Brand new... Old Yank metal -v- new plastic fantastic.
(sorry to go off-topic, i was going to PM this, but then I thought I'm perhaps not the only foreigner trying to understand the UK and its err hm traditions)
And by a syndicate I suppose you mean a plane equally owned by a group of pilots? When someone steps out, the share is sold to a new owner who must then get acquainted with the plane? That kind of training I would call "difference training" or "conversion training"; but I think that formally it can't even be called training - training is working towards a license. And yes it does have to be paid for.
And by a syndicate I suppose you mean a plane equally owned by a group of pilots? When someone steps out, the share is sold to a new owner who must then get acquainted with the plane? That kind of training I would call "difference training" or "conversion training"; but I think that formally it can't even be called training - training is working towards a license. And yes it does have to be paid for.
You are correct about syndicates.
Training other than that, doesn't need to be paid for - it's just normal. If an instructor is a friend, or within a syndicate, they may well do it for nothing.
There's also a UK legal loophole that allows the sole owner of a sub-ICAO aeroplane to pay for training, but that same aeroplane can't be used in a flying school.
G
Training other than that, doesn't need to be paid for - it's just normal. If an instructor is a friend, or within a syndicate, they may well do it for nothing.
There's also a UK legal loophole that allows the sole owner of a sub-ICAO aeroplane to pay for training, but that same aeroplane can't be used in a flying school.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
I suspect you are talking about the SC, which has had a lot of problems. The number of aircraft designs, which have been tested to CS-VLA, is quite large. Some of those aircraft are better than others and to criticise an entire class because one or two of the traditional metal designs are not up to the job is a little hard. My “VLA” has required the changing of one set of brackets in nearly 5 years of operation (supplied free). The other aircraft I help look after have required very few mods and are all in “as new” condition after 5 – 10 years of operation. None are being used for flight training, but most “VLA” types are privately owned, so this is not surprising.
Rod1
I suspect you are talking about the SC, which has had a lot of problems. The number of aircraft designs, which have been tested to CS-VLA, is quite large. Some of those aircraft are better than others and to criticise an entire class because one or two of the traditional metal designs are not up to the job is a little hard. My “VLA” has required the changing of one set of brackets in nearly 5 years of operation (supplied free). The other aircraft I help look after have required very few mods and are all in “as new” condition after 5 – 10 years of operation. None are being used for flight training, but most “VLA” types are privately owned, so this is not surprising.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparisons lead to generalisations.
In terms of longevity I know of a C42 which has well in excess of 3000 training hours in relatively few years.
The training world does bring challenges and the old yank metal has seen many fail to make it and even the C150/2 has had issues.
As for the thread; I remember the US car industry and indeed consumers finding it hard to react to the Japanese threat.
Downsized vehicles and downsized engines were just a couple of the issues and it took the consumers, esp in Calif., to change things.
The rise of the SUV and the popular personnal trucks is probably the new/old metal swansong as fuel prices continue their inevitable rise.
As G3 says the prime material probably doesn't matter. Economical engines and a lowcost designed in maintenance schedule will be the way forward. As to which manufacturers find the solution the market craves only time will tell but I am sure that many current new aircraft will have short production lives and a few will become the future of GA. (at least for a decade or so)
In terms of longevity I know of a C42 which has well in excess of 3000 training hours in relatively few years.
The training world does bring challenges and the old yank metal has seen many fail to make it and even the C150/2 has had issues.
As for the thread; I remember the US car industry and indeed consumers finding it hard to react to the Japanese threat.
Downsized vehicles and downsized engines were just a couple of the issues and it took the consumers, esp in Calif., to change things.
The rise of the SUV and the popular personnal trucks is probably the new/old metal swansong as fuel prices continue their inevitable rise.
As G3 says the prime material probably doesn't matter. Economical engines and a lowcost designed in maintenance schedule will be the way forward. As to which manufacturers find the solution the market craves only time will tell but I am sure that many current new aircraft will have short production lives and a few will become the future of GA. (at least for a decade or so)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading between the lines of some of the airworthiness issues, I think there is a fair bit of test flight data forgery going on, and hand in hand with that will be a fair bit of Thielert-style dodgy business accounting.
So I would expect the "lightweight" scene to be fairly "dynamic" for quite a while
The vast majority of the stuff exhibited at Friedrichshafen never makes production, so it follows that a fair % of the stuff which does is a variously marginal proposition.
So I would expect the "lightweight" scene to be fairly "dynamic" for quite a while
The vast majority of the stuff exhibited at Friedrichshafen never makes production, so it follows that a fair % of the stuff which does is a variously marginal proposition.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“So I would expect the "lightweight" scene to be fairly "dynamic" for quite a while”
How long IO? Some of the aircraft (which have been tested to CS-VLA) have been around 12 years and have 7-800 examples flying. Some of the airframes are up to serious numbers of hours.
