Best 2 seater and 4 seater training aircraft
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHC-1
As an aircraft for flying the DHC-1 is ideal, just tricky enough to keep a student honest but it gives plenty of warning before it bites you! the best part of 50 years as the RAF's basic trainer says it all.
The down side
The thing costs a fortune to run, it was built by a British company (yes I know it was the Canadian part of the company) that had no idea about the cost of parts and maintenance, let me give you an example of two aircraft built for a military role at about the same time......
DHC-1 vs PA-18
The DHC-1 has a TNS (AD) on a bolt on the tailwheel support that needs inspection and replacing occasionaly this is how the costs pan out:-
Non standard bolt £80 (not drilled for split pin)
Spilt pin £0.10
Time to fit & drill split pin hole 1.3 hours @ £40/hour= £ 53.33.
Total cost £ 133.43 !!!!!!!
PA-18 tailwhell support bolt replacement
Standard AN bolt £ 3.5 (Drilled)
Cotter (split) pin £ 0.10
Time to fit 0.5 hour @ £40 hour= £20
Total cost £23.60.
This type of engineering is found all over the DHC-1 and you can see why that a first class aircraft from a flying point of view is a total non starter from an economic stance.
It also is a clear example of the reason that the British aircraft industry cant build a light aircraft that will sell!
The down side
The thing costs a fortune to run, it was built by a British company (yes I know it was the Canadian part of the company) that had no idea about the cost of parts and maintenance, let me give you an example of two aircraft built for a military role at about the same time......
DHC-1 vs PA-18
The DHC-1 has a TNS (AD) on a bolt on the tailwheel support that needs inspection and replacing occasionaly this is how the costs pan out:-
Non standard bolt £80 (not drilled for split pin)
Spilt pin £0.10
Time to fit & drill split pin hole 1.3 hours @ £40/hour= £ 53.33.
Total cost £ 133.43 !!!!!!!
PA-18 tailwhell support bolt replacement
Standard AN bolt £ 3.5 (Drilled)
Cotter (split) pin £ 0.10
Time to fit 0.5 hour @ £40 hour= £20
Total cost £23.60.
This type of engineering is found all over the DHC-1 and you can see why that a first class aircraft from a flying point of view is a total non starter from an economic stance.
It also is a clear example of the reason that the British aircraft industry cant build a light aircraft that will sell!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4-seat, well as already said it has to be between the 172 and the 28. Personally, I think the 172 is a bit better although students need to work a little harder at getting a good landing (not a bad thing). But I would say that both aircraft are a little heavy and 'dulled-down' for basic training. Great navigation and touring platforms but they just hide some of the finer points when teaching aircraft handling skills. So, that takes me on to two seaters.
I think the 152 is hard to beat and some of that may be due to training methods being built around the unbiquitous aircraft type over the decades! If the new Skycatcher handles anything like the 152 it will be a massive success. I don't particularly warm to the Tomahawk (I think it is the T-tail that does it) but it is also a fine training aircraft. Some of the new pretenders are well worth a look. AT-3, Tecnam 2002 etc all handle very nicely in the air; time will tell whether they are robust enough. Finally, I would agree with polyfibre - a nice simple Citabria would be a delight to teach on. Do you want to go 50:50 on one?
I think the 152 is hard to beat and some of that may be due to training methods being built around the unbiquitous aircraft type over the decades! If the new Skycatcher handles anything like the 152 it will be a massive success. I don't particularly warm to the Tomahawk (I think it is the T-tail that does it) but it is also a fine training aircraft. Some of the new pretenders are well worth a look. AT-3, Tecnam 2002 etc all handle very nicely in the air; time will tell whether they are robust enough. Finally, I would agree with polyfibre - a nice simple Citabria would be a delight to teach on. Do you want to go 50:50 on one?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: cambridge
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You chaps should come and fly a C42 or Eurostar! I did all my training and first 200 hours on PA38 and C150 and I cant beleive why anyone would choose to fly them now (apart from licensing issues) Microlight training aircraft knock GA trainers into a cocked hat!! - cheap operation too!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C could I ask for some of your knowledge. I believe that the spar is lifed at 11,000 (although there is a mod to extend it to 18000 hours ?) and this is the reason you say that they are no longer economical to operate.
