Cessna 150, 152 Shares
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had a quick scan through the inspections you may be right in terms of what it might cost A&C. But rather than inflate the value of the remaining airframes I suspect it will simply see a lot of them sold outside the EASA sphere of influence.
The current market value of a C150/2 is pretty modest - facing the likely cost of 6,000 or 10,000 hr inspections - or the date deadline it is difficult to see any owner spending that sort of money.
The current market value of a C150/2 is pretty modest - facing the likely cost of 6,000 or 10,000 hr inspections - or the date deadline it is difficult to see any owner spending that sort of money.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Cessnas , whilst being a robust and proven design, are more than a little dated.
I would be amazed if the thinned-out fleet were to appreciate significantly in value, as a result of the new inspection regime.
Those of us UK residents old enough to remember the introduction of the car "10-year test" , know that the scrapyards became full of Ford "sit up and beg"s ,Morris 8's Austin 7's and the like.
These scrappages didn't affect the market significantly,it just meant there were less "sheds" about and the second hand car pitches had fewer old heaps.
Those who were in that end of the user-market, were "tail-end-of-life" users...running on a shoestring.......they probably downgraded to a motorbike until their finances improved .
The person who could really afford to go motoring was not affected one jot,
This situation is virtually a parallel.
Can't afford to bring a clapped-out spamcan up to the new standard? scrap it (or flog it to a mug! ) then buy a permit-aircraft / microlight / parascender or whatever lower-cost of aviating presents itself.
short-term, prices will drop as the spares-market saturates, the surplus will slowly get absorbed and the values of used-items will stabilise.
Again, I remember the "gov't surplus " shops selling brand-new , boxed flight -instruments for absolute buttons money,- after all, there's a finite number of people who want ,say, an attitude-indicator on their mantlepiece, as an ornament.
I would be amazed if the thinned-out fleet were to appreciate significantly in value, as a result of the new inspection regime.
Those of us UK residents old enough to remember the introduction of the car "10-year test" , know that the scrapyards became full of Ford "sit up and beg"s ,Morris 8's Austin 7's and the like.
These scrappages didn't affect the market significantly,it just meant there were less "sheds" about and the second hand car pitches had fewer old heaps.
Those who were in that end of the user-market, were "tail-end-of-life" users...running on a shoestring.......they probably downgraded to a motorbike until their finances improved .
The person who could really afford to go motoring was not affected one jot,
This situation is virtually a parallel.
Can't afford to bring a clapped-out spamcan up to the new standard? scrap it (or flog it to a mug! ) then buy a permit-aircraft / microlight / parascender or whatever lower-cost of aviating presents itself.
short-term, prices will drop as the spares-market saturates, the surplus will slowly get absorbed and the values of used-items will stabilise.
Again, I remember the "gov't surplus " shops selling brand-new , boxed flight -instruments for absolute buttons money,- after all, there's a finite number of people who want ,say, an attitude-indicator on their mantlepiece, as an ornament.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasax
The question is what other aircraft are avalable to fill the role of the C152 (not the C150) and the answer is very few that will make 30,000 hours.
The people who look after there C152's have little to fear from the SID's because they will have been doing most of the SID's inspections each time the aircraft has an annual check and sorting out the defects when they are found. These are usually long term operators of the C152 who use best maintenance practice to ensure that they have a reliable fleet of aircraft.
Unfortunatly these operators have seen the market view of the value of their aircraft tainted by the increasing number of under maintained C152's that are avalable at a price that reflects the cost of putting right years of neglect.
Having scaned through the SID's document I find that at least six of the items were covered by work carried out at the last annual check and the SID's approved corrosion protection compound has been in use for five years on my aircraft so the SID's is unlikely to turn up much in the way of surprises and extra cost.
You are quite correct in saying that most private owners of C152's won't spend the price of the SID's checks because they know the cost of putting right all the issues they have been ignoring for years, these aircraft will be withdrawn from service and provide parts that those of us who operate the aircraft as a business can refurbish to keep the fleet flying.
So with a shrinking fleet and only the aircraft that have had time and effort put into them remaining airworthy people will not steel at the knock down prices we have seen the old dogs selling at?
Like it or not the C152 is still the best PPL trainer on the market from an economic point of view due to the robust construction and reliable systems, I have already seen some of the new kids on the block giving structural problems but with the ultra light weight build once the corrosion starts to get a hold there will be no stoping it without spending a lot of money.
