NZFF

Just interested in the reponse from those in the know

If you were to set up a flying school/flying club - which aircaft would you have in your fleet?? - obviously you would need a basic trainer such as a 152 and/or something a bit bigger like a 172 ...and then you would require a twin trainer (Seminole etc) ..and maybe something aerobatic and something more sophisticated like a Piper Arrow etc etc?

I remember somebody commenting on this forum (ZK-Brock?) that Nelson Aero Club got rid of their Tecnams because they wre unreliable - what was unreliable - the airframe, engine?

Hmmm intresting question here's my list.

I'd have
piper cheeroke 180 x5
cessna 402 x3
ct4e x2
piper super cub x2
beechcraft barron 58 x2
bell 206 jet ranger x1
robinson r22 x2
robinson r 44 x2
and 2 2 seat pitts special's

As a pilot I'd say the Tecnams, as they're fast, far easier to taxi than the cessnas, easy to land, have sticks instead of wheel things, and have very light controls.

I hadn't heard about any significant problems (only my tyre one) with the tecnams until they announced they were getting rid, as a student not involved in the financial side they were great for me and I would have them back in an instant. I wasn't really involved with the club enough at that stage to know what was up.

There were a only a few instances where the tecnams gave me any problem. I did have one instance where the tyre came off the wheel as we were taxiing, and a few times the starter motor didnt engage for about 5 seconds after I switched the key to start.

An instructor told me that once on landing he pulled too hard on the throttle to bring it to idle that the engine cut out because it was idling so low. I don't think there were any major probs with the engine (Rotax).

To the best of my knowledge, one of them's now based at motueka, and one's gone to australia.

If I was the boss of a club though I reckon 152s and 172s. The 150s that I fly now are okay, but 152s get you around the place that bit faster, and have a way better flap system. I'm biased though cos I've only flown cessnas and tecnams. Many people I've talked to reckon there's nothing better than a 152.

No idea about twins, not quite up to that yet.

For context:
Tecnam at mot


C150 on western grass

It all depends what you are wanting to achieve... are you wanting to setup a flight school? or an aeroclub?

If you are setting up a flight school, then ideally you would want a standardised fleet, much like AFS or Massey. Mainly because it means that students do not have to be too picky about what aircraft they book/use etc...

The good old 172 and/or PA-28's are well suited in this instance... or like CTC you could try the Diamonds...

For an aeroclub, it gets a little more interesting. While they still do training, they also have to consider "private hire"... obviously people are not going to want to cruise about the countryside in a 152 (too slow, too small)... so a range of aircraft would be required to cover as many scenarios as possible...

Tecnam's are cool an all but they are not really built as strong as a tommahawk as they are ment more for tarmac runway's.
Our aero club in Blenheim have had their fear share of problems with it and they kind of wish they didn't get it now.
Don't get me rong they are a joy to fly but they can't really handle grass runway's.

Ignoring the issues of fleet commonality which would in most cases limit you to a fairly standardised fleet (particularly in the case of a flying school) my ideal lineup would be something like this:

- 2 or 3 172s and/or PA-28 - gotta have something ordinary to work with.
- Super Cub - Good for introductory tailwheel stuff
- Maule - For higher performance tailwheel flights
- A couple of Yak-52s - Self explanatory
- CT-4 - Just to be patriotic and support the local aircraft industry
- Piper Cheyenne and/or Aerostar - Ok, not very practical for an aero club, but who wouldn't want to fly one of those?
- Some other smaller twin, maybe a Seminole or a Baron

Knowing me, when I look at that list in a week's time I'll think "what was I thinking?" but for the moment that's what I'd have in my ideal aero club.

PA38s! They rock for initial training, especially wingdrop stalling... that'll make you s**t your pants

and glass cockpit archers for the rest

Flight School,

Pa 38 x1
C 152 x1
C172 or 182 x1
Arrow x1
Piper Seneca x1
CT4 x2
2 Seater Pitts x1

Dream Flight school.

For me I would have a fleet of C162s for basic, a couple of 172s, an arrow and a siminole (both glass)for IFR, an Alpha 160a for aeros and prob a Pacer for tailwheel...

A185F wrote:

QUOTE (A185F @ Jun 12 2008, 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For me I would have a fleet of C162s for basic, a couple of 172s, an arrow and a siminole (both glass)for IFR, an Alpha 160a for aeros and prob a Pacer for tailwheel...

As far as the 162 is concerned, I would probably wait until they were 'proven'...

The numbers look promising, but until they actually get airbourne and prove themselves as worthwhile trainers, I would be a bit hesitant to commit to a fleet of them... I am also a little torn on the glass cockpit idea for a basic trainer... it is the way of the future, no doubt about it, but for basic training?

