Cherokee or Tecnam?

[captain echo]

I have some previous flying training on the Firefly (40 hours) I have been out of flying for a while for various reasons, and have now relocated to a new area and I am looking at finishing my training and gaining a PPL. I have looked into several local flying schools which operate different aircraft and I was wondering if someone could offer some advice as to which aircraft they think would be best to go with?

I could go with the Tecnam P2002JF, which looks nice, this is £175ph + £5 per circuit, or at a different airfield the Piper Cherokee, which is £155ph with no additional fees, but there is a membership fee of £150pa.

I like the look of the Tecnam, it seems similar to the Firefly with a stick and nice visibility. Do you think it would be better to pay the extra initially and go with the Cherokee, or go with the Tecnam which would be cheaper initially but potentially more expensive in the long run, but more similar to what I am, used to?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The Cherrytree will bore you to death and frustrate you with its indifference to your control inputs (it will sort of do your bidding, in its own time, as long as you don't expect too much of it in the way of responsiveness or control harmony).

Never flown a Tecnam, but if it has a stick instead of a steering wheel, that bodes well....

[gooddaysir]

yeah but tecnams are Italian and that means theyre probably :mad:. get a taylorcraft auster

[Fly-by-Wife]

but tecnams are Italian and that means theyre probably :mad:
Yes, just like Ferraris and Lamborghinis. :rolleyes:

[smarthawke]

I've got quite a few hours flying both types (and many hours maintaining both types).

Go fly the Tecnam and enjoy the flying!

[tecman]

GDS, that seems an odd comment given your previous comments in the hour building thread and your minimal aeronautical experience. I can see a few Partenavia and Vulcanair pilots choking on their Weeties as I type.

Captain, both the PA28 and P2002 are great aircraft but no aircraft is all things to all people. If you are in the training environment, the P2002 requires sharper handling and better rewards good technique. And yes, the visibility and having a proper stick add to the fun. If you do a search you should be able to turn up a thread where I posted the reasons for choosing a P2002JF as the Sunday afternoon chariot.

SSD is correct about the PA28 series but I can't bring myself to be too hard on the old girl. I've spent many happy hours in them and if want a trip away with the family, or undertake your IMC training in a pretty stable machine, or do lots of other things, the PA28 and C172 are deservedly popular.

But the P2002 is more fun :)

[gooddaysir]

[QUOTE=Fly-by-Wife]Yes, just like Ferraris and Lamborghinis.[QUOTE=Fly-by-Wife]


I guarantee they'll either fall to bits or catch fire whenever you apply the brakes


can someone tell me how to quote properly because it wont do it when I click the button

[OhNoCB]

Have you by any chance got the prices of the two mixed up? They sound very similar to two places I know but the wrong way round. For what it's worth, if it turns out to be the case, the place that uses the Tecnam aircraft has (IMO) much better instructors and you will get more value for your hour in the aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd go for the PA28 if you want an easy to fly reliable tourer, and the Technam if you want an interesting and fun to fly modern aeroplane. I can't however work out why the more modern aeroplane, with the more fuel efficient engine, is so much more expensive.

G

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi captain echo,

Of the two aircraft, having flown both and also the Firefly (T67B), I should say that at your stage of training, and especially after previously training on the Firefly, the Technam Sierra would be much the better choice. (After the Firefly handling the Pa28 would be like stirring treacle).

The Pa28 was designed round about the early sixties and at a time when the US small aircraft industry was trying to make aeroplanes as much like cars as possible. They wanted families, that already owned a family car, to buy a family aeroplane! Hence, they designed the Pa28 to be as safe and as fool proof as possible in the hands of some ham-fisted 'daddy' figure with little training and limited flying aptitude. This resulted in an aeroplane with safe but soggy handling.

So if you want to fly a machine that looks like a post war Ford V8 Pilot (and handles like one) then the Pa28 is the way to go. (This is not to detract from its usefulness at IMC level, when you want rock-solid stability, or for taking the family for a ride on Sunday afternoon; but you aren't doing IMC or taking the family for a spin).

