[Gertie]

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

Oh, are there people building aeroplanes that will not last the 30, 40, 50 years that we're used to?

[Rod1]

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 Eurostar (for example) was introduced around 8 years ago. It is one of the mainstays of the Micro training fleet and has trained 1000's of pilots.

The micro syllabus is not significantly different to the SEP version.

It is flown mostly from grass strips (unlicensed) and has done the job fine.

Its Rotax engine often reaches 3000h+ without significant issue.

The cost must be ok because microlight schools all over the country have afforded them or similar aircraft and have been flying them for years.

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

[MercianMarcus]

...
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

The one fact you have ignored (understandably as you are more of a spanner-man than a money-man) is that it is far more profitable to run a micro school than an SEP school. You can almost visualise the CAA/EASA shaped millstone round the necks of the poor fools trying to earn a crust in the SEP world. So the micro boys can invest the extra profit in shiny toys while the SEP chaps are lucky if they can afford more than 1 pair of pants.

[CloudHound]

This thread has thrown me back to 1972 and my first tentative steps towards a PPL. A trial lesson at Blackpool in a PA-28 proved the desire in me to get a licence, but the journey from south Manchester on my wages was a factor.

I ended up with the LAC at Barton. They had C150's. Then, the actual training a/c was irrelevant compared to the cost per hour and travelling time+fuel.

So today, even with a more savvy clientele, the equipment used to train on is probably less of an issue than it is to us. What the student expects is transport into the air and an instructor who will help them master it. What the training provider needs is a return on capital employed. This can only be achieved in a reasonable time through utilisation. Utilisation requires reliability.

But we know this.

So here's an off the wall thought; C150/152 fuselage mated to C42 type wing and Rotax/Jab/UL engine . Best of both worlds eh?

[Grelly]

Apart from the engine, you just described a skycatcher

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

[pembroke]

Couple of points, the above is a critique of the durability and running costs of a C152 replacement. One of the key points surely is that a C152 has superb and predictable handling. Progress to solo and the rest of the 45hr PPL is rarely hindered by weather or short/bumpy runways , and the student has confidence to gain a PPL and train on other aircraft afterwards.
I have flown, instructed and examined on a few microlights. Bear in mind what I said about the C152 and handling predictability, only two/three would come close to being suitable for a student PPL. The CFM shadow , no longer used as far as I know, handled well and student confidence and progress was swift. I flew a Tecnam P92 in Latvia , in the LSA cat., and I thought it was fantastic, a few circuits and most students would be solo. Finally, the C42, great aircraft but like all microlights, suspect to turbulence and has a single stick, (an extension is available). Recently I'm instructing/examining on the Flt Des. CTSW, a very difficult aircraft to fly never mind teach on. Never in the few hours on the aircraft have I ever felt I could release the stick and fly the aircraft smoothly, in trim, and the landing at different flap settings in benign weather , almost impossible to repeat and learn from. On paper, like many modern "light" aircraft, performance figures are great but can they last the flying school regime and most importantly, how do they handle!

[G-BLEW]

Swift types look very nice but i hope there not glass cockpits....im an analogue man

The days of factory new aircraft with analogue cockpits are over - you may find an outlier or two left, but not for much longer.

Ian

[Thumper]

150/152 have major leaner tolerances so no bitey ass moments for a newbie. thats good and bad, especially when somebody converts to a taildragger (or a.n.other type) and then has to learn what a rudder does (lets not talk about the groundhog day 'flat'landing profile which is all too common)

someone, at some point (probably in Poland/Slovakia) will set up shop restoring 150/152's.

they won't be cheap but if you can buy a dog for as cheap as 8-10k, fit a zero timed engine and bare metal rebuild the airframe , i can see them punting out for 50-60k. same price as a eurofox kit plane.

economies of scale will potentially reduce costs further. but not in UK due to wage costs, etc. mind you, the way the currency has gone, maybe we will be cheap enough

[cockney steve]

@Thumper said

150/152 have major leaner tolerances

What's the ROP/LOP debate got to do with it? In this day and age, mixture should be automatically controlled,

Or did you mean that they're so good, aerodynamic-stability- wise, that a slip-ball is superfluous?

[kanga]

.. Slingsby T67M Firefly which was, I believe, the last serious attempt by a British (not European) manufacturer to enter the light aircraft training market,.. failed commercially largely due to some (IMO) undeserved bad press for spin-related accidents which should reflect more on the pilots and operators than the airframe...

.. er, the resemblance to the Fournier RF6 is no coincidence ..

But yes, the 'undeserved bad press' arose globally (affecting the further export prospects) in no small part from US civil litigation arising from a few accidents in the USAF ('T3A'), with US lawyers playing the 'not invented here' card hard before juries. The whole fleet (>100) was crushed rather than being sold, even as parts, on the civilian market. As a result, I'm told it is the only former USAF type of which no example exists in any USAF Museum. Soon after this I was talking to a USAF pilot (on a Hawk course at Valley before transferring to the RAF OCU for the type for the RAF Squadron to which he was to be seconded. He had trained on the Slingsby and had thought it a superb platform, but that some of the instructors at the Academy at Coloroado Springs, some of whom were on their last preretirement tours after careers on heavy transports, were not up to the job of primary training, for which he said they had not had to do any recent courses.

[Thumper]

@Thumper said

150/152 have major leaner tolerances

What's the ROP/LOP debate got to do with it? In this day and age, mixture should be automatically controlled,

Or did you mean that they're so good, aerodynamic-stability- wise, that a slip-ball is superfluous?

well, moot point. I've seen it several times 150 drivers talking a jolly in my 120; we nearly always end up sideways on rolling the first time as they aren't used to using that thing called a rudder.

as for mixture control....may as well cut the chord on that one seeing as getting above 2500ft in the uk induces vertigo

however, i do have major respect for the 150/2 and actually hope someone sets up a resto production line. seriously, why wouldn't you?

[Dave Phillips]

they won't be cheap but if you can buy a dog for as cheap as 8-10k, fit a zero timed engine and bare metal rebuild the airframe , i can see them punting out for 50-60k. same price as a eurofox kit plane.

There's a club out there that paid about £100k to get a good 152, twice!

Perhaps the business model needs to change?

[cockney steve]

@Thumper said

150 drivers talking a jolly in my 120; we nearly always end up sideways on rolling the first time as they aren't used to using that thing called a rudder.

Ah, got you now they talk the talk, but can't walk the walk

"may as well cut the chord on that one" Mixture is music to their ears?
"getting above 2500ft in the uk induces vertigo "....nah! means they have to get out the white stick, 'cause the Labrador's lead is too short

(old joke,- when questioned about landing, blind pilot says "I chuck the Lab. out on the short lead, when it goes slack, I start the flare")

[Thumper]

they won't be cheap but if you can buy a dog for as cheap as 8-10k, fit a zero timed engine and bare metal rebuild the airframe , i can see them punting out for 50-60k. same price as a eurofox kit plane.

There's a club out there that paid about £100k to get a good 152, twice!

Perhaps the business model needs to change?

can you explain more? you have me curious