven't yet gone solo again, partly due to the slowness of the CAA and partly because the checking-out process has been protracted. Though I haven't yet got to the 3 hour mark.

[madgav]

I also fly out of Newtownards (assuming as posted by Cows Getting Bigger that that is where the OP is flying from) and had a first outing in the P2002 last Friday (having trained in the C172SP and subsequently flown the PA28 and - briefly - the C152).
There are cetainly differences, as already mentioned the controls are more sensitive. That once you've got used to the stick (if you are used to flying an aircraft with a yoke). Trim is electric only. It appears much more "nose down" when flying S&L, in fact for any flight attitude, so there are new 'pictures' to be learned. Also look out for the throttle friction lock which when loosened defaults to FULL throttle unless you hold it back :}. Performance is good considering only 98bhp (and it's in the order of £30 less to hire than a C172).
Aside from all that it was a load of fun :ok:.
All first impressions of course.
As for conversion time, well I spent an hour on GH (including steep turns & stalls) as well as general familiarisation. Instructor reckons another hour concentrating on circuit-bashing should be sufficient to get signed off for solo hire.

[RookieCaptain]

Yeah 2 hours is very reasonable. Our CFI did 2 hours with me in the tecnam before letting me loose.

Point to make with the rudder control on take off: you need lots of right foot when using full power and if you have a crosswind from the left you'll notice it very much. The nose is just happy to go left.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Got about 600 hrs. in the Tecnam GOLF P-96 ( low wing, Cherokee look-alike) now, and agree with most comments, lots of right rudder with high power settings and the throttle tension is not exactly the best design, but all Rotax 912 engines have a spring system that increase power if you let it go of the throttle with slack tension.

Also fly an ALPI that has a central throttle and a 'proper' throttle tension device of the knurled nut type around the base of the throttle spindle, I slacken it off for better control on finals, then as I retard the throttle for landing use the middle finger to apply a little clockwise tension to stop the throttle advancing as I let go to go for the handbrake, but you can't do that with the Tecnams' notchy device. Can only have been designed by .. OOps, can't say that !

Big difference is lack of weight i.e. inertia, the minute you reduce throttle over the threshold you sink, can't pull the power off and use the inertia to grease it on, has to be flown on with a trickle of power

The lack of footbrakes -v - a handbrake takes a bit of getting used to -tho' I think later models of Tecnams have changed - and I still find myself going for the feet, sometimes need three hands to manage stick, throttle and brake lever, too.

Apart from that the Tecnam knocks spots off a C-152 - no comparison, and its' FUN !!

[Rod1]

“and its' FUN !!”
Most of the new breed of aircraft seem to be more fun.

Rod1

[tecman]

Hi there

I've owned and flown a number of C15x aircraft over 25 years of flying. Last year I bought a 2002JF. Both aircraft are excellent trainers and reward the meticulous pilot with a great flying experience. I would say that the main differences flow from the JF being lighter than the 152, although the JF's newer design shines through as well. The Tecnam certainly hops around more in gusty consditions but, with good technique, is an easy aircraft to master. Its performance is excellent, even in the hot WA summers. It's a delightful aircraft to fly

The C152 is a heavier and tougher aircraft. The more marginal performance is itself something of an advantage in learning good STOL and related techniques. It's not as hot as the Tecnam in the WA sun but, after flying the JF, hopping into a Cessna is positively claustrophobic. Without LR tanks the range of a 152 is also a bit of an issue in our part of the world.

I would suggest you move over to the JF, and I doubt very much if the transition would be a big deal. One general comment I'd make is that I think the safety margins of the lighter JF deserve respect: fly it by the book and recognize that you'll occasionally leave it in the hangar on days you might have headed out in a 152/172. I do think that if you take the time to master the JF, you will end up a better stick-and-rudder pilot.

All the best, and good luck.

[mavrick33]

I Agree, sometimes the flying can over take the exams!! :=

[InfraBoy]

Don't forget the constant 'look under the wing first'.... part of the C152 to low wing conversion.

