Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Dave Phillips
#1560602
I just know of a club that decided to buy a couple of apparently great C152 bargains in the USA. By the time they had shipped, torn down engines, repaired faults that 'weren't there', put on the CAA register etc etc, it cost the club about £100k/airframe.

For sure, abysmal oversight - although there was a Shropshire Club which did something similar to the value of £70K a decade or so back.

Sometimes these antiques aren't so cheap to operate; people just lose sight of the costs as they trickle through.
User avatar
By Wide-Body
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560981
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
Wide-Body wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:It 's Tecnam, no H. Goddammit. :)

PS. There are loads of new aircraft that people can learn to fly. One of the major problems is the Group A mentality that believes the only way to learn is in a 750kg C152 clone. From my shopping list of reliable contenders for training:

Tecnam - 2002, 92 etc
AT-3
C42
Eurofox
EV97 - various
etc etc


Now put them at Walthams runways. They will last 24 months in the training environment.

Whilst the light option i al sure will work in places they are not the panacea. Otherwise all the C150 and PA 28 trainers would be scrapped.

Now I am hoping people like Blackbushe aviation will be along to prove me wrong. They have a sport cruiser. Sywell have AT-3's. But are they successful. Have they sounded the death knell of training schools around them operating older equipment.

Except that there are C42s and EV97s all over Europe earning a good living year after year from shockingly poor microlight school runways.

And our Condor - a fragile looking, lightweight aeroplane survived flying 400+ hours per year with numerous low hour pilots and conversions from 1978-2016 - on Waltham's runways, and then we sold her serviceable.

There are fragile aeroplanes out there, but not necessarily the ones that look it. What makes them fragile is often excessive rigidity or difficulty of repair, not being lightweight or having a spindly appearance.

G


yep, I used to own a share in that Condor and I know the work done on it to keep it serviceable over the years.
User avatar
By Wide-Body
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560983
Rod1 wrote:Lets look at some facts which prove that even a 450kg micro can be used for serious training without falling apart. We also know that its cost is not prohibitive!



The only reason aircraft like this work in the micro world but have not taken off (pun intended) in the SEP world is the attitude of the instructors!

Rod1


Pretty broad brush statement that.

I am an aerial prostitute, I will fly anything with wings no prejudice (Well apart from the Percival Prentice). At this time I am having a fantastic experience doing a PPL on a Bristel NG5

So square that Rod with your last sentence. I believe you are wrong to place a blanket statement.

At our club two new gen aircraft were evaluated. Believe it or not our management wanted to get away from heavy expensive kit. However the robustness and the numbers did not work.

If the Boss could make more money from a different aircraft, and still complete the mission required of them she would have done.

There would be a line of them in nice colours sitting there in front of the clubhouse.
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1561001
If the Boss could make more money from a different aircraft, and still complete the mission required of them she would have done.

There would be a line of them in nice colours sitting there in front of the clubhouse.

That last statement defines why you're the instructor and She's "the Boss"
rows outside the Clubhouse are a financial drain...... empty Ramp, empty hangar = revenue. :P
Chris Coppol (sp.?) who runs Mainair F/W at Barton (hardly noted for it's billiard-table grass!) :) seems to happily be running 3 or 4 plastic-fantastics, He is not, as far as I know, a charitable millionaire. perhaps a chat with him could prove rewarding?
User avatar
By Rod1
#1561015
Wide-Body

I did not say every instructor, but a majority will only accept the old iron. The excuses used are bunk because even lighter aircraft are doing the job just fine. Not all of the new aircraft are good, but the micro boys have proved that it is not an issue to use things like the Eurostar. The economic argument for sticking with 152's will be a case by case, but the more clubs that change, the harder it will get to carry on with an old aircraft as the punters will want the new one.

Rod1
User avatar
By irishc180
#1561028
I sold a Diamond DV20 Katana project yesterday in under 6hrs for a price that made the owner happy. I was wearing my broker hat, not my dealer hat so I guess I was a parasite etc etc. Even an idiot broker can see there is a demand for Rotax powered type certified training aircraft. :roll:
By Bathman
#1561050
[/quote]
The excuses used are bunk because even lighter aircraft are doing the job just fine. Not all of the new aircraft are good, but the micro boys have proved that it is not an issue to use things like the Eurostar
[/quote]

Its well known that the C42 and to a lessor extent the eurostar are commerically viable aircaft. The problem is for "group A" none of the new metal is commercially more viable than the 152/28/172. I wish it wasn't the case but it is.

Do people really think that flying schools want to operate old metal? Do they really want to have to change the cylinder heads at 1200 hours or the camsahft. For microlight schools there are viable options for group A there isn't.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1561222
so what is the excuse for Waltham having rubbish runways then? haven't they heard of maintenance or rollers? :?:
User avatar
By Wide-Body
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1561226
Sooty25 wrote:so what is the excuse for Waltham having rubbish runways then? haven't they heard of maintenance or rollers? :?:


A lot of maintenance is done on the runways. However below them is ASP (armoured steel planking). Over time it has buckled. Occasionally a bit surfaces. It would cost millions to remove , the owners would be better of turning into a housing estate.

I will cope with the bumps.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1561228
Wide-Body wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:so what is the excuse for Waltham having rubbish runways then? haven't they heard of maintenance or rollers? :?:


A lot of maintenance is done on the runways. However below them is ASP (armoured steel planking). Over time it has buckled. Occasionally a bit surfaces. It would cost millions to remove , the owners would be better of turning into a housing estate.

I will cope with the bumps.


ah, wasn't aware of the ASP,! thanks
User avatar
By Sir Morley Steven
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1561249
http://www.sonaca-aircraft.com/products/sonaca-200
This company came to me (and others) in 2014 asking what flying clubs wanted.
Able to live outside, able to take 500+ hours a year of students and trial lessons, 750kgMAUW, not too skitty, not too stable wete a few of my comments. They brought the prototype (based on the Sling2) a year later. I flew it and it was very good.
The 750kg Sonaca200 is not cheap but if it flies anyrhing like the prototype it will ne the next C152.
GeorgeJLA liked this
User avatar
By Wide-Body
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1561252
I love the sling, so hopefully a good aircraft. As you so rightly say @ €175,000 base price thats a lot of ground to cover commercially..
By Bathman
#1561258
SMS

I think alot of schools are looking at the Sonaca with baited breath. And as you say it might be the first aircraft that can do as you say 500+ hours a year, live outside etc.

If I was to criticise I would prefer it wihout the turbocharged 914 a the bog standard 912is would be fine. Two fuel tanks with a capacity of 140 litres seems a bit overkill. I just hope it is the real deal and if it is it's a shame it isn't british made. Out of interest what sort of price are they talking.
By Bathman
#1561260
175000 euros is about 153 grand. I hope those hourly running costs are half the price of the C152 or its going to be a difficult sell. Fortunatly the SDMP will allow you to operate the engine longer than 2000 hours. Oh hang on the CAA are not allowing schools to move off lamp for another 2 years. Thats not going to help.