Choice of plane for PPL [Archive]

OpenCirrus619

20th Jun 2014, 14:21

I can't speak for the SportCruiser - having no personal experience of one.

Glass vs Classic Instruments:
If you have an idea of what you are likely to fly once you have your PPL then it would make sense to go for that.
As far as switching between Glass and Classic there is no requirement for any differences training. Until you have a reasonable amount of experience, in different aircraft, I would strongly recommend you get a check flight with an appropriate check pilot (not necessarily an instructor) prior to flying anything which differs from what you are used to.

C172 vs PA28:
You will probably find the C172 easier - mainly due to the better view down (certainly makes the NAV easier). For that reason I would personally learn in the PA28 - as the army say "Train hard, Fight easy".

OC619

Genghis the Engineer

20th Jun 2014, 14:52

Of those three - I'd say pick whichever is cheapest. All are perfectly good training aeroplanes. Are either the C152 or PA38 Tomahawk available locally? - both are likely to be cheaper, and are arguably better training aeroplanes.

Switching between types, and between analogue and glass cockpits is only ever a case of a bit of conversion training / briefing with an instructor.

G

Amblikai

20th Jun 2014, 14:59

Thanks guys, i've always preferred the looks of a low wing anyway so i'll probably let that swing my decision from the C172!

With regards to differences training, how long does is it valid for? For example i understand that differences training is required for variable pitch props. When you've done it, do you have it set for as long as your license is valid?

Genghis the Engineer

20th Jun 2014, 15:00

Indefinitely, but if you don't use it for 2 years, you're supposed to refresh it.

G

Amblikai

20th Jun 2014, 15:11

Thanks!

Also off topic but since i have your attention, when hiring a plane, do you only pay for the time flying? For example if you hired a PA28 and flew an hours flight time and stayed overnight, then flew the hour back again, is that only a 2 hour hire?

Random question i know but i'm very curious.

Thanks again.

Genghis the Engineer

20th Jun 2014, 15:20

Depends upon the company that owns the aeroplane. Typically you only pay for the flight time, but if you tie the aeroplane up for a whole day they'll insist that you pay for a minimum (typically 3 hours per day for more expensive aeroplanes, 4 hours per day for cheaper ones). Often companies are much more relaxed about it in the week, as the weekend is their main revenue earning time for the aeroplanes.

This is one of the many reasons I like owning a share in an aeroplane, rather than renting. A syndicated owner seldom has a problem taking his/her aeroplane away for a few days and only paying for the flying.

G

Amblikai

20th Jun 2014, 15:44

Thanks i'm just considering the costs to maintain my PPL after i get it. I'm aiming to do it next summer at the moment but i want to get my ground exams out of the way first.

dagowly

20th Jun 2014, 16:33

I'd go with 152 and then spend a few hours after you achieve your license and rating to become conversant on other SEP aircraft. The 152 will be the basic airframe you need to learn and if you can fly one of them, then any other aircraft will appear a luxury and you'll appreciate it better.

Mach Jump

20th Jun 2014, 16:56

As far as switching between Glass and Classic there is no requirement for any differences training.

Although strictly true, Glass-Classic, Differences Training is 'strongly advised'.

Classic-Glass does require Differences Training though.

MJ:ok:

arn3696

20th Jun 2014, 17:05

Under EASA there is no need to refresh differences training (for SEP) if not flown for 2 years. See Cap 804, Section H - FCL710 (b)

Amblikai

20th Jun 2014, 20:10

Although strictly true, Glass-Classic, Differences Training is 'strongly advised'.

Classic-Glass does require Differences Training though.

So if you learn in a glass cockpit, you can fly both whereas, the other way round you'd require differences training? Is that right?

Thanks for all the replies. Much appreciated!:ok:

Gertrude the Wombat

20th Jun 2014, 20:41

So if you learn in a glass cockpit, you can fly both whereas, the other way round you'd require differences training? Is that right?
You'd be nonetheless very slightly bonkers as a newish PPL to launch off in a steam gauge aircraft with no training on or experience of such, unless perhaps it was a wonderful day and you were only intending to navigate by looking out of the window. Following an NDB needle isn't quite the same as following a magenta line.

Mach Jump

20th Jun 2014, 23:09

So if you learn in a glass cockpit, you can fly both whereas, the other way round you'd require differences training? Is that right?

Yes. However, I think it's a case of the rulemakers imagination not stretching to the possibility that pilots might swap from new to old, as well as old to new!

MJ:ok:

sharpend

21st Jun 2014, 07:56

Unless you are filthy rich, go for something cheap like a spam can. Then when qualified move on to a proper aeroplane like a Bulldog :ok:

ps I learnt to fly in a Jet, but there again Auntie Betty paid.

