C152 vs Tecnam 2002

[CAVOK2012]

Hi all, I've been a regular non-posting visitor to this site for many years. I've never had any reason to post anything because there is so much good info on here already.

I was looking for some opinions...which would you prefer to learn in, a C152 or a Tecnam 2002JF? I'm about half way in my PPL training (25 hours) 90% of which has been in a C152.

The school recently got rid of the C152 and replaced it with Tecnams. I live a similar distance to another school with a C152, but the hourly rate is £25 more than the new Tecnams in my current school.

Has anyone flown both these aircraft and care to comment on which is a better trainer (if either)?

I had been considering moving to the school woth the C152.....But would I be mental to pay £25 an hour more for an aeroplane that is 34 years older than the new Tecnams?

[bubo]

stay where you are

I have experience on P2002 a C152 - even I admit a limited experience. I see no reason why you would switch school to get a chance to pay more. P2002 has better performance than 152 and unless you are pretty high (head room) you would be really comfortable in Tecnam. The biggest issue and difference is braking - brakes for Tecnam are operated by a level between seats, not by pedals. So it will take some to establish "hand operating system". Stay with Tecnam and enjoy flying a new airplane with a chance to look around - not to hind underneath the wing.

[Jan Olieslagers]

If your ultimate goals is to fly an humble two-seater, the Tecnam will be quite ok. AIUI, the C152 was conceived as a generic PPL trainer, it might be better suited if you intend to get into serious travelling, which would involve a 4-seater and likely something more than strict VFR.

[CAVOK2012]

I see no reason why you would switch school to get a chance to pay more.

This seems like sound advice. I should have said in my opening post however that I have flown for around 30 minutes in the Tecnam around 2 months ago....and I did enjoy it. It did seem noticeable lighter than the C152.

The biggest issue and difference is braking - brakes for Tecnam are operated by a level between seats, not by pedals. So it will take some to establish "hand operating system".

I'm fairly sure the brakes were similar to the C152, as in tops of the rudder pedals...maybe it's a slightly different model than the one you have flown in?

If your ultimate goals is to fly an humble two-seater, the Tecnam will be quite ok. AIUI, the C152 was conceived as a generic PPL trainer, it might be better suited if you intend to get into serious travelling, which would involve a 4-seater and likely something more than strict VFR.

This is a good point; I fully intend to fly four seater's once I have finished training - taking family and friends for 'bimbles' and what have you....and I'd never rule out IMC rating or night flying later on. My current school have capable 4 seaters, which might another reason to stay.

[mad_jock]

the transfer to 4 seaters is not an issue.


And personally i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152.

[CAVOK2012]

Chances are you will need another 25 hours to complete your ppl. Opting for the C152 is going to cost you in excess of £600 vis-a-vis the Tecnam. If there are no other issues with your school, move to the Tecnam and complete the course. I've only flown the Tec on a demo flight. It is different from your 152, it feels 'microlighty' but that said it might be a great experience to embrace the change and an opportunity to try flying something different. Good luck with whatever you choose!

Thanks justmaybe. 'Microlighty' is a good way to describe it; although in fairness I enjoyed it, albeit a short experience and over 2 months ago...relieving myself of an extra £600 is probably just foolish.....especially since I haven't properly given the Tecnams a chance

[CAVOK2012]

And personally i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152.

Haha, fair enough

[B2N2]

Does the school offer you any financial incentive to stay with them?
How much more do they charge for the Tecnam then for the 152?
Did they offer you to finish on the Tecnam for the "old" 152 price?
I have about 10 hrs in a Tecnam, somewhat enjoyable but "jittery" compared to the slo-mo 152.
You will definitely need some transition time so it might be a wash depending on what they charge for the Tecnam vs the gold plated 152 the other place is using.

Example; Tecnam is 100 and the 152 is 125.
You need 5 hrs in the Tecnam to transition and become equally proficient as you were in the 152.
Cost is 500.
You move to the other school and need another 20 hrs to finish your PPL, the extra cost is now a wash.

[smarthawke]

The P2002-JF initially was only offered with the single brake lever between the seats. For the last few years, an option is to have pedal operated 'toe' brakes.

Another option is for a single throttle in a quadrant in the centre of the instrument panel. The 'standard' fit is two plunger type throttles a la Robin or Rallye.

I have 300hrs or so in C152s and 20 hrs in a P2002-JF. I'd take the Tecnam every time. Our instructors feel it is a superior trainer in that you have to use the rudder a bit and fly the aircraft - more like a PA38 than a C152 or Warrior.

Visibility is superb in the Tecnam compared to the C152 and the Rotax is a delight to fly behind.

For the operator, it is certified to run on Mogas (including flying training in the UK - there is no difference in fuel spec contrary to the rumours) and burns 4 or 5 lits of fuel less an hour than the C152's Lycoming.

