C152 vs Tecnam 2002
 

Hi all, I've been a regular non-posting visitor to this site for many years. I've never had any reason to post anything because there is so much good info on here already.

I was looking for some opinions...which would you prefer to learn in, a C152 or a Tecnam 2002JF? I'm about half way in my PPL training (25 hours) 90% of which has been in a C152.

The school recently got rid of the C152 and replaced it with Tecnams. I live a similar distance to another school with a C152, but the hourly rate is £25 more than the new Tecnams in my current school.

Has anyone flown both these aircraft and care to comment on which is a better trainer (if either)?

I had been considering moving to the school woth the C152.....But would I be mental to pay £25 an hour more for an aeroplane that is 34 years older than the new Tecnams?

stay where you are
 

I have experience on P2002 a C152 - even I admit a limited experience. I see no reason why you would switch school to get a chance to pay more. P2002 has better performance than 152 and unless you are pretty high (head room) you would be really comfortable in Tecnam. The biggest issue and difference is braking - brakes for Tecnam are operated by a level between seats, not by pedals. So it will take some to establish "hand operating system". Stay with Tecnam and enjoy flying a new airplane with a chance to look around - not to hind underneath the wing.

If your ultimate goals is to fly an humble two-seater, the Tecnam will be quite ok. AIUI, the C152 was conceived as a generic PPL trainer, it might be better suited if you intend to get into serious travelling, which would involve a 4-seater and likely something more than strict VFR.

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif This seems like sound advice. I should have said in my opening post however that I have flown for around 30 minutes in the Tecnam around 2 months ago....and I did enjoy it. It did seem noticeable lighter than the C152.

I'm fairly sure the brakes were similar to the C152, as in tops of the rudder pedals...maybe it's a slightly different model than the one you have flown in? :rolleyes:

This is a good point; I fully intend to fly four seater's once I have finished training - taking family and friends for 'bimbles' and what have you....and I'd never rule out IMC rating or night flying later on. My current school have capable 4 seaters, which might another reason to stay.

the transfer to 4 seaters is not an issue.


And personally i would pay 25/hour not to sit in a C152.

Thanks justmaybe. 'Microlighty' is a good way to describe it; although in fairness I enjoyed it, albeit a short experience and over 2 months ago...relieving myself of an extra £600 is probably just foolish.....especially since I haven't properly given the Tecnams a chance :suspect:

Haha, fair enough :D

Does the school offer you any financial incentive to stay with them?
How much more do they charge for the Tecnam then for the 152?
Did they offer you to finish on the Tecnam for the "old" 152 price?
I have about 10 hrs in a Tecnam, somewhat enjoyable but "jittery" compared to the slo-mo 152.
You will definitely need some transition time so it might be a wash depending on what they charge for the Tecnam vs the gold plated 152 the other place is using.

Example; Tecnam is 100 and the 152 is 125.
You need 5 hrs in the Tecnam to transition and become equally proficient as you were in the 152.
Cost is 500.
You move to the other school and need another 20 hrs to finish your PPL, the extra cost is now a wash.

The P2002-JF initially was only offered with the single brake lever between the seats. For the last few years, an option is to have pedal operated 'toe' brakes.

Another option is for a single throttle in a quadrant in the centre of the instrument panel. The 'standard' fit is two plunger type throttles a la Robin or Rallye.

I have 300hrs or so in C152s and 20 hrs in a P2002-JF. I'd take the Tecnam every time. Our instructors feel it is a superior trainer in that you have to use the rudder a bit and fly the aircraft - more like a PA38 than a C152 or Warrior.

Visibility is superb in the Tecnam compared to the C152 and the Rotax is a delight to fly behind.

For the operator, it is certified to run on Mogas (including flying training in the UK - there is no difference in fuel spec contrary to the rumours) and burns 4 or 5 lits of fuel less an hour than the C152's Lycoming.

Interesting perspective B2N2. I was rather hoping that the transition period would be a bit less than 5 hours to cross over to the Tecnam. I did 3/4 circuits, stalls and a glide approach (worked well) during my 30 minute flight in the Tecnam, and was hoping that a few more circuits with an instructor and some PFLs on the way back from up-coming navex's would absorb the transition period somewhat. At least that's what I would hope for if I stay where I am. :rolleyes:

My current school have the toe brakes and the single quadrant in the centre - I actually really liked the airliner-esque feel to that.

