Best modern trainer?

[Lazy8]

If Geo Metro's were the only vehicle in the world that got good gas mileage, everyone would drive Geo Metro's if they wanted good gas mileage, even though they suck. Then Honda comes out with the Civic and it blows the Metro's away with fit finish and quality, and people say "well more people drove Metro's so they must be better!". Doesnt work that way.

Pretty sure they're more honda civics out there than metros.

A few examples of a DA20 modern day trainer:

Our Diamond DA20's interior started developing holes within the first year because people's feet always hit the interior climbing in and out of the plane. We've had several people accidently step on the altimeter knob and bend it in half trying to get in. The factory tape that lines the wing root and tail root has to be replaced about every 6 months. The nose wheel cushioner needs constant attention from mx. The cowling melted once during a preheating even though Diamond said it would be fine with normal preheat settings. And what's up with the nosewheel being displaced left-of-center so that the aircraft constantly needs right-brake pressure to taxi in a straight line? IFR approved anyone? I'm not trying to badmouth Diamond, but you should realize that all aircraft are susceptible to problems. Especially plastic ones. And if you think there is just as much room in a DA20 as a C172 I think you need to revisit the cockpits.

Now that we have better options, people need to realize inefficient airframes like 172's are on the way out.

You are misinformed. There were just as many competitors to Cessna today as there were 30 years ago; moreover, it's still the present day trainer of choice by more flight schools nationwide. Care to explain that phenomenon?

Also, yes, C172's are on the way out. Cessna has already announced that they're getting rid of their current single-engine line in the coming years. Their prototype aircraft and the new LSA are already in the air. The Cessna LSA is more on the same playing field as a DA20, so I don't even know why we're comparing it to a 172.

I don't have anything against Diamond DA20's and I think they'd even be a great aircraft to personally own. Like I said before they have their quirks just like any other trainer; however, it is not a superior product. It's just another option. They both of their pros and cons. What it comes down to is personal preference. None of these airplanes are bad.

g

 

[FlyingToIST]

I love older airplanes from insurance perspective. Yes, we do spend more for mx especially compared to a brand new c172 that has factory warranty, but can you imagine the premium difference between a 200,000 aircraft vs. 40,000?

If the insurance wasn't arm and a leg, then i would prefer to have a newer equipment.

 

[kf4amu]

Pretty sure they're more honda civics out there than metros.

It was a made up example using real world comparisons...sigh

Our Diamond DA20's interior started developing holes within the first year because people's feet always hit the interior climbing in and out of the plane. We've had several people accidently step on the altimeter knob and bend it in half trying to get in. The factory tape that lines the wing root and tail root has to be replaced about every 6 months. The nose wheel cushioner needs constant attention from mx. The cowling melted once during a preheating even though Diamond said it would be fine with normal preheat settings. .
g

1. Ever look at a 172? Holes everywhere in the interior. Carpet? What is that?
2. Tell them to stop using the instrument panel as a step. Seriously who does that? How is that possible? Do their knees bend the opposite way than a normal person? lol I keed I keed...
3. At least it doesnt do the shake, rattle and roll the 172's do.
4. No comment on the preheat...Florida doesnt see much ice.

It doesnt sound to me like those issues are A. Very hard to fix, or B. a design flaw.

You are misinformed. There were just as many competitors to Cessna today as there were 30 years ago; moreover, it's still the present day trainer of choice by more flight schools nationwide. Care to explain that phenomenon?

Cuz it was the best trainer out there at the time. 30 years of legacy is hard to overcome in 10 years of new, better A/C production.

Also, yes, C172's are on the way out. Cessna has already announced that they're getting rid of their current single-engine line in the coming years. Their prototype aircraft and the new LSA are already in the air. The Cessna LSA is more on the same playing field as a DA20, so I don't even know why we're comparing it to a 172.

Cuz if you get your license in a Cessna LSA, you have a Sport pilot license. If you get it in a DA20 you have a private pilots license. Apples to Oranges...then again so is comparing a DA20 to a 172. I think it is silly anyway to train in a 4 seat airplane, unless you need the 2 backseats, or there are no other options.

 

[Pilot Doc]

Cuz if you get your license in a Cessna LSA, you have a Sport pilot license. If you get it in a DA20 you have a private pilots license. Apples to Oranges...

You can get an ATP in an LSA - and a private as well. Nothing limits an LSA to sport pilot training. All you get is more options. ANd you get the benefit of a new plane with a $100K hull value.

 

[FlyingToIST]

I think lsa aircraft is a big nebulus with no clarity in sight. from flight school perspective there are too many players in the market with not enough support. I think Cessna getting into the market will make a difference though..

 

[Big Dog]

LSA = No IFR flying. Sure you can do "training" in them but you can't take them into actual. Pretty useless as most primary trainers double as instrument trainers.

