Reliability of Training Aircrafts

[baz76]

Most flying schools use atleast 50-60 years old models of cessna 152/172. While they are maintained , they are still old and I am sure they do not check every bit of the structure. Its enough to shake your confidence when you are going on for training on one of these crappy planes. They are ridiculously noisy, instructors themselves don't trust the fuel guages or parking brakes, the list goes on and on.

Its like asking you to learn to drive in a 1968 model of volkswagen. would you do that? I am sure no.

Does anyone know of any flying school who has latest models of training aircrafts? ok when i say latest, they could be 10 years old but not more than that. its just stupid i think. I understand the price per hour would increase but how much, 20-30-40?

[sevenstrokeroll]

baz...sounds like you are a nervous flyer...are you sure you want to learn to fly?

first off, the planes are not sixty years old...I learned to fly in a brand new Piper in 1975...so that's only 38 years old if it is still flying.

there is a tradition in flying that you always assume the things like wheel brakes and fuel gauges won't work especially when you need them most...so that you will know what to do if it ever happens.

THE ONLY time I ever had problems with the wheel brakes was in a brand new plane, when I had finally convinced my mom to go flying with me. So I stopped and got a different plane...that is why you always tap the brakes after your first movement...

I do hope you learn in a plane that you like and that you feel is a good plane. I wouldn't want to learn in a C152 or C172. I prefer the low wing pipers (warrior, archer). It might be hard for you to find the plane you want and it will cost more money...and that is your choice.

But as an airline pilot now, I would rather fly a 30 year old DC9 series than a brand new Airbus.

so far you have asked a couple of questions on the forum and that is good...but let me ask you...WHY DO YOU WANT TO LEARN TO PILOT A PLANE?

I instructed quite a bit before becoming an airline pilot, CFIIMEI if that means anything to you British folk.

happy landings.

[XLC]

Hi OP again,

you might want to study the obligations the maintenance units and aircraft operators have to comply with. Age here is not really an issue for most trainers, more important is the list of mishaps that a plane had to endure. And besides, do you really think that an instructor will put her/himself at risk in a dangerous plane?

[Pilot DAR]

Baz,

You can certainly learn to fly in a brand new plane if you want. It might cost a bit more, but that's reasonable, considering the cost of insuring a more expensive new plane, particularly for training pilots. I learned on an older Volkswagen, and so did my 3 kids. My brand new VW was off limits, 'till they got some experience - and appreciated it!

Both of my planes were built before I was licensed - 1977. So I don't really think that they are old, and certainly not crappy. Nor was the 1978 Cessna 207 I used to fly, which had 19,200 hours, nor the 1958 182, which was a delight, nor the 1944 DC-3 I work on regularly, which operates reliably for a research organization, nor the 1937 Tiger Moth I test flew recently, following 8 years of sitting. These aircraft do not shake my confidence. They are about as noisy as the brand new planes I have flown. If fuel gauges or parking brakes don't work, They should be reported, and repaired, not complained about on a forum.

On the other hand, I have had "issues" with a few newer planes I have flown, which still had a few bugs to work out...

Perhaps, as you might like to join, and blend well into the community of pilots, you can relax, and adopt the confidence that we have in the aircraft we fly - newer, or older....

[Tankengine]

There is no such thing as an aircrafts or more than one aircrafts!:ugh::rolleyes:

[BEagle]

When I did my PPL course in 1968, none of our aircraft had more than about 40 hours on them - a new Cessna 150 would arrive at Cranfield from Reims every week or so. They all smelled of new paint and were immaculate inside and out....

I thought all light aircraft were like that....until I encountered the rental-wreckage available at most flying clubs.

[riverrock83]

Most flying schools use atleast 50-60 years old models of cessna 152/172. While they are maintained , they are still old and I am sure they do not check every bit of the structure.

There are flying schools around who use new / newer models, but this is a very price sensitive market. Where are you based?

The older models are well known, have an excellent safety record and have a ready supply of parts. If a problem is found, and it's believed that it may not be a one off, a fix will be applied to all the aircraft of that type, probably world wide. Since there are lots of these aircraft, major problems are all likely to have been found and fixed. For newer aircraft - many of the problems may not have been found yet...

