Your favourite/most suitable training a/c

[whatunion]

if you were starting a flying school what type of single engine (civil) trainers would you buy and why?

[Mark 1]

I'd have a serious look at the new diesel Robin DR400:

Low fuel costs (~£7/hr)

Robust engine, water cooled doesn't mind PFLs circuits etc.

2+2 configuration, so difficult to overload 2-up

Good handling and visibility

Against:

Cost of new plane over £100k

Needs hangarage

Overhaul at 1000hrs (will probably increase)

Not spin approved

If you can get 500hrs a year over 10 years I think the financial bit would be favourable

[whatunion]

mark 1 would i be right in saying you already fly robins!!!??

Lovely a/c

[Mark 1]

Well, yes, as it happens ....
But mainly the tailwheel variety.

My club has a Robin, but unfortunately its not used for ab-initio. It is however the most popular club aircraft.

I'd personally like to see an updated version of the Chipmunk for PPL training, though early instruction in a tandem cockpit may be more difficult (I've not tried it).

I think the C150s and PA28s out there do quite a good job, and its the cheap secondhand market that keeps a lot of the smaller clubs going.

...Surprised this topic hasn't raised more debate and opinion, maybe its all been said before.

[whatunion]

Surprised this topic hasn't raised more debate and opinion, maybe its all been said before.

mark, perhaps not much ego mileage in this one!

everyone seems to like robins.
i flew a dr450 many years ago, whats the difference between this and the 400?

[scubawasp]

I can't see that you can go wrong with a C150/152?

[FNG]

Updated version of Chipmunk? Why not get a bunch of Cap 10Cs?

[TonyR]

I would teach everyone in a Super Cub.

Then I know they are flying and not being a passenger, letting the aircraft do most of the work on it's own.

Tony

[whatunion]

ok i am sort of in agreement but dont forget your starting a flying club so money comes into it unfortunately

minmum maintenace bills

maximum flying time

would these a/c be right

c152s a bit cramped and a bit old but i like them.
what about these new plastic a/c

[Send Clowns]

Cessna 152s - cheap, easy to fly safely, difficult to fly well, so the perfect trainer. Can spin. Robin HR200/120s - similar operating costs, a dream to fly, just handle like a real aeroplane, stick, good view. Can't spin though.

I like the DR400, but have only flown the Regent which is too expensive.I find it a little heavy on the stick and complicated to operate (who threw the switches at the panel?) and needs 3 hands to taxi well.

[Oktas8]

"The new plastic aircraft" tend to be quite expensive to buy I think, certainly more so than the 1960's to 1980's airframes that most flying training organisations use. I wonder whether the fibreglass and carbon fibre airframes now being designed, will last as well as aluminium airframes have?

If by plastic aircraft you mean Diamond Katanas, they are pleasant (easy?) to fly, they are spinnable, and they have excellent performance (e.g. climb rate on hot days). Students seem to like them, and they have a good useful load. But they are expensive to repair, and are more prone to tail-strikes on landing than other makes - they do need to be flown, as opposed to stalled, onto the runway.

I liked the Robin 2160 quite a lot, but like all French aircraft anyone over 180 cm in height will be resting against the canopy... :E On the plus side one does need to use the footrests to fly accurately, which is good for a basic trainer.

[Send Clowns]

I'm 186cm and find a Robin200/120 has plenty of space! You're right about the rudder though - interesting when I check out an instructor.

Some colleagues of mine are looking at buying a shared a/c, to use themselves and lease to a club. Originally assuming they would get a PA-28, they realised that for the same money as to buy a basic used Warrior they could put a deposit on a 4-seat Diamond TDi. Assuming about 350 hours per year use (modest for a club aircraft) the fuel savings would pay the finance costs. So I would say a new composite aircraft is possible.

[scubawasp]

First time I've heard of the Katana been certified for spinning in the UK? maybe I should find the POH for one!

[mad_jock]

I have limited knowledge on the finance side of things but have had to deal with the maint in a 3 aircraft school.

C150 under powered and cramped
C152 cramped
C172 Expensive for a ppl but has a bit more room

All the cessnas have good parts availablity and there is good knowledge base of engineers out there who can fix them. Costs are pretty low which is why you see so many of them. Gear is very good at absorbing student landings.

Robins good size and handling spares a bit more expensive. Engineering knowledge base reasonable. FI's need to protectthe geat though

Pipers. Again good engineering base uk wide spares can be had pretty quick.

PA28 roomy but to stable. Low engine sizes are powerfull enough for 2 up no probs Fuel selector in daft place though. Under carrage needs looking after by the FI

PA38. Crap trimmer, very cheap, bad reputation, handels very well, roomy, all the controls the FI can get to without major hassels. Gear is very good.

Katana. Like flying a hairdryer. Good viz, pain in the backside for getting old or less nimble students into. Its plastic so hard to fix if it gets bent. Problems with brakes in the past. Handels ok but has no spirit.