ChickenHouse

21st Jun 2014, 08:41

First, are you going to be owner or on charter to maintain PPL?

If you are going to be an owner, go for the training machine close to you future plane.
If you are going to be on charter, go for the most ordinary planes you can hire all over the world and go for classic cockpit.

Glass cockpit might appeal the little toy boys, but it brings you farther away from the art of flying and attracts you to the dark side of electronics addiction. Learn how to fly - and that means little information and sensible butt feelings - first on a classic cockpit, where each information has its own clock, and enjoy the overwhelming information flood of things you don't need for flying in a glass cockpit later.

Amblikai

21st Jun 2014, 09:51

If you are going to be an owner, go for the training machine close to you future plane.
If you are going to be on charter, go for the most ordinary planes you can hire all over the world and go for classic cockpit.

Would it change your mind if the glass cockpit plane was cheaper? Others have said learn on whatever is cheapest etc..

I doubt i'll be an owner after i qualify. Renting would be the most likely outcome. From that end i understand i'd be better learning in a PA28 say, but it's a lot more expensive than the PS28s.

Cheers!

Kerosene Kraut

21st Jun 2014, 10:06

I'd pick the cheapest type and would fly more times instead. No need to pick a cirrus from the beginning when a 150 gets the job done as well.

If theres is a specific airplane you want to rent more often afterwards, get a proper introduction with an instructor for it afterwards. Even when you've got your licence already.

I'd prefer to learn on a classic pre-glass airplane. Upgrading to glass is easy. Just make sure you know how to handle all those garmins, ipads and stuff inflight before you fly. There is good training software for it available.

cockney steve

21st Jun 2014, 10:08

I'm with Chickenhouse on this one.....BUT...If you are familiar with Satnav and a complex audio-system and can manipulate these in a heavy-traffic environment, you may be good to learn to fly,with a "magic telly"

A few steam-gauges are quick and easy to scan and assimilate their info....you don't "read" them, but subconciously note the position of the pointers...In the initial stages, as with learning to drive, pointing it in the right direction and co-ordinating hands and feet are enough to keep you fully occupied....once this becomes automatic, then is the time to start playing with a telly.
just my opinion, of course.:8

Amblikai

21st Jun 2014, 10:13

All good advice thanks folks. It makes sense to me, to learn in a classic cockpit since there's probably very little chance of me flying with a "magic telly" (I like that one!) after PPL.

Just have to think about the cost. More hours and all that.

A and C

21st Jun 2014, 10:22

What is needed for a PPL is an aircraft to teach the basic skills of aircraft handling and dead reckoning navigation, these are the building blocks of good pilotage and are the skills you will require when the screens on the more advanced aircraft that you will move onto go blank.

There is a very advanced airliner and three hundred people at the bottom of the South Atlantic because an airline crew did not have the very basic skill of flying by pitch and power, don't become one of these pepole by getting carried away by technology and have that technology mask your lack of skil.

So the C152, PA28 or something in that range is what you should be looking at but if you can find one the Piper Cub would be best.

As for the SportCruser if you can find a club offering it as a training aircraft they will have gone bust before you get your PPL half finished.

Amblikai

21st Jun 2014, 11:22

As for the SportCruser if you can find a club offering it as a training aircraft they will have gone bust before you get your PPL half finished.

Ah.. This is interesting. Could you please elaborate on that?

This might be exactly the situation i'm in!

A and C

21st Jun 2014, 12:08

The problem with the Sportcruiser is the it is built down to a weight, this has had the effect of reducing the structure to a minimum so making it not very robust.

The aircraft is only just able to withstand the treatment that it gets in the hands of experienced private owners and even these guys are having structural issues, put in the hands of students would be inviting financial disaster as the aircraft is not strong enough to take the rough and tumble of flying training.

The latest SB from SC is an inspection of the structure supporting the main landing gear for loose rivets, we have found rivets in this area that have had the heads sheared off, rectification requires the wings to be removed for access to the area, the wings on the aircraft are also showing evidence of the rivets on the inboard of the spar working loose. We have found more serious structural issues with 300 hour Sportscruisers than we are finding with 13,000 hour Cessna 152's that are undergoing the SIDS checks. I have been told of two Sportcrusers that have has the rear stabiliser fold up, one was in the UK and was a home built aircraft the other folded in the air while being demonstrated by the Italian agent for the type, unfortunately the aircraft had not been fitted with a ballistic parachute.

Kerosene Kraut

21st Jun 2014, 12:28

Just wanted to add: If you are on a budget when learning to fly a glider career beforehand might teach you excellent basic flying skills without too much cost. At least in Germany that is an option. However quite a bit of aeroclub work and weekend duties are expected in order to make it that affordable.

