The sportcruiser was never a very good aeroplane - Piper took it on board without properly assessing the airworthiness themselves, and eventually regretted it and dropped their association with it.

The Eurostar is a different beast - at-least in the UK it's had to go through the rigorous microlight airworthiness system which we have in Britain. Whilst it is complained about quite a lot, it does ensure pretty good aeroplanes. A lot of UK microlight schools are using the Eurostar pretty heavily without significant problems.

Is there a problem with the AT3? I've heard community scuttlebut about it not being a very good aeroplane, and the web shows a handful of accident reports which mostly seem to originate in mishandling - is there a real problem with it?

G

'The sportcruiser was never a very good aeroplane - Piper took it on board without properly assessing the airworthiness themselves, and eventually regretted it and dropped their association with it.'

Sorry Genghis but this is just rubbish.
The Piper/ Czech Sport Aircraft dissolvement was totally due to differences over marketing policy and strategy. Piper being unwilling to be pushed around by the over aggressive marketing tactics of Equity Bank backed CSA.

So you're saying that Piper did do a proper airworthiness evaluation of the aircraft and, for example, ensure it had a properly validated flight manual?

G

Shoestring
 

I have to agree with Genghis, the trail of broken landing gear legs, exhaust pipes and the loose and missing rivets in aircraft with less than 500 hours flight time tells the story better than Genghis or I could.

It is my guess that the UK CAA will make the latest SB from Sportcruiser an AD, if that happens the wings will have to come off most of the fleet to replace the loose rivets in the main landing gear support structure.

As for the Piper involvement it is my guess that the whole idea was driven by the marketing people to counter Cessna's Skycatcher, as soon as the engineers got a good look at the aircraft and got into sorting the over sensitivity in pitch it became apparent that the aircraft was not robust enough........... So wisely they backed out sighting "marketing differences" as the reason.

My guess is that Cessna also realised that an aircraft built down to this weight would never take the rough & tumble of flight training and dropped the Skycatcher for the very same reason.

The impression I have got from looking quite closely at that market over several years is that the reasons these two aeroplanes were dropped are quite different. Cessna worked hard to eventually create a good aeroplane (flight test accidents showing the effort put in rather thanan eventually poor aeroplane) but just got the cost and marketing completely wrong. Piper didn't put the effort that they should have into achieving a good aeroplane, buying an immature design off the shelf - and got their fingers burned over the sheer number of deficiencies it had - their business case, technically was far better than Cessnas.

If we had Cessna engineering, combined with Piper business strategies, there would be a good aeroplane on the market.

G

i think i will not agree on the concept that aircraft development reached its peak in 1955 when airplanes like the 152, the 172 and the PA28 were introduced.

i also tend to not agree on the assessment that a PS28 is not a good airplane because it wont last 12000 hours and 4 decades of service.

PS28's will probably last 4 or 5000 hours then will be replaced by more modern machines.

trust me i will never miss the crummy, stinky, tired spamcans that populate most GA clubs. there machines were obsolete 25 years ago and it is high time they will be recycled into coke cans.

reality is that in the GA community there is still a huge prejudice against ULM derived airplanes. but thats the future.

the youngest 152 around is almost 30 years old.... thats definitely the past.

The youngest 172 (with G1000) isn't quite that old however.

3 Axis Micros
 

Hi Amblikai,

I've been away for a week, so I am picking up on this thread at a late stage.

There is one question that should have been asked of you by other posters but which seems to have been missed. Are you intending to 'go professional' by getting an ATPL/CPL or are you learning to fly just for a pass-time/hobby?

If you are 'going professional' then clearly PPL is the only way to go. However if you are learning to fly purely for a hobby then I suggest you should at least take a look at the 3 axis microlight category of aircraft and the BMAA's pilot qualification. These aircraft are, however, non-aerobatic, so if that is what you intend to do then once again these aircraft will not suit you.

The 3 Axis category is in every way a cheaper to fly and the aircraft are modern and perform in some cases better than the Group A (PPL) category. The only limitation is weight, so if you weigh 20 stone then clearly this category is not right for you.

As an excellent training 3 axis type I would recommend the 'Ikarus' which performs better than a C152 (and has a good strong undercarriage) and after training there are numerous very good types operated by groups that you might buy into depending what is available to you locally.

Good luck!

BP.

the 172 was introduced in 1956

i dont think that fitting a modern and expensive stereo to a car like this will make it attractive to a 2014 buyer

http://worldcarslist.com/images/chev...r-wagon-03.jpg

Amblikai, flying can be incredibly conservative and that is reflected in the advice you are getting. Let me try to give you some facts as I see them;

In microlight flying there are aircraft which serve as 3 axis trainers which are lighter than any of the ones you are looking at. The Eurostar for example has been used as a trainer for many years on unlicensed strips and the schools have not gone bust - they have thrived. The syllabus for a micro PPL is almost identical that for a "group a" ppl.

Most of the "modern" group a trainers in use in the UK are cleared under CS-VLA. That is up to 750kg. The good old C150 is in this weight bracket and has been around for quite some time...

The problem is not that an aircraft is built down to a weight (see Eurostar example above) but that it is built down to a cost. Some of the new aircraft have not done well and the kit built SC has a poor record.

Rod1

Regarding the picture of the 1956 Chevy.

I would buy that car over any car today, whether it had a stereo radio installed or just an AM radio.

A brand new piper warrior would be my first choice for a brand new student.

the 152 is really pretty small, shoulder to shoulder would be fine with a cute girl, but not two big guys!

Look at it the other way round.
If you were learning to drive and could go to a school at £30 a lesson on a 1980 car or a brand new one at £40 a lesson wich would you choose? I think most would accept the older car as long as the maintenance was ok. This is actually where we are.:8

'The syllabus for a microlight PPL is almost identical that for a "group a" ppl.'

