New trainer for GA, finally?

[DirtyProp]

As much as I like it, I think the base price is a tad stiff.
Besides, who needs a turbo engine on a trainer? Anyway, I wish them much success. It certainly looks good.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/02/18/certification-tests-begin-for-sonaca-200/

Product overview | sonaca-aircraft (http://www.sonaca-aircraft.com/products/sonaca-200)

[TheOddOne]

It's interesting to me that all the big schools in the United States seem to be buying new Cessna 172 or PA28 Archers. I guess they run an engine through them up to 2400 hrs then part them out for more new a/c. They're a similar price to each other, around $330,000, though I don't suppose the schools pay that much. I think they're both powered by Lycoming O360.

It's an age-old argument for flying training, 2-seats or 4. A 4-seater can lift a bigger load and generally more roomy for bigger people, as we're becoming. I find 2 x 6'2" 15 stone people a tad cosy in a C150, these days, whereas our school PA28 is just fine, even for a 6'6" student. 4-seaters are also good for the hire market.

There's NO way as a small school we could ever contemplate buying a £150k aircraft. Our PA28 burns 30 lit an hour. We'd have to do 7,000 hours on an 18 lit per hour aircraft before we started seeing any savings, that's 20 years flying at our present utilisation.

I think the replacement costs for a turbo Rotax aren't too far off overhaul costs of a O360, with similar TBO.

TOO

[ChickenHouse]

@TOO: ain't many Americans light enough for a 150 even without fuel, so standard trainer has to be 172 / 28 for W&B reasons ...

[terry holloway]

It's interesting to me that all the big schools in the United States seem to be buying new Cessna 172 or PA28 Archers. I guess they run an engine through them up to 2400 hrs then part them out for more new a/c. They're a similar price to each other, around $330,000, though I don't suppose the schools pay that much. I think they're both powered by Lycoming O360.

It's an age-old argument for flying training, 2-seats or 4. A 4-seater can lift a bigger load and generally more roomy for bigger people, as we're becoming. I find 2 x 6'2" 15 stone people a tad cosy in a C150, these days, whereas our school PA28 is just fine, even for a 6'6" student. 4-seaters are also good for the hire market.

There's NO way as a small school we could ever contemplate buying a £150k aircraft. Our PA28 burns 30 lit an hour. We'd have to do 7,000 hours on an 18 lit per hour aircraft before we started seeing any savings, that's 20 years flying at our present utilisation.

I think the replacement costs for a turbo Rotax aren't too far off overhaul costs of a O360, with similar TBO.

TOO
The economics of purchasing any new aircraft, particularly where the exchange rates sit at present, is difficult, and we are having to accept higher maint costs on an aging fleet of C172s which we work hard to keep "tidy". The cost of installing .833 radios is also a financial burden for this year! At one school at Westchester in USA, which I know quite well, they own no aircraft and instead operate a fleet of very new, but privately owned, C172s. It's a great business model but alas not viable in this country for a variety of reasons

[Mickey Kaye]

"It's interesting to me that all the big schools in the United States seem to be buying new Cessna 172 or PA28 Archers. I guess they run an engine through them up to 2400 hrs then part them out for more new a/c."

It the states its financially beneficial to buy brand new C172 the o-360 is as bullet proof as they come. So they run them for 2000 hours. Put 4 new cylinders on them and then run them a further 2000 hours and at that point overhaul or move the aircraft on.

Sadly that's not possible in EASA land.

[Jan Olieslagers]

who needs a turbo engine on a trainer?Probably they started out with the 100 HP 912S, then found the power insufficient when increasing MTOW from 600 kg to 750 kg. Beats me why they didn't go for the injected version, though.

[Maoraigh1]

No figures for performance in these links that I could see.

[ETOPS]

Thought the design looked familiar - very similar to the Sling 2.

Turns out the builders of the "Sling range" (The Airplane Factory) are mentioned in the blurb.

[BelgianFI]

I had the chance to test the aircraft during a flight in EBZW. The aircraft is very nice to fly and have good performances ( I think you can find them on sonaca-aircraft | the new reference aircraft (http://www.sonaca-aircraft.com) )
The payload is amazing compare to other GA aircraft. It seems that you can fly with full fuel and 2 people compare to a C152, with the same load you will be beyond the limits...

[Maoraigh1]

Found the figures. Interesting to compare with a Jodel DR1050 M1 of 1964 vintage, rather than a C152.

[Jan Olieslagers]

You have a point there. But would the Jodel be sturdy enough to cope with training use, like this bird seems to be designed for? Of course it remains to be seem how well it copes in daily life.

[ChickenHouse]

But would the Jodel be sturdy enough to cope with training use, like this bird seems to be designed for?
Definitely not.

[Maoraigh1]

I was told the DR1050 was a common AeroClub trainer in France for many years. No problems on grass strips.