And microlights and motor-gliders might be another option below the rental prices of full sized aircraft.

Amblikai

21st Jun 2014, 12:39

The aircraft is only just able to withstand the treatment that it gets in the hands of experienced private owners and even these guys are having structural issues, put in the hands of students would be inviting financial disaster as the aircraft is not strong enough to take the rough and tumble of flying training.

This is really good to know, thanks for the info.

ChickenHouse

21st Jun 2014, 14:10

Would it change your mind if the glass cockpit plane was cheaper? Others have said learn on whatever is cheapest etc.

Definitely No. One major reason for glass cockpits is indeed - they are cheaper to built, cheaper to maintain, thus maximizing profit of the maintenance organization. The argued advantage is at first a marketing one, as it won't make you a better pilot. Flying experience will, so there might be some threshold, where it makes sense to eat up a possible price advantage by more hours. As somebody mentioned before - if you scan classic instruments, you don't really read them, but get the feedback almost intuitively, so you, the instruments and the plane get a guts feeling.

I met quite some younger pilots, who never had anything else then a glass cockpit and many of them fly by brain, not by butt&feel. As long as they are in an airliner-style environment it might be ok, but it is definitely not my way. On check flights I always switch off these computergame gadgets in front and let them fly VFR on partial - difference of performance between old-fashioned and computerized pilots is extreme!

newaviator

21st Jun 2014, 15:09

I have been in steam driven dial cockpits and hi tech glass cockpits in the last 3 years during course of gaining my licence. Whilst a glass cockpit is nice , give me steam driven any day , certainly as a low time PPL , keep it simple to start with .....less time looking and figuring out coloured and digital indications and more time spent enjoying the flying ......:)

To be honest I've only been in one Sportcruiser and it didn't appear thrashed or badly built/finished , but the technology in the cockpit was a bit daunting needless to say it wasn't the regular type I've learn't in.

Amblikai

21st Jun 2014, 16:33

I'm sold. Definitely stick to the "steam driven" analogue instruments. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks! Now i just need to find a place to do my PPL. I have one in mind but i'm shopping around!

CaptainChairborne

21st Jun 2014, 20:29

Steam? Magic telly? Surely you mostly look out of the window? I mean I check my level and heading from time to time, but what's the point in flying if your head is inside the cockpit?

Big Pistons Forever

21st Jun 2014, 22:33

IMO the only criteria for choosing a type of aircraft is whether or not you will fit in it comfortably and that it has enough useful load to carry you, your instructor, and a sensible amount of fuel.

As for the actual act of learning to fly, the aircraft type is pretty much irrelevant. What matters is how good the school and especially the instructor is.

This where it pays to do your homework and research your options. You are the customer and there is no reason you should put up with bad instruction or a disorganized school.

As for the glass vs steam debate, if your instructor is doing his/her job you should only be looking at 4 instruments presolo, Airspeed, Altitude, the ball, and the rev counter. Everything else you need to know about what the airplane is doing, is available by looking out the windshield.

For me the only difference between glass and steam is where I put the post it notes to cover up the gauges the student should not be looking at :ok:

manuaros

22nd Jun 2014, 05:57

I did part of my training in a classic C152A and the last part in a C172 Nav iii with glass cockpit.
Most of the training in the C172 was done with the Garmin 1000 powered off so you'd need to use the backup instruments, which are like any other classic plane. I don't know if that would be the case in your school too.

In my airfield at least, all the new planes are coming with G1000 as all the old Cessnas from the 60s or 70s are getting retired.

I have flown PA28, C172, C152A, Cirrus SR20 and Tecnam P2002...I have loved all of them either with or without glass cockpit.
From my point of view, it is easier to go from glass cockpit to classic one than the other way around.
It is really up to you (and your budget), just choose whatever you feel more confident with.
Once you know how to fly, you pretty much know how to fly any kind of light aircraft with a bit of adjustment.

My advice would be: fly as many different planes as possible.

I personally don't like PA28 Cherokee. But that's just my own personal opinion :-)

Piper.Classique

22nd Jun 2014, 06:40

Airspeed, altitude, slip ball and the oil pressure and temperature and the cht for me.
Unless in a glider, of course.
Which is an excellent way to learn all the handling and, even more important, judgement. Of course, you may then find you don't actually want the engine anyway.
Have fun, whatever you choose.

Gertrude the Wombat

22nd Jun 2014, 09:52

oil pressure and temperature
... and fuel gauges (for what they're worth, which varies).

Amblikai

22nd Jun 2014, 11:09

Thanks again for all your replies, i've since found another school which would be a likely contender. They have Diamond DV20s, Diamond DA40s (both with Garmin G1000 Glass cockpits) and also they have the Aero AT-3 with analogue instruments.

