Best modern trainer?

[CelticCitation]

Looking to replace our fleet of 25 year old C-172s with more modern, or at least newer aircraft. What aircraft would those of you in the flight training world recommend? Mostly primary instruction and instrument ratings. Based at nearly 5000 msl airport.

 

[Medicryan]

Piper!!!

 

[minitour]

The new DA40s coming out have lots of neat stuff...G1000, 195 ponies, improved winglets.

Cirrus are fun, although I've got no SR22 time...just SR20...still fun.

Skylane?

I don't know what you're trying to upgrade...is it just an avionics upgrade you want or......speed? Range? Useful Load?

If you just want new paint and avionics and interior, go with the 172SP...G1000, leather, bla bla bla. Good airplane and has been for a while.

If you want something that'll git on ya...I'd go with Diamond. Maybe stick your private students in the DA20 (now spin approved) 2-seaters that burn around 6GPH (152 burns) at 120 knots. That's no joke on 120 knots...I flew back from London to the states along side one, he was pulled back quite a bit and I was wide open (172) and...it wasn't even close when he pushed the RPM up to the same setting.

Toss your instrument students into a DA40 w/ the G1000.....

That would probably be my personal preference...in fact, if we can get the funds secured we're going all Diamond to include a twinstar or two.

If you have any questions on them, drop me a PM...I've got plenty of diamond time and can probably get 'em at a good price for you as I know the dealer fairly well.

-mini

-

 

[jcpilot]

I agree with the guy who recommended Diamond.

My flight school at Utah State University just replaced their 152s and 172s with DA-40s. Pretty sweet airplanes; G1000, TIS, XM Weather, etc... We also replaced our 50 year old Beech Travelairs with Twin Stars. Beware, though. According to our local FSDO, the Twin Star doesn't qualify as complex, due to the ECU controlling prop pitch. This may change in the future, though. So, we're keeping our Piper Arrows for now for commercial students.

 

[paulsalem]

I'd stay away from the 172R and SP, the interiors are built like crap, plus there are some known engine stumbling issues that remain uncorrected.

Please don't go with glass/EFIS instruments.

 

[CelticCitation]

Thanks for the replys. See Katanas everywhere, and figured there must be a reason. Anyone have reliability issues, support etc.? What are the gotchas to watch for with the diamonds?

I am planning on having them bring a demo after the AOPA convention, but until then, how does a DA-20 fit two larger pilots? One of our CFIs is 6'4", another 270 lbs. Could we put both of them in the same airplane?

 

[Pilot Doc]

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.

 

[Lazy8]

The LSA's are going to be the way to go for Private training. Cessna's will probably go into production next year and it will be less than $100k brand new. The panel is slated to be LCD displays that show a six-pack. You won't be able to do instrument flying in them, but I think they're going to be awesome for Private training. I would imagine the rental rate would be around $70-$80/hour, which is exactly what this industry needs again - more affordable flight training in new aircraft.

I've been flying 172SP's and R's for 4 years and I've never had an "engine stumbling" problem that paulsalem mentioned. IO-360's aren't the smoothest running engines in the world, but they're very reliable. The interiors are no better or worse than new Pipers or Diamonds. They all have their quirks. For me, I don't think there has ever been a better training aircraft out there than the C152 and C172. They're built tough as nails, they're easy to fly, and no other GA aircraft manufacturer comes close the Cessna's support network.

I've got quite a bit of time in a DA20-C1 Eclipse too. They're good airplanes, but they don't seem to hold up as well in the training environment. Also, if you're in an area where it gets really cold, they accumulate frost on the wings much faster than aluminum planes. I don't know the reason for this. It's not a comfortable airplane for larger people and the CG range is quite narrow. It's a good plane, but it's not something I would want to fill up a flight-line with. It's more of a weekend warrior aircraft.

g

 

[CelticCitation]

LSA's

LSA's are probably another good idea. Anybody talked to an insurance company about rates for Light Sport rates? I wonder if they are comparable to traditional instruction activities?

 

[Pilot Doc]

LSA's are probably another good idea. Anybody talked to an insurance company about rates for Light Sport rates? I wonder if they are comparable to traditional instruction activities?

talk to www.stcharlesflyingsvs.com

They're a busy 141 school that has had 2 LSA for 18 months.

 

[ParrotheadGTI]

diamonds are amazing aircraft.. so easy to fly..

 

[LearLove]

whats wrong with older 172's or Pipers? Take care of them - wash/wax and clean inside after lesson and theres nothig else to do except chage the oil. Most flight schools, CFI and their students just don't respect the aircraft thus they get run down and everyone wants to replace what doesn't need to be replaced.

The only advantage of newer is the glass but we really don't need this. Just a standard 6 pack and some pilotage skills will do fine for a PVT guy which he she can back up with a GPS after they learn the basics.

 

[Goose Egg]

I have a few hours in the DA-20 (like 30-ish... got my IFR rating) and I was really quite impressed. Not only do they sip fuel and go fast, but they also soar up to 13,999' MSL with the power at idle with some good lift.

I've got a few more hours (like 800-ish) in the C-172R, and it's a very good airplane. I've got no complaints.

-Goose

 

[LearLove]

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

 

[CelticCitation]

I agree that from a training perspective, there is nothing wrong with older airplanes, and in fact, some of the skills of operating them will be lost, but from a business perspective, we're losing business to the big schools, who operate newer equipment. Also, operating costs of older aircraft make it difficult to ever upgrade them, as it does very little to raise their value, yet they still cost a bunch to maintain.

 

[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.