Chuck - I think the reason is that, in the UK, most people training are as broke as a rat in Baghdad. Many have to save up for each lesson, and can't have the next one until they have saved up for the next one.

10540, actually I was referring to Canada with regard to overloading the C150/2's in flight training schools.

I have this funny streak in me that requires me to abide by the rules where possible...especially one as cut and dried as all up weight in small bug smashers.

I am of the opinion that if I bend or break one rule or regulation because it will save me some money or time I then leave myself open to pushing the envelope even further, so I try and stick to the rules.

However that is only my way of doing things, what mystifies me is how flight instructors can teach something and knowingly be outside something as basic as all up weight on a small training airplane.

And then of course we have the regulator who licenses these schools and instructors, are the regulators so dense they can't notice these infractions?

Ohhh wait a minute, the regulator is happy because the paper work says it was legal...stupid me. :ugh:

F3G,

Yes, we agree, old and tired are two different factors, and one is much more likely to affect performance than the other. Old is easily tolerated, and often very sought after. Tired should be tolerated in only very minor amounts. That thin prop, should be replaced, those retarded mags should be retimed, or overhauled, those low cylinders should be replaced, the dented wing really should be properly repaired, (or covered with a STOL kit! That will show you certain performance improvements, and a great safety improvement, though give up spins). Like nearly every machine ever created to perform a task, an aircraft is a consumable. It can be consumed quickly, or slowly. If you're willing to expect a little less performance, you might be able to consume it a little more before you start overhauling and replacing. But, you are still putting away the reserves right?

The aforementioned C207 was approaced by a mechanic, who, from 20 feet away said: "what a piece of junk!" This conclusion was based on really poor paint. I asked him what the defects were, and the only one he could come up with was poor paint, and worn upholstery. It performed well, but he did not know that, he judged an old, tired piece of junk based upon appearance at a distance.

If you're not willing to pay for an aircraft which is well maintained, why are you complaining about poor performance. You get what you pay for...

Pilot DAR

Pilot DAR

You are right paint can be a misleading indicator of aircraft condition , although in my experience, more often than not the airplanes that looked like a piece of junk,were junk:hmm:. I use two indicators for making snap judgements on aircraft. The condition of the windows and the condition of the aircraft belly. If the windows are not hazy,cracked, or crazed, and the belly is clean than even if the airplane looks a bit sad, it is probably well looked after.:ok:

I remember reading in the Jeremy Pratt books that you should check the fire extinguisher & medical box. If they are there and serviced then the aircraft is probably well looked after. From my brief experience of flying a limited set of different aircraft it seems to hold somewhat true.

I certainly agree that those four details are the type of things which would indicate the degree of care of the aircraft very well, if a quick clue is what is needed...

Pilot DAR