This is the school: Pilot and MCC training at Kavala International Airport in Greece - Training College (http://egnatia-aviation.aero/)

Any thoughts?

A and C

22nd Jun 2014, 11:56

All things in EASA are equal but some are not so equal............ With apologies to Mr Orwell

foxmoth

22nd Jun 2014, 12:48

My advice would be: fly as many different planes as possible.

Not a bad thing once you have your PPL, but I would recommend sticking to the same aircraft until then or you will spend extra hours learning each new machine!

gianmarko

22nd Jun 2014, 15:49

I have been told of two Sportcrusers that have has the rear stabiliser fold up, one was in the UK and was a home built aircraft the other folded in the air while being demonstrated by the Italian agent for the type, unfortunately the aircraft had not been fitted with a ballistic parachute.

Sir, i havent heard of any PS28 or Sportcruiser folding up the stabilizer in Italy. the accident you are refering to is probably an accident involving a Flight Design CT2K which was being demonstrated well outside its flight envelope.

a PS28 has recently crashed in italy, killing the italian importer and a passenger, but the reason of the accident is still unknown.

regarding the PS28, which is a somewhat different a/c than the sportcruiser, and its inability to be flown by student pilots in the 2040es, i thank God for that.

i am sure none of you drive a 1965 car, even though i heard they were properly built, back then

the fact that most private pilots are nowadays condemned to fly what i consider museum material is just the result of the tireless work of the various CAA, which have contributed to make simple 4 seat airplanes cost like a whole bionic body.

glendalegoon

22nd Jun 2014, 17:08

Learn to fly in a nice PA28. Make sure it is new enough that the throttle is modern type on a pedestal and that the trim is on the floor.

more comfortable and if you need some other encouragement, watch, "GOLDFINGER" the movie.

Shoestring Flyer

22nd Jun 2014, 17:42

A and C

22nd Jun 2014, 19:53

If you are referring to my comments about the Sportcruiser if the aircraft is pushed (wrongly)into the basic training role then it has to be able to take the punishment that it will get and the fact of the matter is the aircraft is not up to that job, the aircraft in the hands of a careful private owner is another matter entirely.

gianmarco

regarding the PS28, which is a somewhat different a/c than the sportcruiser, and its inability to be flown by student pilots in the 2040es, i thank God for that.

Don't worry, the Cessna 152 will still be doing the job !

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Jun 2014, 21:06

The Aero AT3 is another lightweight beast that doesn't stand up well to the rigours of student bashing in training but then again why would it.
The AT3, the Sportcruiser, the Eurostar are all basically >600kg MAUW lightweight aircraft that were/are not designed for this type of role but due to the sales churn greed of the aircraft manufacturers are being pushed into this role.
It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would expect them to be and then does a type bashing saying they are not as sturdy as a C152.. just unbelievable and obviously shows a lack of understanding of the design role of this type of aircraft.

The sportcruiser was never a very good aeroplane - Piper took it on board without properly assessing the airworthiness themselves, and eventually regretted it and dropped their association with it.

The Eurostar is a different beast - at-least in the UK it's had to go through the rigorous microlight airworthiness system which we have in Britain. Whilst it is complained about quite a lot, it does ensure pretty good aeroplanes. A lot of UK microlight schools are using the Eurostar pretty heavily without significant problems.

Is there a problem with the AT3? I've heard community scuttlebut about it not being a very good aeroplane, and the web shows a handful of accident reports which mostly seem to originate in mishandling - is there a real problem with it?

G

Shoestring Flyer

22nd Jun 2014, 21:22

'The sportcruiser was never a very good aeroplane - Piper took it on board without properly assessing the airworthiness themselves, and eventually regretted it and dropped their association with it.'

Sorry Genghis but this is just rubbish.
The Piper/ Czech Sport Aircraft dissolvement was totally due to differences over marketing policy and strategy. Piper being unwilling to be pushed around by the over aggressive marketing tactics of Equity Bank backed CSA.

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Jun 2014, 22:00

So you're saying that Piper did do a proper airworthiness evaluation of the aircraft and, for example, ensure it had a properly validated flight manual?

G

A and C

23rd Jun 2014, 04:12

I have to agree with Genghis, the trail of broken landing gear legs, exhaust pipes and the loose and missing rivets in aircraft with less than 500 hours flight time tells the story better than Genghis or I could.

It is my guess that the UK CAA will make the latest SB from Sportcruiser an AD, if that happens the wings will have to come off most of the fleet to replace the loose rivets in the main landing gear support structure.