The syllabus may be in some parts similar but it is a long way from being identical. The flying hours and syllabus in gaining a microlight licence is only 25hours with also much reduced ground school syllabus.

Shoestring Flyer, there are significant numbers of Eurostars teaching UK pilots to fly, mostly from unlicensed strips. Please explain how the difference in syllabus has such a huge difference in airframe life? The Eurostars fly about the same number of hours per year, about the same number of circuits etc etc...

I would much rather fly a Eurostar than a 150 and the Eurostar is cheaper to operate. My own aircraft (MCR1) has an empty weight of 253 kg, it is now 8 years old and I have flown it all over Europe - number of weight related issues, ZERO.

Rod1

Keh!........
Rod, I was merely pointing out that your statement that the micro syllabus was identical to the Group 'A' PPL wasn't correct...they were your words not mine!

I guess many people would buy a 1956 Caddy or Chevy, if it would be built nowadays. Actually, I just bought a brand new car and its construction was introduced in 1948. I would also go for the Cessna JT-A, if I had the money to buy new.

as long as you are aware of the fact that a car like that would use a LOT of gas, and in case of accident with a modern car, you have a set of very good saints looking after you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

a local school uses morane Saulnier Rallye's and has now bought a PS28

PS28 is about 20% more expensive.

i flew both. the MS are very well maintained however they stink, have a very poor panel, very crappy performances and use a lot more gas. flying them is uncomfy, tiring and annoying. the intercom is so crap and the a/c so noisy that communication with the other guy is very difficult. they vibrate. yesm they fly, but it is not pleasant at all.



the PS28 has a moder panel (dynons), is quieter, has excellent radios and intercoms, doesnt stink. i can actually see outside. even with a fixed pitch prop, performances are miles ahead of the rallye. it has 6 hours endurance.
and btw, it has recovery parachute.


most students of the school now take the PS28.

i really dont see why when i go from my microlight to a GA plane is like going back in time 40 years. performancewise, sometimes 100 years.

is high time that the fleet of dynosaurs populating schools and clubs is upgraded to something more modern, comfy, faster, cheaper. doesnt have to be a PS28, there are excellent alternatives around.

depending on the country, syllabus is virtually identical,

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.

when i learned to fly back in the 80es, on ML of course, i soloed after 4 hours. course was 8 hours. we all survived. all the rest is just theory and doesnt need dozens of hours of expensive flight time.

i have my own ML and i have been a bit everywhere in europe, with around 700 hours.

2 years ago i decided to take a PPL, just to have a recognized international license.

why do i need to spend several thousands euro just cruising around with an instructor that himself declared has nothing to teach me?

i know it doesnt work like this everywhere, but in italy for instance, a ML pilot with 3000 hours still needs to log 45 (and pay) hours to get a ppl.

The point I was making was that the syllabus IS IDENTICAL as far as wear and tear on the aircraft is concerned. :ugh:

Experience of he Eurostar and other similar aircraft is that it is possible to build a robust trainer down to a very light weight but you need a good design and the airframe may cost more to make. This is easily countered by the improvement in fuel economy. The 150 comes in below the CS-VLA weight anyway so many of these aircraft are not that much of a step from 1955 if you only consider weight. The SC has, in the UK, had a lot of issues, but one iffy design does not make the design code a bad choice.

Rod1

"The point I was making was that the syllabus IS IDENTICAL as far as wear and tear on the aircraft is concerned"

i agree

moreover, a lighter craft will generate lower wear and tear. my ML, which is a 3 axis with decent performance, weights 304kg excluding fuel.

the fuselage is a steel construction. the legs of the landing gear cost 200 euro and they are very hard to bend, really need a crash rather than a hard landing.

so i think it is a fallacy that a trainer must be heavy in order to last. it must be well designed. in fact a lighter trainer, if properly designed, will be even sturdier than a C152, and will be cheaper. if exotic materials are avoided, less weight equal less costs.

in italy there are many P92 with well over 4000 hours of school on them, and they are still in perfect condition.

The flight school I teach at part time decided to standardize the fleet with C172,s. They just sold the last 2 C 152's to another flight school. One had 19,000+ hrs the other 22,000+ hrs and with good paint and interior looked just as good as any other flight school C 152.

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.

""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

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!

Have you seen the sort of cars that people learn to drive in? The crappiest, cheapest box on wheels the driving school will trust them with.


We really are doomed if we expect the main student demographic (middle-aged men) to solo in 8-10 hours and if we regard 45 hours as too little to learn how to control the aircraft, understand it's workings, communicate with ATSOs, safely plan flights, understand how we may make mistakes, handle emergencies, know operational procedures and enough air law to keep us safe. There are plenty of pilots out there who have passed at 45 hours+ and still bust airspace, lose control, carry out CFITs, kill their passengers etc. etc.

I've noticed the value of 1950s cars (actually almost anything before the design by government era, pre-1972 or so) is going up at a very, very steep rate. There's a reason for that - because they are better for people who buy them as a lasting investment, for their weekend enjoyment. There's a good analogy to aviation, I think, minus the price appreciation. I call that a gift ;)

Chasing disposable designs is a costly disease in life generally, but one that some have looked at closely and decided not to catch.

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.

@ 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 :eek:

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!

"The plastic fantastics were never designed for the training role"

I think almost all the aircraft mentioned above are metal.:ugh:

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.:rolleyes:

"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). :ok:

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

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.

A group A C42 and/or Eurostar in other words.

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

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!

Not the sole player now - Deepak Mahajan seems to have got engaged as the new dealer, with P&M still behind the airworthiness.

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.

Kinda like the Savage Cub

Zlin Aviation

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