Best 2 seater and 4 seater training aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best 2 seater and 4 seater training aircraft
I am a bit lost at the moment in the training aircraft scene and have mainly been fooling around on the 152 and 172 for training purposes and the BE76 for the ME stuff.
If you had to buy a 2 and a 4 seater training aircraft. What would you buy and why. Even better if you can help me on the advantage disadvantage of some of the new types around
If you had to buy a 2 and a 4 seater training aircraft. What would you buy and why. Even better if you can help me on the advantage disadvantage of some of the new types around
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much depends on what you are looking for. Personally as an instructor I would aim for the Robin range (2160 and Dr400/500), but as a businessman I would probably not go there due to the support issues so you get back to Cessna/Piper rubbish, apart from the Robin range (and not sure exactly where these are at the mo) there does not seem to be much new on the market that I would class as a good training Aircraft, most nice handling newbuild aircraft now seem to be homebuilts!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 49
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same builder
I would buy two airplane from same builder, maintenance cost will be reduced and is more easy a transition for student.
For me:
Best Option C152-172 first one have a long engine time between overhaul "TBO", is easy to fly and funny. C172 is very versatile and you can use it also in aerial work (tow banner , aerial photo...), of course you can get one with G1000 to IFR training.
Second only if you like Piper. Tomahawk "tomasa" in my country and one Piper 28 with unless 160 HP. I never have flied one Tomasa but I think is a dangerous airplane to show STALL. Piper 28 for me inside is not very comfortable you are dived inside.
MEP for me better due cheap maintenance Piper Twin Comanche, or from Cessna my favourite training aircraft C310!!!!! but is expensive to operate, but... IS A GREAT PLANE!!!! FUNNY AND TALL TO TAXI.
For me:
Best Option C152-172 first one have a long engine time between overhaul "TBO", is easy to fly and funny. C172 is very versatile and you can use it also in aerial work (tow banner , aerial photo...), of course you can get one with G1000 to IFR training.
Second only if you like Piper. Tomahawk "tomasa" in my country
and one Piper 28 with unless 160 HP. I never have flied one Tomasa but I think is a dangerous airplane to show STALL. Piper 28 for me inside is not very comfortable you are dived inside.MEP for me better due cheap maintenance Piper Twin Comanche, or from Cessna my favourite training aircraft C310!!!!! but is expensive to operate, but... IS A GREAT PLANE!!!! FUNNY AND TALL TO TAXI.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never have flied one Tomasa but I think is a dangerous airplane to show STALL
! (and are you an instructor? makes me worried if you are and concerned about stalling in ANY light single!). IMHO one of the few things good about the PA38 is that it has proper spin and stall!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't knock the poor old Tomahawk before you fly one!
In my view a surprisingly good training aeroplane. There is particularly good visibility out of the cockpit and, by and large, it performs as it says on the tin.
As it was put to me by a pilot very experienced on the Tomahawk it is an easy aeroplane to fly badly and a difficult one to fly well. His point was that this characteristic could be used to produce good pilots. I think he had a point.
Go fly one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
In my view a surprisingly good training aeroplane. There is particularly good visibility out of the cockpit and, by and large, it performs as it says on the tin.
As it was put to me by a pilot very experienced on the Tomahawk it is an easy aeroplane to fly badly and a difficult one to fly well. His point was that this characteristic could be used to produce good pilots. I think he had a point.
Go fly one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view a surprisingly good training aeroplane.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In a country
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew a tomahawk for about 70hrs when I trained and although everyone tells you its dreadful aeroplane, I have to disagree. It has its issues but most sep do, I think it lands very nicely and compared to its old time competition the 152 it has enough room for a couple of big blokes. Yes the controls could be better harmonized but to the average pilot in training it hardly puts them at a loss. Since the stall strips were fitted its a bit better behaved.
The four seat a/c well the 172 gets the vote over the Piper competition, just a personal thing really. I hate having one door and find the the loading and unloading a pain in the arse.
The four seat a/c well the 172 gets the vote over the Piper competition, just a personal thing really. I hate having one door and find the the loading and unloading a pain in the arse.
Last edited by Bla Bla Bla; 9th Sep 2009 at 13:48.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 49
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry
I didn't say that Pa38 is a bad airplane, is a airplane with two Little problem, T tail and wings live time. I would like fly that airplane, I'm sure is funny and easy to fly, ever I have wanted fly a Tomahawk.
Several Pa38 crashed in Spain due T tail shadow during a stall or spin on training.
Several Pa38 crashed in Spain due T tail shadow during a stall or spin on training.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tomahawk has it's many admirers and perhaps a somewhat greater number of detractors. In my opinion, it is a sporty little plane, can be a bit twitchy to fly and demands the acquisition of fairly precise handling skills from the pilot.