As far as new aircraft goes, my limited experience several years ago with Diamond was positive. I would definitely check out the DA20/40, the fixed pitch version could be a great way to save costs. As far as C172 v. PA28, I'd definitely go with Piper. I have roughly 1000 hrs in various "new" Cessnas and was not overall impressed. Fit & finish was marginal, durability was not that great and the avionics were a constant source of trouble. The new Warrior/Archer I would say is the best thing today for primary/instrument training, if you must go new. I think it's a great mix of a tough A/C, comfort, simplicity, easy docile handling with modern avionics and lower cost of operations.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Goose Egg]

nice pic goose, cross rules - of all the racing I did as a junior I miss the track (t-town) and cross the most.

Glad you like it! I did a bit of MTB racing back in the day, I'd love to get into some cross. I'm in the process of building myself a cross bike. What a cool format for racing!

-Goose

 

[Pilot Doc]

LSA = No IFR flying. Sure you can do "training" in them but you can't take them into actual. Pretty useless as most primary trainers double as instrument trainers.

Not quite true. See http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html From a practical standpoint, I don't know if any current LSA's can fly IFR, but it will develop if the market wants it. It's not illegal.

Even if LSAs were restricted to VFR only a fleet of 10 LSA and 5 172 might have 90% of the capability at 70% of the cost of an all 172/Diamond/etc fleet.

 

[Super 27]

New Cessnas, new Pipers, or look into the Cessna LSA. As far as I'm concerned the Diamonds are over-rated. They're basically nothing more than a glorified 172 or 182 (except that they're plastic). There's nothing spectacular about them whatsoever. No, not even the glass cockpit, since these days you can get those in just about anything straight out of the factory. I don't like the stick at all (granted, this is strictly a personal preference) and I'm not overly thrilled with the way they handle in the air; as far as I'm concerned a C172 is a MUCH better platform for a new student to learn on. Same goes for a Piper.

Somebody else mentioned the Cirrus. These are great planes (except that they're plastic too). But I honestly don't find the Cirrus to be that great of a training platform either. They can't be beat if you're looking for something to take on a trip, but the SR-22 at 310 HP probably isn't the best for a new private or IFR student. The -20 isn't a bad option, though.

MG

 

[Big Dog]

Not quite true. See http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html From a practical standpoint, I don't know if any current LSA's can fly IFR, but it will develop if the market wants it. It's not illegal.

Even if LSAs were restricted to VFR only a fleet of 10 LSA and 5 172 might have 90% of the capability at 70% of the cost of an all 172/Diamond/etc fleet.

You see, there is marketing and then there is reality. So you are going to take a cheap, low capability A/C, make a bunch of expensive modifications like new engines, lightning protection & avionics, not to mention certification, and turn it into an expensive, low capability A/C. That all makes about zero sense. Try again.

The whole point of LSAs is that they are cheap and simple. For that you sacrifice capability and performance.

 

[Lazy8]

It was a made up example using real world comparisons...sigh


1. Ever look at a 172? Holes everywhere in the interior. Carpet? What is that?
2. Tell them to stop using the instrument panel as a step. Seriously who does that? How is that possible? Do their knees bend the opposite way than a normal person? lol I keed I keed...
3. At least it doesnt do the shake, rattle and roll the 172's do.
4. No comment on the preheat...Florida doesnt see much ice.

It doesnt sound to me like those issues are A. Very hard to fix, or B. a design flaw.


Cuz it was the best trainer out there at the time. 30 years of legacy is hard to overcome in 10 years of new, better A/C production.



Cuz if you get your license in a Cessna LSA, you have a Sport pilot license. If you get it in a DA20 you have a private pilots license. Apples to Oranges...then again so is comparing a DA20 to a 172. I think it is silly anyway to train in a 4 seat airplane, unless you need the 2 backseats, or there are no other options.

kf4amu,

It's obvious your experience with 172's is limited to probably the few older models that your flight school owns. You can't compare old aircraft to new aircraft and you can't compare poorly maintained aircraft to well-maintained aircraft. The flight school I work for has 15 172SPs and none of them have holes in the interior and none of the 'shake rattle and roll'. In fact, the DA20 vibrates a heck-of-alot worse and has next to no interior sound insulation next to the 172SPs.

By the way, you can get a Private Pilot Certificate using LSA aircraft for training. There is no limitation to sport aircraft in that regard. Maybe doing a little research or having some real-world experience with the product you're talking about will help you out next time you post.

g

 

[kf4amu]

My experience with the DA20 was different then yours apparently. Sound insulation was no different than the 172. The only vibration I noticed in the DA20 was taxiing with the window open, it vibrated because it wasnt latched.

The same argument you made about poorly maintained 172's can be applied to a Diamond. Obviously any A/C thats poorly maintained will deteriorate...

