Choice of plane for PPL
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""modern" trainers like the Eurostar or P92 is going to still be making a living with 20 K + hrs is IMHO; zero."
And we all agree that is a good thing, I hope. If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.
Rod1
And we all agree that is a good thing, I hope. If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the majority of UK schools live on a 'hand to mouth/breadline' existance on these very tired old spamcans, so when a dealer/greedy manufacturer comes along with a totally unsuitable lightweight 600kg aircraft at a silly low rate monthly lease the school jumps at it. This is what is happening right now with the renamed Sportcruiser/PS28 in the UK.
Everyone then wonders why this aircraft that was not originally designed for student training and circuit bashing starts to experience noseleg/landing gear issues which long term does not do the reputation of a perfectly good solid aircraft used in private owner hands no good at all. Total stupidity!
Everyone then wonders why this aircraft that was not originally designed for student training and circuit bashing starts to experience noseleg/landing gear issues which long term does not do the reputation of a perfectly good solid aircraft used in private owner hands no good at all. Total stupidity!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.
as for the hours, i think 45 hours is gross overkill, a number pulled out of a mysterious hat
i heard that in the military, if you dont solo after 8-10 hrs, there is a serious problem with you.
i heard that in the military, if you dont solo after 8-10 hrs, there is a serious problem with you.
The chance that any of the tin foil/tupperware "modern" trainers like the Eurostar or P92 is going to still be making a living with 20 K + hrs is IMHO; zero.
Chasing disposable designs is a costly disease in life generally, but one that some have looked at closely and decided not to catch.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 27th Jun 2014 at 20:34.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an instructor I love the C152. It's honest, the view out is good, and it can handle all kinds of student abuse. When I was pre-solo, I flared at 10 feet in an Aerobat, put 4G on the G meter, but the main gear still coped with it just fine.
I personally dislike the PA28, but it's an honest enough trainer too. The view out isn't as good and it doesn't feel as nice to fly, in my opinion. But it does a reasonable job and I am perfectly happy to teach in it.
I have flown a number of different aircraft types including the Eurostar and other microlights. The Eurostar is a delightful aircraft, very responsive, but for that reason and it's fragility I wouldn't choose it to instruct on. It's a lovely aircraft to move on to. Its gust penetration and crosswind limits are definitely factors to consider along with the fact it wasn't designed specifically as a trainer. The same is true for most other light aircraft that are currently available as "trainers".
Cessnas and Pipers are often dated and quite tatty - overheads and profit margins mean that cosmetics are sacrificed in order to make sure that the aircraft is fundamentally airworthy. But those same Cessnas and Pipers have taught generation after generation of pilots to fly, and survived it well. They were designed to do a job and do it well, and that is to teach people to fly. Additionally, maintenance is relatively easy to do. Hence their success and I would happily teach in them all day long and recommend them to anyone. I do wish schools would try to invest a little more on the cosmetics, however, since impressions do count for potential new students.
I've flown some more modern aircraft and while the kit can be very impressive, and for the business flyer or advanced pilot they are very nice, I am still not convinced as to their appropriateness as a trainer.
That said, it depends whether you want to learn to fly for fun or if you are hell bent on going for an airline job and have no interest in little aeroplanes except as a stepping stone. If that's the case, perhaps a DA40 would be worth considering.
Whatever you do, enjoy.
I personally dislike the PA28, but it's an honest enough trainer too. The view out isn't as good and it doesn't feel as nice to fly, in my opinion. But it does a reasonable job and I am perfectly happy to teach in it.
I have flown a number of different aircraft types including the Eurostar and other microlights. The Eurostar is a delightful aircraft, very responsive, but for that reason and it's fragility I wouldn't choose it to instruct on. It's a lovely aircraft to move on to. Its gust penetration and crosswind limits are definitely factors to consider along with the fact it wasn't designed specifically as a trainer. The same is true for most other light aircraft that are currently available as "trainers".