This in itself is a useful exercise for students but it does require an instructor who is quite familiar with the type.
As a 2 seat trainer it's hard to beat but as a tourer it would be akin to choosing a kitchen stool to read the Sunday papers rather than a comfortable armchair. The PA 28 is both an excellent trainer and, if decently equipped, makes a good touring aircraft.
However the 172, in my opinion, makes a better tourer but it's baby brother the 152 is beaten into second place as a 2 seat trainer by the PA 38.
In summary, best of both worlds for me would be a traumahawk and a 172.
This in itself is a useful exercise for students but it does require an instructor who is quite familiar with the type.
As a 2 seat trainer it's hard to beat but as a tourer it would be akin to choosing a kitchen stool to read the Sunday papers rather than a comfortable armchair. The PA 28 is both an excellent trainer and, if decently equipped, makes a good touring aircraft.
However the 172, in my opinion, makes a better tourer but it's baby brother the 152 is beaten into second place as a 2 seat trainer by the PA 38.
In summary, best of both worlds for me would be a traumahawk and a 172.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A matter of opinion!
I have to agree with Foxmoth about the Robin aircraft and in an ideal world I would use them as trainers but the Factory parts support is just not good enough if you are running a business.
The PA-38 is a very good training aircraft but it is now restricted by the fatugue issues with the main spar and so is now no longer a runner on economic grounds.
So for the two seater it is back to the good old Cessna 152 if you want to keep the price in check.
The four seat trainer issue is a bit more open with both the PA28 & C172 making the grade, I think that Piper is just a little better put together than the Cessna and is likely to be a bit more robust in a training enviroment.
The PA-38 is a very good training aircraft but it is now restricted by the fatugue issues with the main spar and so is now no longer a runner on economic grounds.
So for the two seater it is back to the good old Cessna 152 if you want to keep the price in check.
The four seat trainer issue is a bit more open with both the PA28 & C172 making the grade, I think that Piper is just a little better put together than the Cessna and is likely to be a bit more robust in a training enviroment.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England and Central Europe
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low versus high wing
Not sure from the original post whether we are talking about a training business or not, but if we are it seems there are two things to consider:
1. Is the type supported? Where I fly (CZ) Cessna singles are common and supported at pretty much every airfield. Pipers are very few and far between. Can you get it fixed if it breaks? How much will the spares cost and how long to get them there? Can the mechanic fit them? This ties to the comments on the (brilliant) Robins - every hour on the ground loses you money.
2. Choosing one high and one low wing aircraft will give your students the experience of both - invaluable in my limited experience, and a great differences training opportunity.
There is another decision to be made here - do you go for fixed pitch/welded gear versions of both, or the simple version of either, with the complex version of the other. If teaching at CPL level the second option will increase your versatility.
Good luck - it's a tough business to go into at the moment.
1. Is the type supported? Where I fly (CZ) Cessna singles are common and supported at pretty much every airfield. Pipers are very few and far between. Can you get it fixed if it breaks? How much will the spares cost and how long to get them there? Can the mechanic fit them? This ties to the comments on the (brilliant) Robins - every hour on the ground loses you money.
2. Choosing one high and one low wing aircraft will give your students the experience of both - invaluable in my limited experience, and a great differences training opportunity.
There is another decision to be made here - do you go for fixed pitch/welded gear versions of both, or the simple version of either, with the complex version of the other. If teaching at CPL level the second option will increase your versatility.
Good luck - it's a tough business to go into at the moment.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 49
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low versus high wing
I agree with you.
About point one
Never Beech or Socata first because spare parts are expensive and Socata because support is dreadful
Second point
Propeller-Cessna 172 Rocket
Propeller/Landing gear not fixed- Piper 28. Cessna landing gear in RG models is a strange system
Is my opinions based in my experience.
About point one
Never Beech or Socata first because spare parts are expensive and Socata because support is dreadful
Second point
Propeller-Cessna 172 Rocket
Propeller/Landing gear not fixed- Piper 28. Cessna landing gear in RG models is a strange system
Is my opinions based in my experience.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 152 -- Best training Aircraft in the world
PA-38 Rubbish! Very poor training Aircraft. People buy them because they are cheap and nobody wants them.
Try and buy a 152, bet you can't!
PA-38 Rubbish! Very poor training Aircraft. People buy them because they are cheap and nobody wants them.
Try and buy a 152, bet you can't!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C152 vs C150
Mickey Kaye
To answer your question the 152 is a very well sorted 150,a few well placed structual tweeks that avoid some very time consuming work in the hangar, the Lycoming has a little more power and 400 hours more to TBO and the 28V electrics are more reliable.
The only thing that is worse (for me) on the 152 is that Cessna deleated the 40 flap It was the best thing about the 150!
