Reliability of Training Aircrafts

[A and C]

Johnm

Utter rubbish !

The C150 & C152 are the backbone of pilot training would wide the aircraft ( especially the 152) are reliable and robust.

The PA38 is the best GA trainer to come out of the USA in the last forty years, unfortunately the spar life issue has made the aircraft unviable to invest in and so the examples that are flying tend to be very tatty.

[Pilot DAR]

On the other hand C15x and PA38s aren't really aeroplanes, they are torture chambers with bits sticking out at the sides.

Perhaps, but then one man's torture, is another man's delight! My 150 has "tortured" me for 2700 hours over 26 years, and nothing else could have matched its broad capability over all those years. 100% dispatch reliability, and operating costs only slightly more than my diesel VW. The PA-38 is not quite as versatile, but still very well suited at what it was designed to do.

Or, you buy a new 182, or DA-42, and choose which four weekends a year you can afford to fly it.... but they're nice!

[tecman]

I hope the original poster is properly reassured regarding the reliability; it's effectively a non-issue with the maintenance regimes in place in the western world. What struck me, though, is his lack of appreciation of what our money actually buys us. The flying experience is, to most of us, incomparable with any other channel for our discretionary currency. I've taken pride in the maintenance and appearance of aircraft I've owned and operated but, in the end, it's the flying experience that counts.

Aircraft are more like boats than like cars: you can expect to have to do little (and sometimes not so little) things to them all the time, whether they are 1 or 50 years old. Getting into the mindset of appreciating the flying experience, and double-checking the critical safety factors (fuel, weather, aircraft systems, ...) is what it's all about. I hope you come to appreciate that in your training but, if you find that you really are in the mindset of wanting to walk in, kick the tyres and light the fires on the newest high performance aircraft you can find, do yourself and your loved-ones a favour and channel your currency into another hobby. Good luck.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar
I learnt to fly in Cessna 150s and 152s as well as an aerobat.

There is the old story of the yellow Piper Cub flying low over the country side and the pilot looking up and seeing a fast retractable zoom over head!
" Oh if only I had that I would be truly happy"

The fast Retractable pilot looked up and saw a pressurized twin turbine zoom overhead!
" If only I had that I would be truly happy".

The turbine pilot looked up and saw a jet zooming over head leaving trails in the sky!
" Oh if only I had that I would be truly happy"

The Jet pilot looked up and saw Concord fly overhead
"If only I had that I would be truly happy"

The Concord pilot a wise and grey Captain looked down and saw the tiny dot of the yellow piper cub was below floating above the countryside on that sunny day!
" If only I had that I would be truly happy"!

Had a flight in a Cessna 150 not that long ago and really enjoyed the aircraft just flying low and slow

Pace

[VP-F__]

jeepers Baz, if that is of true concern I better stop my wife from flying right away, if a forty year old cessna is that dodgy then her 50 year old, 40,000+ hour helicopter must be a death trap. Thanks for the heads up

by the way it is not the age that counts as long as it is maintained properly although cosmetically some could be better for sure.

[Pace]

There is nothing wrong with old aircraft they ooze character! I used to love the two baron 55s I flew and one of the Citations I fly is a basic old girl which you need to fly rather than having everything done for you
My main gripe is paying good money to fly an aircraft which smells of BO and smelly socks ! I am sure we have all experienced those

Pace

[Silvaire1]

My 67 year old aircraft is in a little better cosmetic shape than my 42 year old aircraft, so who says new is better

Some wise words written here - as Tecman says, aircraft are more like boats, I often say like houses, you have to maintain them and then they can conceivably last forever.

In relation to pleasing students, I think aircraft ownership should be their goal, and flying training aircraft a short lived phase. Then they can make the aircraft they fly as nice as they want. It's also better for the aviation community - everybody cares more and does more when they have a stake. It doesn't matter what kind of aircraft it is, dirt simple or fancy, new or old, owning it and taking care of it is better.