Also with my limited experience I do recall having to give it plenty of right rudder pressure climbing out....I suppose that can only be a good thing, i.e. 'proper' stick and rudder flying at these early stages of training.

Depends on the person in how long it takes to transfer - and getting used to flying different aircraft will enable you to become more of a pilot and less of an operator of a single type of machine.
I'm in the middle of my PPL and I'm now on my third type of plane. I've probably spent (I could say wasted but I don't think its a waste of time) around 3 hours total moving from one to the other - and I was landing each one straight away. But it does also depend on how you've been taught. I've been taught in a generic non-plane specific way, with a number of key mnemonics rather than plane specific checklists. I just skip out setting the variable pitch prop when I'm in a PA28...

If you have the opportunity to try different types - I say go for it.

Hey MJ, I've got a 150 (with leather seats!) How many hours can I sell you not sitting in it?;)

(I'm happy to offer block time not sitting in deals too!)

What you fly is much less important than who you fly with. The most important consideration when deciding where to learn to fly is the quality of the instruction. My experience is the per hour cost of the aircraft has the least effect on the total cost of a license.

The quality of the instruction, the extent of ground delays, the distance to the practice area, cost of landing fees, the servicability of the aircraft, the organizational competence of the school and how much work you put in preparing for every flight will determine how much your license costs. Unless the per hour cost is grossly disproportionate the more expensive aircraft will not in itself, have a huge impact on total training costs

B2N2
You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!

You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.

Pace

An aircraft conversion will be "simple" for you but for a ab intio pilot transitioning to type with very different flying characteristics could IMO take up to 5 hours.

When I worked as a full time instructor the school had 5 C 152's and 1 C 150 Aerobat. The general rule was to not book presolo students who had been flying the C 152 on the C 150. The cowl design is different ( C 150 the cowl slopes down, C 152 the top of the cowl is flat) and so the "look" of the level flight/climb/turn attitude is a bit different. If you took a presolo C 152 student on the C 150 you wasted the first 30 minutes teaching them the new sight picture.

Until you have actually taught ab intio it is hard to appreciate how quite simple small changes can initially discombobulate a new student. The difference in the flap control between the C 150 and C 152 is a good example

I personally don't think it will be the case that the time it takes me to get used to the new aeroplane will make up for the extra cost of the C152 at the other place. As I mentioned before I have flown for 30 minutes, and covered stalls, 2 normal approaches and 1 glide approach which all went well, a couple more circuits and PFLs during dual navex's should see me ready to fly solo in the Tecnam. That's speculation on my part but I got the impression from my instructor that this should be the case following our brief introductory flight.

As for this, I do get bounced around between instructors fairly regularly...only once have I ever 'disliked' one; I found both his style of teaching and attitude to be flawed, and at one point I was ready to tell him to take me straight back to the airfield :oh: So far I feel like having various instructors hasn't held me back...except that once in a while I want to hear one telling me to get a move on with the ground exams. :O

:D it should be a reflex with instructors to nag every student they see about the ground exams.

I fly both the p2002 and c152 regularly and as with many of the guys above would choose the p2002 every time. As someone quite rightly points out there will be some element of transition however this should stand you in good ground once you get your PPL – I can’t imagine you’ll be wanting to fly a c152 for ever.

The 30 seconds exposure taken to walk past one is more than enough for most people.

And DAR as much as I would love to take you up on your offer of not sitting in the only none smelly best cared for C150 in the world I will have to go and sit in something which comes with another engine as standard and I get payed to sit in that one as well. :p

Not if you want to do it right that is.
I have flown the Tecnam with 9 students/customers with various degrees of experience.
I would have signed off only two of them for solo rental after one (45min-1 hr) flight. One is a 10K hr Airline pilot the other has 600 hrs of which 200 hrs Pitts.
One student I flew with i would have soloed in the thing with another hr of instruction. He had 27 hrs and just soloed on a DA-20.
The remaining six would have needed anywhere between an additional 3-6 flights prior to solo rental. And yes these 6 are all rated "pilots" with either a PPL or PPL+ IR.
One of them got me in a spin entry after a botched panicky stall recovery.
The Tecnam is NOT a benign aircraft like the C150-152 series. It has light "twitchy" controls and drops a wing with very litle provocation.
It has very little enertia due to its low weight so speed is lost very rapidly in steep turns when distracted. Same applies for landings and go-arounds.
Despite the fact that it looks like a toy aircraft it is perfectly capable of killing you.
I have spoken at lenght with a rep from the insurance company, his verdict:
people that do a 1hr check-out we will hear from garanteed, people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
So I was being kind with 5 hrs.

