I think the idea was partly that the airspace was a bit busier here than where I trained... So the 2-3 hours was partly to familiarise myself with the 152 and partly to ensure I didn't overfly Gatwick.

152 a rocket ship ?
 

I can only think that taking 2-3 hours to convert a competent PPL holder who flys a PA28 is financially driven............. By the club or by instructors.

Tecnam all the way
 

I may be a little subjective here but you won't regret completing your training in a Tecnam. I have quite a few hours in one of them after my PPL and loved it. Considering all of my training was done in PA28s. You have to fly more precisely in the tecnam as the controls are very sensitive. It costs considerably less than most trainers/self fly hire machines out there. It looks better as well :)

Or because the pilot's skills have slipped so much that they need a couple of hours to sort them out before the club instructor is prepared for them to fly anything!

G

No... If that were the case they could have said 'we can't give you a figure... We'll need to take you up in the air and then judge'. The 2-3 hours was a ballpark figure.

When I first called, I had just gotten my PPL so I hadn't yet had time to de-skill. It's now 3 months since I got my licence and I haven't yet gone solo again, partly due to the slowness of the CAA and partly because the checking-out process has been protracted. Though I haven't yet got to the 3 hour mark.

I also fly out of Newtownards (assuming as posted by Cows Getting Bigger that that is where the OP is flying from) and had a first outing in the P2002 last Friday (having trained in the C172SP and subsequently flown the PA28 and - briefly - the C152).
There are cetainly differences, as already mentioned the controls are more sensitive. That once you've got used to the stick (if you are used to flying an aircraft with a yoke). Trim is electric only. It appears much more "nose down" when flying S&L, in fact for any flight attitude, so there are new 'pictures' to be learned. Also look out for the throttle friction lock which when loosened defaults to FULL throttle unless you hold it back :}. Performance is good considering only 98bhp (and it's in the order of £30 less to hire than a C172).
Aside from all that it was a load of fun :ok:.
All first impressions of course.
As for conversion time, well I spent an hour on GH (including steep turns & stalls) as well as general familiarisation. Instructor reckons another hour concentrating on circuit-bashing should be sufficient to get signed off for solo hire.

Yeah 2 hours is very reasonable. Our CFI did 2 hours with me in the tecnam before letting me loose.

Point to make with the rudder control on take off: you need lots of right foot when using full power and if you have a crosswind from the left you'll notice it very much. The nose is just happy to go left.

Got about 600 hrs. in the Tecnam GOLF P-96 ( low wing, Cherokee look-alike) now, and agree with most comments, lots of right rudder with high power settings and the throttle tension is not exactly the best design, but all Rotax 912 engines have a spring system that increase power if you let it go of the throttle with slack tension.

Also fly an ALPI that has a central throttle and a 'proper' throttle tension device of the knurled nut type around the base of the throttle spindle, I slacken it off for better control on finals, then as I retard the throttle for landing use the middle finger to apply a little clockwise tension to stop the throttle advancing as I let go to go for the handbrake, but you can't do that with the Tecnams' notchy device. Can only have been designed by .. OOps, can't say that !

Big difference is lack of weight i.e. inertia, the minute you reduce throttle over the threshold you sink, can't pull the power off and use the inertia to grease it on, has to be flown on with a trickle of power

The lack of footbrakes -v - a handbrake takes a bit of getting used to -tho' I think later models of Tecnams have changed - and I still find myself going for the feet, sometimes need three hands to manage stick, throttle and brake lever, too.

Apart from that the Tecnam knocks spots off a C-152 - no comparison, and its' FUN !!

“and its' FUN !!”
Most of the new breed of aircraft seem to be more fun.

Rod1

From an owner of both types...
 

Hi there

I've owned and flown a number of C15x aircraft over 25 years of flying. Last year I bought a 2002JF. Both aircraft are excellent trainers and reward the meticulous pilot with a great flying experience. I would say that the main differences flow from the JF being lighter than the 152, although the JF's newer design shines through as well. The Tecnam certainly hops around more in gusty consditions but, with good technique, is an easy aircraft to master. Its performance is excellent, even in the hot WA summers. It's a delightful aircraft to fly

The C152 is a heavier and tougher aircraft. The more marginal performance is itself something of an advantage in learning good STOL and related techniques. It's not as hot as the Tecnam in the WA sun but, after flying the JF, hopping into a Cessna is positively claustrophobic. Without LR tanks the range of a 152 is also a bit of an issue in our part of the world.

