Cessna v Eurostar/Ikarus

[ChasG]

This might be the wrong forum but which is the easiest to fly and more importantly to land?

[Rod1]

“Cessna” covers a lot of aircraft, but if you are talking 152, then the Eurostar wins. It is by far the easiest aircraft to fly I have ever flown.

Rod1

[batninth]

Did my flying training in the Ikarus, and it's dead easy to fly but a load of fun. Jumped into one for my revalidation the other day & it was great to be back in one. Landing is landing, but I loved doing PFLs in the Ikarus, at least it slows down when you drop the flaps which is more than my Coyote does.

Not flown the Eurostar, but one of my instructors has one, he reckons on landing it tends to get caught in the ground effect but overall he rates it as better to fly for long distances.

[glush]

I instruct in both C152 and Eurostar. Without any doubt in my experience student pilots find the Eurostar easier to land than the C152. This is not to say that the C152 is difficult to land, but there is definitely more 'feel' to the Eurostar in the landing phase. However, it's more twitchy than the C152 and this combined with it's lower inertia (lightness) makes it more of handful in a crosswind or turbulence. The Eurostars main vice compared to the C152 is actually during the takeoff. Even without a crosswind there is a pronounced swing to the left as power is applied so you need to be ahead of the aeroplane. However, with proper instruction it can be managed quite OK.
Hope that helps.

[Finals19]

I did significant training in the C152 for my CPL in Canada, and now fly a C42 recreationally.

I guess you could compare the C152 to a rather dated compact car - fairly under powered, solid and stable if not a bit sluggish. However, the C42 is light, nimble and powerful (on a power-to-weight ratio). The C42 is of course more susceptible to turbulence and flies a little slower (4250rpm = 85kts) The C42 will sip fuel and runs on Mogas, so if you want to go high (i.e. abv 5000ft) you have been warned (you can put Avgas in it if need be).

The C152 is more stable and needs a touch less management on the approach. The C42 has low inertia and therefore is very susceptible to speed variation (speed can drop off very quickly) The C42 requires the pilot to fly it right down to the ground and through the roll out, especially in x winds - if you relax its quite easy for it to lift a wing and give you a bit of a wake up call. And then there is that bloody flap lever!!!!

I would therefore say the C42 makes a better pilot of you, but I am sure there are those that will debate that.

:ok:

[IO540]

I am no instructor and have never flown a Eurostar but did most of my PPL in a C152.

FWIW one needs to be careful with views from instructors. They tend to like planes which are reasonably challenging. OTOH, a pilot who is asking about whether something is "easy" to fly is just asking whether it is easy to fly :)

A lot of instructors love the Tomahawk, which is an absolutely awful plane to fly anywhere for real (very twitchy).

[Mark1234]

My 2c; I've flown various GA aircraft including the 150/152, and the Sportstar (a 100bhp ?LSA? version of the eurostar - in aus)

Personally I don't think they come much easier to land than a 152. I didn't consider the swing in the sportstar particularly interesting; you do need to be a bit more active with the rudder in all phases of flight, in other axes, it's quite light in pitch/heavy in roll.

Issues wise, as identified by others on this thread speed management on approach is more critical in these light types with low inertia, it's easy get slow quite quickly. Throw in a lowish flap limit speed and you have a narrower speed band to work with anyway..

On the variant I flew this was compounded by about the worst throttle arrangement I have ever seen - you could twist for a 'vernier' style fine adjustment, or push the button on the end in, and slide it in and out conventionally, but with zero friction, and no option of bracing your hand against the panel to control it. The net result was you either frantically twirled the knob and got little power variation, or attempted to use the coarse adjustment, and got massive power variation - this might not be common to the eurostar, and maybe they can be set up better. I didn't notice any issue with ballooning. It also had an electric trim which was too coarse - the 'right' trim setting for any stage of flight was always somewhere between the detents.

Overall however, the main thing that's wrong with it is a lack of aerobatic clearance :ok: - it's a nice little thing to fly, the view out is phenomenal, and the performance in another league to the 152.
[edited for spelling / appalling use of english!]

[wacits]

hi wing vs low wing. Am learning in an Eurostar and find it easy to do everything in as it is / was all i knew. I have just bought a rans s6. different in every respect to the eurostar. just need difference training. Someone coined a phrase automatic with power steering vs manual without power steering. guess which is which

regards


wayne