The maintenance regime for all aircraft, but especially CofA ones used at flying schools, is detailed and very tightly controlled. Considerably more so than cars. I'm not an engineer - but every aspect of the structure will have been checked, in accordance with standard maintenance plans in a set schedule.

Its worth noting that aviation is an extremely risk averse industry. That's why we go through all those checks. The checking patterns that surgeons use in an operating room are derived from the checks that pilots use within airlines. The checks are there for a reason - but they shouldn't put you off. The same level of checks will be made in new aircraft as are made in old ones.

BTW - Cessna 152 was first delivered in 1977 making them a max 36 years old.

[Pace]

This is not to do with safety or flying qualities but presentation!
More like car rental where you rent a car with a few thousand miles on the clock with modern GPS then rent a beat up, smelly car with stained seats torn upholstery etc!
Sadly aircraft hire is expensive and when you climb into the smelly aircraft with stained carpets torn upholstery, broken plastic mouldings and radios from 30 years ago it will not impress your passengers or your sense if value for money

Pace

[xrayalpha]

Agree, Pace.

Which is why, I think we - as a "microlight" school seem to be doing OK.

Our aircraft are expensive - £60k+ each new - but are at least modern looking.

Our students often then go and buy their own aircraft, or a share in one, and there are many very smart microlight and Light Aircraft Association types which you would be proud to own and take your pals up for a flight in.

Nothing wrong with "old" aircraft. Nothing wrong with classic ones.

But sometimes a cosmetically poor "old" machine just looks pants, wheras a scruffy classic looks "antique"!

[RTN11]

There are plenty of newer PA-28 warrior III aircraft about, that would probably suit you better than a 152.

Newer aircraft just aren't designed for training, things like cirrus or any other light sports aircraft these days are all made of composite materials which are lightweight, but just not robust enough for students to learn how to land in. That's why you see plenty of PA38 or C152 aircraft flying around at schools, as there just isn't anything better to learn in.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Our Chipmunk was built in 1951. You won't find a finer aeroplane!

As the nervous flyer asked the DC3 pilot "gee, I'm told this plane is 60 years old. Is it safe to fly?"

To which he replied "Madam, how do you think it got to be 60 years old?" :E

[Jonty]

Baz after this post and the one about VFR are you sure you want to learn to fly? I'm not sure you really do.

[Maoraigh1]

How old is the engine? A rental plane will get a new one every 2-3 years. How old are the control cables? Bits that wear are replaced if wear shows. Do you know what a 100 hour and an Annual are? At least one radio is likely to be recent.

[A and C]

Having taken the Cessna SID's check at their word my 14,000 hour C152 went through the biggest inspection of it's life, the bottom line is there was nothing that could of killed you and in all probability the thing could have flown another 3000 hours without a major issue.

[Pace]

A C

Its not the age or airframe but the interiors which lets these aircraft down!
Shoddy panels covered in dust, smelly old carpets, doors that do not fit properly with broken plastic trims, ancient radio stacks! Why these lovely old aircraft are not refitted with modern avionics and carpets and trim i dont know.
They cost a lot to rent old or new appearances appearances !!!

Pace

[Mariner9]

Its all quite simple Baz.

All new aircraft crash into each other when flying VFR so there aren't any around.

For old worn out aircraft to have somehow survived as long as they have proves they must be lucky aircraft.

Why wouldn't you want to learn in a lucky aircraft?

[Pilot DAR]

appearances appearances !!!

Wouldn't it be nice....

You have a $20,000 152, into which you have just put a zero'd engine for $18,000, but it's not worth $36,000. Who wants to spend $12,000 on paint, $5,000 on interior, and $5,000 on radios, to get you to a $58,000 152, to have the students whine about the cost to rent it? It seems much too common to see on here, people looking for the "cheapest" rental aircraft, not the one with the "appearance" money spent on it.

The flying club where I learned to fly had a Cardinal RG as the advanced single in the fleet. Goofy doodle put it in with the wheels up. So they invested the big bucks on completely redoing its appearance while it was repaired. A month after return to service, another goofy doodle did the same thing. Much of that appearance investment lost, so why bother? The students might as well ruin ugly airworthy aircraft, as opposed to much more expensive pretty ones...