As for the Piper involvement it is my guess that the whole idea was driven by the marketing people to counter Cessna's Skycatcher, as soon as the engineers got a good look at the aircraft and got into sorting the over sensitivity in pitch it became apparent that the aircraft was not robust enough........... So wisely they backed out sighting "marketing differences" as the reason.

My guess is that Cessna also realised that an aircraft built down to this weight would never take the rough & tumble of flight training and dropped the Skycatcher for the very same reason.

Genghis the Engineer

23rd Jun 2014, 07:16

The impression I have got from looking quite closely at that market over several years is that the reasons these two aeroplanes were dropped are quite different. Cessna worked hard to eventually create a good aeroplane (flight test accidents showing the effort put in rather thanan eventually poor aeroplane) but just got the cost and marketing completely wrong. Piper didn't put the effort that they should have into achieving a good aeroplane, buying an immature design off the shelf - and got their fingers burned over the sheer number of deficiencies it had - their business case, technically was far better than Cessnas.

If we had Cessna engineering, combined with Piper business strategies, there would be a good aeroplane on the market.

G

gianmarko

23rd Jun 2014, 20:27

i think i will not agree on the concept that aircraft development reached its peak in 1955 when airplanes like the 152, the 172 and the PA28 were introduced.

i also tend to not agree on the assessment that a PS28 is not a good airplane because it wont last 12000 hours and 4 decades of service.

PS28's will probably last 4 or 5000 hours then will be replaced by more modern machines.

trust me i will never miss the crummy, stinky, tired spamcans that populate most GA clubs. there machines were obsolete 25 years ago and it is high time they will be recycled into coke cans.

reality is that in the GA community there is still a huge prejudice against ULM derived airplanes. but thats the future.

the youngest 152 around is almost 30 years old.... thats definitely the past.

Gertrude the Wombat

23rd Jun 2014, 20:50

the youngest 152 around is almost 30 years old
The youngest 172 (with G1000) isn't quite that old however.

BroomstickPilot

24th Jun 2014, 09:34

Hi Amblikai,

I've been away for a week, so I am picking up on this thread at a late stage.

There is one question that should have been asked of you by other posters but which seems to have been missed. Are you intending to 'go professional' by getting an ATPL/CPL or are you learning to fly just for a pass-time/hobby?

If you are 'going professional' then clearly PPL is the only way to go. However if you are learning to fly purely for a hobby then I suggest you should at least take a look at the 3 axis microlight category of aircraft and the BMAA's pilot qualification. These aircraft are, however, non-aerobatic, so if that is what you intend to do then once again these aircraft will not suit you.

The 3 Axis category is in every way a cheaper to fly and the aircraft are modern and perform in some cases better than the Group A (PPL) category. The only limitation is weight, so if you weigh 20 stone then clearly this category is not right for you.

As an excellent training 3 axis type I would recommend the 'Ikarus' which performs better than a C152 (and has a good strong undercarriage) and after training there are numerous very good types operated by groups that you might buy into depending what is available to you locally.

Good luck!

BP.

gianmarko

26th Jun 2014, 14:02

The youngest 172 (with G1000) isn't quite that old however.

the 172 was introduced in 1956

i dont think that fitting a modern and expensive stereo to a car like this will make it attractive to a 2014 buyer

http://worldcarslist.com/images/chevrolet/chevrolet-bel-air-wagon/chevrolet-bel-air-wagon-03.jpg

Rod1

26th Jun 2014, 15:00

Amblikai, flying can be incredibly conservative and that is reflected in the advice you are getting. Let me try to give you some facts as I see them;

In microlight flying there are aircraft which serve as 3 axis trainers which are lighter than any of the ones you are looking at. The Eurostar for example has been used as a trainer for many years on unlicensed strips and the schools have not gone bust - they have thrived. The syllabus for a micro PPL is almost identical that for a "group a" ppl.

Most of the "modern" group a trainers in use in the UK are cleared under CS-VLA. That is up to 750kg. The good old C150 is in this weight bracket and has been around for quite some time...

The problem is not that an aircraft is built down to a weight (see Eurostar example above) but that it is built down to a cost. Some of the new aircraft have not done well and the kit built SC has a poor record.

Rod1

glendalegoon

26th Jun 2014, 18:37

Regarding the picture of the 1956 Chevy.

I would buy that car over any car today, whether it had a stereo radio installed or just an AM radio.

A brand new piper warrior would be my first choice for a brand new student.

the 152 is really pretty small, shoulder to shoulder would be fine with a cute girl, but not two big guys!

foxmoth

26th Jun 2014, 19:42

Look at it the other way round.
If you were learning to drive and could go to a school at £30 a lesson on a 1980 car or a brand new one at £40 a lesson wich would you choose? I think most would accept the older car as long as the maintenance was ok. This is actually where we are.:8

Shoestring Flyer

26th Jun 2014, 19:45

'The syllabus for a microlight PPL is almost identical that for a "group a" ppl.'

