I think BJC nailed it.But its all depend on mission. You cant simulate c152 behavior on high efficiency airframe..
We CAN make much more efficient airplanes (but we seldom do), but there will always remain a market for things that fly with such benign handling that any idiot could survive reasonably well. Personally, I think they make a terrible trainer, since they are cramped, noisy and far too easy to fly, but that doesn't address the 90% or higher portion of the market. Always remember the disaster that the Tomahawk was in the marketplace.I think BJC nailed it.
Why would you want to simulate C-152 behaviour? Sure it's easy enough to fly and does its job fine, but it handles like a soggy noodle and isn't very efficient. We can do a lot better than a design from 60+ years ago today.
"Efficiency" comes in many forms. In most airports in the US, if somebody wants to "efficiently" convert dollars into rental aircraft time, there's no airplane on the ramp that will best a C-152. It isn't hard to sketch out a more aerodynamically efficient plane, but (according to the market) nobody in 5 decades (including Cessna) has come up with a more aerodynamically efficient plane that can also take the bashing that occurs in primary flight training. The C-152 takes those lumps and keeps going.Sure it's easy enough to fly and does its job fine, but it handles like a soggy noodle and isn't very efficient. We can do a lot better than a design from 60+ years ago today.
I have no first hand experience, so this is more of a question than an answer: I have seen a LOT of Diamond 20s powered by Blowtax engines with well over 10,000 TTAF. SOMEONE seems to be getting good training service from them (and they are a very efficient airframe)."Efficiency" comes in many forms. In most airports in the US, if somebody wants to "efficiently" convert dollars into rental aircraft time, there's no airplane on the ramp that will best a C-152. It isn't hard to sketch out a more aerodynamically efficient plane, bit (according to the market) nobody in 5 decades (including Cessna) has come up with a more aerodynamically efficient plane that can also take the bashing that occurs in primary flight training. The C-152 takes those lumps and keeps going.
about the C152 is wrt the lack of aerodynamic efficiency of the C152, not the value of it.Yup. Take one high efficiency airframe, deploy draggy flaps, spoilers and a drogue chute, and end up with C152 behavior
When I was looking after the flight school fleet, for a time we had two 150s and two 172s. There was about ten bucks per hour difference in total operating costs between the 150 and 172. The O-200 needed cylinder/valve work at mid-time, the O-320 did not. The O-200's TBO was 1800 hours, the O-320's 2000. The students spent more of their dollars climbing in the circuit or to altitude for upper air work. Their circuits were bigger because of that and so they got less practice per hour. We ended up selling them both and getting more 172s.I think TFF has hit it on the head. There are so many cheap 150s and 152s out there, how does a new design compete? I would give Diamond more than two advantages, though. As a trainer, their maintenance record and costs seem (again, I have been out of the plane fixing business since Christian Dries was in short pants) pretty decent, but outside of the training part, the speed, range, etc. of the Rolls/Conti 240 airplanes is completely out of the C152 class in every way.
Yup. I flew an Alon Aircoupe, one of the last versions of the Ercoupe, with a C-90. Same power-to-weight ratio as a 150, if you figured on getting 100 HP out of that O-200. That Aircoupe could run circles around the 150. Shorter takeoff, better climb, better cruise.The 150's with their 85 - 90 HP Continental O-200's are marginal in hot weather or with two adults aboard.
All true.Sure, C-150s are cheap, we use one locally for training for that reason. But that same cheapness, along with being tired and worn-out (looking or otherwise) is also a turn off to a lot of prospective GA pilots. They don't last forever. Sure you can refresh and rebuild them, but that detracts from the cheapness.
They also cost more in time (thus money) due to their low performance. It simply takes longer to climb to altitude where a lot of training takes place.
Since we are talking about an airplane that does not exist, but COULD, I will take a bit of license with the answer and show my own strong bias: A fastback 150 fuselage available with either tricycle or airplane (i.e. conventional = taildragger) landing gear and a 110 real HP diesel weighing in at 912 or at worst case 0-200 numbers. I would even go so far as to suggest the landing gear should be convertible as supplied, able to something such as unbolt the nosewheel, turn mains around, bolt on a tailwheel in provided lugs (that could double as glider tow point for higher HP version). while for my own interests think the AA-1 series of airplanes made far better trainers, the world at large seems to want something more benign. I particularly like that the 150/2 has enough flaps that when deployed make the pilot DO something different to handle new configuration. Oh: and make the new 150 fueselage a few inches wider!!!! The final bit of kit would be 2 glass screens that could be set up to mimic steam gauges or latest glass displays as different training wants and needs could be met.What are you planning to replace it with, that will not turn off a lot of prospective GA pilots?
I think the key here is to appreciate that the training industry can pick from a few thousand old or very old airplanes for peanuts in Capex. The Da20 seems to be a viable alternate...except of course for cost. Even the Pa28 fallback with corrosion issues bubbling to the surface from a half century of sitting around are not really a good alternative. And, as pointed out, 172s are still there, so other than going with something far newer, the pretty much define the only real alternative to the C150/2. To your point: the 152 with Lyc power is probably a lower overall cost, but once again, the capital expenditure of small startup or marginal training operations means Continentals under the hood.And that is the point.
Another issue with the DA20, at least here in Florida where much of the flight training is done, is that the canopy makes the cockpit unbearably hot most of the time. They are nice airplanes, otherwise.The Da20 seems to be a viable alternate...except of course for cost.
As a repeat offender Grumman/American owner, I can understand that. Obvious answer is to move all flying training to YXE.Another issue with the DA20, at least here in Florida where much of the flight training is done, is that the canopy makes the cockpit unbearably hot most of the time. They are nice airplanes, otherwise. BJC
Yeah, but propane doesn't crank out out as much of the other nasty combustion by-products gasoline does. That also makes the inside of your engine lasts longer because it's not putting corrosive gunk into the oil.Natural gas and propane both contain carbon, which means emitting CO2 upon combustion. I thought we were trying to find ways around that?