To 'learn your trade' I feel you need an aircraft with crisp generic handling, (such as for example the Chipmunk had) and that isn't the Pa28.

The Sierra is modern and typically Italian. Like a modern Alfa-Romeo or Fiat it handles crisply and generically and is generally a delight to fly.

As to which of the deals you have been offered is best, that depends on how many hours you expect to fly in a year.

Good luck!

BP.

[sharpend]

I have flown the lot and I suppose my viewpoint is coloured by a desire to purchase rather than to rent.

A PA28 is old, primitive and very much a 'Spamcan' The favourite of flying clubs as they are cheap to buy and maintain.

A Tecnam is modern, cheap to run, expensive to buy and is light. That is the rub... one cannot fly IMC or carry much. That may not be a problem for you.

However, if you were to hire a car, would you hire a Fiesta or a Healy 3000? I suppose it is all down to what you want to do with it. Same for aeroplanes. I'm very much biased towards Bulldogs and opted to buy one instead of all those ultralights/microlights.

[Lima Juliet]

I normally fly taildraggers but needed to re-val by experience so thought I'd try the Tecnam with an instructor. My experience was similar to the prediction about "Italian"!

- The fin and rudder are too small and this means that you need half rudder before you open the throttle to catch the swing.

- If you're over 5ft 10ins then you can't see properly out of the thing - the canopy arch is massive and right in the places I wanted to look for conflicting aircraft.

- It handles like a LAA type aircraft - so not much good for easing the average Joe into flying to PPL standard.

- I think the EV97 Eurostar is a far superior aircraft (decent sized fin/rudder and you can see out of it!).

So yes, it looks great but in my opinion it is a pretty poor PPL aircraft.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

PS The Tecnam ain't that cheap to run as well as it's very expensive to insure - about 4 times the cost of a cessna 152. So yes, it might be cheap on fuel but when you add up the expense of running a Rotax and the insurance, it isn't any cheaper to run overall than a O-235 engined cessna.

[cockney steve]

^^^^^ what he said, but he missed the fact you could buy several spam-cans for the same as one Technam.....you lose on two counts......a lot more capital to finance...and a massive initial depreciation.


All in all, old aeroplanes, like old cars, have done their depreciating, so costs are just maintenance and replacements which invariably work out a lot cheaper than buying new.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ultimately the only thing that matters is the quality of your instructor. What type of aircraft you will be flying is IMO the least important consideration when conducting PPL training.

[AN2 Driver]

Question in my mind is what would you do after you get your PPL.

If you plan on extended trips with family, the PA28, especcially the 180 hp version, is the plane to go for and to fly. Equally, if you are looking to possibly buy one later.

The Tecnam is a great little airplane, a bit short on payload, otherwise a nice fun plane for 2 people. Friend of mine owns one and has done quite a few nice trips with it around Europe. As for quality... Tecnam is one of the very few successful airplane manufacturers at this time and this would not really happen if their quality was lacking. Instead I rate them as one of the innovative and pretty sharp players in the market today.

If you plan on renting, you will find PA28's everywhere whereas you may struggle to find Tecnams.

In the end however, I can't agree enough with the statement that the quality of the instructor and school are much more important than with what you finish your PPL with. In any event, the PPL is a license to learn on your own and probably you will find in the future that you will fly other airplanes than the ones you trained on. So find the best over all package and go for it.

[sharpend]

I agree with Leon. Here are a few few from an experienced pilot:

1. Eurostar ... for the money and if all you want to do is potter around the local area ... great.

2. Breezer likewise, but not cheap to but

3. SportStar , like Eurostar but better, but more expensive.

4. Aquila, terrible in a crosswind; insufficient rudder authority. Once you lift the nose wheel get ready for the swing. Expensive.

5. Tecnam, don't like the canopy

6. Plastic microlites are worse than aluminium. Expensive to repair and insure?

7. Anything with a push/pull throttle (ie like carb heat) is not good.

8. Most don't have pitot head heaters. That can be a problem.

9. None can carry much.

10. Importantly, few are strong enough to withstand a heavy landing. The nose leg breaks.

[tecman]

Captain, why don't you go for a run in the Tecnam and see what you think? A lot of GA pilots trained on the truck-like handling and weight of Cherokees etc never really warm to the VLA/LSA category. Frequently the whinging is simply the result of flying an unfamiliar, and considerably lighter aircraft, often with a higher power to weight ratio.

