Please don't make me learn to fly in a Cesspit!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mickey Kaye
I wonder if Cessna have thought about dropping a 100HP rotax in their new skycather.
When we first saw the SkyCatcher flying at Sebring it was powered by a Rotax 912 S 100 HP aircraft engine. According to Cessna President and CEO Jack Pelton "after feedback from Cessna buyers, dealers and service outlets it was decided to switch the power plant to a Teledyne Continental 0-200D 100 HP aircraft engine."
"Listening to our 300 pilot centers they had some major concerns. They didn't have the history and experience with the Rotax engine, and it doesn't have quite the same warranty as the Continental. They drove us into the configuration of the Continental 0-200" "While there is a slight weight penalty, but with the warranty and TBO perspective it is going to be the best marriage with out airframe."
Of course, that was before fuel prices shot up.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotax vs O-200C, its the money . . .
The original Skycatcher did have the Rotax. Problem is the Rotax is made in Germany and priced in Euros. When the Euro was 80 cents, this engine cost $10,000 or so. Now the Euro is $1.60 or so, and the SAME Rotax engine now costs twice as much, same for parts, etc.
With the O-200, Cessna doesn't have the exposure to exchange rates which can drastically affect their cost of parts.
This was a financial decision - an airplane is a collection of compromises flying in formation.
As far as the alleged, unspecified and mysterious "problems with the lightweight O-200", I've not heard nor read of any, so this is a red herring. The O-200 is a good, solid, reliable and well understood aircraft engine, and if you don't like them, prepare to be unhappy, because they are going to be around for many years to come.
Best Regards,
Echo Mike
With the O-200, Cessna doesn't have the exposure to exchange rates which can drastically affect their cost of parts.
This was a financial decision - an airplane is a collection of compromises flying in formation.
As far as the alleged, unspecified and mysterious "problems with the lightweight O-200", I've not heard nor read of any, so this is a red herring. The O-200 is a good, solid, reliable and well understood aircraft engine, and if you don't like them, prepare to be unhappy, because they are going to be around for many years to come.
Best Regards,
Echo Mike
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Daventry
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any Old Iron
I blame cruddy old Cessnas and PA28's as the sole cause for me never getting a PPL.
By the way, I would MUCH rather learn to fly a Cub or a Tiger Moth or something.
If you want to train on something a bit more 'flash',get your wad out and go and do it,(it won't necessarily make you a better pilot) instead of coming on here and bleating.It never ceases to amaze me how easily people can find reasons not to to do something.
MM
Taildraggers are harder to control on the runway than tricycle types, the stick and rudder skill required is higher than that of other conventional tricycle aircraft
Conventional gear is the wheel at the back, i.e a tailwheel. A lower drag configuration than putting the third wheel at the front.
Yes, more skill needed with conventional gear in taxi and landing, but when in the air rather better fuel economy for the same speed, or speed for the same fuel consumption. Better prop clearance and better on rough fields, too. I would also argue that take-off is easier too, as once the tail is in the air the aircraft will fly off the ground once there is enough speed, the wing is already in the flying attitude so there is no need for a positive rotation. As for learning on a tailwheel aircraft, I wish I had been able to, but I had to go with the cheapest option at the time.
If you have a good instructor conversion after the PPL is not too much of a problem, a fully held off landing will work whichever end you put the wheel, and you can learn wheel landings to cope with rough conditions and crosswinds. I fly a Pa18 and a Rans Coyote (tailwheel version), and I can fly any time the club DR400 can, I think actually I have less of a problem in crosswind than either the DR400 or the 180 Rallye that I also fly (club tug a/c)
If you want to learn ab initio on a tailwheel type, I don't see any problem. Maybe a C140
of course it will be pretty old too.....My Cub is older than I am 
and I'm not about to give you that information, but the C152 I soloed on had only done ten hours.Remember that just like tricycle gear aircraft, some conventional wheel aircraft are harder to fly than others. How about just getting out there and doing the licence, then tell us all about it?
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't see any problem?
I do.
But hey, given the choice I'd have a fleet of Chipmunks - beautiful aircraft for teaching but hey, this is the UK in 2008......
VFE.
I do.
But hey, given the choice I'd have a fleet of Chipmunks - beautiful aircraft for teaching but hey, this is the UK in 2008......
VFE.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My club is training 3 ab-initios using tailwheel aircraft (Chipmunks). And I'm doing my FIC on the aeroplane as well. So it can still be done in places. It does seem to take longer and it is more expensive.
I'd argue that with certain exceptions, it's the training not the aircraft that maketh the pilot
I'd argue that with certain exceptions, it's the training not the aircraft that maketh the pilot
You don't see any problem?