I am not a great fan of flying the C152 but it's great asset is the ability to make money and that fact alone will result in the price of GOOD aircraft holding up.
The people who look after there C152's have little to fear from the SID's because they will have been doing most of the SID's inspections each time the aircraft has an annual check and sorting out the defects when they are found. These are usually long term operators of the C152 who use best maintenance practice to ensure that they have a reliable fleet of aircraft.
Unfortunatly these operators have seen the market view of the value of their aircraft tainted by the increasing number of under maintained C152's that are avalable at a price that reflects the cost of putting right years of neglect.
Having scaned through the SID's document I find that at least six of the items were covered by work carried out at the last annual check and the SID's approved corrosion protection compound has been in use for five years on my aircraft so the SID's is unlikely to turn up much in the way of surprises and extra cost.
You are quite correct in saying that most private owners of C152's won't spend the price of the SID's checks because they know the cost of putting right all the issues they have been ignoring for years, these aircraft will be withdrawn from service and provide parts that those of us who operate the aircraft as a business can refurbish to keep the fleet flying.
So with a shrinking fleet and only the aircraft that have had time and effort put into them remaining airworthy people will not steel at the knock down prices we have seen the old dogs selling at?
Like it or not the C152 is still the best PPL trainer on the market from an economic point of view due to the robust construction and reliable systems, I have already seen some of the new kids on the block giving structural problems but with the ultra light weight build once the corrosion starts to get a hold there will be no stoping it without spending a lot of money.
I am not a great fan of flying the C152 but it's great asset is the ability to make money and that fact alone will result in the price of GOOD aircraft holding up.
Last edited by A and C; 31st May 2012 at 16:32.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJW....Why spend a large chunk of money on a spamcan, when a Permit aircraft will give you a lot more bang for your buck.
I take on board that the Cessna is robust and will take endless abuse.....(but you should be past that stage now)
those very qualities have a price.
the downside is the safe, predictable handling doesn't give much exploration and learning-room. it's also thirsty, draggy, expensive to maintain and fairly uninspiring.
Sure, a clapped-out 1-litre Corsa is the Dog's to a new driver, but after the novelty's worn off
I'd suggest you expand your horizons a bit.-Unless you have money to burn, wait till the market absorbs this new regime and settles down, before buying a potential millstone.
many wiser people than me have oft quoted an old adage
" If it flies, floats or f*cks, RENT it.
There's a good reason!
I take on board that the Cessna is robust and will take endless abuse.....(but you should be past that stage now)
those very qualities have a price.the downside is the safe, predictable handling doesn't give much exploration and learning-room. it's also thirsty, draggy, expensive to maintain and fairly uninspiring.
Sure, a clapped-out 1-litre Corsa is the Dog's to a new driver, but after the novelty's worn off
I'd suggest you expand your horizons a bit.-Unless you have money to burn, wait till the market absorbs this new regime and settles down, before buying a potential millstone.
many wiser people than me have oft quoted an old adage
" If it flies, floats or f*cks, RENT it.
There's a good reason!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 150/152's are designed with a purpose in mind.
That purpose is to be a robust docile trainer.
The tommy was the same except it was designed not to be docile.
Now that you have got passed that training stage there are many different aircraft out there that have their roles depending what you want to do.
There are permit aircraft out there that will give you loads more range at a faster speed at a lower running cost.
tell us what you want to do with "your" aircraft CJW and we can suggest and make some comparisions.
That purpose is to be a robust docile trainer.
The tommy was the same except it was designed not to be docile.
Now that you have got passed that training stage there are many different aircraft out there that have their roles depending what you want to do.
There are permit aircraft out there that will give you loads more range at a faster speed at a lower running cost.
tell us what you want to do with "your" aircraft CJW and we can suggest and make some comparisions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester
Age: 54
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock
Thanks for your fair constructive comment!
So here I am, just got my licence with 46 hours, no expert obviously as expected and wanted to hone my skills continuing in a type I'm well versed on. Lets face it, thats the safest option for me at the moment, forget cost for now, I reckon thats the most sensible bet snt it?
Im looking at 1000 to join and monthly charge of £50 with hourly wet rate of £60. Not that unresonable?
Clearly I have one eye on the forthcoming SID's, thats a concern however I have choices and would look to exercise those. Sometimes as well the things one may propose may not be possible but a glorified wish.
Thanks for your fair constructive comment!