Rod1
How long IO? Some of the aircraft (which have been tested to CS-VLA) have been around 12 years and have 7-800 examples flying. Some of the airframes are up to serious numbers of hours.
Rod1
I'm not sure it's forgery so much IO540, as sheer incompetence. A lot of the people I've come across in the little aeroplane industry doing test flying, or in the authorities interpreting the results, really don't understand what they're doing.
This isn't to say that there aren't some supremely competent people in this game - but that skill level really isn't universal. By comparison, the level of understanding of structural issues is usually much better. Detail design and maintenance quality probably sit somewhere in between.
Additionally, both company management and authorities will normally be very ready to accept absolute minimum standards in flying qualities, which makes it very hard for even very competent flight testers to get changes made that they think are necessary. A friend of mine is a very competent test pilot for a very well known US GA manufacturer, who I know has had a real struggle to get his design colleagues to accept handling qualities changes that weren't required by regulations but he considered essential for safety - and that's a company with a strong flight test department and safety culture: many newer or smaller companies have neither.
G
This isn't to say that there aren't some supremely competent people in this game - but that skill level really isn't universal. By comparison, the level of understanding of structural issues is usually much better. Detail design and maintenance quality probably sit somewhere in between.
Additionally, both company management and authorities will normally be very ready to accept absolute minimum standards in flying qualities, which makes it very hard for even very competent flight testers to get changes made that they think are necessary. A friend of mine is a very competent test pilot for a very well known US GA manufacturer, who I know has had a real struggle to get his design colleagues to accept handling qualities changes that weren't required by regulations but he considered essential for safety - and that's a company with a strong flight test department and safety culture: many newer or smaller companies have neither.
G
Comparisons lead to generalisations.
In terms of longevity I know of a C42 which has well in excess of 3000 training hours in relatively few years.
The training world does bring challenges and the old yank metal has seen many fail to make it and even the C150/2 has had issues.
In terms of longevity I know of a C42 which has well in excess of 3000 training hours in relatively few years.
The training world does bring challenges and the old yank metal has seen many fail to make it and even the C150/2 has had issues.
So, I'll make a prediction that most of the current generation of aircraft that have very long lives in large numbers will be those with the fuse-tube construction (Rans, C42, X'Air) and the conventional sheet metal construction (Eurostar, RV). In 20 years there will still be MCR-01s, Dynamics and CTs, but I suspect in much smaller numbers.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, I'll make a prediction that most of the current generation of aircraft that have very long lives in large numbers will be those with the fuse-tube construction (Rans, C42, X'Air)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'I suspect you are talking about the SC, which has had a lot of problems.'
Sorry Rod but that is not quite fact!...There are 91 Sportcruiser/Pipersports that have been registered in the 3 and a half years the type has been available in the UK. The only 2 issues that some owners have had is a slight problem with cracked exhaust downpipes and some have had bent noselegs due to poor landing technique. Both problems have had generously supplied free factory replacements where needed although both have been, in the main, issues that have been due to pilot error. The majority of owners, of which I am one, have had no issues whatsoever.
The sheer number of purchasers in such a short space of time I think tells its own story....The plane is an on-going huge worldwide success story and that is why Piper have jumped on the bandwagon and negotiated a licenced to build agreement with the factory and 'rebadged' it a Pipersport.
There are 31 MCR's that have been registered since 2002 of which there is no longer a UK agent ( is the plane still being made in France?)They have had a lot more issues I think than the S/C including serious metal fittings corrrosion (aileron/flap?)and also have had a fatal accident resulting in 'free replacement taliplane brackets being available'.
Whilst admitting that the MCR has been an interesting little 'hot ship' within a very niche market envelope I would suggest it is now probably at the end of its build/availability life in the UK.
The MCR and the Sportcruiser are two totally different beasts and both I am sure have pro's and cons and are fir for purpose depending on one's own personal requirements.. In reality I think its a case of each to his/her own.
Sorry Rod but that is not quite fact!...There are 91 Sportcruiser/Pipersports that have been registered in the 3 and a half years the type has been available in the UK. The only 2 issues that some owners have had is a slight problem with cracked exhaust downpipes and some have had bent noselegs due to poor landing technique. Both problems have had generously supplied free factory replacements where needed although both have been, in the main, issues that have been due to pilot error. The majority of owners, of which I am one, have had no issues whatsoever.
The sheer number of purchasers in such a short space of time I think tells its own story....The plane is an on-going huge worldwide success story and that is why Piper have jumped on the bandwagon and negotiated a licenced to build agreement with the factory and 'rebadged' it a Pipersport.