The syllabus may be in some parts similar but it is a long way from being identical. The flying hours and syllabus in gaining a microlight licence is only 25hours with also much reduced ground school syllabus.

Rod1

26th Jun 2014, 20:11

Shoestring Flyer, there are significant numbers of Eurostars teaching UK pilots to fly, mostly from unlicensed strips. Please explain how the difference in syllabus has such a huge difference in airframe life? The Eurostars fly about the same number of hours per year, about the same number of circuits etc etc...

I would much rather fly a Eurostar than a 150 and the Eurostar is cheaper to operate. My own aircraft (MCR1) has an empty weight of 253 kg, it is now 8 years old and I have flown it all over Europe - number of weight related issues, ZERO.

Rod1

Shoestring Flyer

26th Jun 2014, 21:02

Keh!........
Rod, I was merely pointing out that your statement that the micro syllabus was identical to the Group 'A' PPL wasn't correct...they were your words not mine!

ChickenHouse

27th Jun 2014, 06:55

I guess many people would buy a 1956 Caddy or Chevy, if it would be built nowadays. Actually, I just bought a brand new car and its construction was introduced in 1948. I would also go for the Cessna JT-A, if I had the money to buy new.

gianmarko

27th Jun 2014, 09:56

I would buy that car over any car today, whether it had a stereo radio installed or just an AM radio.

as long as you are aware of the fact that a car like that would use a LOT of gas, and in case of accident with a modern car, you have a set of very good saints looking after you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

a local school uses morane Saulnier Rallye's and has now bought a PS28

PS28 is about 20% more expensive.

i flew both. the MS are very well maintained however they stink, have a very poor panel, very crappy performances and use a lot more gas. flying them is uncomfy, tiring and annoying. the intercom is so crap and the a/c so noisy that communication with the other guy is very difficult. they vibrate. yesm they fly, but it is not pleasant at all.

the PS28 has a moder panel (dynons), is quieter, has excellent radios and intercoms, doesnt stink. i can actually see outside. even with a fixed pitch prop, performances are miles ahead of the rallye. it has 6 hours endurance.
and btw, it has recovery parachute.

most students of the school now take the PS28.

i really dont see why when i go from my microlight to a GA plane is like going back in time 40 years. performancewise, sometimes 100 years.

is high time that the fleet of dynosaurs populating schools and clubs is upgraded to something more modern, comfy, faster, cheaper. doesnt have to be a PS28, there are excellent alternatives around.

Look at it the other way round.
If you were learning to drive and could go to a school at £30 a lesson on a 1980 car or a brand new one at £40 a lesson wich would you choose? I think most would accept the older car as long as the maintenance was ok. This is actually where we are.:8

The syllabus may be in some parts similar but it is a long way from being identical. The flying hours and syllabus in gaining a microlight licence is only 25hours with also much reduced ground school syllabus.

depending on the country, syllabus is virtually identical,

as for the hours, i think 45 hours is gross overkill, a number pulled out of a mysterious hat

i heard that in the military, if you dont solo after 8-10 hrs, there is a serious problem with you.

when i learned to fly back in the 80es, on ML of course, i soloed after 4 hours. course was 8 hours. we all survived. all the rest is just theory and doesnt need dozens of hours of expensive flight time.

i have my own ML and i have been a bit everywhere in europe, with around 700 hours.

2 years ago i decided to take a PPL, just to have a recognized international license.

why do i need to spend several thousands euro just cruising around with an instructor that himself declared has nothing to teach me?

i know it doesnt work like this everywhere, but in italy for instance, a ML pilot with 3000 hours still needs to log 45 (and pay) hours to get a ppl.

Rod1

27th Jun 2014, 13:27

The point I was making was that the syllabus IS IDENTICAL as far as wear and tear on the aircraft is concerned. :ugh:

Experience of he Eurostar and other similar aircraft is that it is possible to build a robust trainer down to a very light weight but you need a good design and the airframe may cost more to make. This is easily countered by the improvement in fuel economy. The 150 comes in below the CS-VLA weight anyway so many of these aircraft are not that much of a step from 1955 if you only consider weight. The SC has, in the UK, had a lot of issues, but one iffy design does not make the design code a bad choice.

