Best modern trainer?

[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.