IN all i would go for the PA38 for cost ease of fixing and pax comfort. Has a bit of spirit about it. And can handel 7 hours a day 7 hours a week of teaching circuits with no problems.

MJ

[Oktas8]

Don't PA38's have a lifed main spar, which Piper will not replace? Could be a short term solution.

[whatunion]

sclowns why do you say c152 difficult to fly well and what are you comparing it with

[mad_jock]

Yes there is a mainspar limit.

But if you get one with a reasonable life left in it, it will giveyou years of service. The other thing I forgot to add is that the internal trimmings can get pretty beat up in the PA38. And are very expensive to replace. Its a very basic trainer which does the job it was intended for.

Also as well I prefer the low wing trainers for teaching circuits and it also makes it alot easier refueling and checking the fuel contents on turn around. This really comes into its own when you have pulled the short straw and have 8 hours flying to do that day all 30 min trial flights.

MJ

[foxmoth]

Cessna and Piper:yuk: Both to me are designed to drive the People inside with minimum interference from the "Pilot". As for the Pa38, how can a trainer that needs so little trimming be a good trainer.
Robin is nice and a combination of 2 seaters - Aero/Non aero would be good.
Cap10 even better apart from cost.

[whatunion]

interesting point about the trimmer,never thought about that

[hugh flung_dung]

It's pretty hard to beat the Bulldog or Cap10 for handling, general "niceness" and "pilot appeal". Close behind are: Cub, T67, Pup and Citabria/Decathlon.
C152s may be relatively cheap but they lack the "razzle" I believe is needed for todays market, PA28s are probably better and not much more expensive.
There seem to be 3 groups of people who want to learn to fly: those doing it as a career step, those doing it because they have always wanted to learn and can finally afford it, and those doing it for business. Each group needs something different. Probably the ideal fleet is a mix:
- C152s for the cheap end,
- PA28s for those who want something a little smoother, believe aeroplanes should sit on their wings rather than hang from them (or need more leg/head/shoulder room),
- Arrows and Senecas as natural steps from the PA28s,
- Bulldogs for those that enjoy nice handling,
- Citabrias and Cubs for those who believe aeroplanes should point skyward when on the ground.

... oops. I've accidentally described the fleet where I'm normally based:D
HFD

[tonker]

After the last couple of weeks where it has been seriously warm, i'd take a PA38 with it's roomy and well ventilated cockpit anyday. Add the excellent pre, stall and wing drop charecteristics this aircraft would be my bench mark for what i wanted from any new trainer.
Why people rate the C150 with its appaling circuit vis, ventilation and cramped cockpit beats me.
Two years ago i flew a short ferry flight with a very experienced retired pilot who reckons the RAFs Grob was a British design that no British manufacturer reckoned could be built for a profit! Along came the Germans who sold it back to us, at a profit and various other countries
British aircraft at Farnborough this year NIL

[ACW 335]

Why not a poll!?

I would go with aerobatic Robins - 2160 is quite expensive, but good if you wanted to include spin/aeros training.
Older Robin - R2112 are good cost wise, smaller engine but still aerobatic.

[NinjaBill]

I vote for the CAP 10

I started my ppl in the c150, and after about 10 hours total, and spending an hour or so doing solo circuits in it, decided that i didnt really want to spend £££ on flying an air bourne 2CV. So i decided to change AC, I had a look through the fleet, and the PA28 didnt appeal, but i quite liked the robin, after doing my first trial flight in it, however, I really liked the look of the cap. It looked IMHO, what aeroplanes should look like, with the wheel at the back, and a big (compared to the c150) engine at the front, however, genaral bar banter told me i was daft for wanting to learn in it.

I asked an instrucor if I could learn in it, and there was a general negative murmuring, and that I should learn in a PA28 or c150 like everyone else, but i persisted, and eventually, the CFI told me that, although no one had asked to do that before, that there wasnt a problem with it, the only problem for me would be that i would have to spend more time in the circuit before i could solo, and that it was a bit more expensive.

I completed my ppl in the cap in april, and Im very pleased I went against the general advice that it would be really hard, and went along with what i wanted to do.

It had a lot of atributes of a good teaching aeroplane, it is not difficult to fly well, but does get upset if you use the rudder pedals as footrests, ignore crosswinds, or try to land at the wrong speed. It is also cleared for spinning, has excellent all round visibility, and you can add the odd loop and roll onto the end of boring lessons like slow flight :)

NB

[FNG]

Well done that Bill. Now that the 10C is available, 10 Bs can be had relatively cheaply. The spar limitation is not an issue for PPL training. Having said that, the aircraft might not be as resistant as a basic spamcan to the sort of rough handling doled out by the average flying school. The French used the 10B to select their military pilots, but PPL studes don't have to take a suitability check (phew!).