So here I am, just got my licence with 46 hours, no expert obviously as expected and wanted to hone my skills continuing in a type I'm well versed on. Lets face it, thats the safest option for me at the moment, forget cost for now, I reckon thats the most sensible bet snt it?
Im looking at 1000 to join and monthly charge of £50 with hourly wet rate of £60. Not that unresonable?
Clearly I have one eye on the forthcoming SID's, thats a concern however I have choices and would look to exercise those. Sometimes as well the things one may propose may not be possible but a glorified wish.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really there is nothing special about light aircraft in that bracket to be honest. Transfering to another aircraft type adds to your experence base.
And it also depends if you are hour building or not to go commercial.
Most PPL's fall into the trap that they end up doing the same things as they did in thier PPL. ie a bit of general handling some circuits maybe a nav leg to a local safe airfield for a burger. Then quite quickly they get bored of flying and have better things to spend there money on.
Why don't you for example look at a 4 seater and then plan some overnights with friends. Go to air flields you haven't been before. Split the cost so you can go 4 times the distance than if you had gone by yourself.
In the mean time save up for some aero's/tail dragger hours or next winter a night qual. There are some people who are happy with there local hour a fortnight but not many.
But it all hinges on what you want to do with the aircraft.
And it also depends if you are hour building or not to go commercial.
Most PPL's fall into the trap that they end up doing the same things as they did in thier PPL. ie a bit of general handling some circuits maybe a nav leg to a local safe airfield for a burger. Then quite quickly they get bored of flying and have better things to spend there money on.
Why don't you for example look at a 4 seater and then plan some overnights with friends. Go to air flields you haven't been before. Split the cost so you can go 4 times the distance than if you had gone by yourself.
In the mean time save up for some aero's/tail dragger hours or next winter a night qual. There are some people who are happy with there local hour a fortnight but not many.
But it all hinges on what you want to do with the aircraft.
Last edited by mad_jock; 2nd Jun 2012 at 19:00.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJW, I am the same as you in terms of hours and wish list. At the risk of getting shot down by the residents on here I opted to go down the NPPL (M) route. When I got my license I joined a Eurostar syndicate £1000, £54 a month and £42 per hour wet. Availability is good and I can book it for a day or weekend if I wish.
Mike
Mike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester
Age: 54
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, thanks for letting me know, I'm sure you wont get shot down. There are some professional advice givers on here, if you dont do it their way beware!!! Good idea though!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we arn't really.And thats the sort of machine we are suggesting you have a look at before you go for a C152.
Go and have a fly of some others types is all we are suggesting. We are only trying to get you 20% more flying for your money
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M J has really said it all......with a Certificated aircraft, you have to follow a strict maintenance regime , carried out by someone who has the necessary documentation, using parts/materials which carry the requisite paper-trail and all this COSTS, BIG STYLE
Permit aircraft can also be maintained, as above, for the anally retentive or lottery-winners.
mere mortals can follow a realistic and safe maintenance and overhaul regime to suit their machine and operating conditions,usung their own,or friends' labour.
I think you'll find that statistically,permit aircraft are as reliable,safe and useable (OK, you can't use them IMC ) as their certificated bretheren, at a huge saving on those costs.
Himmic....well done! a bit of lateral thinking has got you a much better machine for your cash.
Just trying to help you get a bigger bang for your buck and avoid the inevitable frustration you'll feel as you outgrow the limitations of the type you learned on.
Permit aircraft can also be maintained, as above, for the anally retentive or lottery-winners.
mere mortals can follow a realistic and safe maintenance and overhaul regime to suit their machine and operating conditions,usung their own,or friends' labour.
I think you'll find that statistically,permit aircraft are as reliable,safe and useable (OK, you can't use them IMC ) as their certificated bretheren, at a huge saving on those costs.
Himmic....well done! a bit of lateral thinking has got you a much better machine for your cash.
Just trying to help you get a bigger bang for your buck and avoid the inevitable frustration you'll feel as you outgrow the limitations of the type you learned on.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I very much doubt if the LAA accident per hour in a as low as that for C of A aircraft.
This is not a criticism of LAA aircraft just a realization that the LAA fleet flys a lot less that C of A aircraft and due to this a small number of accidents can have a large effect on the hourly accident rate.
