arj1 wrote:
in many schools that was the only way forward:
For many schools the only way at all! The demand for training in 40 year old steam airplanes is declining rapidly in many parts of Europe.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The demand for training in 40 year old steam airplanes is declining rapidly in many parts of Europe.
Same situation here. Nobody wants to train in old steam-driven stuff anymore, least of all the commercial students who will be flying glass in their careers.
The same fashion now for MEP & MEIR trainings, everybody wanted that training in DA42, first it’s the easiest aircraft on earth (all makes & types) and second, glass cockpit fits nicely in the twin jet carrer path…
If you ask about Seneca or Baron, the answer why?
Ibra wrote:
If you ask about Seneca or Baron, the answer why?
They could fly higher and Baron exists as pressurized variant as well, otherwise – no reason, I think…
Speed?
Six seats! May be that one?
arj1 wrote:
They could fly higher and Baron exists as pressurized variant as well, otherwise – no reason, I think…
Speed?
Six seats! May be that one?
None of the above relevant for training. Having TAA (Technically Advanced Airplane in FAA-speak, glass cockpit IOW) time counts for much more than flying the GS at 100kts (Baron) or 90Kts (Tecnam).
172driver wrote:
arj1 wrote: They could fly higher and Baron exists as pressurized variant as well, otherwise – no reason, I think… Speed? Six seats! May be that one?None of the above relevant for training. Having TAA (Technically Advanced Airplane in FAA-speak, glass cockpit IOW) time counts for much more than flying the GS at 100kts (Baron) or 90Kts (Tecnam).
What I meant was to familiarise yourself with this bigger plane so you could rent it (or buy it) to transport more people.
For basic training on a school aircraft? I see no reason…
arj1 wrote:
1. new com/nav to replace the 25kHz one so you have 2 radios that you could use at the same time
2. GTN adds PBN/RNAV (quite a few did not have anything or had “VFR-only” panel-mount GPS)
3. G5 is usually a start for a future GFC 500 installation as the existing A/P is either broken or just doesn’t exist. :)
1. Yes, we decided to get a second 8.33 radio – com/nav1 was a GNS430 at the time.
2. None of us have a full IR but several have an IR(R), so PBN and RNAV not that relevant in the UK where nearly all instrument approaches the aeroplane does will be an ILS. The change was really because the 430 was getting old and the keys were sticky, and we didn’t fancy throwing money at repairs.
3. No plans for an autopilot and none fitted – I imagine it would be very expensive but it might be interesting to get a quote. The G5 was really because the old fashioned DI was awful and wandered as soon as you turned. I would be keen to fit a second G5 above it.
arj1 wrote:
What I meant was to familiarise yourself with this bigger plane so you could rent it (or buy it) to transport more people.
Got it. You’ll struggle to find a Baron for rent. If at all, it’ll be the smaller BE55 and the insurance company will require training / time in type anyway before they write a policy.
Graham wrote:
I would be keen to fit a second G5 above it.
I strongly agree, the dual G5 setup makes for a great combo.
I fear neither the late model Seneca V or BE58 have the useful load to carry six passengers. The late glass cockpit models have very modest useful loads far removed from the original design philosophy.
A Seneca V is probably OK for three adults and light luggage with 90 USG, and a two seater with full tanks!
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Powerplant first, all things mechanical and electronical 2nd, paint and cosmetics last. That is at least from the safety point of view what my priorities have been.
I second that. I really like my machines in a good working order and tend to ignore things like cleaning (unless it’s corrosive) that only please the eye. When looking at plane advertisements I must admit that I am often a little bit repulsed by disgusting 70s interior colors but this should only affect the first impression because that can be easily fixed. But then comes the look at the avionics. I don’t see the point of a fully integrated flight deck but rather prefer something modular. All steam is absolutely no show stopper and I even prefer a mechanical turn coordinator and analog gauges for the engine. A digital tachometer showing 5198 rpm will only trigger my OCD. But transponders with mechanical BCD switches and radios from the avionics museum thread are really a turn off for me. I want to be able to punch in a squawk at the moment of hearing it and be able to quickly hop between frequencies and maybe listen to ATIS simultaneously. Maybe the old radios are fine in America but in Central Europe’s complicated and busy airspaces they only add unnecessary stress.
