Back to the future???

[Floatsflyer]

According to an Avweb exclusive, AOPA thinks the venerable Cessna 152 may be the trainer of the future and therefore the hoped-for key to affordable flying. It entered into a secretive (not any more) project to see if it's right. AOPA has confirmed that it is currently refurbishing a number of 152's with some modern avionics to determine if affordable training and ownership can be culled from the existing fleet.

Practicality, reliability, training and ownership affordability and rental potential is the focus of the project to demonstrate to flying clubs and flight schools that refurbished existing trainers can be effectively and efficiently used to attract new pilots, grow the pilot population and significantly reduce flying costs.

The greatest fear of SLSA producers has been that the FAA would consider an increase to the max weight to include 150/152's. That doesn't look like it will happen, at least in the foreseable future. However, this AOPA initiative, if implemented, may offer the elephant in the room another way to bust loose. If I was a SLSA producer I'd be concerned. AOPA is looking at a target price of $85K. Stay tuned.

[Jim Rosenow]

Plan(e) B?....

Agreed the 150/2 is one of the best training airplanes around. There are many sitting around dis-used that could possibly be puchased and brought back to spec (no glass) for much less than that by an enterprising individual.

Case in point...we were in the LA area last week for a few days. We parked at SoCal Flying Club at El Monte airport while we were there. In the tie-down next to us was a 150 that didn't look ALL that bad, but had obviously been sitting there awhile, was sitting on flat tires and needed at least a bunch of TLC. Didn't even get the n-number, but it looked like an opportunity for someone in the area that was willing to work some to fly. I pass it along for what it's worth...

Hope you will consider this at least tangentically topic-related, Floats :-)

Jim

[Bill]

Sounds as logical as putting an Intel Haswell 22-nm CPU into a TRS-80 Color Computer (remember them?).

I can remember when aviation was the future, not the past.

[1600vw]

The biggest problem being this is the eaa is most folks fly from small grass fields today. I am speaking of the EAA types. So why spend all that cash to put a 150/2 in the air when one can build or buy something like these.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/pic08/701-801-750.jpg

[Greg Wilson]

The biggest problem being this is the eaa is most folks fly from small grass fields today. I am speaking of the EAA types. So why spend all that cash to put a 150/2 in the air when one can build or buy something like these.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/pic08/701-801-750.jpg

The "why" would be commercial use of the aircraft. The cost could be potentially less to "refurbish" a C-150/152 than it is to buy a new S-LSA,( the used S-LSA market is still very small). Remember also that Sport pilot instruction does not have to be in a light sport aircraft, only the check ride. That could mean that a FBO could have one S-LSA that is used for check rides and rental while less expensive C-150s are taking the beatings of primary instruction at a much lower acquisition cost.

[Mike Berg]

Also, as one who flies a Champ under light sport, you have to think long and hard about landing on a hard surface runway with a nasty 15- 20 kt crosswind with a tail dragger. Not near the problem with C150/152 or Cherokee, etc. Grass on the other hand is more forgiving. Just another reason to drop the third class medical requirement for aircraft over 1320 GW.

[lnuss]

The biggest problem being this is the eaa is most folks fly from small grass fields today. I am speaking of the EAA types. So why spend all that cash to put a 150/2 in the air when one can build or buy something like these.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/pic08/701-801-750.jpg

There aren't grass fields everywhere -- in fact a goodly chunk of the western US doesn't have the kind of grass fields that are much more common in the east (they're closer to dirt, if they're not paved). And lots of EAA types fly from paved fields.

As to your question about the 150/2, homebuilding airplanes isn't for everyone (even for some EAA folks), and those considering refurbishing older certificated aircraft are looking at new folks, as well as many existing pilots that aren't into experimentals. And, of course, for commercial operations EXP is out.

[mbond]

sounds great until you consider the useful load of a 150/2 and the growing size of america.

200lbs isn't uncommon, and 2 200lb people will put them over weight at full fuel. especially if you are adding weight with modern avionics ...

[lnuss]

adding weight with modern avionics ...

If updating from older avionics, I'd think you'd reduce weight a bit. And there are still a lot of 150-180 lb. people out there.

[Greg Wilson]

My thought on the avionics would be to keep it as simple as possible. Equip with what is needed at your airport nothing more, so as to keep the cost and weight down. Much of the avionics and radio training can be done on the ground not in the "primary" trainer. The thought of "over weight at full fuel" is a big part of the complaints about the new LSA's as well. The solution to that is easy don't fill the tanks. I had my primary training in a Cherokee warrior, two people,160 hp and a PARTIAL fuel load was the norm. Even at 9 gallons per hour why carry 48 gallons? the normal training flight is one hour carry two hours of fuel that's plenty. For cross-countries, it makes it real if weight and balance must be considered, not just computed as an exercise. A C-150 (+- 6 gal/hr) with 26 gallons of fuel could leave most of it behind on the majority of training flights. Just some thoughts from some one who, it seems, is "getting old".:)

[Bill Greenwood]

Just my sort of informed guess, but I think the big thing for most students just starting out is cost, and if an older 150 is the cheapest so be it.
Here in Boulder, it seems cost is certainly the factor and the 150 and 172 were getting good use. Another factor is the CFI. When the prospective student walks in the door, if the CFI really wants to ride around for 30 hours and have a glass cockpit the student is likely to be shown and sold on the Diamond D40, although the 172 has a Garmin 1000 also.
To me, a Diamond is funny looking, but some students are drawn to the more modern and strange plastic planes and like to play with all the advanced avionics. I think the 150s should have a basic navcom with a vor and maybe a simple gps. They don't need to spend $20,000 for a fancy all glass panel or spend a lot of the students time learning how to use all the that that kind of panel can do, rather the student really needs to know how to fly, and hopefully not skip over not only flight basics but fundamental navigation.
I know people that can barely drive around the block without their gps and if it goes off they don't have any idea where they are. Not good for pilots.

[Mike Berg]

I did all my training (many moons ago) in either a 150 or 152 with just the basic navigation equipment and this was before GPS or LOREN for that matter. It seems like looking out the window and following or splitting the section lines (if there happens to be some) along with your finger on the map makes someone a better navigational pilot. My Cherokee had a VOR and LOREN which was suspect at times. I now fly a L16 (Champ) with a GPS but I still look out the window and watch the moving map even if it happens to be on a screen and the paper maps are close by in the side pocket. Groundspeed, compass and time are still an important function of "where am I".