Rod1

gianmarko

27th Jun 2014, 14:08

"The point I was making was that the syllabus IS IDENTICAL as far as wear and tear on the aircraft is concerned"

i agree

moreover, a lighter craft will generate lower wear and tear. my ML, which is a 3 axis with decent performance, weights 304kg excluding fuel.

the fuselage is a steel construction. the legs of the landing gear cost 200 euro and they are very hard to bend, really need a crash rather than a hard landing.

so i think it is a fallacy that a trainer must be heavy in order to last. it must be well designed. in fact a lighter trainer, if properly designed, will be even sturdier than a C152, and will be cheaper. if exotic materials are avoided, less weight equal less costs.

in italy there are many P92 with well over 4000 hours of school on them, and they are still in perfect condition.

Big Pistons Forever

27th Jun 2014, 16:20

in italy there are many P92 with well over 4000 hours of school on them, and they are still in perfect condition.

The flight school I teach at part time decided to standardize the fleet with C172,s. They just sold the last 2 C 152's to another flight school. One had 19,000+ hrs the other 22,000+ hrs and with good paint and interior looked just as good as any other flight school C 152.

The chance that any of the tin foil/tupperware "modern" trainers like the Eurostar or P92 is going to still be making a living with 20 K + hrs is IMHO; zero.

Rod1

27th Jun 2014, 16:48

""modern" trainers like the Eurostar or P92 is going to still be making a living with 20 K + hrs is IMHO; zero."

And we all agree that is a good thing, I hope. If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.

Rod1

Shoestring Flyer

27th Jun 2014, 18:49

The problem is that the majority of UK schools live on a 'hand to mouth/breadline' existance on these very tired old spamcans, so when a dealer/greedy manufacturer comes along with a totally unsuitable lightweight 600kg aircraft at a silly low rate monthly lease the school jumps at it. This is what is happening right now with the renamed Sportcruiser/PS28 in the UK.
Everyone then wonders why this aircraft that was not originally designed for student training and circuit bashing starts to experience noseleg/landing gear issues which long term does not do the reputation of a perfectly good solid aircraft used in private owner hands no good at all. Total stupidity!

CaptainChairborne

27th Jun 2014, 18:55

If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.

Have you seen the sort of cars that people learn to drive in? The crappiest, cheapest box on wheels the driving school will trust them with.

as for the hours, i think 45 hours is gross overkill, a number pulled out of a mysterious hat

i heard that in the military, if you dont solo after 8-10 hrs, there is a serious problem with you.

We really are doomed if we expect the main student demographic (middle-aged men) to solo in 8-10 hours and if we regard 45 hours as too little to learn how to control the aircraft, understand it's workings, communicate with ATSOs, safely plan flights, understand how we may make mistakes, handle emergencies, know operational procedures and enough air law to keep us safe. There are plenty of pilots out there who have passed at 45 hours+ and still bust airspace, lose control, carry out CFITs, kill their passengers etc. etc.

Silvaire1

27th Jun 2014, 20:07

The chance that any of the tin foil/tupperware "modern" trainers like the Eurostar or P92 is going to still be making a living with 20 K + hrs is IMHO; zero. I've noticed the value of 1950s cars (actually almost anything before the design by government era, pre-1972 or so) is going up at a very, very steep rate. There's a reason for that - because they are better for people who buy them as a lasting investment, for their weekend enjoyment. There's a good analogy to aviation, I think, minus the price appreciation. I call that a gift ;)

Chasing disposable designs is a costly disease in life generally, but one that some have looked at closely and decided not to catch.

taybird

27th Jun 2014, 23:00

As an instructor I love the C152. It's honest, the view out is good, and it can handle all kinds of student abuse. When I was pre-solo, I flared at 10 feet in an Aerobat, put 4G on the G meter, but the main gear still coped with it just fine.
I personally dislike the PA28, but it's an honest enough trainer too. The view out isn't as good and it doesn't feel as nice to fly, in my opinion. But it does a reasonable job and I am perfectly happy to teach in it.

I have flown a number of different aircraft types including the Eurostar and other microlights. The Eurostar is a delightful aircraft, very responsive, but for that reason and it's fragility I wouldn't choose it to instruct on. It's a lovely aircraft to move on to. Its gust penetration and crosswind limits are definitely factors to consider along with the fact it wasn't designed specifically as a trainer. The same is true for most other light aircraft that are currently available as "trainers".

Cessnas and Pipers are often dated and quite tatty - overheads and profit margins mean that cosmetics are sacrificed in order to make sure that the aircraft is fundamentally airworthy. But those same Cessnas and Pipers have taught generation after generation of pilots to fly, and survived it well. They were designed to do a job and do it well, and that is to teach people to fly. Additionally, maintenance is relatively easy to do. Hence their success and I would happily teach in them all day long and recommend them to anyone. I do wish schools would try to invest a little more on the cosmetics, however, since impressions do count for potential new students.

I've flown some more modern aircraft and while the kit can be very impressive, and for the business flyer or advanced pilot they are very nice, I am still not convinced as to their appropriateness as a trainer.

