Best modern trainer?

[kf4amu]

Diamonds blow Cessnas out of the water. Whoever said large people dont fit in the DA20 certainly hasnt flown a 172. Step over the landing gear, contort sideways to get in front of the seat that wont slide back far enough for "safety" reasons...UGH 172's are pieces of crap. My Geo Metro has a better interior.

Plus there is no reason to have a 4 seat aircraft when only 2 seats are being occupied 99 percent of the time. What a waste of money.

 

[Lazy8]

Diamonds blow Cessnas out of the water. Whoever said large people dont fit in the DA20 certainly hasnt flown a 172. Step over the landing gear, contort sideways to get in front of the seat that wont slide back far enough for "safety" reasons...UGH 172's are pieces of crap. My Geo Metro has a better interior.

Plus there is no reason to have a 4 seat aircraft when only 2 seats are being occupied 99 percent of the time. What a waste of money.

Is that why more people have done their flight training in Cessnas than any other single-engine aircraft worldwide? hmm

It's definitely no easier to gracefully maneuver yourself into a DA20 seat. (Especially if you're a larger person)

If your flight school has crappy 172's on the flight line, maybe you should inquire to the owners as to why they aren't maintaining them properly. You should always be flying in the best available equipment (new or old) because that's what you're paying for. Any aircraft, Diamond included, will look and operate badly if the owner doesn't take proper care of it.

g

 

[icefr8dawg]

Why are you replacing the 172's? Are they timing out structurally or you just want a more modern fleet. Just my .02 but we got by on several old 172's and a couple taildraggers from the 40's, kept rates low and always made money.

 

[kf4amu]

Is that why more people have done their flight training in Cessnas than any other single-engine aircraft worldwide? hmm

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.

"Lack of a better option" does not equal "good product".

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

As to getting in an out, Im not a large person, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how it would be hard for someone to drop their fatass into a Diamond seat. The whole damn top tilts back and there is nothing in the way when you get in. In a Cessna you have a strut, a floorboard to step over, and a seat that give you approximately 6 inches between the A pillar and the seat cushion to put your legs through. How is that more conducive to fat people than one you just drop down on like a roller coaster seat?

 

[duckquacker30]

DA-20 and DA-40

Diamond all the way!

For the safety record, combined with obedient and predictable flight characteristics, not to mention to insurance and fuel costs, these things are the way to go. Our flight school has three of the 20's and two 40's with G1000's. One of the 40's is the XL with the G1000 integrated AP and active traffic.

Flown the twinstar as well and loved it. I think something like a Seminole is probably a better trainer (less forgiving), but the liquid cooled, Jet-A sipping diesel in the twinstar is pretty slick.

As for student/cfi size limitations. The DA-20 is more roomy than a 150, but has less room than a 172. The DA-40 is comparable to the 172, but is in my opinion much nicer to fly. The visibility in the Diamonds is one of the greatest selling points to me.

I am 6'0" and 240 lbs, and I am currently training a student in the 20 that is nearly my same size. We can't go do training with a full tank, but we're within weight and balance on slightly lower than half tank.

DIAMOND, DIAMOND, DIAMOND!!!

 

[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.