After the last couple of weeks where it has been seriously warm, i'd take a PA38 with it's roomy and well ventilated cockpit anyday. Add the excellent pre, stall and wing drop charecteristics this aircraft would be my bench mark for what i wanted from any new trainer.
Why people rate the C150 with its appaling circuit vis, ventilation and cramped cockpit beats me.
Two years ago i flew a short ferry flight with a very experienced retired pilot who reckons the RAFs Grob was a British design that no British manufacturer reckoned could be built for a profit! Along came the Germans who sold it back to us, at a profit and various other countries
British aircraft at Farnborough this year NIL

Why not a poll!?

I would go with aerobatic Robins - 2160 is quite expensive, but good if you wanted to include spin/aeros training.
Older Robin - R2112 are good cost wise, smaller engine but still aerobatic.

I vote for the CAP 10

I started my ppl in the c150, and after about 10 hours total, and spending an hour or so doing solo circuits in it, decided that i didnt really want to spend £££ on flying an air bourne 2CV. So i decided to change AC, I had a look through the fleet, and the PA28 didnt appeal, but i quite liked the robin, after doing my first trial flight in it, however, I really liked the look of the cap. It looked IMHO, what aeroplanes should look like, with the wheel at the back, and a big (compared to the c150) engine at the front, however, genaral bar banter told me i was daft for wanting to learn in it.

I asked an instrucor if I could learn in it, and there was a general negative murmuring, and that I should learn in a PA28 or c150 like everyone else, but i persisted, and eventually, the CFI told me that, although no one had asked to do that before, that there wasnt a problem with it, the only problem for me would be that i would have to spend more time in the circuit before i could solo, and that it was a bit more expensive.

I completed my ppl in the cap in april, and Im very pleased I went against the general advice that it would be really hard, and went along with what i wanted to do.

It had a lot of atributes of a good teaching aeroplane, it is not difficult to fly well, but does get upset if you use the rudder pedals as footrests, ignore crosswinds, or try to land at the wrong speed. It is also cleared for spinning, has excellent all round visibility, and you can add the odd loop and roll onto the end of boring lessons like slow flight :)

NB

Well done that Bill. Now that the 10C is available, 10 Bs can be had relatively cheaply. The spar limitation is not an issue for PPL training. Having said that, the aircraft might not be as resistant as a basic spamcan to the sort of rough handling doled out by the average flying school. The French used the 10B to select their military pilots, but PPL studes don't have to take a suitability check (phew!).

Camparing with a Warrior whatonion, as probably the next most common training a/c in the places I have flown. The Warrior is much more stable in flight and much more likely to turn a poorly-flown landing into a pleasant touchdown.

I can also loop the 152 I teach in, Bill!

Here a pic of TangoUniform, the Sherburn Cap 10 at Full Sutton last Wednesday

http://www.geocities.com/geoffhill_u...uttonSmall.jpg

NB

PA38 spar life
 

There is a wing spar STC which can extend the life by at least 7500 hours, the sooner you do it the more extra hours you get. I've done it on one of mine and now she's good for another 20 years..Not sure if it's approved everywhere yet though.

The PA38 is roomy, comfortable and has excellent visibility. You're not squished up against your student which doesn't make for an easy learning environment. It's not easy to fly, you have to use your hands AND your feet properly. I've got 3000 hours in them and never had an issue with the trimming so not sure what that is about. It's good to be able to look around the engine compartment too and teach the studes what all the bits and pieces are and what they do. In my experience studes go solo quicker in the Tommy than the Cessna.

Interior plastics are easy to fix and cheap to replace. Just go to www.planeplastics.com and click on the bit you need.

There are plenty of threads about the relative merits and the nonsense about PA38s that was spread around in the early days, and perpetuated by people who have rarely if ever flown one.

As for the C152, horrible uncomfortable cramped hot things and visibility is terrible. All you can see of the engine is the top of the dipstick. UNless you are very thin with very short legs they can become a torture chamber after a few hours on board.

But then I'm a bit biased!

Each to their own!

Probably the best Basic SEP on the market
 

T67 Firefly,

I know its expensive to run but worth every extra penny. CAP 10 is asking a bit much to teach ab initio's on a taildragger.

The Firefly gives you the best of both worlds just dont' get the badly underpowered T67 - 160 at least a T67-200 so that it doesn't fall out of aeros as much and you have a trainer that can go from ab initio to IMC and aeros in a oner. If you have a fleet of em then I'm sure that Slingsby will be more than happy to give you a hand.

Robin 2160 is also spinnable. I flew the one at Sherburn a few times, i'm 187 and had no issue at all with the Robin's size. The Bulldog is fantastic as well if you can find one which won't require too much work as I remember they were flown to the limits when I was on my UAS.

Why should it be asking a bit much to teach ab initio on a taildragger? If we were having this discussion on the 1950s valve powered pprune (probably sticking messages on a board with dymo tape), not learning on a taildragger would hardly be an option, and we'd be comparing the relative merits of Moths, Austers, Chipmunks, Cubs, Taylorcraft etc.

Its not a lot to different to teach people on tail draggers - just sorts who can land from who can't but could blag it on a tricycle.

In the Air Cadet Organisation, 16 years olds are taught to fly and solo the Grob 109B (taildragger) in 10 hours or less. If the vast majoritory of 16 year olds can do it taught by volunteers......

A lot of them also manage it on tarmac which is far less forgiving than grass!

It's rather easier in my experience to teach a 16 year old than a 60 year old, where the problem might lie.

Very fair point....but we do get some 16 year olds who do not have a clue!

Many people have shown that learning in a taildragger is perfectly normal. However, if I were running an ab-initio training organization with the tight economics of today, I wouldn't go for the CAP10, much as I love it and fly / instruct in it as my aeroplane of choice.

I'd go for an aeroplane that offers a bit of everything... sporty, reasonably responsive handling, strong enough to withstand those who open/close canopies and push / pull levers in a slightly indelicate manner (remember... not everyone has aptitude for mechanical things)... possible to upgrade for IF, aerobatic... but, most importantly, able to fly in the sorts of winds where it gets just a bit sporty in a taildragger (thus maximizing utilization) ....

Answer... a fleet of T67Cs, with maybe an M or M200 for aeros.

All above theory ?
 

As an owner of a number of aircraft I have nothing but prase for the Robin DR400 aircraft but having owned two of them over the past 20 years ( the Robin is my toy )I would never think of using them as a trainer.

There is nothing at all wrong with the aircraft , it is the total lack of product support from Robin that is the problem and with the very lackluster way that they supply parts my business would simply go broke waiting for Robin to produce the bits so that I could fly.

I did take a look at the PA-38 , I like the aircraft as a trainner but the spar life is the major issue.
The life extention program has yet to get past the CAA and will no doubt cost a lot to do so. This puts the PA-38 out of the running due to retun on inital investment.

It was with some regret that the only aircraft that will fit the bill is the Cessna 152 , product support is first class , there is no spar life limit and with such a large world wide fleet it will be a very atractive for a re-engine program when one of the new diesels comes on line.

It is a great pitty that the worst of the three aircraft to fly is the one on which all the numbers stack up but at least I will be in a position to offer training aircraft long into the future unlike the vast number of companys that have fallen to the " interesting" economics of light aviation.