That said, it depends whether you want to learn to fly for fun or if you are hell bent on going for an airline job and have no interest in little aeroplanes except as a stepping stone. If that's the case, perhaps a DA40 would be worth considering.

Whatever you do, enjoy.

cockney steve

28th Jun 2014, 11:32

@ Rod1 said If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.
Well, yes, but the unpalatable truth is, -
spamcan = depreciation near zero
modern Tupperware.....we all agree they won't stand the pace , so, say 10,000 hours life.....divide into cost....

Add an extra £15 -or more to the hourly student rate :eek:

By the time you're all done and dusted, the PPL, done in a shiny newish (but tatty, chipped, frayed motheaten shed at ~7,000 hours!:} )
is going to cost the punter another thousand quid, or more.

note...Ileft out the tupperware's residual value and fuel-saving,both of which will barely offset the higher patching and repair costs of the more fragile machine.

Much as the spamcans are derided, they've passed the test of time.
The plastic fantastics were never designed for the training role....sure, one could be built, robust enough for 20K hours of student punishment....go yo the top, read again, add about 50% to the extra cost figures....
old kit means the punter isn't preoccupied with the thought he/she may damage it...hence more brain capacity for learning!

Rod1

28th Jun 2014, 14:58

"The plastic fantastics were never designed for the training role"

I think almost all the aircraft mentioned above are metal.:ugh:

If you want an example of a "modern Tupperware" aircraft designed for a training role then "The Diamond DA20 is a two-seat tricycle gear general aviation aircraft designed for flight training" would seem to prove you wrong.:rolleyes:

"Add an extra £15 -or more to the hourly student rate"

The last time I looked I could hire a Eurostar cheaper than a C152 (both local to me). :ok:

Q What is the highest single cost in operating a training aircraft? A Fuel. We have 50 year old aircraft used in the training role because of product liability laws in the USA not because the 1950's aircraft are perfect and will never be bettered.

Rod1

A and C

29th Jun 2014, 09:24

The truth lies somewhere between the opinions of Rod 1 and Cockeny Steve, I think that the composite aircraft have more than proved themselfs in the training role with the RAF, the Grob Tutor fleet has aircraft approaching 7000 hours without major structural issues.

It is the GA industry that is to blame for the composite is fragile myth because of the lack of understanding of the technology. I have seen a DA40 written off after a ground collision that could have been back in the air within weeks in the hands of a competent composite repair agency and another DA40 that was involved in a collision were the company disassembling the aircraft after the accident took a hacksaw to the main wing pin retaining locks, fortunately wiser people got hold of the aircraft before any further damage could be done and the aircraft is now back in the air.

Fuel is the real issue for flight training in Europe and the DA40 addresses this issue but the cost of the engine and avionics mitigate the fuel consumption.

What is needed is a simple robust basic trainer with a good intercom, modern radio and low fuel consumption, having seen 13,000 hour C152's with less structural issues than 300 hour SportCruser's I am a big fan of the C152 airframe but much less a fan of the engine, a re-engened 152 or even a FADEC controlled Lycoming would bring the fuel bill down to an acceptable level were the C152 would be more than a match for the less robust microlights in terms of overall operating cost.

Genghis the Engineer

29th Jun 2014, 10:14

What is needed is a simple robust basic trainer with a good intercom, modern radio and low fuel consumption,

A group A C42 and/or Eurostar in other words.

It might be this? (With the C4 4-seater trailing behind).

FLIGHT DESIGN >> Product (http://flightdesign.com/index.php?page=product&p=48)

I had a long talk with the (prospective?) UK importer at Popham and ran some numbers based upon what he gave me. Even with depreciation, a busy school could probably run it at about the same total cost as a C152.

I like the C152 as a training aeroplane, but I'd like to see progress happening !

G

Shoestring Flyer

29th Jun 2014, 10:54

P&M are of course the CT agent in the UK .
The Flight Design target price of the C4 is an eye watering $250,000. So I don't think you will be seeing many on the training school fleet!

Genghis the Engineer

29th Jun 2014, 11:13

P&M are of course the CT agent in the UK .

Not the sole player now - Deepak Mahajan seems to have got engaged as the new dealer, with P&M still behind the airworthiness.

The price you quote is about 20% cheaper than a new C172, and the running costs should be lower also.

So basically we won't see many brand new aeroplanes on training school fleets - but we knew that already.

We also knew that 4 seaters are more expensive to run than 2 seaters - hence that most schools prefer the C152 over the C172.

So I still think that the CTMC may prove to be part of the future and looks to me that that, or other very similar aeroplanes, could provide a very good replacement to aging PA38s and C152s.

G