Cessnas and Pipers are often dated and quite tatty - overheads and profit margins mean that cosmetics are sacrificed in order to make sure that the aircraft is fundamentally airworthy. But those same Cessnas and Pipers have taught generation after generation of pilots to fly, and survived it well. They were designed to do a job and do it well, and that is to teach people to fly. Additionally, maintenance is relatively easy to do. Hence their success and I would happily teach in them all day long and recommend them to anyone. I do wish schools would try to invest a little more on the cosmetics, however, since impressions do count for potential new students.
I've flown some more modern aircraft and while the kit can be very impressive, and for the business flyer or advanced pilot they are very nice, I am still not convinced as to their appropriateness as a trainer.
That said, it depends whether you want to learn to fly for fun or if you are hell bent on going for an airline job and have no interest in little aeroplanes except as a stepping stone. If that's the case, perhaps a DA40 would be worth considering.
Whatever you do, enjoy.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Rod1 said
Well, yes, but the unpalatable truth is, -
spamcan = depreciation near zero
modern Tupperware.....we all agree they won't stand the pace , so, say 10,000 hours life.....divide into cost....
Add an extra £15 -or more to the hourly student rate
By the time you're all done and dusted, the PPL, done in a shiny newish (but tatty, chipped, frayed motheaten shed at ~7,000 hours!
)
is going to cost the punter another thousand quid, or more.
note...Ileft out the tupperware's residual value and fuel-saving,both of which will barely offset the higher patching and repair costs of the more fragile machine.
Much as the spamcans are derided, they've passed the test of time.
The plastic fantastics were never designed for the training role....sure, one could be built, robust enough for 20K hours of student punishment....go yo the top, read again, add about 50% to the extra cost figures....
old kit means the punter isn't preoccupied with the thought he/she may damage it...hence more brain capacity for learning!
If we keep trying to persuade people to part with £1000's to learn to fly in 1950's kit we are all doomed.
spamcan = depreciation near zero
modern Tupperware.....we all agree they won't stand the pace , so, say 10,000 hours life.....divide into cost....
Add an extra £15 -or more to the hourly student rate
By the time you're all done and dusted, the PPL, done in a shiny newish (but tatty, chipped, frayed motheaten shed at ~7,000 hours!
)is going to cost the punter another thousand quid, or more.
note...Ileft out the tupperware's residual value and fuel-saving,both of which will barely offset the higher patching and repair costs of the more fragile machine.
Much as the spamcans are derided, they've passed the test of time.
The plastic fantastics were never designed for the training role....sure, one could be built, robust enough for 20K hours of student punishment....go yo the top, read again, add about 50% to the extra cost figures....
old kit means the punter isn't preoccupied with the thought he/she may damage it...hence more brain capacity for learning!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The plastic fantastics were never designed for the training role"
I think almost all the aircraft mentioned above are metal.
If you want an example of a "modern Tupperware" aircraft designed for a training role then "The Diamond DA20 is a two-seat tricycle gear general aviation aircraft designed for flight training" would seem to prove you wrong.
"Add an extra £15 -or more to the hourly student rate"
The last time I looked I could hire a Eurostar cheaper than a C152 (both local to me).
Q What is the highest single cost in operating a training aircraft? A Fuel. We have 50 year old aircraft used in the training role because of product liability laws in the USA not because the 1950's aircraft are perfect and will never be bettered.
Rod1
I think almost all the aircraft mentioned above are metal.
If you want an example of a "modern Tupperware" aircraft designed for a training role then "The Diamond DA20 is a two-seat tricycle gear general aviation aircraft designed for flight training" would seem to prove you wrong.
"Add an extra £15 -or more to the hourly student rate"
The last time I looked I could hire a Eurostar cheaper than a C152 (both local to me).
Q What is the highest single cost in operating a training aircraft? A Fuel. We have 50 year old aircraft used in the training role because of product liability laws in the USA not because the 1950's aircraft are perfect and will never be bettered.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth lies somewhere between the opinions of Rod 1 and Cockeny Steve, I think that the composite aircraft have more than proved themselfs in the training role with the RAF, the Grob Tutor fleet has aircraft approaching 7000 hours without major structural issues.