[abgd]

All radio control pilots know that as soon as you invest in a new paint job or canopy (for helicopters) you are dooming the aircraft to crash on its next flight. Keep with the scruffy aircraft.

[A and C]

I have some sympathy for your opinion about the sate of the interior of training aircraft but the cost of panel replacement is BIG. By the time even a small panel reaches the UK it will be over £100 and with about 11 panels in the inside of a C152 that is a big cost especially when students have the habit of grabbing hold of bits of the aircraft that were never designed to be grabbed and breaking them.

As for the radio fit it is all a matter of opinion, a few weeks back I overheard a guy slagging off the radio fit in one of my C152's, the aircraft has a KING stack all of it working and all of it still available new. What does the guy what ? The new touch screen Garmin ? Hardly appropriate for a basic trainer and likely to push the price of a flying hour up be 25%.

Oh ! I forgot to mention that we are finding more serious structural issues on one type of 300 hour old light sport aircraft than we are finding on 14,000 hour C152's. it would seem to me that the thirty year old trainers are much better built than some of the newer aircraft, they may be slow and burn a lot of fuel but that is the price of having a student resistant aircraft.

[Johnm]

It's true that some older well used aeroplanes are scruffy, but that doesn't affect reliability and well used aeroplanes under a strict maintenance regime tend to be more reliable that those that don't fly much.

On the other hand C15x and PA38s aren't really aeroplanes, they are torture chambers with bits sticking out at the sides.

[A and C]

Utter rubbish !

The C150 & C152 are the backbone of pilot training would wide the aircraft ( especially the 152) are reliable and robust.

The PA38 is the best GA trainer to come out of the USA in the last forty years, unfortunately the spar life issue has made the aircraft unviable to invest in and so the examples that are flying tend to be very tatty.

[Pilot DAR]

On the other hand C15x and PA38s aren't really aeroplanes, they are torture chambers with bits sticking out at the sides.

Perhaps, but then one man's torture, is another man's delight! My 150 has "tortured" me for 2700 hours over 26 years, and nothing else could have matched its broad capability over all those years. 100% dispatch reliability, and operating costs only slightly more than my diesel VW. The PA-38 is not quite as versatile, but still very well suited at what it was designed to do.

Or, you buy a new 182, or DA-42, and choose which four weekends a year you can afford to fly it.... but they're nice!

[tecman]

I hope the original poster is properly reassured regarding the reliability; it's effectively a non-issue with the maintenance regimes in place in the western world. What struck me, though, is his lack of appreciation of what our money actually buys us. The flying experience is, to most of us, incomparable with any other channel for our discretionary currency. I've taken pride in the maintenance and appearance of aircraft I've owned and operated but, in the end, it's the flying experience that counts.

Aircraft are more like boats than like cars: you can expect to have to do little (and sometimes not so little) things to them all the time, whether they are 1 or 50 years old. Getting into the mindset of appreciating the flying experience, and double-checking the critical safety factors (fuel, weather, aircraft systems, ...) is what it's all about. I hope you come to appreciate that in your training but, if you find that you really are in the mindset of wanting to walk in, kick the tyres and light the fires on the newest high performance aircraft you can find, do yourself and your loved-ones a favour and channel your currency into another hobby. Good luck.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar
I learnt to fly in Cessna 150s and 152s as well as an aerobat.

There is the old story of the yellow Piper Cub flying low over the country side and the pilot looking up and seeing a fast retractable zoom over head!
" Oh if only I had that I would be truly happy"

The fast Retractable pilot looked up and saw a pressurized twin turbine zoom overhead!
" If only I had that I would be truly happy".

The turbine pilot looked up and saw a jet zooming over head leaving trails in the sky!
" Oh if only I had that I would be truly happy"

The Jet pilot looked up and saw Concord fly overhead
"If only I had that I would be truly happy"

The Concord pilot a wise and grey Captain looked down and saw the tiny dot of the yellow piper cub was below floating above the countryside on that sunny day!
" If only I had that I would be truly happy"!

Had a flight in a Cessna 150 not that long ago and really enjoyed the aircraft just flying low and slow :ok:

Pace

[VP-F__]

jeepers Baz, if that is of true concern I better stop my wife from flying right away, if a forty year old cessna is that dodgy then her 50 year old, 40,000+ hour helicopter must be a death trap. Thanks for the heads up :eek::rolleyes:

by the way it is not the age that counts as long as it is maintained properly although cosmetically some could be better for sure.