True words......

B2N2

Was not sure what you meant by that quote until I read " In a good sense ":E
What is this Tecnam a space shuttle?

You can do a multi engine rating for half that time so am I missing something ;)

I am sure while it maybe light or even twitchy 12 to 15 hrs is ridiculous.

Maybe I come from the old school where you were thrown a set of keys to a complex single and told "take that"! on an aircraft you had never flown before and expected to get on with it! And yes flying different singles raw was common to me.

Of course it suits the hirer to sell you 10 plus hours on a so called requirement ?!? not our fault gov caugh up!!!

Pace

they actually look a half decent trainer if they will stall properly.

The nose gear looks beefy enough, sprung gear, only issue would be the rotrax engine. Which for some in the UK would be an issue.

how does it compare to the tommy?

Here in JAA/EASA land CPL training consists (among other things) of 5 hours in a "complex" single (4 seats, VP prop, RG), after which you should be able to pass a CPL skill test in the same aircraft. The usual standard to pass the checkout for renting an aircraft is that pilot is able to safely fly and operate the aircraft he's renting, where a CPL skill test requires certain degree of proficiency - not just safe flying. And if one can fly a "complex" aircraft proficiently after 5 hours of training, I don't see the reason why transition from one simple (well, relatively speaking) to another simple non-complex SEP should last more than that. One could even get MEP after 6 hours of training without previous experience on "complex" singles...

I've never flown the P2002, but if I ever do - I'll really check what all that fuss is about. If people can solo (ab-initio) Tommy in 10 hours, why would conversion to a quite similar type take even longer than that? And we aren't talking about some fast high-workload turboprop, just the usual spamcan with its own tricks. Maybe you can talk EASA into requiring a differences training for P2002 if it's that different from the usual SEP spamcan (like the one you need for RG, VP, EFIS, SLPC, ...), in case proposition for type-rating requirement for P2002 wouldn't go through.

I've flown the P2002JF a couple of times. It is a thoroughly pleasant aircraft with no real vices. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that our OP is talking about the new Tecnams at Newtonards. Considering the fact that the club used to do the vast majority of their PPL training on 172SPs, the Tecnam is by far a better aircraft for ab-initio students to learn on. I will also stick my neck out and, having looked at the Ulster Flying Club website, I note that a student has recently solo'd after a total of 8hrs on the 152 and only 3hrs more on the Tecnam. Unless someone wishes to accuse the instructor of being reckless, I would suggest that this is evidence enough that the Tecnam is a very good aircraft for student training.

Paraphrasing Pace's thoughts - it is a simple single engined aircraft. Sometimes we try to complicate things that don't need complicating.

I have over 400 hours instructing on tecnams from a 400m tarmac strip, before that we had rallyes. I think they are great training aircraft and would highly recommend them

A few students and PPLs found the transition a bit of a challenge but the majority were cleared in about 3 hours

My advice - GO FOR THE TECNAM !!

J'ACCUSE......
What's up with this hang'em high attitude around here.
I quoted (ver batim) an agent from our insurance company.
He said (and I will repeat for those who are hard of reading);" ..those who chose to do a 12-15 hrs transition course we (as an insurance damage adjuster) never hear from again..."
As in those who feel that 1 hrs is enough they sooner or later roll a Light Sport/Ultralight/Microlight into a ball.

Not my words..HIS.

Before we get into the whole FAA vs JAA debate (FAA training is better hands down) I had a chuckle reading this:
Air Accidents Investigation: December 2011
My side of the pond equally sobering:
The Light-Sport Safety Record - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com
http://www.eaa72.org/announcement_fi...SATri-fold.pdf

No surprise, the majority are not even "complex, "real" airplanes but "simple" spamcans like ultra light, micro light, light sport or whatever the flavor of the day is for these "are not a space shuttle". Apparently they are hard enough to keep the pointy bit in front and the oily side down.
Most of you are no astronaut or Chuck Yeager material either that's for sure.

Source: Light-Sport Chronicles: CSI Insurance: Excogitations On LSA Crashes, Part 1 - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com

*** Drinks at the bar will be accepted in lieu of formal apologies ***

Aye

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...ml#post6993918

You get good and bad instructors with both systems and also useless knobs that can't fly aircraft as well.