I would suggest you move over to the JF, and I doubt very much if the transition would be a big deal. One general comment I'd make is that I think the safety margins of the lighter JF deserve respect: fly it by the book and recognize that you'll occasionally leave it in the hangar on days you might have headed out in a 152/172. I do think that if you take the time to master the JF, you will end up a better stick-and-rudder pilot.

All the best, and good luck.

I Agree, sometimes the flying can over take the exams!! :=

Don't forget the constant 'look under the wing first'.... part of the C152 to low wing conversion.

We've got 3 C152s on my club fleet and a new Tecnam. Although I haven't flown it yet I'm told it flies almost as nice as the Aquila that I have about 30hrs in although sitting in it isn't as comfortable. But even that surpasses the Cessna. But given a C152 and a Eurostar microlight I'd take the Eurostar any day even though it adds nothing to my licence than fun.

But you can't do IMC in any of the options except the Cessna so chose wisely!

In ten years time this thread will still be running with people slagging off the C152 and telling us about the virtues of the latest small aircraft that is about to take over the training industry.

The C152 is a very safe, robust and economic aircraft and for the PPL training mission it has yet to be bettered.

It would be better if they still made them though.

Sadly I'm with A&C here. One of the few places that offer training in both types the Cessna 152 10 quid an hour cheaper. And thats with AVGAS prices running at well over two quid an hour.

Until a LSA brings cheaper flying the C150/2 will go on and on

Cost balance
 

The C150 is almost dead as a training aircraft because the maintenance costs are increasing with age, the C152 had most of the major maintenance issues that the C150 sorted out and so continues to bring lower maintenance costs than the C150.

The cost of fuel is the big issue with the C152, it should be burning about 25 LTS/ hour so that is roughly £50/ flying hour, about £30 should cover insurance and maintenance so that leaves enough if the aircraft is charged out at £120-130 to cover the airfield charges and make a living wage.

The big problem for the new aircraft is that the insurance is going to be at least double ( and that is assuming a sorted C152 with a hull value of £32K) it could be trebble if the C152 is a £17K dog ! Add to this the cost of a new £80K aircraft and you can see that the numbers are still stacking up in favour of the C152 inspite of the cost of AVGAS.

It is difficult to predict the cost of maintenance that the new aircraft will need in the next few years, I suspect that this will go up alarmingly with some types, the tecnam seems to be one of the better built of the newer aircraft so I don't see the costs climbing too far with that type.

So in conclusion I would predict that for the forseeable future the C152 will continue to be the PPL trainer of choice.

Tecnam 2002
 

Does anybody have any real world figures for the Tecnam.

TAS, power settings, LPH.

Anything else I might want to hear nor not want hear.

I have just started reading the maintainence manual and have not found anything alarming as yet, do they have any big lifed parts or tasks I have not yet found.

Thanks.

I have about 300h of fun in P96 and P2002. Both are very similar in performance.
With the standard factory propeller expect IAS around 100 kts at 4900 rpm and burning around 17 litres per hour. These figures can be improved installing a constant speed prop.

At 75% a 100hp Rotax will burn 18.5lph, and this normally coincides with 5000rpm so looking at the numbers above you could choose to go a bit quicker if you wanted to stick at 75% which works well on the Rotax. Provided you do not run them on 100LL more than 30% of the time the engine maintenance will not be an issue. If you are planning on running on 100LL more than that then you ½ all the maintenance periodicity which will bring gearbox work into play as well as introducing a 50 hour oil and filter change.

Rod1

Thanks! Sounds great if you can run on Mogas except in times of need.

Tecnam Golf
 

I flew a 152 for a few hours many years ago from Compton Abbas and I have lots of time in 172/182s. I wouldn't choose to fly a 152 unless I had no other choice. The 172 is great for flying with up to three passengers and a few bags. The 182 is my choice for "fill 'er up" and go somewhere.

Like ExSp33db1rd, I've been flying a Tecnam Golf in NZ. A lovely aircraft and a lot of fun. A few quirks, which a good instructor can sort out in one flight. I've heard comments from people that it is a bit "fragile", but I think if you handle it properly and don't slam it onto the runway, it should be no problem. BTW, the comments were from people who possibly had a vested interest in the 152-side of the argument. :E

Loads of fun, cheap to operate and a great view.

If I showed up at an airfield and was given a choice of a 152 or a Tecnam, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the Tecnam. I'm seriously considering a share in a Golf when I retire, although I'm also keen to see Tecnam's new tail-dragger.