Choice of plane for PPL
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 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 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
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoestring
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.
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.
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
If we had Cessna engineering, combined with Piper business strategies, there would be a good aeroplane on the market.
G
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Axis Micros
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The youngest 172 (with G1000) isn't quite that old however.
i dont think that fitting a modern and expensive stereo to a car like this will make it attractive to a 2014 buyer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Shoestring Flyer; 26th Jun 2014 at 21:37. Reason: Correction to terminology
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would buy that car over any car today, whether it had a stereo radio installed or just an AM radio.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was making was that the syllabus IS IDENTICAL as far as wear and tear on the aircraft is concerned. 
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
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
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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.