[Genghis the Engineer]

Eurostar? CT? (And the already mentioned C42 of course.)

Basically the good, new, affordable school aeroplanes are in the microlight category. Much of this may be down to lower certification and manufacturing costs in that market.

Thinking about this financially - lets say a new design aeroplane is £25/hr cheaper to run than an old puddlehopper, and you can charge £10/hr premium for it. A busy school aeroplane flies about 800hr.pa. This is roughly true for microlight and group A.

So the gain is around £28k.pa

For a microlight school comparing a £15k Thruster to a £70k C42 this works - it pays for itself in a couple of years.

For a group A school comparing £25k for a good second hand Warrior to £200k+ for something new. That is 3 times as long to break even, and far more risk tied up in a singke asset.

I have wondered how you might do getting an STC to fit C152s with glass instruments and Rotax 914s, plus new interior and paint. That might work financially in ways that a genuinely new aeroplane doesn't seem to.

G

[townleyc]

So we are back to the PA28 reborn/Cessna equivalent.

When I started learning, back in 2007, I was badly put off by the state of the training aircraft - C152 in my case. The first time I got in one, my comment was along the lines of Its a bl###y Ford Anglia - complete with the ashtrays!

What kept me going was how solid they are, and I believe exceptionally well maintained in the important areas.

KE

[Bathman]

The Eurostar nose wheel isn't as strong as a C42.

The CT can be a bit too much of a hotship for some of your less able students. And if you prang it. It shatters.giving you a big and long repair.

Hence why most schools go with the C42. Although all is not Rosie there either. The fall in the pound has put the prices up. And the importer has lost his approvals. It would of course be alot better if you could simply order parts direct from Germany.

I wonder if Paul dewhurst will get factory approval for the skyranger?

As for "reborn" aircraft well there has been a Cessna rotax 150 doing the rounds for years. However the conversion was 70 thousand euros and you don't have to look at the numbers for long to see that it's not a commercially viable conversion.

Neither are the "reborn" pa28 and "yinyang" 172 that were reviewed recently in an aviation magazine.

The only conversion that might cut it is a centurion engine conversion of the C172 and PA28. You need to be walking through some hours and of course alot of money was lost in those who adopted early.

We are in an even worse situation when it comes to tailwheel aircraft. 70 years old or nothing.

From a tailwheel point of view I think the only hope and it isn't really a hope it's just a stop gap is that the LAA allow non abintio training on permit aircraft.

[Sooty25]

@Genghis the Engineer sounds like we are heading back to your Condor revival project again!

[GeorgeJLA]

Thanks to all who have contributed to my little wittering.

I too felt put off by the aesthetics, the lack of ergonomics and the cramped size of traditional training aircraft, but persevere because my desire to fly override this feeling.

As a learner in my 40s, not as skinny as I was and perhaps having a slightly better disposable income, I would gladly pay the approx £30 premium for learning on a more modern aircraft with better space, better ergonomics (and personally, I'd prefer a stick, having cut my teeth on Chipmunks as an Air Cadet decades ago, but I'm not going to get stuck up on that!). Unfortunately no such options are available at my local airfield.

As someone above said, there must surely be a market for a modern, economical training aeroplane? Maybe with tricycle and tailwheel options a la RV7/RV7A?

[Sooty25]

Thanks to all who have contributed to my little wittering.

I too felt put off by the aesthetics, the lack of ergonomics and the cramped size of traditional training aircraft, but persevere because my desire to fly override this feeling.

As a learner in my 40s, not as skinny as I was and perhaps having a slightly better disposable income, I would gladly pay the approx £30 premium for learning on a more modern aircraft with better space, better ergonomics (and personally, I'd prefer a stick, having cut my teeth on Chipmunks as an Air Cadet decades ago, but I'm not going to get stuck up on that!). Unfortunately no such options are available at my local airfield.

As someone above said, there must surely be a market for a modern, economical training aeroplane? Maybe with tricycle and tailwheel options a la RV7/RV7A?

My immediate thoughts are;

go to one of the schools offering a Super Cub, that'll give you the stick and tailwheel, but do note they don't do the entire course on tailwheel. (Well Clacton doesn't)

or

start by doing NPPL Microlight rating in a C42 so most of the basics are done in a new aircraft, then upgrade to SSEA afterwards.

The airfield close to me has either newish C42 at £130p/h instruction or very tired 50 year old C150s at £170p/h

[Genghis the Engineer]

Why not just learn on a modern microlight and be done with it. For a good, modern VFR 2-seater you'll get far more for your money.

