Either new or old.
All the new aircraft training aircraft that might be suitable for flight training are either not up to the job or more expensive to the end customer than the current fleet of two and four seat Cessna’s or pipers.
A school where I first worked replaced the wings/spars on their pa38 as they were out of hours. They had to use second hand examples. Now one of these aircraft is grounded because they are notable to get some replacement parts for the trim system as these parts are simply no longer supported.
I worry where the training industry is going to end up if this doesn’t chsnge. My local schools best training aircraft is 52 years old. And their newest was made in 1982.
They have looked at all the modern replacement s and none are commercially more viable than the current fleet that they operate.
In fact the only new aircraft that they could buy which is commercially viable is the Icarus C42 and that’s a microlight.
In Sweden there is one flight school who operates with an Evektor Sportstar#, they are so happy with it that they have ordered a new one to replace the older one. I am told it is a very gentle training aircraft.
Fly310 wrote:
they have ordered a new one to replace the older one.
Why are they replacing it?
Two belgian flight schools have ordered this one:
http://www.sonaca-aircraft.com
I suspect a part of the real reason why the old types are kept running is that the PPL training business is mostly horribly short of capital, so while £10k Annuals are “OK”, a £100k-200k purchase is impossible.
But the old “spamcans” are still very good for getting hammered in PPL training. Cessna is selling the 172 in good numbers, and a lot go to US schools. The NBAA numbers for 2016 were posted here recently and you can compare the C172 with say the SR22 sales.
Mind you, US schools are busy… the PA28-161 I did the IR in (Arizona) was doing 700hrs/year. That plane would down here be charged at £250/hr (with an FI in the RHS) which is a gross profit of something like £150/hr. What is the annual average for a UK PPL school plane?
The DA42 is similarly an excellent moneymaker in the FTO environment – again provided it gets worked hard. No problem getting the capital there.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Why are they replacing it?
Not sure why to be honest. All I know is that the old one is for sale and there is a new one coming.
Peter wrote:
the PA28-161 I did the IR in (Arizona) was doing 700hrs/year. That plane would down here be charged at £250/hr (with an FI in the RHS) which is a gross profit of something like £150/hr. What is the annual average for a UK PPL school plane?
I wonder, did the US PA28-161 you mention have a glass cockpit or was it very new? It’s just I can find hourly (South East UK) training rates (with instructor) for a steam gauge PA28-1*8*1 with Garmin 430 from £180 and for a similarly equipped PA28-201R from £236 i.e. both less than you indicate.
did the US PA28-161 you mention have a glass cockpit or was it very new?
Neither – I guess it was 1980s. I can look up the reg if you need it. I deliberately avoided schools with G1000 planes because this was a carefully organised 2-week trip and I did not want to waste one single day learning stuff not applicable to me.
both less than you indicate.
I just reported what I was paying for my younger son’s lessons down here, about 3 years ago. Maybe it changed. But I think my point still stands i.e. if you can get decent utilisation then a couple of hundred quid an hour or so generates a decent profit. Actually even a TB20 would make money at that rate – it not starting life totally shagged.
I see the continued success of existing training aircraft as a nice example of how selling throw away technology to a short sighted consumer does not always win, and is not always the right idea.
The PA38 Tomahawk is a good example of the converse, cheaply made and not well supported by the manufacturer, a product of 1970s thinking… “there’s a great future in plastics” 
They are apparently now reaching the end of their road as earlier designs keep going.
Earlier design aircraft (Cessnas and Cherokees) represent the benefit of not being short on capital: they were relatively expensive to buy when new, but were a good long term investment. That investment has allowed flight training to evolve over time into a lower cost model than would have been possible if the aircraft had to be replaced regularly. The model continues to operate in the sense that Cessna continues to sell (expensive) 172s to make up for attrition, at a combined cost to the industry that’s not that high given the longevity of what is already bought and paid for.
Fly310 wrote:
Not sure why to be honest. All I know is that the old one is for sale and there is a new one coming.
If it is this aircraft, it has 1500 hour TT with 500 hours left on the engine. It does have a 25 kHz COM.
