I am new to aviation, and need an advise on following subject...
I want to buy a plane to do PPL training and then do flight exam as well. I am thinking of certified two-seater with ~100hp engine, so it burns less fuel per hour (compared to C172 in most flight schools), with metal skin, so it doesn't need hangar. There are few available for around 25k.
Now, there are few types offered for sale, but can they really be used for training and exam?
So far I researched:
Cessna C150 - seems to be the best choice, as it used in many flight schools
Grumman AA1 - this "trainer" is not allowed to spin, and spins are part of flight test exam according to TC document TP 13723. So cannot be used?
Ercoupe 415 - doesn't have rudder pedals as most usual planes do, is it a major problem?
Piper PA22 - some air mech told me that it has single brake gear between seats, therefore some flight instructors do not consider it as full dual control, and will not train on it. Not sure if it's true, seems very minor to me... Also it is a fabric plane, it needs hangar.
Luscombe, Aeronca from 194x - fabric (need hangar), no electricity (manual start), therefore I am not considering these.
Are my conclusions correct? What are the other good planes that can be used for both training and flight exams?
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7267
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
- Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere
Almost all Luscombes have both metal wings and an electric starter.
Having said that, you might question the wisdom of doing spins in a airplane that’s seventy years old, and you might find it hard to find an instructor with tailwheel skills to train you ab-initio in it.
C150 has a very limited payload, which can be a problem if you’re heavy. (Limits your choice of instructors to small people).
DA20 is an option, if you can find one, Cherokee 140, too. If the wing spar isn’t cracked. Also the Piper Tomahawk.
Basically there’s a reason most flight schools use the 172.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.
A 150 just doesn't have the payload unless you and any potential passengers are tiny. A 152 does. Sorta.
If you really need to haul a load, buy a load hauler, which a 150/152 was never designed to be. That said, I took my wife, two folding bikes, and a very modest amount of luggage in my 150, and flew to the Bahamas and back in practical leg lengths. Yes, I've done the same trip in the C 310, and C 182RG, but the difference is that I can afford the 150 (and it can be landed on the beach on the way!).A 150 just doesn't have the payload unless you and any potential passengers are tiny. A 152 does. Sorta.
150/152's are modest, but they do what it says on the box reliably and affordably. For a number of the other types you listed (and I've flown all of them other than the Luscombe), they each have their qualities, but the commonality of the 150/152 tells you that they last well economically. For the other types, if you break it, or something breaks, will parts and repairs be as readily found as for the Cessna? Unlikely. People have the other types for various reasons. I have a 150 because it's one of the most common light planes available. Parts are readily available, and every shop knows how to fix one. Start researching structural repair for a Grumman, and you'll see the limitations!
During the years I owned a flight school I operated just about every light airplane available and I only liked a couple of other ones, the Tomahawk and the Grumman Cheetah.
But the C150 still was the moneymaker.
When I was shopping for a plane the 152 was on the list. I've flown them. They're nice. But I'm such a tight fit that I was concerned about getting out in a hurry in an emergency.
So far it looks like C150 would be the best choice for me for the purposes of cheap PPL training and some occasional flying after that. I am 150lbs netto, I hope limited payload is not going to be a problem. All the other planes are either considerably more expensive to buy/operate/maintain, or less available, or too unusual.
Once I have PPL I will likely look for faster and more powerful 4-seater, but training and actual flying are two different missions with different requirements, so I think it should be handled separately.