We've got 3 C152s on my club fleet and a new Tecnam. Although I haven't flown it yet I'm told it flies almost as nice as the Aquila that I have about 30hrs in although sitting in it isn't as comfortable. But even that surpasses the Cessna. But given a C152 and a Eurostar microlight I'd take the Eurostar any day even though it adds nothing to my licence than fun.

But you can't do IMC in any of the options except the Cessna so chose wisely!

[A and C]

In ten years time this thread will still be running with people slagging off the C152 and telling us about the virtues of the latest small aircraft that is about to take over the training industry.

The C152 is a very safe, robust and economic aircraft and for the PPL training mission it has yet to be bettered.

[abgd]

It would be better if they still made them though.

[Mickey Kaye]

Sadly I'm with A&C here. One of the few places that offer training in both types the Cessna 152 10 quid an hour cheaper. And thats with AVGAS prices running at well over two quid an hour.

Until a LSA brings cheaper flying the C150/2 will go on and on

[A and C]

The C150 is almost dead as a training aircraft because the maintenance costs are increasing with age, the C152 had most of the major maintenance issues that the C150 sorted out and so continues to bring lower maintenance costs than the C150.

The cost of fuel is the big issue with the C152, it should be burning about 25 LTS/ hour so that is roughly £50/ flying hour, about £30 should cover insurance and maintenance so that leaves enough if the aircraft is charged out at £120-130 to cover the airfield charges and make a living wage.

The big problem for the new aircraft is that the insurance is going to be at least double ( and that is assuming a sorted C152 with a hull value of £32K) it could be trebble if the C152 is a £17K dog ! Add to this the cost of a new £80K aircraft and you can see that the numbers are still stacking up in favour of the C152 inspite of the cost of AVGAS.

It is difficult to predict the cost of maintenance that the new aircraft will need in the next few years, I suspect that this will go up alarmingly with some types, the tecnam seems to be one of the better built of the newer aircraft so I don't see the costs climbing too far with that type.

So in conclusion I would predict that for the forseeable future the C152 will continue to be the PPL trainer of choice.

[JUST-local]

Does anybody have any real world figures for the Tecnam.

TAS, power settings, LPH.

Anything else I might want to hear nor not want hear.

I have just started reading the maintainence manual and have not found anything alarming as yet, do they have any big lifed parts or tasks I have not yet found.

Thanks.

[Coolhand78]

I have about 300h of fun in P96 and P2002. Both are very similar in performance.
With the standard factory propeller expect IAS around 100 kts at 4900 rpm and burning around 17 litres per hour. These figures can be improved installing a constant speed prop.

[Rod1]

At 75% a 100hp Rotax will burn 18.5lph, and this normally coincides with 5000rpm so looking at the numbers above you could choose to go a bit quicker if you wanted to stick at 75% which works well on the Rotax. Provided you do not run them on 100LL more than 30% of the time the engine maintenance will not be an issue. If you are planning on running on 100LL more than that then you ½ all the maintenance periodicity which will bring gearbox work into play as well as introducing a 50 hour oil and filter change.

Rod1

[JUST-local]

Thanks! Sounds great if you can run on Mogas except in times of need.

[India Four Two]

I flew a 152 for a few hours many years ago from Compton Abbas and I have lots of time in 172/182s. I wouldn't choose to fly a 152 unless I had no other choice. The 172 is great for flying with up to three passengers and a few bags. The 182 is my choice for "fill 'er up" and go somewhere.

Like ExSp33db1rd, I've been flying a Tecnam Golf in NZ. A lovely aircraft and a lot of fun. A few quirks, which a good instructor can sort out in one flight. I've heard comments from people that it is a bit "fragile", but I think if you handle it properly and don't slam it onto the runway, it should be no problem. BTW, the comments were from people who possibly had a vested interest in the 152-side of the argument. :E

Loads of fun, cheap to operate and a great view.

If I showed up at an airfield and was given a choice of a 152 or a Tecnam, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the Tecnam. I'm seriously considering a share in a Golf when I retire, although I'm also keen to see Tecnam's new tail-dragger.