It's true that a 600 kg aircraft is never going to be built like a battleship and will need to be treated well. What is also interesting is that our local operators of LSAs often find that it's GA pilots doing the fleet damage! The record of people who have been trained from scratch in the Recreational Aviation category is better. So, if you arrive on the scene ham-fisted and full of hubris, expect problems. But from your first post, I don't have the feeling that that's your approach.

With a fairly wide experience in GA aircraft, including taildraggers, I willingly admit it took me a few hours to find the right touch for the LSA. But like the other Tecnam fans here, I think it's worth the effort. I'm 182 cm and don't have visibility issues, although it's true that the roll assembly is the P2002 is solid and visible. I take that as a plus, especially after watching the crush test video. If you're a taller person it's important to set the seats back far enough - the seat rails are inclined, and you gain head clearance as they slide.

Ultimately, enjoy whatever you fly. And when you get your PPL, fly as many types as possible as often as you can.

[EDMJ]

The only thing I didn't like about the Tecnam 2002JF was the coarse pitch propeller which resulted in a rather long take off run. Loved everything else about it. Those who claim that Tecnam's are poorly built have never seen one up close.

Want crisp handling > go for the Tecnam
Want stable A to B transport > go for the Piper

[gooddaysir]

I'm 33 hours into my PPL at the moment and so far have flown a PA28, C150, C152 Aerobat, C172 and Tecnam P2002JF.

How? Don't you need separate conversion ratings to fly different aircraft?

[abgd]

No, and even if you did, you'd be able to fly under the supervision of an instructor. You only need type ratings for larger or more complex types of aircraft, though you may need additional training to fly e.g. a plane with retractable gear, or a tailwheel.

[tecman]

Good approach, Stu. When I learned to fly (30 yrs ago) my instructor never missed the opportunity to give a student a lesson (often for free) in whatever new aircraft type was around, often throwing in some aerobatics for good measure. By the time I had my PPL I had a real curiosity about different aircraft and their handling. I've never lost my affection for the C-A150 or the C172 (the latter took a whole 45 mins 'conversion') but it dawned on me pretty early that we choose our aircraft for the job at hand, even if the job on a given day is a joy flight around the local patch. I hope you continue to have fun and my only suggestion would be to see if you can hop in a taildragger for a bit. The fact that you know what a rudder is from your P2002 experience will stand you in good stead.

[smarthawke]

Blimey, so not an expert on all things Italian or flying/licensing regulations.....

Any difference training like that would be a local rule (club for instance) to fly a C172 from a C150 - not a legal requirement for a PPL holder in the UK.

Helicopters, I believe do have 5 hours (?) type rating training between types. Not on fixed wing though, apart for glass cockpit, tailwheel, retracts, CS prop etc.

Bizarre.

PS There's no 'h' in Tecnam.

[dera]

I don't see how you would need any training on going from 172 to 150/152 or vice versa. I had about 10 hours with 172 and I just jumped on a 152 and went flying. They fly the same, just know your numbers and wear deodorant on 152 if flying with someone.

[abgd]

Interesting about the helicopters - didn't know that.

I can think of things that could catch you out transferring from a 152 to a 172, e.g. having a fuel selector if you'd never flown an aircraft with one before. Not rocket science but I didn't begrudge my checkout with an instructor - would have done so if it had lasted 5 hours though!

[dera]

Thats why it has a checklist :) "Fuel selector - on". Yeah, true, a quick "transition training" obviously wont hurt, but its not really a requirement either. And 5 hours sounds excessive.

[Cows getting bigger]

Dera, 172 to 152 is OK. Going the other way could get rather embarrassing depending upon the type of 172. Regardless, most sensible people would ask for an hour or so familiarisation with someone who is competent on type.