[Pace]

There is nothing wrong with old aircraft they ooze character! I used to love the two baron 55s I flew and one of the Citations I fly is a basic old girl which you need to fly rather than having everything done for you :ok:
My main gripe is paying good money to fly an aircraft which smells of BO and smelly socks ! I am sure we have all experienced those

Pace

[Silvaire1]

My 67 year old aircraft is in a little better cosmetic shape than my 42 year old aircraft, so who says new is better :) ;)

Some wise words written here - as Tecman says, aircraft are more like boats, I often say like houses, you have to maintain them and then they can conceivably last forever.

In relation to pleasing students, I think aircraft ownership should be their goal, and flying training aircraft a short lived phase. Then they can make the aircraft they fly as nice as they want. It's also better for the aviation community - everybody cares more and does more when they have a stake. It doesn't matter what kind of aircraft it is, dirt simple or fancy, new or old, owning it and taking care of it is better.

[Mickey Kaye]

The reason the the current crop of training aircraft are used despite being nigh on 40 years old is simply they are the most cost effective aircraft to operate.

Despite all the composite wonder stuff and sexy cirruses this still hasn't changed.

Sadly no one seems to be capable of designing what is effectively a airframe as strong as the C150/2 /172, PA28/38 and mate it with a 10% ethanol sipping EFI rotax. But as soon as they do I suspect the current training fleet will be replaced within a few years.

The bit that amazes me is that no one has been able to do this. The market must be huge.

[Crash one]

I don't understand why, if the 152/172 airframe is so good, they are not worthy of an engine/avionics upgrade. Shirley a complete stripdown, repaint, new carpets & busted trim replaced shouldn't cost more than a new unproven a/c?

[Silvaire1]

I don't understand why, if the 152/172 airframe is so good, they are not worthy of an engine/avionics upgrade. Shirley a complete stripdown, repaint, new carpets & busted trim replaced shouldn't cost more than a new unproven a/c?

Seems to me that for training in a cost sensitive market, cosmetically rough or clean aircraft do the job equally well. As Pilot DAR points out, there may even be advantages to keeping them 'rough and ready', so that's the way they stay. For an individual owner I think it makes a great deal of sense to refurbish them, and in the US it is the way some people are getting 'new' aircraft now. That is aided by many of the old airframes having been in individual ownership since day one, and therefore having relatively low hours. Two years ago I bought a 40 year old, two owner aircraft with 900 hrs TT and have been doing some of what you describe.

I think there are too many existing airframes to justify building new ones when the benefits of mass production don't really apply to new aircraft, and the labor content/cost for building a new airframe is far more than the (say) $30K for which you can buy an existing plane.

Sadly no one seems to be capable of designing what is effectively a airframe as strong as the C150/2 /172, PA28/38 and mate it with a 10% ethanol sipping EFI rotax. But as soon as they do I suspect the current training fleet will be replaced within a few years.

The issue there is that the Rotax really doesn't make enough power. Resistance to mishandling (ruggedness if you will) takes weight to achieve, and an 1100 lb airframe needs 125 HP or so if you want it to carry two 2013-scale people and 2013-required equipment. The rugged Rotax powered aircraft ends up with lots of wing area, Cub level performance, and still costs a lot of money that has to paid back. I think if renters and students valued new-build airframes over performance then a ruggedly built Rotax powered trainer could make sense at the same wet cost/per hour, with the same airframe life. Just my POV

[Mickey Kaye]

"I don't understand why, if the 152/172 airframe is so good, they are not worthy of an engine/avionics upgrade. Shirley a complete stripdown, repaint, new carpets & busted trim replaced shouldn't cost more than a new unproven a/c"

Someone has

Cessna Rotax (http://www.cessna-rotax.com)

However (in my opinion) I don't think it reduces the running costs enough to be successful.

If they swapped out the wobbly prop for a fixed one. Improved the fuel efficiently by installing the fuel injected version and approved it to run on Mogas with 10% ethanol then it might be in with a chance.