It is still possible to go for the desired option rather than one size fits all. You need to accept that not everyone wants to fly the standard trainer. If that means travelling further or spending more time in the circuit then that is the paying customer's choice.
As I said earlier, if the initial instruction is good then a conversion should not be a problem. I agree, chipmunk is a lovely trainer. It's even better with a lycoming on the front (ready to get shot down for heresy here).
BTW, we aren't all in the UK
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 58
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey JB, I sort of know where your coming from. If the plane you walk around was a car, you'de probably walk away. But the guy's who service these things are fanatical (ever seen the workshops-wish I could get an NHS ward as organised&clean}-I'd rather fly in a 30 yr old cessna (?cesspit) that's been lovingly serviced, than chance a prototype shiny glider
- 'spose I could get a bit scientific now, and ask about how many old planes fall out of the sky compared to new 'un's but the data available is probably not that reliable.Never felt that India Lima was gonna fall out of the sky. Was more worried about getting the kids round the M56 than landing at the aerodrome
How can you use such vitriolic language to a thing of such beauty...(india lima , flies pretty good as well
)
Last edited by gingernut; 20th Jun 2008 at 16:02.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we've managed to establish the following:
- Cessnas are good training aircraft
- Cessnas fly nicely (Although I personally think this means that they are so docile any monkey could fly one)
- Cessnas are reliable
- Cessnas have a good safety record
- Tatty looking aircraft are just as well maintained as shiny new ones
So nobody can offer a reason why I shouldn't learn to fly on a DA40. Therefore I can only conclude that either those who responded have never flown a DA40 or they have but know of no reason not to learn to fly on one.
I must admit I'm quite surprised with the overwhelming emphasis on flying the easiest possible plane so you can get the licence as soon as possible. People don't seem to look beyond getting the licence and realise that if you intend to fly anything other than a basic trainer you will have to do more training anyway. Surely anyone like me who has no interest in flying basic trainers after getting the licence might just as well train on a more advanced/difficult plane in the first place?
- Cessnas are good training aircraft
- Cessnas fly nicely (Although I personally think this means that they are so docile any monkey could fly one)
- Cessnas are reliable
- Cessnas have a good safety record
- Tatty looking aircraft are just as well maintained as shiny new ones
So nobody can offer a reason why I shouldn't learn to fly on a DA40. Therefore I can only conclude that either those who responded have never flown a DA40 or they have but know of no reason not to learn to fly on one.
I must admit I'm quite surprised with the overwhelming emphasis on flying the easiest possible plane so you can get the licence as soon as possible. People don't seem to look beyond getting the licence and realise that if you intend to fly anything other than a basic trainer you will have to do more training anyway. Surely anyone like me who has no interest in flying basic trainers after getting the licence might just as well train on a more advanced/difficult plane in the first place?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Daventry
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Go Go
Surely anyone like me who has no interest in flying basic trainers after getting the licence might just as well train on a more advanced/difficult plane in the first place?
I must admit I'm quite surprised with the overwhelming emphasis on flying the easiest possible plane so you can get the licence as soon as possible.
So what are you waiting for? ( or are you going to talk yourself out of it again?)
MM
(another Cessna driving monkey)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to train on something a bit more 'flash',get your wad out and go and do it,(it won't necessarily make you a better pilot)
'Flash'? Maybe not. Conventional gear, YES absolutely!
You can get a PPL on a C150 or PA28 or PA 38 as many do and have no idea how to land. Go position yourself at the touchdown point of any GA field in the country and watch the 'arrivals' of the trikes. Most will be 3-point, with little attempt at any sort of hold-off. It's painfully horrid to see!
They will also be about 20% too fast. But the tri-gear masks those gross handling errors and presumably the instructors ignore it as the aeroplane doesn't seem to care - until some poor sap, who may be the one in ten who does a correct fully-held-off touchdown, has that toothpick nosegear collapse because of all that previous misuse. (Just in case some haven't yet got it, nosewheels are not designed to take touchdown forces!). And Up Up UP go all our insurance premiums with a shock-loaded engine, bent firewall, and scrap prop!
Learn to fly with conventional gear, and the aeroplane will reject such sloppy technique; you just won't get away with it, thus producing a far better pilot. A pilot who actually knows how to land!
Now, can someone please invent an aeroplane that prevents pilots flying 'bomber' circuits?