One wonders how difficult it would be to transition from glass to steam-driven as opposed to going from steam to glass? Especially when it comes to instrument flying, as suddenly you would need to be looking at 6 instruments instead of 1...

I have actually been a little tempted to wander down to AFS and see if I can't get a spin in one of those fancy glass 172's... just to see what it is actually like IRL... the most disconcerting thing I have noticed with glass in the sim is the altimeter tape... when you drop from say 6000' to 5990'... the big 5 jumps up and you're like 's**t... i'm 1000' off!'... whereas in a 'normal' altimeter, the arrow is still near the 6... so it is not quite as freaky... but that is probably just the way the CRJ display works... looking at pics of the Garmin1000 it is not so bad...

I reckon for a largish flying school about a dozen diesel 172's, a couple of DA42's and maybe an airtourer or two for aero's etc.
and if you're going to spend that much on planes you might as well splash out on an E62 rocket espresso machine for the staff room too! :-)

HardCorePawn wrote:

QUOTE (HardCorePawn @ Jun 12 2008, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as the 162 is concerned, I would probably wait until they were 'proven'...

The numbers look promising, but until they actually get airbourne and prove themselves as worthwhile trainers, I would be a bit hesitant to commit to a fleet of them... I am also a little torn on the glass cockpit idea for a basic trainer... it is the way of the future, no doubt about it, but for basic training?

One wonders how difficult it would be to transition from glass to steam-driven as opposed to going from steam to glass? Especially when it comes to instrument flying, as suddenly you would need to be looking at 6 instruments instead of 1...

I have actually been a little tempted to wander down to AFS and see if I can't get a spin in one of those fancy glass 172's... just to see what it is actually like IRL... the most disconcerting thing I have noticed with glass in the sim is the altimeter tape... when you drop from say 6000' to 5990'... the big 5 jumps up and you're like 's**t... i'm 1000' off!'... whereas in a 'normal' altimeter, the arrow is still near the 6... so it is not quite as freaky... but that is probably just the way the CRJ display works... looking at pics of the Garmin1000 it is not so bad...

Hrmmm I would kinda have to disagree there with some of that. Basically, if one had to wait until an aeroplane was proven, who would prove it ??? The thing is, it is a cessna, these guys know what they are doing and they have spent alot of time and money on developing this new trainer to basically get the perfect new machine. And, with one or two exceptions, I think that with the 162 they have really hit the nail on the head. Most trainers of today are coming 50 year old designs. 50 years ! It is time to move on and into the future and everybody is realizing that. The problem has been that there are no suitable replacements for these old trainers, just more old ones. So yes there have been companies (with no experience in this field I might add) come out with new designs to change the training market (carbon/plastic planes etc) and yes, these things do need to be proven, big time, and what is coming out of this is that most of them are useless. Take the diamond twin star for example, they are the supposed to be the new twin trainer of the 21st century. Yip they come out, heaps of people buy em and look at what they got, a big steaming pile of s**t (excuse my French). They have been nothing but trouble to everyone who has them, and I wouldn't touch em with a 10 foot barge pole. Now back to the 162, cessna and their masses of money, resources and expertise have caught on to the mistakes of this so called new technology and learned from the mistakes. They have designed a new trainer but in a "proven" way with methods of design, construction and of course - materials. They know that they need to keep metal and strength so they have but still implementing carbon where they can to save weight. I think plastic fantastic planes still need another 20 years of GA rough and tough to be proven and refined before they can be relied on fully (and that is happening with the other planes, just not so much in training). They have designed this plane as a basic trainer, nothing else. Yes, like every new thing, they will have their teething problems but with a company like cessna you know that they will be sorted fast with the best possible support to the operators.

Now as with the glass in there, A MUST ! Gosh, we cant be stuck in the dark ages forever ! Yes definitely for basic training. You say keep the steam but the question is, for how long ? It won't be long until everything is glass (except what will become vintage aircraft) so what's the point of starting steam and never using it again ?? You can't tell me that if you went to learn to fly in 30 years you would expect to fly a steam driven aircraft ???
I haven't don't alot on glass planes but I would suspect that it would be much easier to go form glass to steam than the other way around. (advanced to basic as opposed to basic to advanced). With the 6 to 1, remember you still are looking at 6 things on that one instrument so I don't think it will be too much of a big deal there. Really, like transitioning to any different thing/method whatever, it's just a case of getting used to it.

Dont get me wrong... I'm not bagging them out for creating the 162... but as you highlighted with the Twinstar... newer does not necessarily mean better!