The conversion costs a hell of a lot mind but I do wish them well.

[A and C]

I think that the VP prop is key to the performance of the aircraft and a fixed pitch prop would fail to make the performance numbers.

What I can't understand is why the C150 ? The C152 has a much more sorted airframe that would keep the costs down.

I would like to see the latest turbocharged Rotax in a C152 airframe, that would be an interesting aircraft.

[Silvaire1]

If they swapped out the wobbly prop for a fixed one

Good point. A wobbly prop is certainly a way to get the best out of a relatively underpowered aircraft, like a C150 with a Rotax. The downside is complexity, weight and cost to buy and maintain, particularly with the wood bladed CS props often used with Rotaxes. You can't beat the practicality of a FP aluminum prop.

I have an MT electric CS prop on one of my aircraft. Its absorbed as much attention as the rest of the propulsion system combined. Several times I've thought of removing it and going back to a FP McCauley, but I like the feeling of acceleration on take-off.

[Mickey Kaye]

"I think that the VP prop is key to the performance of the aircraft and a fixed pitch prop would fail to make the performance numbers."

I'm going to look stupid here but why do you say that? A 100Hp is 100HP. Also the O-200 doesn't develop 100HP anyway. Also the airframe is 20kg lighter when installed with a rotax and you would also be able to uplift less fuel for the same range. Or if your instructing time in the air.

I suspect that the reason the engine uses a wobbly prop was that original conversion was basically a 80HP DA20 powertrain inserted in the the Cessna airframe. And I'm pretty sure that when the DA20 came on the market the Rotax was only available in 80HP and they therefore had to use a wobbly prop to make up for the lack of HP.

I also suspect that even with the wobbly prop the performance on 80HP would not have been Stella hence they upgrade to 100HP.

I suspect there are quite a few reason why they chose the 150 airframe;

Alot more 150 where made than 152
Dirt cheap - especially ones with out of hours engines
Lighter - if what you say about performance is true
152 are cheaper to run in the first place - so less price advantage when converted

[A and C]

The performance is about how much of that power at the crankshaft you can turn into thrust, as a prop is an aero foil it will only give the best performance at the most efficient angle of attack, as A of A decreases with TAS most fixed pitch aircraft start the takeoff run with the prop fully stalled and at about 30 Kt the prop un-stalls and starts to work properly until the A of A decreases at the higher TAS and the aircraft can't accelerate any more.

The short answer is that a fixed pitch prop is a compromise.

There are very few multi role light aircraft but the DR400 is a good example the tourer will cruise at 135 Kts with reasonable field and climb performance with a course fixed pitch prop, the glider tug variant with a very fine fixed pitch prop will (without the glider attached) take off in a very short distance and climb at 70 Kt very well but don't ask it to fly faster than about 100 Kt because you will overspeed the engine because the prop can't turn the power into thrust due to the low A of A of the prop blades at higher TAS. So in the glider tug example cruise performance is sacrificed for performance in the 65-80 Kt speed range that the glider tug mission requires.

The C150 with the VP prop can turn all of the power into thrust all of the time (within reason!) as the A of A of the prop is always close to the optimum for that TAS due to the variable pitch of the prop blades.

[Piper.Classique]

I own and cherish a 60 year old super cub. Per flying hour the direct costs, including insurance, come to the hire cost of a DR400 120 hired from my french club. Neither of them is tatty, but the cub would now sell for a good bit more than the original (1980) purchase price.
So, an appreciating asset tax free, and I can land on farm strips:D and don't have to book in advance. I like old aircraft.

[sevenstrokeroll]

dear piper classicque

the piper super cub is magnificent...(c'est magnifique").

I am in favor of older planes (provided they are properly maintained). In fact, most planes could be built today with the same specifications as decades ago and still do a great job.

Really, haven't we gone a bit too far in the holy grail of fuel efficency?

Given my choice, beyond MONEY< I think the great planes of the past would be just fine today. No, I'm not saying I would like to fly the atlantic in a DC3 over a DC8 or 707...the twist is the engine.

But for learning to fly, for flying on a nice day with a beautiful babe at your side, the planes of the past are just fine. build them again.

I took a look at a plane called a DA something. I found out it could not be certified IFR because it can't be protected from a lightning strike.