[Send Clowns]

Camparing with a Warrior whatonion, as probably the next most common training a/c in the places I have flown. The Warrior is much more stable in flight and much more likely to turn a poorly-flown landing into a pleasant touchdown.

I can also loop the 152 I teach in, Bill!

[NinjaBill]

Here a pic of TangoUniform, the Sherburn Cap 10 at Full Sutton last Wednesday

http://www.geocities.com/geoffhill_uk/Cap10AtFullSuttonSmall.jpg

NB

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

There is a wing spar STC which can extend the life by at least 7500 hours, the sooner you do it the more extra hours you get. I've done it on one of mine and now she's good for another 20 years..Not sure if it's approved everywhere yet though.

The PA38 is roomy, comfortable and has excellent visibility. You're not squished up against your student which doesn't make for an easy learning environment. It's not easy to fly, you have to use your hands AND your feet properly. I've got 3000 hours in them and never had an issue with the trimming so not sure what that is about. It's good to be able to look around the engine compartment too and teach the studes what all the bits and pieces are and what they do. In my experience studes go solo quicker in the Tommy than the Cessna.

Interior plastics are easy to fix and cheap to replace. Just go to www.planeplastics.com and click on the bit you need.

There are plenty of threads about the relative merits and the nonsense about PA38s that was spread around in the early days, and perpetuated by people who have rarely if ever flown one.

As for the C152, horrible uncomfortable cramped hot things and visibility is terrible. All you can see of the engine is the top of the dipstick. UNless you are very thin with very short legs they can become a torture chamber after a few hours on board.

But then I'm a bit biased!

Each to their own!

[Vortex Thing]

T67 Firefly,

I know its expensive to run but worth every extra penny. CAP 10 is asking a bit much to teach ab initio's on a taildragger.

The Firefly gives you the best of both worlds just dont' get the badly underpowered T67 - 160 at least a T67-200 so that it doesn't fall out of aeros as much and you have a trainer that can go from ab initio to IMC and aeros in a oner. If you have a fleet of em then I'm sure that Slingsby will be more than happy to give you a hand.

Robin 2160 is also spinnable. I flew the one at Sherburn a few times, i'm 187 and had no issue at all with the Robin's size. The Bulldog is fantastic as well if you can find one which won't require too much work as I remember they were flown to the limits when I was on my UAS.

[FNG]

Why should it be asking a bit much to teach ab initio on a taildragger? If we were having this discussion on the 1950s valve powered pprune (probably sticking messages on a board with dymo tape), not learning on a taildragger would hardly be an option, and we'd be comparing the relative merits of Moths, Austers, Chipmunks, Cubs, Taylorcraft etc.

[ACW 335]

Its not a lot to different to teach people on tail draggers - just sorts who can land from who can't but could blag it on a tricycle.

In the Air Cadet Organisation, 16 years olds are taught to fly and solo the Grob 109B (taildragger) in 10 hours or less. If the vast majoritory of 16 year olds can do it taught by volunteers......

A lot of them also manage it on tarmac which is far less forgiving than grass!

[Send Clowns]

It's rather easier in my experience to teach a 16 year old than a 60 year old, where the problem might lie.

[ACW 335]

Very fair point....but we do get some 16 year olds who do not have a clue!

[Snakecharmer]

Many people have shown that learning in a taildragger is perfectly normal. However, if I were running an ab-initio training organization with the tight economics of today, I wouldn't go for the CAP10, much as I love it and fly / instruct in it as my aeroplane of choice.

I'd go for an aeroplane that offers a bit of everything... sporty, reasonably responsive handling, strong enough to withstand those who open/close canopies and push / pull levers in a slightly indelicate manner (remember... not everyone has aptitude for mechanical things)... possible to upgrade for IF, aerobatic... but, most importantly, able to fly in the sorts of winds where it gets just a bit sporty in a taildragger (thus maximizing utilization) ....

Answer... a fleet of T67Cs, with maybe an M or M200 for aeros.

[A and C]

As an owner of a number of aircraft I have nothing but prase for the Robin DR400 aircraft but having owned two of them over the past 20 years ( the Robin is my toy )I would never think of using them as a trainer.

There is nothing at all wrong with the aircraft , it is the total lack of product support from Robin that is the problem and with the very lackluster way that they supply parts my business would simply go broke waiting for Robin to produce the bits so that I could fly.

I did take a look at the PA-38 , I like the aircraft as a trainner but the spar life is the major issue.
The life extention program has yet to get past the CAA and will no doubt cost a lot to do so. This puts the PA-38 out of the running due to retun on inital investment.

It was with some regret that the only aircraft that will fit the bill is the Cessna 152 , product support is first class , there is no spar life limit and with such a large world wide fleet it will be a very atractive for a re-engine program when one of the new diesels comes on line.

It is a great pitty that the worst of the three aircraft to fly is the one on which all the numbers stack up but at least I will be in a position to offer training aircraft long into the future unlike the vast number of companys that have fallen to the " interesting" economics of light aviation.