This is not a criticism of LAA aircraft just a realization that the LAA fleet flys a lot less that C of A aircraft and due to this a small number of accidents can have a large effect on the hourly accident rate.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bucks
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Azure
Hi CJW
I'm a member of the Azure flying club, which operates PA28's. If you're wanting a step up into a 4 seater I gather our Liverpool branch is looking for new members. The PA28 is a popular trainer so the transition shouldn't be too large.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...liverpool.html
W
I'm a member of the Azure flying club, which operates PA28's. If you're wanting a step up into a 4 seater I gather our Liverpool branch is looking for new members. The PA28 is a popular trainer so the transition shouldn't be too large.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...liverpool.html
W
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I very much doubt if the LAA accident per hour in a as low as that for C of A aircraft.
This is not a criticism of LAA aircraft just a realization that the LAA fleet flys a lot less that C of A aircraft and due to this a small number of accidents can have a large effect on the hourly accident rate.
This is not a criticism of LAA aircraft just a realization that the LAA fleet flys a lot less that C of A aircraft and due to this a small number of accidents can have a large effect on the hourly accident rate.
Probably not believed by most but Permit a/c are maintained by dedicated people, I have seen "maintenance" by the CofA outfits & would be very wary of flying anything "just out of maintenance".
It would be interesting to see comparative figures.
About a dozen years go the factor was roughly 2:1 - CofA fixed wing was achieving a fatal accident rate around 1 per 60,000 hrs compared to 1 per 25,000hrs for permit aeroplanes. Microlights sat between at around 1 per 50,000hrs as did gliders and light helicopters.
Since then however, all classes have improved a lot.
CAP 780 shows the most recent stats published by the CAA, but it doesn't separate out CofA and PtF light aeroplanes. Scanning chapter 5 however, there are clearly far more CofA aeroplane accidents than PtF aeroplanes. Okay, there are a lot more CofA aeroplane, so this does indicate rough parity between the two.
A significant risk of in-flight breakups is the only real reason why you could justify requiring PtF aeroplanes to observe a more restrictive standard than the "vanilla" rule 5. That risk is tiny but basically equal - CAP780 shows two to PtF aeroplanes (a CubyII and a Europa) and two to CofA aeroplanes (a PA28 and a Rockwell Commander). The microlight fleet had one in-flight breakup in that decade, to a type which was subsequently (and remains) banned. Small numbers, all statistically insignificant. So, rule 5, unammended, now applies to all fixed wing aeroplanes - light and microlight.
G
Since then however, all classes have improved a lot.
CAP 780 shows the most recent stats published by the CAA, but it doesn't separate out CofA and PtF light aeroplanes. Scanning chapter 5 however, there are clearly far more CofA aeroplane accidents than PtF aeroplanes. Okay, there are a lot more CofA aeroplane, so this does indicate rough parity between the two.
A significant risk of in-flight breakups is the only real reason why you could justify requiring PtF aeroplanes to observe a more restrictive standard than the "vanilla" rule 5. That risk is tiny but basically equal - CAP780 shows two to PtF aeroplanes (a CubyII and a Europa) and two to CofA aeroplanes (a PA28 and a Rockwell Commander). The microlight fleet had one in-flight breakup in that decade, to a type which was subsequently (and remains) banned. Small numbers, all statistically insignificant. So, rule 5, unammended, now applies to all fixed wing aeroplanes - light and microlight.
G
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the SID's. Much of the detail inspections defined is (should be)covered by a reputable company during an annual anyway, possibly wishful hinking. Anybody got a handle on the delta cost to complete the NDT aspects or had an aircraft go through the process recently. Just trying get a perspective for a forth coming annual on our clubs F 152.
Mike
Mike
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash one
I take your point about PtF aircraft being maintained by dedicated people..................... I am a LAA inspector.
I think what is missing is the realization that the LAA is divided into two camps, the people who maintain their aircraft to the very highest standard and those who think that string and sealing wax are the answer to all problems.
The latter camp have been under attack from LAA engineering for a few years now and are diminishing in number, as an inspector I will be glad to see the back of these people.
The point I was trying to make is that with the comparitvly low hourly rate of LAA aircraft one accident can have a distorting effect on the overall accident statistics.
I think what is missing is the realization that the LAA is divided into two camps, the people who maintain their aircraft to the very highest standard and those who think that string and sealing wax are the answer to all problems.
The latter camp have been under attack from LAA engineering for a few years now and are diminishing in number, as an inspector I will be glad to see the back of these people.
The point I was trying to make is that with the comparitvly low hourly rate of LAA aircraft one accident can have a distorting effect on the overall accident statistics.
Last edited by A and C; 5th Jul 2012 at 09:14.