[Mickey Kaye]

The reason the the current crop of training aircraft are used despite being nigh on 40 years old is simply they are the most cost effective aircraft to operate.

Despite all the composite wonder stuff and sexy cirruses this still hasn't changed.

Sadly no one seems to be capable of designing what is effectively a airframe as strong as the C150/2 /172, PA28/38 and mate it with a 10% ethanol sipping EFI rotax. But as soon as they do I suspect the current training fleet will be replaced within a few years.

The bit that amazes me is that no one has been able to do this. The market must be huge.

[Crash one]

I don't understand why, if the 152/172 airframe is so good, they are not worthy of an engine/avionics upgrade. Shirley a complete stripdown, repaint, new carpets & busted trim replaced shouldn't cost more than a new unproven a/c?

[Silvaire1]

I don't understand why, if the 152/172 airframe is so good, they are not worthy of an engine/avionics upgrade. Shirley a complete stripdown, repaint, new carpets & busted trim replaced shouldn't cost more than a new unproven a/c?

Seems to me that for training in a cost sensitive market, cosmetically rough or clean aircraft do the job equally well. As Pilot DAR points out, there may even be advantages to keeping them 'rough and ready', so that's the way they stay. For an individual owner I think it makes a great deal of sense to refurbish them, and in the US it is the way some people are getting 'new' aircraft now. That is aided by many of the old airframes having been in individual ownership since day one, and therefore having relatively low hours. Two years ago I bought a 40 year old, two owner aircraft with 900 hrs TT and have been doing some of what you describe.

I think there are too many existing airframes to justify building new ones when the benefits of mass production don't really apply to new aircraft, and the labor content/cost for building a new airframe is far more than the (say) $30K for which you can buy an existing plane.

Sadly no one seems to be capable of designing what is effectively a airframe as strong as the C150/2 /172, PA28/38 and mate it with a 10% ethanol sipping EFI rotax. But as soon as they do I suspect the current training fleet will be replaced within a few years.

The issue there is that the Rotax really doesn't make enough power. Resistance to mishandling (ruggedness if you will) takes weight to achieve, and an 1100 lb airframe needs 125 HP or so if you want it to carry two 2013-scale people and 2013-required equipment. The rugged Rotax powered aircraft ends up with lots of wing area, Cub level performance, and still costs a lot of money that has to paid back. I think if renters and students valued new-build airframes over performance then a ruggedly built Rotax powered trainer could make sense at the same wet cost/per hour, with the same airframe life. Just my POV

[Mickey Kaye]

"I don't understand why, if the 152/172 airframe is so good, they are not worthy of an engine/avionics upgrade. Shirley a complete stripdown, repaint, new carpets & busted trim replaced shouldn't cost more than a new unproven a/c"

Someone has

Cessna Rotax

However (in my opinion) I don't think it reduces the running costs enough to be successful.

If they swapped out the wobbly prop for a fixed one. Improved the fuel efficiently by installing the fuel injected version and approved it to run on Mogas with 10% ethanol then it might be in with a chance.

The conversion costs a hell of a lot mind but I do wish them well.

[A and C]

Micky

I think that the VP prop is key to the performance of the aircraft and a fixed pitch prop would fail to make the performance numbers.

What I can't understand is why the C150 ? The C152 has a much more sorted airframe that would keep the costs down.

I would like to see the latest turbocharged Rotax in a C152 airframe, that would be an interesting aircraft.

[Silvaire1]

If they swapped out the wobbly prop for a fixed one

Good point. A wobbly prop is certainly a way to get the best out of a relatively underpowered aircraft, like a C150 with a Rotax. The downside is complexity, weight and cost to buy and maintain, particularly with the wood bladed CS props often used with Rotaxes. You can't beat the practicality of a FP aluminum prop.

I have an MT electric CS prop on one of my aircraft. Its absorbed as much attention as the rest of the propulsion system combined. Several times I've thought of removing it and going back to a FP McCauley, but I like the feeling of acceleration on take-off.