My Diamond experience is limited to new A/C. My Cessna experience spans all years, makes and models of 172s. From 6 pack VFR only to G1000 SP's. I still maintain that many other companies, including Diamond, make a better airplane for the money.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Goose Egg]

Is it just me or is this turning into a "Piper vs. Cessna" type thread.

If I were going to buy an airplane....

Well, I guess it wouldn't even be an LSA. It would be a glider, which is about as "light" and "sport" as you can get. However, I did like the Diamonds, quite a bit actually. They are good airplanes, and I'd prefer a DA-40 over Cirrus any time. But also, the C172Rs that I currently instruct in, and have a bucket full of hours in, are also very good airplanes for what they do. The school that I trained at uses DA-20s for primary training, and they work fine in that capacity. The school that I currently instruct at uses C172Rs, and they work fine in that capacity. I got my instrument rating in a DA-20 and it is fine. I do my instrument instructing in a C172R and a PA-28R, and they work fine.

Lighten up y'all. An airplane is an airplane.

-Goose

 

[time builder]

Two complaints about the Diamond: tall people don't fit well, and its an oven in the summer with the glass dome. Other than that, people love 'em.

My only question is: how many hours are you going to get out of the airframe with these composites? If I were a private pilot owner flying 100 hours a year, its probably not a big deal, but for a flight school.... I'd look into it.

 

[Lazy8]

My experience with the DA20 was different then yours apparently. Sound insulation was no different than the 172. The only vibration I noticed in the DA20 was taxiing with the window open, it vibrated because it wasnt latched.

There could be some variations in cockpit insulations between different years. The DA20 2001 models have so much wind noise you'd think the canopy was off.

The same argument you made about poorly maintained 172's can be applied to a Diamond. Obviously any A/C thats poorly maintained will deteriorate...

Or any aircraft on a flight line for flight training purposes will deteriorate at various levels. There's no question that a new 172SP next to a DA20 will age better through the years in flight training. I've experienced it first-hand for 4 years.

My Diamond experience is limited to new A/C. My Cessna experience spans all years, makes and models of 172s. From 6 pack VFR only to G1000 SP's. I still maintain that many other companies, including Diamond, make a better airplane for the money.

Like I said, I have absolutely no problems with Diamond aircraft, I think they make a good product. The original question to this thread was "What kind of airplane should I get for my flight school?" I was simply trying to correct a baseless statement you made earlier that, "172's are crap!".

Just like the other guy said. Airplanes are airplanes. Have fun flying all of them. If you're at a school that has crappy airplanes, then stop giving them money. It's not the airplane's fault if the interior has developed holes from abuse or if the seat rails haven't been serviced in 30 years. If you suspect they do great maintainence on the new DA20's and poor maintainence on the older equipment then guess what... They do poor maintainence on all the aircraft. New airplanes just break less and have lower mx costs. Not to mention they're warrantied.

adios!

g

 

[VNugget]

Have you considered any of the LSAs? $70K-100K/plane. I'm not sure if any are approved for IFR but they can certainly be outfitted for instrument training. They generally burn 4GPH as well.

The Flight Design CT, which seems to be leading the market now, has a 670 lb useful load. With 20 gallons on board (almost 5 hours fuel) that gives you room for a 270 lb instructor and up to 280 lb of student.

The CT has some impressive numbers and would make a great cross-country machine for 2, but it is also a terrible trainer.

First, it has a rudder centering spring that's way too strong, and acts like a detent that prevents you from being able to regulat a fine amount of rudder. You push in a little bit, and it keeps you in the middle, and you keep pushing more and more, till all of the sudden it gives away and your foot goes to the floor. (Hello, full rudder slip at 100' AGL on climb-out). It's taken me (and everyone I know, and everyone I've checked out in it) hours to get used to it... I can't imagine teaching someone new how to fly with that.

The 2006 version is supposed to have fixed that, and I'd be curious to fly one.

The other thing is that there's no back windows and you can't see the runway once you're past abeam the numbers, if you're doing traffic on the opposide side of the seat you're sitting in.

 

[flyboyike]

Someone say they wanted a trainer?

http://www.controller.com/listings/...1103328&guid=2B51EAE777414C1CA0FCDE478FF35CC1

 

[time builder]

Someone say they wanted a trainer?


http://www.controller.com/images/controller/fullsize/74073185.jpg

http://www.controller.com/listings/...1103328&guid=2B51EAE777414C1CA0FCDE478FF35CC1

May have worked in WWII to throw someone into that kind of a plane that quick, but.....uh....well....

 

[flyboyike]

May have worked in WWII to throw someone into that kind of a plane that quick, but.....uh....well....

Yahbbut tell me it wouldn't be fun!

 

[eagle06]

I would go against the SR20. Not the best trainer and kinda a dog at 5000 feet.