C152 Glass Upgrade

[techboy]

Anyone aware of C152 glass cockpit upgrade...
I have heard the STC exists and someone in the UK is doing the conversion?

[wigglyamp]

The Aspen EFD1000 has EASA STC approval and can be installed by Gama Engineering at Fairoaks amongst other dealers.

[slam525i]

Mind if I ask why? (versus spending the money on something else)

[malc4d]

Wouldn't that cost more than the plane is worth, or could it become a useful IR trainer ??

[fujii]

It was covered in yesterday's Avweb Business update.

152 The Trainer Of The Future?

Textron Aviation doesn't agree but AOPA apparently thinks the Cessna 152 may be the trainer of the future and it has embarked on a "non-profit" project to see if it's right. AOPA Monday confirmed widespread rumors that it's refurbishing "several" 152s (we've heard three) by an undisclosed shop to see if affordable training aircraft can be pulled from the existing fleet and presumably have at least some of the modern bells and whistles available in modern aircraft. Here's what AOPA's Steve Hedges had to say in response to our inquiry: "AOPA is working on a project that will demonstrate the practicality of refurbishing legacy aircraft that will be reliable, and most importantly, affordable. A special focus will be on demonstrating to flying clubs and flight schools how refurbished aircraft can be used to grow the pilot population and reduce the cost of flying. AOPA is not looking to profit from this demonstration, rather we want to provide a proof-of-concept and viable template to refurbishment shops and potential owners around Cessna 152s. AOPA’s project will include the refurbishment of several C-152s by an experienced builder at their location. This project complements several others currently in progress in the GA marketplace that aim to refurbish existing aircraft and provide affordable ownership and rental options to pilots everywhere. We will have more details coming this summer!"

AVweb has fielded numerous inquiries about the initiative and we've been told AOPA's target price for a spinner-to-tail refurbish of a 152 is $85,000, which would place it well below the cost of most ready-to-fly light sport aircraft, which were presumed to be an important factor in attracting new pilots. Meanwhile, Textron has been quoted as saying that it has no plans to restart the 152 line, which ended at 7,584 airframes in 1985. Textron recently left the LSA market by ending production of the $150,000 162 Skycatcher. Textron's training aircraft is the Cessna 172, which is nudging $400,000 these days.

[slam525i]

I still don't see the point unless you're actually operating a training outfit. Actually, as a big fan of "steam-gauges", I'd say a traditional 6-pack is better for training. (Won't look as impressive to the clientele though.)

Keep in mind (at least in North America, I assume it's the same back in the UK) you'll never get back what you put into it when you sell it again.

(I really like flying the 152. I like it more than the 172 or the PA28, but you can't carry anything in it, and doesn't get anywhere particularly quickly. The 152 is really not a great personal aircraft.)

[Pirke]

For IR one would prefer a more stable platform.

Instead of glass I would simply replace the panel with a new, possibly metal, panel. Many new LSAs don't have glass, but their panels look so much better than the 50-60 year old plastics... Replacing only the panel will be much cheaper. Throw in some nice leather seats and decent digital avionics and you have a nice aircraft.

@slam: Havig many steam gauges looks way more impressive than 1 digital screen to non-aviators :) The same holds for all the switches and CBs: more is better!

[mad_jock]

the phrase "polishing a turd" comes to mind reading this thread.

[alexbrett]

I thought the biggest issue with 152s is that with the weight of an average person going up / more people being overweight / however you want to put it, you very quickly start hitting the point where with a sensible amount of fuel for a lesson in you're technically overweight.

I know the place I trained at had previously swapped their fleet of 152s for fewer 172s precisely because of this...

[AN2 Driver]

well, with several CAA's making efforts to lower the max BMI for pilots to 25... they might well become fashion again.

[Pirke]

The same weight restrictions hold for many LSA/VLA competitors. Most have a 220-250kg useful load, with hardly any baggage room.

[Mickey Kaye]

But it does nothing to lower the hourly running costs - which is what is needed.

How about mogas with 10% ethanol approval or if its run on unleaded fuel then it only needs a service every 100 hours. Or scrap the repack the wheel bearings with grease every 150 hours. or scrap the 150 hour check all together.

Glass might look nice but it won't fly any different and PPL training is all about looking out at setting the correct attitude.

If anything they should take out half the instruments that are installed.

[Sir George Cayley]

I'll declare my interest; I like the 150/152 as a trainer.

Ab initio training doesn't need Cirrus style glass cockpits. Yes a Garmin/iPad nav box for xcountry exercises, but students can move up once they've mastered controlling the 'beast' in the circuit.