The reason for no 40 flap on the 152 was go around performance so perhaps in veiw of the low time pilots who fly the aiecraft it was a good idea on safety grounds.
Hudson Bay
Clearly you don't know the PA38 very well it IS a very good trainer! But due to spar life & lack of new parts it is not an economicly viable aircraft for training.
To answer your question the 152 is a very well sorted 150,a few well placed structual tweeks that avoid some very time consuming work in the hangar, the Lycoming has a little more power and 400 hours more to TBO and the 28V electrics are more reliable.
The only thing that is worse (for me) on the 152 is that Cessna deleated the 40 flap It was the best thing about the 150!
The reason for no 40 flap on the 152 was go around performance so perhaps in veiw of the low time pilots who fly the aiecraft it was a good idea on safety grounds.
Hudson Bay
Clearly you don't know the PA38 very well it IS a very good trainer! But due to spar life & lack of new parts it is not an economicly viable aircraft for training.
Last edited by A and C; 10th Sep 2009 at 22:07.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly you don't know the PA38 very well it IS a very good trainer! But due to spar life & lack of new parts it is not an economicly viable aircraft for training.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the responses so far. I agree with a lot of points on the current aircraft. Is there any feedback on the following aircraft:
- Diamond Eclipse and Evolution DA20-C1 (2-place)
- Socata TB9/10
- Tutor T Mark 1 (or Grob 115E)
- SR20
- etc
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Socata TB9/10
The lower powered TB's are a bit of a disapointment mainly because the parts supply is expensive/erratic and corossion is an issue with older aircraft, If i was going to recoment a French aircraft for this mission it would be the Robin DR400-140 the parts supply may be bad from Robin but at least you can buy the airframe parts from a good wood yard!
Grob 115
An aircraft of PA38 like performance but with a slightly better criuse speed but it falls out of the spin if you just let go of the controls, In fact it is very hard to get a quicker recovery even with rapid spin recovery control input.
I cant comment on parts supply but we have had no problems from Grob with glider parts.
Please don't think that the G115 is the same aircraft as the G115 Tutor that the RAF use, the military airframe uses lots of Carbon & some Kevlar to reduce weight and beef up the aircraft for Aerobatics.
SR20
A very nice aircraft but I am so disapointed with the construction, The construction technques are about 30 years adrift of the best German gliders.
The "dogtooth" leading edge is an add on that hints the wing was not very good intialy. I would guess that if the same aircraft was built by the Germans it would be 200lb lighter.
DA20
I am putting an engine back in one of these at the moment and the Rotax instalation has very bad access for maintenance, parts also seem to be a bit of an issue with the wrong bits being sent by the factory, this will all put the hourly rate on the aircraft up.
The up side to the Rotax instalation is that Mogas should be used this will keep the cost down (rotax fuel burn is good anyway), using Avgas will result in lead deposits in the engine that will result in maintenance issues.
I have yet to fly the aircraft but it seems popular with club members, however most of the training seems to go to the clubs C152,s
The lower powered TB's are a bit of a disapointment mainly because the parts supply is expensive/erratic and corossion is an issue with older aircraft, If i was going to recoment a French aircraft for this mission it would be the Robin DR400-140 the parts supply may be bad from Robin but at least you can buy the airframe parts from a good wood yard!
Grob 115
An aircraft of PA38 like performance but with a slightly better criuse speed but it falls out of the spin if you just let go of the controls, In fact it is very hard to get a quicker recovery even with rapid spin recovery control input.
I cant comment on parts supply but we have had no problems from Grob with glider parts.
Please don't think that the G115 is the same aircraft as the G115 Tutor that the RAF use, the military airframe uses lots of Carbon & some Kevlar to reduce weight and beef up the aircraft for Aerobatics.
SR20
A very nice aircraft but I am so disapointed with the construction, The construction technques are about 30 years adrift of the best German gliders.
The "dogtooth" leading edge is an add on that hints the wing was not very good intialy. I would guess that if the same aircraft was built by the Germans it would be 200lb lighter.
DA20
I am putting an engine back in one of these at the moment and the Rotax instalation has very bad access for maintenance, parts also seem to be a bit of an issue with the wrong bits being sent by the factory, this will all put the hourly rate on the aircraft up.
The up side to the Rotax instalation is that Mogas should be used this will keep the cost down (rotax fuel burn is good anyway), using Avgas will result in lead deposits in the engine that will result in maintenance issues.
I have yet to fly the aircraft but it seems popular with club members, however most of the training seems to go to the clubs C152,s
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PADLI
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR 20 is a very hard plane to land for newbies. It's terrific, difficult to stall, fast, large cabin...but i dont think its a good plane for training especially those guys with zero experience. Spare parts are expensive, 50 hrs check, TBO 2000 hrs. Overall its a nice plane for ownership.