Recently an example close to my home base was sold for under 10 grand. It had just under 5000 hours on the airframe and 1900 hours on the engine. I prefer tomahawks over C152 and was certainly tempted. I also felt that the 6000 hours flying it had got left would take some 10 plus years of pretty intense usage to fly off so the spar life limit doesn't really sound too prohibitve. Especially when you take into account the depressed purchase price of a tomahawk compared to C152.
So if someone takes the hit that one day the airframe will be worthless is the Tomahawk still a non runner on economic grounds for any other reasons?
Recently an example close to my home base was sold for under 10 grand. It had just under 5000 hours on the airframe and 1900 hours on the engine. I prefer tomahawks over C152 and was certainly tempted. I also felt that the 6000 hours flying it had got left would take some 10 plus years of pretty intense usage to fly off so the spar life limit doesn't really sound too prohibitve. Especially when you take into account the depressed purchase price of a tomahawk compared to C152.
So if someone takes the hit that one day the airframe will be worthless is the Tomahawk still a non runner on economic grounds for any other reasons?
Last edited by Mickey Kaye; 23rd Sep 2009 at 07:23.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't resist any longer!!
I have got to put a plug in for the PA38.
I've got a couple of thousand hours training in them as well as a few thousand more using C150/152's and the PA38 produces better ab-initio pilots.If you can fly the Tomahawk well, the others are an easy transition.
The same doesn't happen moving from the Cessna to the Tomahawk however.
I have got to put a plug in for the PA38.
I've got a couple of thousand hours training in them as well as a few thousand more using C150/152's and the PA38 produces better ab-initio pilots.If you can fly the Tomahawk well, the others are an easy transition.
The same doesn't happen moving from the Cessna to the Tomahawk however.
Firefly more fun than a Grob G115 !
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA38
Mickey Kaye
First I have to say that from a pure pilot training perspective I far prefer the PA38 to the Cessna 152, with over 1000 hours flying PA38's I think I have had enough time to mmke up my mind!
The spar life is at the root of the PA38's problems as parts supply is getting to be a problem because no one whants to make them for an aircraft with a limmited life, I seem to remember having trouble getting hold of a nose gear leg (upper) 5 or 6 years back and I dont think that things have improved.
Apart from the spar there are quite a few repedditive AD's on the tail section including a frame inspection that is a bit involved.
One real weak spot with the aircraft is that more than a light collision with a fixed object at the wing tip results in a major repair job that could wright off the aircraft. What happens is when the wing tip hits the object the main spar flexes aft and the rear spar is forced inwards and the force of the impact is transmitted to the rear spar carry through frame. It will wrinkle and has to be replaced, this involves lotts of work including removing the wing and de-riveting the baggage bay floor. If you do nothing else when looking at th PA38 take up the rear of the seat pan's and look at this frame........ if it is bent walk away!!!!
The company I was working for found that the PA38 was costing more to maintain than the PA28 and so withdrew the PA38 from service on economic grounds.
PM me if you need to know more.
First I have to say that from a pure pilot training perspective I far prefer the PA38 to the Cessna 152, with over 1000 hours flying PA38's I think I have had enough time to mmke up my mind!
The spar life is at the root of the PA38's problems as parts supply is getting to be a problem because no one whants to make them for an aircraft with a limmited life, I seem to remember having trouble getting hold of a nose gear leg (upper) 5 or 6 years back and I dont think that things have improved.
Apart from the spar there are quite a few repedditive AD's on the tail section including a frame inspection that is a bit involved.
One real weak spot with the aircraft is that more than a light collision with a fixed object at the wing tip results in a major repair job that could wright off the aircraft. What happens is when the wing tip hits the object the main spar flexes aft and the rear spar is forced inwards and the force of the impact is transmitted to the rear spar carry through frame. It will wrinkle and has to be replaced, this involves lotts of work including removing the wing and de-riveting the baggage bay floor. If you do nothing else when looking at th PA38 take up the rear of the seat pan's and look at this frame........ if it is bent walk away!!!!
The company I was working for found that the PA38 was costing more to maintain than the PA28 and so withdrew the PA38 from service on economic grounds.