Many replacement a/c have missed an important point. Students want to climb to height asap so they can learn upper air work so low power cheap running cost machines actually cost the student more in lost performance.

My plan would be to reduce weight by replacing as much material with modern strong light composites as possible.

Next find a power plant that can run on fuel cheaper than AVGAS and match or better 115 hp. Think about a wobbly (electric) prop to help takeoff and climb performance.

And finally, only employ waif like instructors. :ok:

Oh if only I could afford to put my idea into practice.

SGC

[ericferret]

Just scrap all the maintenance. Run the aircraft "on condition". That is on condition I don't have to fly in them.

[techboy]

C152 great training aircraft as most of us know..
Terrahawk not great in x wind and stall characteristics not the best.

''LSA'' not reliable or robust enough yet for the training environment

sky catcher too expensive and rare

[mad_jock]

C152 great training aircraft as most of us know..

No it's not it is a sanitised heap of crap for training.


It doesn't teach people how to fly it allows them to get a license legally.

[fujii]

Despite what some may say, the C150/52 is a great training aircraft. It provides a good starting platform at a reasonable price. If it weren't for the Cessna, thousands of people may never have learnt to fly. I learnt on one in 1968/69 at $12 per hour when I was on low wages at 16 years old. Since then I have flown numerous aircraft and owned a four seat lightie for 32 years.

People may describe is as sanitised but how many of those who started out on the Cessna would have continued in a more costly, unsanitised aircraft? All very well if you have deep pockets or get the military to pay for training but the Cessna got people into the air which is its job.

Those of you who want to reminisce about your glory days and tell "war stories" go ahead but think about the teenagers just starting out and paying for lessons from a limited budget by working at the checkout.

The Cessna has done a great job and will continue to do so at many schools.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The C 152 is a much better trainer than the C 172 IMO. It is easy to fly but harder to fly well and its lower performance means that you have to fly the wing not the engine.

As for glass cockpit...well not for ab initio. When I taught full time I always tried to get the c 152 Aerobat. It had no gyro instruments to distract the student :ok: and when things got boring and you had the right student, you could liven up the lesson with a loop and a roll. :)

[A and C]

The PA-38 is a better trainer.................but the C152 is a better training aircraft for a host of reasons other than the way it flys.

[Pirke]

But it does nothing to lower the hourly running costs - which is what is needed.

For 70k euro less to buy, you can spend that 70k on maintenance and higher fuel usage.

Let's say you save 5k/year on maintenance. Let's say you save 5 liters mogas / hour. Let's say you do 200 hours / year. Mogas is 2 euro/liter here (avgas is already 3 euro/liter, that's over $15.7/gallon!). So that's 5k + 200*5*2 = 7k/year savings in favor of the LSA. Then you have the 5% interest rate at which you could have put your 70k away, that's 3.5k/year.

Net result is the LSA will save 3.5k/year when flying 200 hours. That's a break even after 20 years of flying, assuming no deprecation on the 100k initial investment of a new LSA vs an old C152 with mogas STC. My guess is that if you maintain the 152 properly for the next 20 years, it'll be worth the same as a new LSA flown for 200 hours/year for 20 years.

If you fly less than 200 hours/year, then you would even need more flying years to financially justify a new LSA.

So I don't understand your quote that the hourly rate must go down. Yes, the less money spent per hour, the better. But the initial cost of capital is huge.

And the downside of any EASA certified plane is you still have the part m requirements.

Yes you could go experimental, but if you have any intention of renting it to others or use it for training, you need a certified plane.

So from a financial perspective, a 150/152 is still the preferred choice. If you can manage 1000 hours/year, it might be different, but I suspect most schools in my neighborhood are happy if they can sell 200 hours/year/plane.

So yes, if an upgrade of a 150/152 is desired, then I think it's a good investment. Nice panel (not necessarily glass) and good looking seats, new paint, decent avionics, and you are set for the future.

[IFMU]

I don't have a lot of 152 time. I have recently become reacquainted with the type. I think it is a great little airplane. Mostly I rent the C140 where I live, but if it is taken or if the winds are over the FBO's taildragger insurance limit I am happy to fly the 152. We can always take the attitude that if it isn't a (Pitts, Bonanza, super cub, fill in your favorite here) that it is no good, but what is the point of that?
Bryan

[mad_jock]

Now that A and C I can agree with.

It is a more economic practical aircraft to learn to fly in for flying schools.

But the statement "C150/52 is a great training aircraft" it is not.

[Crash one]

The 152 with a 150 starboard leading edge that we had was a good training pile of crap, used to go round in circles quite well!

[IFMU]

A good plumber always blames his tools for a job poorly done.
Bryan

[mad_jock]

Aye true, you want Walmart own brand you can have it.