There are 31 MCR's that have been registered since 2002 of which there is no longer a UK agent ( is the plane still being made in France?)They have had a lot more issues I think than the S/C including serious metal fittings corrrosion (aileron/flap?)and also have had a fatal accident resulting in 'free replacement taliplane brackets being available'.
Whilst admitting that the MCR has been an interesting little 'hot ship' within a very niche market envelope I would suggest it is now probably at the end of its build/availability life in the UK.
The MCR and the Sportcruiser are two totally different beasts and both I am sure have pro's and cons and are fir for purpose depending on one's own personal requirements.. In reality I think its a case of each to his/her own.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoestring flyer
Unfortunately as of yet the SC/PS hasn't been used in the training environment. Here "poor landing technique" and "pilot error" will be commonplace . If and when its proves itself in this environment then I would consider it a success.
Unfortunately as of yet the SC/PS hasn't been used in the training environment. Here "poor landing technique" and "pilot error" will be commonplace . If and when its proves itself in this environment then I would consider it a success.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mickey Kaye
We are talking from a different perspective. The S/C is a worldwide success in the private owner market.
I totally agree with you that the S/C or the AT3 or Tecnam or any others you may care to mention that hope to try and capture a slice of the training market are not nearly robust enough.. But they were never designed initially for the training market.
Its a diifferent ball game.
We are talking from a different perspective. The S/C is a worldwide success in the private owner market.
I totally agree with you that the S/C or the AT3 or Tecnam or any others you may care to mention that hope to try and capture a slice of the training market are not nearly robust enough.. But they were never designed initially for the training market.
Its a diifferent ball game.
also have had a fatal accident resulting in 'free replacement taliplane brackets being available'.
Far be it from me to argue with an expert, but I thought the Rans had a welded steel space-frame, rather than a bolted fuse-tube.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the explanation and pictures Genghis. I should have known that factory claims about the safety of a welded steel cockpit did not necessarily mean the rest of the fuselage was also welded steel.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the SC problems, I seem to recall an MOR last year where pressing the PTT activates the elevator trim. It resulted in a SC taking off with full nose up trim applied! It was caused by an inadequate design of the switch assemblies in the control sticks.
Then we had the grounding of SC's for a couple of weeks by the CAA due to there being no performance data for aircraft with a certain type of propellor (factory fitted). Apparently the manufacturer has been given until February to update the POH.
Finally, not sure I can go along with the concept that the only reason for the nosewheel leg deforming is due to poor landing technique... If that was the case for PA28's and C152's they'd be in with the engineers on a weekly basis having new nosewheels installed! Why was a re-design and beefier version implemented on later SC aircraft if that was the case?
Then we had the grounding of SC's for a couple of weeks by the CAA due to there being no performance data for aircraft with a certain type of propellor (factory fitted). Apparently the manufacturer has been given until February to update the POH.
Finally, not sure I can go along with the concept that the only reason for the nosewheel leg deforming is due to poor landing technique... If that was the case for PA28's and C152's they'd be in with the engineers on a weekly basis having new nosewheels installed! Why was a re-design and beefier version implemented on later SC aircraft if that was the case?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the SC problems, I seem to recall an MOR last year where pressing the PTT activates the elevator trim. It resulted in a SC taking off with full nose up trim applied! It was caused by an inadequate design of the switch assemblies in the control sticks.
http://www.czechsportaircraft.com/pd...-SC-001-R1.pdf
Then we had the grounding of SC's for a couple of weeks by the CAA due to there being no performance data for aircraft with a certain type of propellor (factory fitted). Apparently the manufacturer has been given until February to update the POH.
Finally, not sure I can go along with the concept that the only reason for the nosewheel leg deforming is due to poor landing technique... If that was the case for PA28's and C152's they'd be in with the engineers on a weekly basis having new nosewheels installed! Why was a re-design and beefier version implemented on later SC aircraft if that was the case?
Last edited by patowalker; 3rd Jan 2011 at 02:45.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glush
Correct on all counts.
The nose leg that I replaced was fitted to an aircraft that was only flown by an ex-airline pilot with thousands of hours in the log book, the aircraft had less than 50 hours.
That being said the new nose leg looks well up to the job but with a propotional increase in weight.
The nose leg that I replaced was fitted to an aircraft that was only flown by an ex-airline pilot with thousands of hours in the log book, the aircraft had less than 50 hours.
That being said the new nose leg looks well up to the job but with a propotional increase in weight.
Correct on all counts.
The nose leg that I replaced was fitted to an aircraft that was only flown by an ex-airline pilot with thousands of hours in the log book, the aircraft had less than 50 hours.
That being said the new nose leg looks well up to the job but with a propotional increase in weight.
The nose leg that I replaced was fitted to an aircraft that was only flown by an ex-airline pilot with thousands of hours in the log book, the aircraft had less than 50 hours.
That being said the new nose leg looks well up to the job but with a propotional increase in weight.
G