PM me if you need to know more.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefly, firefly and firefly
As many posts suggest it really does depend on where your students are going with their flying, what their background is, what demographic you are targetting, where you are operating from, etc to mention but a few.
I would vote for a sturdy low wing trainer everyday of the week and would be happy to never see a C.150 or C.152 anywhere but a museum. They are just to underpowered
If money is an issue then the PA28 family and the Robin family are all wonderful, forgiving trainers.
I have nothing against high wings but for our general weather and flying conditions unless your students intend to purely fly GA local flying I would suggest the way forward to be low wing as a trainer and if they wish to move on to C172 et al after they gain a licence then so be it.
Happy hunting
I would vote for a sturdy low wing trainer everyday of the week and would be happy to never see a C.150 or C.152 anywhere but a museum. They are just to underpowered
If money is an issue then the PA28 family and the Robin family are all wonderful, forgiving trainers.
I have nothing against high wings but for our general weather and flying conditions unless your students intend to purely fly GA local flying I would suggest the way forward to be low wing as a trainer and if they wish to move on to C172 et al after they gain a licence then so be it.
Happy hunting
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex
I agreee with you about the Slingsby & Robin being good aircraft but I have to live in the world of cost.
Flying is expensive and to get the Maximum number of customers into the air we must look at the cost.
I own a Robin and with what I know about it don't see it as an aircraft that will make much money in a training/club enviroment.
The Slingsby I suspect would be slightly better at making money but still sufers from the British problem of over engineering................... go price a nose leg!
Flying is expensive and to get the Maximum number of customers into the air we must look at the cost.
I own a Robin and with what I know about it don't see it as an aircraft that will make much money in a training/club enviroment.
The Slingsby I suspect would be slightly better at making money but still sufers from the British problem of over engineering................... go price a nose leg!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of over-engineering it is clearly time to put a word in for the dear old Beagle Pup!
Yes, overbuilt, expensive to run and all the rest of it, but delightful to fly....excellent control harmonisation and response, with a control stick not a yoke, good visibility from the cockpit and - OK, only the 150 hp version! - a decent rate of climb and good performance.
All round a classic training aircraft. What a pity the production design let it down.
Yes, of course I am biased. But then, if you've not flown a Pup go and beg a flight in one. You will be astonished just how good they are.
Yes, overbuilt, expensive to run and all the rest of it, but delightful to fly....excellent control harmonisation and response, with a control stick not a yoke, good visibility from the cockpit and - OK, only the 150 hp version! - a decent rate of climb and good performance.
All round a classic training aircraft. What a pity the production design let it down.
Yes, of course I am biased. But then, if you've not flown a Pup go and beg a flight in one. You will be astonished just how good they are.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIAI Marchetti SF.260
Having flow 118 different types and air tested most of them, without doubt the best training aircraft is the SIAI Marchetti SF. 260. It does everything! and equally well as both a two seat and four. But try and find one! most ended up in the USA I think and many went to airforces around the world. Don't compare anything until you've flown one. Good excuse for a trip to the USA, perhaps?
Bob.
Bob.
Moderator
The Tomahawk is a great little trainner and economical to run. I've owned several of them for over ten years and have around 6000 hours in them, (lucky me!)
The wing life can be extended with an STC in most countries to 17,000 hours. Most parts are interchangeable with other Pipers. And for those of us of average height for whom this is our workplace, it is comfortable and you are not in each other's personal space. An hour in a 152 and I'm feeling like a sardine. And I like to be able to see where I'm going in a turn.
The people who knock them have usually never flown them and listened to the aero club bar rubbish about wobbly tails (anyone who says they are looking at the tail in a spin rather than effecting a recovery would not be welcome to hire any of my fleet) which of course all aircraft have, just watch them in the run up bay! Ask an engineer what would happen if the tail was too rigid.
I'm gradually replacing my Tomahawks with brand new Boomerangs because they are similar enough to allow students to swap from one to the other with ease. I still use the Tomahawk for stall training. If the Tomahawk hadn't been economical to run I wouldn't be able to afford brand new aircraft, I have been able to build up my whole business thanks to the Tomahawks. If the Boomerangs weren't around, I would stick with the Tomahawks.