Oh come on! how is this an improvement?

[Lone_Ranger]

"I took a look at a plane called a DA something"

...Hope you are ok now, people have gone blind

[sevenstrokeroll]

I've learned something...and yes I retained my vision.

I drove a brand new ford taurus...very nice car...gadgets galore...but my right knee hits the center pedestal, the gearshift area..and it hurts.

so I just drove my 20 year old plymouth acclaim, with the gear shift on the steering wheel. And boy was it comfortable.

so...either build the old planes and cars again...same way, or I'm sticking with the old stuff and getting a proper mechanic.

[Mickey Kaye]

Sorry A and C what I ment was why would you think that a Cessna 150 powered by a 100HP rotax would not perform as well as one powered by a 100 O-200?

[englishal]

I flew a lovely little aeroplane once, called an OMF Symphony. I don't know what happened to them as you hardly see any around, but it was a great 2 seater. Would be an ideal training aeroplane. Comfortable 25G bucket seats, good boot space, all digital engine monitoring and had a stick! Wasn't too shabby on speed either if I recall correctly. Did some long XC flights out into Nevada in it - That was great, flying over the high desert at night peering up at the stars through the roof windows.....

[F4TCT]

flown once (for a reason) with a flying school up at durham tees. On take off the door popped off the latch thing mid winter so i put the heater on full - not that it worked (i only had a t-shirt on) and proceeded to freeze my bollocks off. The radio stack in the aircraft could only be described as pre-historic to the point it took me a minute to work out how to switch it on and the general keep of the machine was terrible. Pity the cost per hour didnt reflect this. The transponder i fear didn't work (interesting conversation with durham radar)

On the other hand, the school where i learnt to fly had relatively newish machines, no older than 10 years or so and what a difference. Yes they had the scars of training but fly very nicely bar one of them which has had a re-paint and the lazy buggers haven't stripped the old paint off, thus making it very heavy.

Used to be a part of a cherokee 140 group and the machine was built in the mid 70's. Still perfectly fine although i found it under powered and slow despite its high fuel burn. Didn't like the old style yokes but otherwise felt perfectly safe in it.

I find it incomprehensible that its so difficult to invent new engines for the likes of warriors and 152's etc that are cheap to run and actually get certified to fly. I understand that theres a new diesel out on the market? although to upgrade that in a warrior, how many hours would have to be done to justify the upgrade?

Im personally at the stage where I want my own aircraft and although I wish to have an IFR capable machine, I don't want the stigma of a high fuel burn issue to go with it.

I think one of the biggest issues here is the fuel cost, the flying schools have their overheads and so on, and i see the point of training machines being work horses and therfor not worthy of a bit of TLC.

I was speaking to a chap involved in aviation and he seemed to think that avgas wasnt going to be around for much longer, what then?

Dan

[Silvaire1]

why would you think that a Cessna 150 powered by a 100HP Rotax would not perform as well as one powered by a 100HP O-200

It would perform just about as well, but when loaded with two 2013-sized people neither one of them is/would be acceptable. I think the little C150 needs about 125 HP and a gross weight increase to be marketable for the job in 2013.

The Rotax engined version would burn cheaper fuel (assuming no auto fuel STC was legal locally - worldwide many people do burn auto fuel legally in 150s), but to produce the same performance hauling around a 150 it would also burn about the same amount of fuel. When overhaul time came, the O-200 could be overhauled using parts from several sources, and depending on who does it and where, the work can be a lot cheaper for the Continental.

Re OMF Symphony Aircraft - it was basically an O-320 powered Glastar kit aircraft with a heavier airframe (I believe the fuselage/tail cone was non-composite and substatially heavier?) to meet some countries certification requirements. A local lawyer bought one new, and a friend of mine used to fly it. Eventually, and this is where I was tempted, it was a sold with a couple of hundred hours for a low price almost beyond belief. The resale issue was that it was competing in the used market with lighter Glastars licensed as experimental homebuilt.

[A and C]

In that case I suspect ( but without the data it is not much more than a guess) that the Rotax has a much steeper torque curve than the older engines ad so a narrower RPM band in witch it is able to transmit that power into thrust. Hence the VP prop to be able to keep the prop efficient over a narrow RPM band.