SSD
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start with baby steps
Why learn to fly in a simple airplane? Because you can't join the army as a general. Because learning to fly starting with a Learjet isn't going to make you a great pilot, it is going to make you a statistic. Because learning to fly in a simple airplane means you will be able to find one locally, you will be able to afford to rent it, the owner will be able to afford to keep it maintained, the instructors will be familiar with it, and it isn't going to turn around and bite you or kill you from a moment's inattention or distraction - and there ARE airplanes that WILL. From the discussion, I get the impression that you have not actually started your flight training. Rest assured you will be adequately challenged during the course of your training by even the most humble, tatty, slow, low-status, monkey-drivable Cessna 150, busted interior plastic and all. Yes, you could learn in a DA-40, unless it has one of the whiz-bang Thierlert engines, the financial problems of which portend the imminent grounding of the entire fleet . . . and it is hard to learn to fly in an airplane with a busted engine and no parts available. Flight schools use 150s, 152s, PA28s and such-like disgusting beginner aircraft because THEY WORK - they do the job - you can learn to fly in them, and both you and your wallet are likely to survive the experience. Once you HAVE your license (and it is going to be harder than you think, it may even give you some respect for the lowly Cessna-driving monkey crowd), you can fly absolutely anything your ego demands, as long as your wallet can support it - and here's a hint - oh, boy are you in for an unpleasant surprise. Flying *anything* beats driving - look down FROM the Cessna, not down AT it. If you can find a DA-40 at a price you can afford, great, go for it. But don't get caught up in the idea that if it isn't new, it isn't any good - that just means you've bought into all the advertising about longer-lower-wider-more chrome means better - and it doesn't. Tell you what, I do the ground school at a well known and very busy FTO here, and you should SEE the hotshot ace pilot (candidates) after a session doing unusual attitudes under the hood in the so-called meek and mild Cessna 150. Another happy Cessna driving monkey here . . . (since 1976) Best Regards, Echo Mike
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD - answer me a question.
Why did the tricycle or 'safety' undercarriage gain popularity over 'conventional' gear
Why did the tricycle or 'safety' undercarriage gain popularity over 'conventional' gear
My points in the above posts are in answer to the starter of this thread - 'please save me from the C152 for basic training'. The flying training industry uses tricycle gear aeroplanes for the reasons I've already described - they are easier to master so you get your studes to PPL quicker and cheaper. If you don't, your competiton will. Is why the C150/152 has dominated flying training for at least 4 decades.
But if you have stude who really wants to fly, as opposed to just getting a quick PPL, and who is willing to pay a tad extra for the privaledge, you can give them a far better grounding using a conventional gear aeroplane.
I'd take it further than that and add that becuase the tricycle gear masks very basic handling errors in landing, it turns out pilots who can't land unless in an aeroplane that tolerates such errors - until the nosegear breaks. If you doubtb that's true, just spend a while observing the landing techniques at any GA field. "It's enough to make ya weep", as the guy in the 'Battle of Britain' film said.
SSD
Originally Posted by Piper.Classique
If you want to learn ab initio on a tailwheel type, I don't see any problem. Maybe a C140 of course it will be pretty old too.....
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
Oh yes it bleedin will!...... But the tri-gear masks those gross handling errors and presumably the instructors ignore it as the aeroplane doesn't seem to care ......
Learn to fly with conventional gear, and the aeroplane will reject such sloppy technique; you just won't get away with it, thus producing a far better pilot. A pilot who actually knows how to land!
Learn to fly with conventional gear, and the aeroplane will reject such sloppy technique; you just won't get away with it, thus producing a far better pilot. A pilot who actually knows how to land!
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
Now, can someone please invent an aeroplane that prevents pilots flying 'bomber' circuits?
-- IFMU
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the old aircraft bit, I own a 1979 Beech Sundowner 180; rare aerobatic certified model. It used to belong to a government-run training facility (part of a community college). It has over 10,500 hours on the airframe, but was maintained to a very high standard (the original paint still shines on it, always hangared, meticulous and documented maintenance).
It has been a delight to fly, and has been cheap to maintain, certainly cheaper than my previous PA28-140, though it's a bit expensive on fuel.
An old, well maintained aircraft may not be sexy, but they can be fun, safe and reliable. Mine is as unsexy as they get. It is painted in high-visibility yellow, and I call it my "school bus"...
Beech
It has been a delight to fly, and has been cheap to maintain, certainly cheaper than my previous PA28-140, though it's a bit expensive on fuel.
An old, well maintained aircraft may not be sexy, but they can be fun, safe and reliable. Mine is as unsexy as they get. It is painted in high-visibility yellow, and I call it my "school bus"...
Beech
I,ve been following this thread and I have now started to feel a bit perplexed. I fly both nosewheel and tailwheel aircraft, I like flying both types. I just like flying. Both types have their 'issues'. Am I normal or just a bit wierd?