It is the GA industry that is to blame for the composite is fragile myth because of the lack of understanding of the technology. I have seen a DA40 written off after a ground collision that could have been back in the air within weeks in the hands of a competent composite repair agency and another DA40 that was involved in a collision were the company disassembling the aircraft after the accident took a hacksaw to the main wing pin retaining locks, fortunately wiser people got hold of the aircraft before any further damage could be done and the aircraft is now back in the air.
Fuel is the real issue for flight training in Europe and the DA40 addresses this issue but the cost of the engine and avionics mitigate the fuel consumption.
What is needed is a simple robust basic trainer with a good intercom, modern radio and low fuel consumption, having seen 13,000 hour C152's with less structural issues than 300 hour SportCruser's I am a big fan of the C152 airframe but much less a fan of the engine, a re-engened 152 or even a FADEC controlled Lycoming would bring the fuel bill down to an acceptable level were the C152 would be more than a match for the less robust microlights in terms of overall operating cost.
It is the GA industry that is to blame for the composite is fragile myth because of the lack of understanding of the technology. I have seen a DA40 written off after a ground collision that could have been back in the air within weeks in the hands of a competent composite repair agency and another DA40 that was involved in a collision were the company disassembling the aircraft after the accident took a hacksaw to the main wing pin retaining locks, fortunately wiser people got hold of the aircraft before any further damage could be done and the aircraft is now back in the air.
Fuel is the real issue for flight training in Europe and the DA40 addresses this issue but the cost of the engine and avionics mitigate the fuel consumption.
What is needed is a simple robust basic trainer with a good intercom, modern radio and low fuel consumption, having seen 13,000 hour C152's with less structural issues than 300 hour SportCruser's I am a big fan of the C152 airframe but much less a fan of the engine, a re-engened 152 or even a FADEC controlled Lycoming would bring the fuel bill down to an acceptable level were the C152 would be more than a match for the less robust microlights in terms of overall operating cost.
What is needed is a simple robust basic trainer with a good intercom, modern radio and low fuel consumption,
It might be this? (With the C4 4-seater trailing behind).
FLIGHT DESIGN >> Product
I had a long talk with the (prospective?) UK importer at Popham and ran some numbers based upon what he gave me. Even with depreciation, a busy school could probably run it at about the same total cost as a C152.
I like the C152 as a training aeroplane, but I'd like to see progress happening !
G
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P&M are of course the CT agent in the UK .
The Flight Design target price of the C4 is an eye watering $250,000. So I don't think you will be seeing many on the training school fleet!
The Flight Design target price of the C4 is an eye watering $250,000. So I don't think you will be seeing many on the training school fleet!
P&M are of course the CT agent in the UK .
The price you quote is about 20% cheaper than a new C172, and the running costs should be lower also.
So basically we won't see many brand new aeroplanes on training school fleets - but we knew that already.
We also knew that 4 seaters are more expensive to run than 2 seaters - hence that most schools prefer the C152 over the C172.
So I still think that the CTMC may prove to be part of the future and looks to me that that, or other very similar aeroplanes, could provide a very good replacement to aging PA38s and C152s.
G
How about a J3 cub or a Jodel 112 with a rotax engine?
Simple, light, robust, and teaches pilots to make decent landings while being light on fuel consumption.
Hat, coat, door.
Simple, light, robust, and teaches pilots to make decent landings while being light on fuel consumption.
Hat, coat, door.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a J3 cub or a Jodel 112 with a rotax engine?
Simple, light, robust, and teaches pilots to make decent landings while being light on fuel consumption.
Simple, light, robust, and teaches pilots to make decent landings while being light on fuel consumption.
Zlin Aviation
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The smaller Jodels have been used for training for a long time, have stood the test of time and are in the same weight bracket as the CS-VLA's. Another example of weight not being the issue.
Rod1
Rod1