[Mickey Kaye]

"I think that the VP prop is key to the performance of the aircraft and a fixed pitch prop would fail to make the performance numbers."

I'm going to look stupid here but why do you say that? A 100Hp is 100HP. Also the O-200 doesn't develop 100HP anyway. Also the airframe is 20kg lighter when installed with a rotax and you would also be able to uplift less fuel for the same range. Or if your instructing time in the air.

I suspect that the reason the engine uses a wobbly prop was that original conversion was basically a 80HP DA20 powertrain inserted in the the Cessna airframe. And I'm pretty sure that when the DA20 came on the market the Rotax was only available in 80HP and they therefore had to use a wobbly prop to make up for the lack of HP.

I also suspect that even with the wobbly prop the performance on 80HP would not have been Stella hence they upgrade to 100HP.

I suspect there are quite a few reason why they chose the 150 airframe;

Alot more 150 where made than 152
Dirt cheap - especially ones with out of hours engines
Lighter - if what you say about performance is true
152 are cheaper to run in the first place - so less price advantage when converted

[A and C]

Micky

The performance is about how much of that power at the crankshaft you can turn into thrust, as a prop is an aero foil it will only give the best performance at the most efficient angle of attack, as A of A decreases with TAS most fixed pitch aircraft start the takeoff run with the prop fully stalled and at about 30 Kt the prop un-stalls and starts to work properly until the A of A decreases at the higher TAS and the aircraft can't accelerate any more.

The short answer is that a fixed pitch prop is a compromise.

There are very few multi role light aircraft but the DR400 is a good example the tourer will cruise at 135 Kts with reasonable field and climb performance with a course fixed pitch prop, the glider tug variant with a very fine fixed pitch prop will (without the glider attached) take off in a very short distance and climb at 70 Kt very well but don't ask it to fly faster than about 100 Kt because you will overspeed the engine because the prop can't turn the power into thrust due to the low A of A of the prop blades at higher TAS. So in the glider tug example cruise performance is sacrificed for performance in the 65-80 Kt speed range that the glider tug mission requires.

The C150 with the VP prop can turn all of the power into thrust all of the time (within reason!) as the A of A of the prop is always close to the optimum for that TAS due to the variable pitch of the prop blades.

[Piper.Classique]

I own and cherish a 60 year old super cub. Per flying hour the direct costs, including insurance, come to the hire cost of a DR400 120 hired from my french club. Neither of them is tatty, but the cub would now sell for a good bit more than the original (1980) purchase price.
So, an appreciating asset tax free, and I can land on farm strips and don't have to book in advance. I like old aircraft.

[sevenstrokeroll]

dear piper classicque

the piper super cub is magnificent...(c'est magnifique").

I am in favor of older planes (provided they are properly maintained). In fact, most planes could be built today with the same specifications as decades ago and still do a great job.

Really, haven't we gone a bit too far in the holy grail of fuel efficency?

Given my choice, beyond MONEY< I think the great planes of the past would be just fine today. No, I'm not saying I would like to fly the atlantic in a DC3 over a DC8 or 707...the twist is the engine.

But for learning to fly, for flying on a nice day with a beautiful babe at your side, the planes of the past are just fine. build them again.

I took a look at a plane called a DA something. I found out it could not be certified IFR because it can't be protected from a lightning strike.

Oh come on! how is this an improvement?

[Lone_Ranger]

"I took a look at a plane called a DA something"

...Hope you are ok now, people have gone blind

[sevenstrokeroll]

I've learned something...and yes I retained my vision.

I drove a brand new ford taurus...very nice car...gadgets galore...but my right knee hits the center pedestal, the gearshift area..and it hurts.

so I just drove my 20 year old plymouth acclaim, with the gear shift on the steering wheel. And boy was it comfortable.

so...either build the old planes and cars again...same way, or I'm sticking with the old stuff and getting a proper mechanic.

[Mickey Kaye]

Sorry A and C what I ment was why would you think that a Cessna 150 powered by a 100HP rotax would not perform as well as one powered by a 100 O-200?