When that ceases to be enough aeroplane for you, look around, and convert to SSEA or SEP on what you'll eventually be flying in that class.

(It worked for me - I got my PPL on microlights in 1993, then upgraded to SEP in 2001, then doing a CPL a few years later. I still fly microlights for fun, because they are.)

G

[MercianMarcus]

Why not just learn on a modern microlight and be done with it. ...

Or factory built gyros. Gyros are still niche but becoming less so as each year goes by. There's no IMC rating yet, but there is now a night rating and even a commercial licence. The machines are modern and fun to fly and have none of the egregious regulatory baggage that's killing helis and CofA fixed wing.

[Bathman]

Funny you should say that GTE I recommend that route to all recreational pilots and not once has any one acted on it.

I want to fly proper plans or I want a proper licence etc

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I'm honest, 20 year old me when I decided I wanted to learn to fly just couldn't afford anything else. I have never once regretted taking that route, and the fact I'm still microlight current 16 years after getting my first "group A" licence should tell you quite a lot. But it was saving money that drove me to it.

G

[BlackadderIA]

Our club has two Tecnam P2008s that get used mainly for teaching the LAPL - both brand new (one has less than 40 hours TT), twin G3X fit, leather seats, cup holders etc.

Speaking with some of those who got their license on just the Tecnam and then move onto the club's C172/PA28 they seem universally horrified by the ancient state of the aircraft. If it shocks newly qualified pilots then it's got to put off a proportion of trials flight people from going for their PPL.

Not sure what can be done about it though, the 'spam cans' are just so solid and reliable. New avionics may help (our 172 has one of those ADFs that look like a 1930's wireless) but what school could afford the conversion?

[Bathman]

I've not come across a tecnam P2008 yet but if its like the other tecnam's that I have come across it won't be robust enough for the job.

Maybe there is some light on the hozion

http://www.sonaca-aircraft.com/products/sonaca-200

They are claiming that this is designed to be strong enough. Although I have my reservations about the need for a turbocharged engine in a training aircraft. I wonder if the 912is has enough grunt to pull a 750KG aframe around without the need for a wobbly prop,

And 140 liters of fuel seems a little over kill.

But it does look promising. I wonder what the retail price will be?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Out of interest Bathman, have you got numbers and reports to back up the "not strong enough" assertions - I hear comments like this on a few aeroplanes, but evidence to support such opinions is often far rarer. My experience as a certification engineer is of very little difference between types in structural reserves.

G

[Bathman]

I would say I have more experience than most at operating aircraft in a flying school environment and those that I haven't operated I know people who have. The maintanance company that I use also maintain two types of plastic fantastic aircraft and I have their input to. So no hard numbers but at awfull lot of case reports. I do have the numbers for C150, C172, T67, SLA80.

Its not just a case of they are not strong enough although that it part of it. Its more a case of is the aircraft more commercially viable than a C152? And as far as I can tell not one even comes close.

As an example lets take the AT3. Now when I first flew that aircraft I thought that this isn't any good as a training aircraft. It had (and still has) insufficent ruddder on take off. So if you went straight to full power in a second (which a low hour student might do in a panic) then to keep the thing straight you had to apply unilateral brake which isn't easy for a low houred or 70 year old student. Admittely they have offset the engine since but its still there and frankly shouldn't have been brought to market in its intial state in the first place. It genually makes me wonder who their test pilots are or who the desingers are as they can't of been flying school owners.

Also if you operate the aircraft from an airfield with only one runway the crosswind limits are way to low and if the winds from the right at something like 8 knots its a real handfull. So the C152 is flying on those days where as the school with the AT3 arn't.

The canapy is no good in winds of about 8 knots either. In fact one has broken when exposed to cross winds. So you always have to park the aircraft into wind. Now that not a problem for you or me but numerous SFH and students don't. Its 3500 for a new canpay and they are made to order so your grounded for 6 weeks wating for a new one.

Got to go. Will try and write more or PM you later

[Rob P]

As someone above said, there must surely be a market for a modern, economical training aeroplane? Maybe with tricycle and tailwheel options a la RV7/RV7A?

An RV7 would make a great trainer. With the added bonus of starting on tailwheel and so removing the mystique/terror of having the little wheel at the right end. We'd turn out much better pilots.

The 7A as it stands is as fragile as the rest and really not an option.

Rob P