Also, I have this feeling that the 162 was designed with too much of a compromise between Light Sport Aircraft and GA Trainer. Hence the fairly low 'useful load'...

But like I said... this is not where I would want to be on the bleeding edge...

On the Glass vs. Steam... I was really just thinking out loud... I have no real experience with Glass (aside from pottering about in the sim)... so I cannot really comment... I was kinda hoping someone who has some decent time on both (preferably switching from one to the other) might be able to offer some feedback...

Hmm interesting responses

Hers my fleet based on what I have read and your responses

Basic Training:
Diamond Katana C1 (there are plenty of cheapish second hand ones in the US so I am not sure why they have not taken off here except with CTC
– Cessna 162’s when they are proven.
At least one 172R – as every flying school/club has to have one

Aerobatic Training
Since the Alpha is out of production have to think differently so..
Zlin 242L

Advanced Aerobatic/Tailwheel Training
Avions Mudry Cap 10 (there’s one for sale in Timaru on an American rego)

IFR Training & Touring
Piper Archer 111 with steam gauges
Diamond DA-40 with Garmin 1000

Multi
Piper Seminole with steam gauges

Would be keen on diesel DA-40, 172, Twin Star (especially the way fuel is) but the company that makes the diesel engines have gone bust so I would keep away until we are sure of a supply of parts for diesel engines.

I have a friend who was taking off in a tecnam at omaka and the wheel nearly fell off he had to be told over the radio that 3/4 of his bolts had fallen off. its not important but personally I would rather have a piper cherokee instead.

Cheers
Nick

Naki wrote:

QUOTE (Naki @ Jun 13 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basic Training:
Diamond Katana C1 (there are plenty of cheapish second hand ones in the US so I am not sure why they have not taken off here except with CTC

haha ever thought why there are so many cheap 2nd had ones around and why they haven't really taken off ???

Because they are hunks of junk. They (as with the twin star) have been nothing but trouble to all who have been operating them (well by comparison). I have been told by a friend up there that the ol "hanger queen" spends more days in maintaince than in the air. Hence (more than likely) why CTC have been trying to find a suitable replacement fleet for a while (rememeber those big orders with alpha...)

Hey Guys,

I would probably have:

2 Cessna 172s (the newer ones with the garmin panels) for IFR training
4 Cessna 152s Aerobats for basic training and Aerobatics
1 Piper Seneca for multi engine
A fixed based simulator of some discription
Piper Cub for taildragger
2 R22s for helicopter time

Daniel

Basic Training: 152s (if they made new ones )
IFR/For hire etc- Cirrus SR20s
Twin Piston- Beech Baron
Twin Turbine (Why not )- Cessna Conquest
Helicopter- R22s
Taildraggers- New Maules.

If I were in charge of an aero or training club then I would likely stick with the tried, true and proven like Cessnas and Pipers and that.
Purely for the reason that they're well known and also because parts, maintenance, service, support, etc would probably be better available than for something relatively unknown.

So I'd go for a mix of Cessna 152s and 172s (with the digital instruments like here) for training, R22s for rotary and Piper Seneca for multi. Plus I'd like a full-motion simulator for training and for mucking around in .

I also wouldn't mind something like a Tiger Moth and some other classics just for kicks.

A185F wrote:

QUOTE (A185F @ Jun 14 2008, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

haha ever thought why there are so many cheap 2nd had ones around and why they haven't really taken off ???

Because they are hunks of junk. They (as with the twin star) have been nothing but trouble to all who have been operating them (well by comparison). I have been told by a friend up there that the ol "hanger queen" spends more days in maintaince than in the air. Hence (more than likely) why CTC have been trying to find a suitable replacement fleet for a while (rememeber those big orders with alpha...)

Then why do they keep buying new Katanas (not the Twin Stars - I know there are heaps of problems with them) in the States and Europe? - also the USAF is using them for primary traing and have a fairly large new fleet (civilian contracted)

Anyway taking on board everything and have a revised list

Basic Training:
Cessna 152s
– Cessna 162’s when they are proven.
At least one 172R – as every flying school/club has to have one

Aerobatic Training
Since the Alpha is out of production have to think differently so..
Zlin 242L

Advanced Aerobatic/Tailwheel Training
ACA Citabria (Cap 10 might be a bit hot - and has wooden wing so needs to hangered)

IFR Training & Touring
Piper Archer 111 with steam gauges
Diamond DA-40 with Garmin 1000

Multi
Piper Twin Comanche - cheaper to run (I think) & buy than a Seminole - more interesting anyway