Why doesn’t someone come up with a Cessna 152 replacement for flying schools
The Tecnams both 2002 and 2008 are building a reasonable reputation, and seem to be standing up to a school type environment. Whether they can match the longevity of the 150/152, I don’t think I will be around to see this.
Why doesn’t someone come up with a Cessna 152 replacement for flying schools
I will – and for a competitive price, too. One condition, though: give me a guarantee you’ll buy as many as the original C150/C152 sold. Let’s see, a cash advance of 25% on 7500 pieces, at 300.000 or so € each ; plus a solid warranty for the other 75% of course. That’s a deal?
Then again, does the proven venerable C152 really need a replacement? What’s bad about it? Perhaps perhaps a Rotax-powered variant could be considered, perhaps. Some chap in CZ turned up a c172 look-alike, (or was it a C182?) scaled at some 80% – how’s about a 95% or 105% look-alike of the C152? Powered with the injected Rotax, or even better, its new turbo-blown variant, it ought to be a winner.
None of those “replacement” linked to are more cost effective to operate than the Cessna 152. Neither is the tecnam 2002.
I can’t comment about the 2008 as I’ve not come across anyone who operates one.
Yes we do need a 152 replacement if the industry is to try and regain its former glory.
Try operating a 30+ year old airframe with a 60+ year old engine design. And then require it to fly 500 hours a year. Its nigh on imposdible.r
The only cost effective aircraft to buy new these days is the ikrus C42 and that’s a microlight.
If a commercially viable training aircraft doesn’t enter the training industry then we won’t have any industry
Bathman wrote:
None of those “replacement” linked to are more cost effective to operate than the Cessna 152.
That may be, but it is solely on the ground of two effects:
1) Those new aircraft (well, except the G115A/C162) compete with used Cessna 150/152s and the higher purchase price does account for higher aquisition cost
2) The Maintainability of the C150/152 is superb as it is very well documented and doesn’t make high demands on the repair facility, as any FRP-plane does.
Any new C152 replacemet would have to struggle with these two effects, since you just can’t build any aircraft that cheap as a used C152. Then, the repair documentation of any comparable aircraft would set you back quite a lot of man hours, that could be reduced in allowing standard repair methods, which are pretty much described for FRP materials, too.
Many European models struggle to get accepted in the US, although it get’s better (as the Diamond and the CT show).
The C42 is available as LSA, too. It goes by the name of Lightwing AC-4: http://www.lightwing.ch/index.php?id=ac4
I managed to fly the Stream and the Blackshape one after the other one day last week so could compare, in particular on things that are important to me..
Cockpit
I measure 1.91 cm and in the BS I barely fit up front and do not fit in the back. The Stream was fine. But it all depends on ‘head-to-butt’ length of course. Now with age we all shrink so fitting in is just a matter of time. 
The visibility is outstanding for both aircraft. Slight advantage for the Blackshape with its smaller wings.
Avionics, controls: I prefer the Stream’s Garmin 3X over the Blackshape’s Dynon. Sharper display to start with. Nice, separate A/P controls too. I like the side stick controls of the Stream better than the centre stick of the BS, if only because you can put stuff on your lap. Besides, the centre stick of the BS is rather low which I found a little awkward.
Flying
I am anal about sound levels. The Stream wins, but I suppose this is only because of the 3-blade prop vs the 2-bladed prop on the BS. My Bristell is rather quiet, but the Stream beats it! With the Bose A20 and a engine RPM of 5000 is was impressively quiet. I suppose it has to do with composites vs metal and maybe the smaller cross section of the fuselage, i.e. less surface of a vibrating bulkhead?
The in-flight handling is similar. Both are very stable in normal flight. Steep turns are like on rails. The Stream’s control are noticeably heavier though, probably because of the short arm to the first pivot point. A matter of personal taste. It definitively feels like flying a bigger aircraft. The electric trim on the Stream is too slow for my taste, repeatedly creating a PIO. But these things are just a matter of getting used to.
I did not do any stalls in the BS, pilot in the back told me it can easily drop a wing. Pilot in the back of the Stream told me the Stream does that too, so he asked me to make sure to keep the ball nicely centred. Stalls were consistent at 59 KIAS flaps up, plenty of buffet and rather mild.
Landing both planes is not a big deal. The slotted flaps on the Stream are very effective, but the smaller ailerons make larger inputs necessary to keep level at low speeds which became apparent after encountering some gusts on short final.
Speed is not a priority for me. I saw a slight advantage for the Blackshape but this may not be representative (different payload, and possible different accuracies of ASIs).BS 130 KIAS at 65%, Stream 125.
Some general observations
Both are nice machines and seem very well built. Although data is sketchy, the empty weight of the BS is higher, close to 400kg for a fully equipped one while the Stream is around 325 kg. Both aircraft are non-aerobatic but the BS is clearly capable of light-aero, positive G of course. Ask me how I know and I will tell you to get on YouTube, ahem 
The pilot who flew with me on the Stream categorically denied any aero capabilities..
As to track record, the BS is ahead as they have probably built around 50, while TL built less than 10 Streams. AFAIUI they are in the phase of a limited airworthiness regime that applies to a pre-production series of 10 exemplars. So know I can walk around the village here telling everyone I’m a certified test pilot. Going off buying a Buck Danny jacket tomorrow..
Tandem vs side-by-side. Obviously these planes are more pilot-oriented than ‘couple’ oriented. I’m not sure I’m going to score a lot of points with my loved one when I have to ask her to put the raft on her lap when we go to Catalonia.
Still I’m tempted to subtract 220 k from my kids’ inheritance, in spite of the stock markets of the last 3 days..
Did they test spinning these aircraft?
An incipient spin was done on the Blackshape apparently
But if one believes in simulation (a pretty poweful tool nowadays) it looks like the Blackshape would be OK to recover from a developed spin too:
https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/141092/1/2018_04_Esposito.PDF
And if one does not believe in the power of simulation, one pulls the chute right after the first rotation
[ local copy ]
aart wrote:
But if one believes in simulation (a pretty poweful tool nowadays) it looks like the Blackshape would be OK to recover from a developed spin too:
Small differences even between different aircraft of the same type can mean a lot for spin characteristics. Are the models good enough for spins?
https://www.tl-ultralight.cz/en/ultralight-aircraft/stream-turbo
Looks like they’ve come up with a beefed-up version. No speeds listed, but will be way over 200 KTAS no? Empty weight 450 kg, MTOM 800 kg. So it’s not an ULM, and I wonder what the plan is here. CS23 certification? Or just for the military?
Apart from the tandem seater, they also introduced a side-by-side ULM Stream, called the Sparker. An attractive design.
That turboprop version must be incredibly good fun. Looks like a miniature PC-21.
I’d really like to fly the Stream, I’ve done a few hours in a TL Sting S3 which is great fun to fly. Very nice handling (except the full flap stall…) and lands easier than a C150. Being fully carbon it does feel more substantial than fibreglass equivalents.
