C172S or DA20/DA40XLS for Flight School?

[RoToR_V8D]

I have been instructing for a little over ten years now, and I'm looking to start my own school this year.

I am after some input, if you have time, regards your thoughts on the use of Constant Speed Units for ab-initio instruction. I'm leaning toward "if they are taught properly from the get-go, it shouldn't be an issue", and we taught ab-inito in the military on constant speed - but I'm open to the opinions of those whom may have tried this route already?

I am trying to make a bigger decision between the a C172S/C182 combination and the DA20/DA40 aircraft combination to train pilots through to Commercial.

Any experience that may help by way of comparison would again be most welcome.

Cheers

[gusty_tailwind]

I wonder if there's any insurance premium for using constant-speed props to train folks with no flight experience? Otherwise, it doesn't seem like it'd be too much more of a leap for folks just starting the addiction to get constant-speed props under their belts -- especially if you're using equipment with FADECs.

I hear that many folks are looking for glass cockpits as differentiators of flight schools these days.

[RoToR_V8D]

Yes, I've heard the same thing about 'glass' and schools. It makes sense.

I hadn't thought about insurance premiums taking into account the Constant Speed issue, but I'll chase that up too.

Cheers

[ab33t]

I think the bottom line would be the support and maintainence issues rather than aircraft type. I have flown all the mentioned aircraft and would not mind using any , bottom line is support . Cessna have been around a long time and if you use over a certain amount of their aircraft the provide a specialized support package. I dont know how well the carbon airframe will age , Cessna speaks for itself as I did my PPL in a 1970's 150

[kme]

Our course did the abinitio on the 172rg w constant speed and retractable gear. I never noticed any problems for me or any of my classmates relating specifically to the relative "complexity". I always wondered if maybe we got an easier path then the ones having to relearn after half the course.

To me it seems highly likely that it is not a major issue to start with constant speed from the beginning (considering that the course/instructors has to take it into account -ex. good standardisation between instructors). Considering the total amount of impressions and experiences the student has to process to learn to fly from scratch 1 or 2 controls more or less is not such a big difference. Those extra actions only stand out for the student that alredy have habits that needs retraining (switch between fixed - constant)

[Neptunus Rex]

With over 30 years experience as a fixed wing flying instructor, both civil and military, including Cessna, Piper, Robin and Slingsby, I can say that the constant speed issue is not significant.

To my mind the choice is simple; go for the low wing type. It will be easier for your students to develop a proper, effective lookout. The improved visibility is an additional safety factor, especially in a crowded circuit. Base leg for a forced landing, real or practice, is simplified by being able to turn without obscuring the landing zone.

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/avion.gif

[gordon field]

Buy the proven Cessna and fly in the shade rather than roast in a plastic plane.

[welliewanger]

Depending on where you are, I'd check the landing performance of the Diamonds. I've not flown one, but I'm told that flapless you need a lot of runway. This might make training difficult.

[pablo]

Hi!

I'm not very familiar with Cessna since I didn't fly them that much, but I absolutely loved the DA40 the couple of times I flew it. Simply a delight to fly.
You have to be a bit more careful when flying because they seem to be a bit more sensitive than Piper or Cessna, but I think that's also positive I think since it will develop better habits at the students.

Aerodynamics are good also, and it helps fuel economy and performance (DA40 outperforms normally aspirated PA28 arrow!). And G1000 is a lovely piece of equipment also (either if you go Cessna or Diamond, I'd go for glass cockpit).

About c.s. propellers for ab-initio, one of the schools where I worked used them and no problems.

Unfortunately I don't know about maintenance or other stuff that could make a difference between Diamond vs. Cessna so not of much help in that aspect.
I just can wish you all the best in your venture, hope it really works out well.

Cheers / Pablo

[Got the horn]

We've just introduced a fleet of DA40/42's to replace PA28/34's. Ab-initio straight onto G1000 and CSU, no problems.

[Whopity]

I recall one flying school in Hamilton grounding all their Diamonds and replacing them with Cessnas! I find the Diamond very uncomfortable, as my head is way above the roof line.

[pablo]

maybe they should replace the pilots, and get smaller pilots :E

yes Diamonds are smallish but I love them (I'm 1,68) :ok:

I see... even in aviation size matters!

[Cows getting bigger]

I fly both the 172SP (G1000) and the DA40-TDi. The DA40 is a far nicer (easier?) aircraft to fly and students generally get to grips with landings more quickly. The go-faster-go-slower level isn't a problem.

Personally, I think the 172 is an average trainer. It has a number of flaws, not least being rather brutish when trying to teach some of the subtleties. As Neptunus says, lookout, especially in the circuit is a PITA. However, bearing in mind you are setting up a business, do not underestimate the influence that support will make. Everyone knows that you can get a Cessna/Piper fixed at almost any airfield across the world and you are never too far from reasonably priced spare parts. Diamonds are a little bit more tricky.