Each to thier own!
The wing life can be extended with an STC in most countries to 17,000 hours. Most parts are interchangeable with other Pipers. And for those of us of average height for whom this is our workplace, it is comfortable and you are not in each other's personal space. An hour in a 152 and I'm feeling like a sardine. And I like to be able to see where I'm going in a turn.
The people who knock them have usually never flown them and listened to the aero club bar rubbish about wobbly tails (anyone who says they are looking at the tail in a spin rather than effecting a recovery would not be welcome to hire any of my fleet) which of course all aircraft have, just watch them in the run up bay! Ask an engineer what would happen if the tail was too rigid.
I'm gradually replacing my Tomahawks with brand new Boomerangs because they are similar enough to allow students to swap from one to the other with ease. I still use the Tomahawk for stall training. If the Tomahawk hadn't been economical to run I wouldn't be able to afford brand new aircraft, I have been able to build up my whole business thanks to the Tomahawks. If the Boomerangs weren't around, I would stick with the Tomahawks.
Each to thier own!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFI
To the best of my knowlage EASA has yet to approve the PA38 spar life extention and I think that they would charge a lot for doing it.
This fact alone makes the PA38 uneconomic to continue to use in Europe.
The only way forward is if a number of PA38 owners got together and got EASA to approve the modification' this is the only way to get the cost per aircraft down to an economicly realistic level.
( this is the point when some obscure operator chirps up and says they have EASA aproval for this!!)
This fact alone makes the PA38 uneconomic to continue to use in Europe.
The only way forward is if a number of PA38 owners got together and got EASA to approve the modification' this is the only way to get the cost per aircraft down to an economicly realistic level.
( this is the point when some obscure operator chirps up and says they have EASA aproval for this!!)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people who knock them have usually never flown them and listened to the aero club bar rubbish about wobbly tails (anyone who says they are looking at the tail in a spin rather than effecting a recovery would not be welcome to hire any of my fleet)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DrinkSleepFly&Repeat
You might like to take a look at The Two C152's that I lease.
I don't do junk and have invested a lot of time & money, unfortunatly the aviaton public or should I say a large percentage prefer to rent junk for a few £ less and think it is a good deal.
I have a reasonable customer base now and they don't give me any trouble providing a reasonable income.
However it has become clear that the flying public buys on price alone and is quite happy to fly around in under maintained aircraft with 50% of the (old)avionics not working, ripped seats and that smell as if some sort of pond life lives in the (threadbare) carpet.
I don't do junk and have invested a lot of time & money, unfortunatly the aviaton public or should I say a large percentage prefer to rent junk for a few £ less and think it is a good deal.
I have a reasonable customer base now and they don't give me any trouble providing a reasonable income.
However it has become clear that the flying public buys on price alone and is quite happy to fly around in under maintained aircraft with 50% of the (old)avionics not working, ripped seats and that smell as if some sort of pond life lives in the (threadbare) carpet.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the new pretenders are well worth a look. AT-3, Tecnam 2002 etc all handle very nicely in the air; time will tell whether they are robust enough.
I have personally flown the Tecnam P92 and would say that it teaches good stick and rudder skills. It also has good visibility and climb performance. However as a light aircraft it is obviously more limited weather and crosswind. Due low wing loading it is also rather uncomfortable in turbulence and cabin heat is not the most effective when outside air temperature goes bellow zero. Getting the mass and balance within the envelope may also cause trouble and it is not very roomy from inside either.
Not maybe the very best training aircraft from instructor's point of view but then again it burns 15 liters of MOGAS and I haven't seen any major maintenance issues.
With Avgas soaring to a predicted £2 per litre by March, I'd look for something powered by a Rotax.
This year's rising costs, coupled with EASA's regulatory takeover next year to include the re-register of RFs to FTOs, makes me wonder how many PPL schools are still going to be around in a couple of year's time.
Tough times ahead.
Regards, jez
P.S. Happy New Year to you all
This year's rising costs, coupled with EASA's regulatory takeover next year to include the re-register of RFs to FTOs, makes me wonder how many PPL schools are still going to be around in a couple of year's time.
Tough times ahead.
Regards, jez
P.S. Happy New Year to you all