[dera]

Yeah, with the newer 172's I can understand that. But the older ones, they are pretty much the same I think. I would say you can jump from a 152 to 172N/P, and have no problems flying it around.

Again, an hour or so is always a good idea, but 5 hours 152->172 sounds like alot. Unless its a G1000 transition at the same time, or something like that.

[Groundbased]

Another vote for the Tecnam here. I've flown the C152 and the PA 28 but I find the Tecnam to be a great little aeroplane to train on.

I stand to be corrected here, but I think the P2002 actually has quite a lot of rudder authority but its the fact that it's very light and the more powerful Rotax generates a swing that needs to countered with a good bit of right rudder on takeoff.

[tecman]

Almost right Groundbased. The Rotax is about the same power as the C150’s 0-200 but the P2002 is perhaps 150 kg lighter. The C152 is a bit more powerful but a bit heavier than the C150. in the end, you do end up with better power to weight on the Tecnam, and that's where the considerably better climb mainly comes from (no magic!). I also agree that it's the higher power to weight on take-off and the resultant need for right rudder that catches many unawares. The aircraft is not short on rudder authority, as you see from the 22kt demonstrated crosswind.

A trick I've learned is that if the crosswind is really howling across the strip, and if you realistically have a choice of takeoff or landing direction, put the crosswind on the right. You keep the absolute maximum rudder authority right up to crosswind speeds at which you probably shouldn't fly anyway.

If you want to experiment for yourself and build confidence, ask your instructor to do a takeoff with a maximum-strength left crosswind. If you add in a short strip, I believe it's one of the more challenging bits of P2002 handling.

One short strips, I agree with EDMJ that the Hoffmann prop looks chunkily coarse, and no doubt that's where the decent cruise speed comes from. But we've been having some very hot weather here lately and flying the P2002 alongside C152s and C172s reminds me of the much shorter Tecnam takeoff distance. But yes, you can find LSAs with a shorter roll still.

[Lima Juliet]

I really do think the canopy rails are a significant issue if you are 180cms+ in height and the rudder is too small on the Tecnam:

http://www.midislandair.com/SPORT-FLYING/Sport-Planes-for-Sale/N2490C-SIERRA-2007-P2002-SN-198/images/2007-TECNAM-P2002-SIERRA-320x240.jpg

Look at the Eurostar. No look-out issues and a decent sized rudder. No swing issues on take off and no requirement for pre-emptive half right rudder:

http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/images5/34.jpg


Another picture of the atrocious lookout!

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/5/0/4/1577405.jpg

Plus the Eurostar is approximately 2/3rds the cost of the Tecnam.

I know where the smart money is!

LJ

[tecman]

Nice scenery, LJ. I'm afraid we can't match that green around here this time of year. Unfortunately, I don't think the fish-eye image fairly conveys the pilot view from the Tecnam, in that neither the side nor top sight lines are evident. But I'm not photographer enough to know how to do that in one shot.

I have flown a Sportstar, which I think is the same model as the Eurostar sold in the UK and Europe. Not sure if the Sportstar we see in Australia has the aileron modification made by the manufacturer to increase the crosswind handling. I enjoyed flying the aircraft but thought the general handling was not as crisp as the P2002 and, in choosing an aircraft, I was also attracted to the beefier roll protection on the Tecnam.

I was also concerned by the reported nosewheel fragility, in that those local LSA training accidents I mentioned earlier were on Sportstars. And reading the incident reports from around the world seemed to indicate a bit of a pattern. However, I didn't put a lot of store by the nosewheel issue, for the reasons to do with the GA to LSA transition I mentioned before. But I did make a mental note that the P2002s on line locally had not had similar issues.

I'm not sure how you equate rudder required on takeoff to poor rudder authority. I regularly fly a P2002 JF to at least the published crosswind limits with no issues. Nose swing on takeoff can be due to a number of factors, most obviously including (in a tricycle configuration) slipstream effects and engine orientation choices. If you declared this characteristic to be your show-stopper, you'd miss the fun of some of the best-handling classic aircraft around.

We all make our choices and for my part I've enjoyed the LSA/VLA experimentation. Coming in just as a PPL with no axe to grind, it's been a good excuse to go flying.