[CAVOK2012]

You move to the other school and need another 20 hrs to finish your PPL, the extra cost is now a wash.

Interesting perspective B2N2. I was rather hoping that the transition period would be a bit less than 5 hours to cross over to the Tecnam. I did 3/4 circuits, stalls and a glide approach (worked well) during my 30 minute flight in the Tecnam, and was hoping that a few more circuits with an instructor and some PFLs on the way back from up-coming navex's would absorb the transition period somewhat. At least that's what I would hope for if I stay where I am.

[CAVOK2012]

The P2002-JF initially was only offered with the single brake lever between the seats. For the last few years, an option is to have pedal operated 'toe' brakes.

Another option is for a single throttle in a quadrant in the centre of the instrument panel. The 'standard' fit is two plunger type throttles a la Robin or Rallye.

My current school have the toe brakes and the single quadrant in the centre - I actually really liked the airliner-esque feel to that.

Also with my limited experience I do recall having to give it plenty of right rudder pressure climbing out....I suppose that can only be a good thing, i.e. 'proper' stick and rudder flying at these early stages of training.

[riverrock83]

Depends on the person in how long it takes to transfer - and getting used to flying different aircraft will enable you to become more of a pilot and less of an operator of a single type of machine.
I'm in the middle of my PPL and I'm now on my third type of plane. I've probably spent (I could say wasted but I don't think its a waste of time) around 3 hours total moving from one to the other - and I was landing each one straight away. But it does also depend on how you've been taught. I've been taught in a generic non-plane specific way, with a number of key mnemonics rather than plane specific checklists. I just skip out setting the variable pitch prop when I'm in a PA28...

If you have the opportunity to try different types - I say go for it.

[Pilot DAR]

i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152

Hey MJ, I've got a 150 (with leather seats!) How many hours can I sell you not sitting in it?

(I'm happy to offer block time not sitting in deals too!)

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you fly is much less important than who you fly with. The most important consideration when deciding where to learn to fly is the quality of the instruction. My experience is the per hour cost of the aircraft has the least effect on the total cost of a license.

The quality of the instruction, the extent of ground delays, the distance to the practice area, cost of landing fees, the servicability of the aircraft, the organizational competence of the school and how much work you put in preparing for every flight will determine how much your license costs. Unless the per hour cost is grossly disproportionate the more expensive aircraft will not in itself, have a huge impact on total training costs

[Pace]

B2N2

Example; Tecnam is 100 and the 152 is 125.
You need 5 hrs in the Tecnam to transition and become equally proficient as you were in the 152.
Cost is 500.

You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!

You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Pace

B2N2


You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!

You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.

Pace

An aircraft conversion will be "simple" for you but for a ab intio pilot transitioning to type with very different flying characteristics could IMO take up to 5 hours.

When I worked as a full time instructor the school had 5 C 152's and 1 C 150 Aerobat. The general rule was to not book presolo students who had been flying the C 152 on the C 150. The cowl design is different ( C 150 the cowl slopes down, C 152 the top of the cowl is flat) and so the "look" of the level flight/climb/turn attitude is a bit different. If you took a presolo C 152 student on the C 150 you wasted the first 30 minutes teaching them the new sight picture.

Until you have actually taught ab intio it is hard to appreciate how quite simple small changes can initially discombobulate a new student. The difference in the flap control between the C 150 and C 152 is a good example

[CAVOK2012]

Unless the per hour cost is grossly disproportionate the more expensive aircraft will not in itself, have a huge impact on total training costs

I personally don't think it will be the case that the time it takes me to get used to the new aeroplane will make up for the extra cost of the C152 at the other place. As I mentioned before I have flown for 30 minutes, and covered stalls, 2 normal approaches and 1 glide approach which all went well, a couple more circuits and PFLs during dual navex's should see me ready to fly solo in the Tecnam. That's speculation on my part but I got the impression from my instructor that this should be the case following our brief introductory flight.

The most important consideration when deciding where to learn to fly is the quality of the instruction.

As for this, I do get bounced around between instructors fairly regularly...only once have I ever 'disliked' one; I found both his style of teaching and attitude to be flawed, and at one point I was ready to tell him to take me straight back to the airfield So far I feel like having various instructors hasn't held me back...except that once in a while I want to hear one telling me to get a move on with the ground exams.

[mad_jock]

it should be a reflex with instructors to nag every student they see about the ground exams.

[richs3]

I fly both the p2002 and c152 regularly and as with many of the guys above would choose the p2002 every time. As someone quite rightly points out there will be some element of transition however this should stand you in good ground once you get your PPL – I can’t imagine you’ll be wanting to fly a c152 for ever.

[mad_jock]

The 30 seconds exposure taken to walk past one is more than enough for most people.

And DAR as much as I would love to take you up on your offer of not sitting in the only none smelly best cared for C150 in the world I will have to go and sit in something which comes with another engine as standard and I get payed to sit in that one as well.