As for the LSA types I am really not suprised, you just have to look at the amount of metal involved with the landing gear on alot of them and its a matter of when not if an accident will happen.

As for the amount of time to cross over. Well its not set in stone. If the pilot has been taught to fly properly in the first place there won't be much of an issue. If they have got through so far by the skin of thier teeth and the fact that the cessna is such a docile wet fish of an aircraft they are going to struggle going to something that needs to be flown poperly or even semi properly.

Saying that I can quite believe that the insurance companys will see a difference. 10-15 hours is enough to cover exercises 1-14 again funny that.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...TE%2004-10.pdf

So this was a nose-gear related incident 5 months after it was replaced.

No, read the full report and don't just quote a few select sentences from the student pilot. To me, this is a loss of control due to incorrect pilot technique. Abandoning one method of directional control before the other becomes effective is just asking for trouble.

Interestingly, this isn't the only loss of control on take-off at Old Sarum. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EP%2003-09.pdf

One might wish to take a look at what is being taught rather than immediately zeroing-in on the aircraft.

I know, that's not my point....two nose gear assemblies in 5 months is.
The nose gear assembly is weak, the DEALER told us specifically to tell students not to turn and brake at the same time.:ugh:
Also 7 hrs on type.

@CAVOK2012.

You refer to "the C152" (singular) at the other place, and "the Tecnams" (plural) at the current place. Perhaps aircraft availability might be better where you are? 50H checks, tech issues, other calls on that single aircraft mean you are fighting more than the weather while trying to stay current.

Similarly, when comparing places, how much of the flying time will be spent going to/from a training area, stuck at the hold, etc? Will the airfield be shut for most of the winter?

Less currency means more hours to PPL, ie extra cost. In my limited experience of PPL costs, the cost per hour has a smaller impact than total hours flown*.

-----
*You could argue that those extra hours are not ultimately wasted, but I suspect few PPL students put much faith in that!

The club I fly with uses Tecnams for ab-initio. Out of the fleet of three not a single one has had issues with nose-gear failure, and they see pretty intensive use on a grass runway.

I am not an expert in the US system but my understanding of the US LSA system was that you have an aircraft design code allowing up to 600kg, a reduced licence requirement and a reduced medical. In the UK the US LSA design code is not used, we do not have a reduced licence equivalent to the LSA licence. In Europe we do have a VLA design code – CS-VLA – which allows up to 750kg. A C150 is 730kg, and would probably pass CS-VLA. Using US LSA accident data to criticise European VLA’s is totally flawed. Many US LSA aircraft have been modified to pass CS-VLA and are sold under the same name as used the US. One of the arrears often modified is the landing gear.

My own personal transition to my aircraft – which was tested to CS-VLA – took about 30min. Six years later I have not rolled her into a ball, had nose gear failure or any sort of accident or incident at all. There are at least 8 “VLA” aircraft at my strip, and non-have had an incident. This is operating off an licenced grass strip.

From the factory web site;

The P2002 (JAR/VLA) is the factory produced certified aircraft and the P2002 SIERRA (LAA permit VLA kit) represent the latest development of the Tecnam P96 Golf resulting from on-going improvements and the experience gathered from hundreds of aircraft and prolonged use over many years operating in a wide variety of conditions.

Rod1

As a slight digression, I've been told as a new PPL that it would be likely to take over 10 hours to transition to the C42 - again insurance-driven.

I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.

That sounds about right.

Approx 1H flying, and 1-2H working out how to climb in and out of it.:*

Reminds me of the joke about the guy standing at an airport with a potential girlfriend admiring a Military Hercules coming into land.

The potential girlfriend asked the guy what he flew?

Raising his RayBans he looked at her at pointed at the aircraft.
" See that its a C130 I fly a C150" :)

Pace

To the original poster, despite the fact that I am a staunch supporter of the honest C152 as a trainer (much better than a PA28, imo), I would definitely recommend giving the Tecnams a go.

As for conversion times, how does that work for single seaters? There's no dual time at all...

Why? Took me 40 minutes worth of ccts and GH. The thing is virtually uncrashable anyway, I reckon you would have to be pretty determined to balls up in a 152. Although before the links to 7 squillion accident reports for 152's get posted I do know that people achieve the near impossible and total them.