I guess the OP has taken away the recommendation to try out the possibilities before making a final decision.

[Lima Juliet]

Here are a bunch of accidents all linked to the yaw tendanciis of the Tecnam Sierra:

17 Sep 06 G-TESI Immediately after lifting off from an undulating grass airstrip, the aircraft rolled to the left and landed heavily some 25 m to the left of the runway.

11 Jun 07 G-RLMW During takeoff on a grass runway, the aircraft crested a rise in the runway, became briefly airborne, settled onto the ground and then bounced back into the air. It then veered to the left and struck a fence.

30 Sep 07 G-NESE During the takeoff roll, the aircraft went over a bump in the grass runway and the steerable nosewheel lifted off the ground. The aircraft then veered off the runway to the left and was substantially damaged when it went into a ditch.

19 Apr 08 N532MA The student pilot reported that while landing, the airplane bounced twice and he elected to abort the landing and applied full engine power. The flight instructor reported that as full engine power was restored insufficient rudder was applied and the airplane drifted left of the runway. Taking over the airplane's controls, the flight instructor initiated a left bank in an attempt to avoid hitting the airport windsock. While banking, the left wing tip impacted the ground followed by the airplane's fuselage.

4 May 08 EI-LFC The surface wind was estimated at 200 degrees at 10-14 kts, resulting in a crosswind condition. As the aircraft approached take-off speed it swung to the left and departed the paved surface of the runway. The Pilot applied full right rudder to correct but, as the aircraft came back on the paved surface, the left main landing gear detached damaging the tailplane as it travelled rearwards. The Pilot abandoned the take-off, the aircraft decelerated rapidly and came to rest in the grass on the left side of the runway.

15 Oct 09 G-CDTE During takeoff from the grass airfield, the aircraft swung left despite the application of full right rudder. It left the runway, crossed a road and collided with two parked vehicles.

28 Jan 12 N14HV Upon landing, the aircraft, a Tecnam P2002 Sierra, N14HV, exited the runway sustaining minor damage. The sole pilot on board the aircraft was not injured.

26 Oct 13 F-GXEC. The pilot lost control of the aircraft during take off at Andernos Airfield - LFCD and crashed into a dig. The pilot suffered minor injuries.

I note a significant trend with this aircraft. Don't know if it is an issue with insufficient rudder or fin area, but it sure felt like it when I flew it last year. Maybe you're right, it is something else, but it doesn't feel right - certainly not for a PPL student. I know of quite a few 6 footers who refuse to fly it because they can't see out of it properly as well.

LJ :ok:

[smarthawke]

Perhaps the quoted accident list would make more of an argument if there were details of pilot experience included. An aircraft type cannot be blamed for pilot short comings...

The first time I flew a Eurostar (80hp), I was amazed at how much rudder pedal force was required to keep on the straight and narrow. At the time I owned (and was very current) on a 200hp CS prop RV-6 - and the rudder force was much more than that required for the RV.

I suspect that all Rotax powered singles require a decent amount of rudder input on the take off roll. I've only flown the EV97 (1 hr), Tecnam P2002-JF (20 hrs) and RV-12 60 hrs). It is a very torquey motor as far as yaw with power is concerned.

Certainly a cross wind from the right is preferable to one from the right but it isn't an issue if you know the aircraft - and can fly accurately.

Regarding the vision - okay so the windscreen hoop in the P2002JF obscures the view out more than with the Eurostar or the RV-12. But it is strong (heavy duty roll bar is behind the head on the RV-12). Still better than a PA28 or Cessna though.

Regarding costs, the P2002JF is a fully certified aircraft - VLA not an LSA or RTC. There is cost involved in that certification.

[Cows getting bigger]

I find that adverse comments relating to rudder authority on the Rotax family of VLA/LSA normally comes from people who have become excessively lazy with their feet thanks to Cessna and Piper.

There is nothing intrinsically unsafe with the Tecnam (or indeed the Eurostar, AT3, sportcruiser etc). The problem lies with people who do not understand that the throttle is a control and needs to be handled accordingly - it is not an on/off switch. :)

Perhaps more of us should hone our skills on taildraggers?

PS. Of all the VLA/LSA, the Tecnam is probably at the top of the list as far as handling is concerned. My only personal gripe is that there is a knack to getting in/out. Then again the Cub, which is possibly one of the most loved aircraft ever, has a 'routine' for mounting/dismounting. :)

[Thud105]

During a recent trip to the UK I saw in a magazine that the BDFA are buying a Sierra specially modified with hand controls. Why would they do that if the Sierra has a problem with directional control on the ground? I also don't understand why the canopy rails (the parts the canopy travels on) should have any effect on the FoV, but can see why the windscreen bow could compromise the FoV for taller pilots.

[Lima Juliet]

Perhaps more of us should hone our skills on taildraggers?

I own a taildragger and have more hours with a wheel on the back than with a wheel on the front!

I fly the Eurostar also (microlight version) and flew the Tecnam Sierra the same day I was flying a Eurostar. They handle differently and the Tecnam had far more yaw instability on the take off roll than the Eurostar - for an aircraft to learn to fly in, I would say that the Tecnam is sub-optimal (especially, when I couldn't see out of it properly either!).

Can I fly a Tecnam - yup! But would I buy one or ever rent one again - no! I even thought it was so bad that I wrote an e-mail to the Accountable Manager of the Club and the CFI to say that I thought their recent purchase for a PPL training aircraft was a poor choice. I pleaded with them not to buy another!

I'll stick to my taildragger and the Eurostar, thanks...:ok:

LJ

PS. The roll bar on the Eurostar is behind your head so it doesn't sit in your main line of sight - now there's a novel design!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Lots of 35 + year old Cessna 150/152's with 20 K+ hours still earning a living on a flight school ramp. I find it hard to believe the new tupperware/tinfoil VLA/LSA aircraft will ever match that.....

[tecman]

You might be right BPF. Time will tell. In the case of a P2002JF, built as a classic all-metal design with no mandated major replacements, it's hard to see why a competent LAME armed with an Aircraft Spruce catalogue couldn't keep it in the air indefinitely.

Back from a morning's run and the opportunity to do some direct comparisons with the type of fleet you mention. I've loved all the aircraft I've owned and flown but I think you'd have to be a determined grouch not to return with a smile on your dial after an hour in the P2002.

I forgot to mention in the earlier post that, apart from the non-decorative nature of the P2002 roll protection, the sliding forward-latching canopy does allow the canopy to be opened in flight.

[Three Thousand Rule]

Back to the original question.

BPF says the quality of the instruction is prime and I'd second that.

During your PPL, the aircraft type is not really important, relatively, IMHO.

It's a shame you don't have a C152 available, as they tend to be a little less expensive and are also a good learning platform.

Whatever people say about Cherokee handling, they are safe. Very safe. Very, very, very ......

Given that stability and agility tend to be at the opposite ends of a continuum, perhaps it is not so surprising that the handling is less than razor sharp, but neither will they do anything nasty, unless seriously abused, so it makes your workload a little lighter and builds your confidence on pre-PPL x-countries, if you choose the PA28.

On the other hand, if the Tecmnam operator has better instruction, I'd go there.

[captain echo]

Thanks for all the comments! I went for a flight in the Tecnam on Friday, it seems like a nice aircraft (although several things were not working). I am not entirely sure that I like the school that much though, it seems slightly less professional than the other one. So I think I might try the Cherokee too and see how that is.

On a side note, if I complete some exams with one school, then change to a different school would I have to redo those exams? Or can they be transferred over?

[Flightscopeaviation]

Hello all, Flightscope Aviation Queensland has a Tecnam P92 RG and we love it!

[flyinkiwi]

Flying such a light airframe with low inertia and sensitive controls requires good piloting technique. I found that certain things which you can do in a 172 and get away with it simply will not cut the mustard in the Tecnam P2008. That does not mean it is harder to fly. The systems are far newer and simpler than a 172/Pa28's so there is less management required. So you can devote more effort into flying the plane. That cannot be a bad thing.