Type and Age of airframes

[Falcons]

Hi all,

I am looking to train for my PPL.
I am based in London in the UK and went through a couple of thoughts about where to train.

Here in the UK or in the US.

What I thought it would come down to, (ie a short sharp intensive course in the US vs a longer approach in the UK both for similar money) is not all at play.

What surprises me is that not only is the flying more expensive in the UK (which is why you can travel to the US and pay for accommodation for the same total cost) but the airframes are REALLY OLD!!

The PA28-161 Warrior II and C-172 that I would train on are all many decades old.
The training plane of choice, C-152 are at least the same age, but my knees do not fit.

Is that the same in the USA?

If I am paying £180 / $270/ (Dual Training per hour) I would hope for a more modern plane.

Sure the engine might be newer and sure the plane is airworthy, but in the same way I’d rather drive a newer Ford that one from the 70s or 80s, I’d rather fly a newer plane!

 

[Johann]

For $270/hour in the US you can get a newer plane, depending on the area.

But if you want to train cheaper (and it looks like you would have to if you want it to come down to the same amount after adding travel and accommodations), you'll train in older planes.

Not sure how old you are talking about, but mid 70s is pretty standard for a trainer if you are paying "cheap".

 

[JHW]

warriors were made in the 70's-80's. That is on the new end of the GA fleet.

 

[James331]

Hi all,

I am looking to train for my PPL.
I am based in London in the UK and went through a couple of thoughts about where to train.

Here in the UK or in the US.

What I thought it would come down to, (ie a short sharp intensive course in the US vs a longer approach in the UK both for similar money) is not all at play.

What surprises me is that not only is the flying more expensive in the UK (which is why you can travel to the US and pay for accommodation for the same total cost) but the airframes are REALLY OLD!!

The PA28-161 Warrior II and C-172 that I would train on are all many decades old.
The training plane of choice, C-152 are at least the same age, but my knees do not fit.

Is that the same in the USA?

If I am paying £180 / $270/ (Dual Training per hour) I would hope for a more modern plane.

Sure the engine might be newer and sure the plane is airworthy, but in the same way I’d rather drive a newer Ford that one from the 70s or 80s, I’d rather fly a newer plane!

It's how the plane is maintained, the age isn't really a factor. I've flown planes built post 2010 that were beat to he11, I've flown planes built in the 40's that were like factory new and vise versa.

People get in this mindset nowadays because they don't understand maintenance and don't buy quality products built to last anymore.

 

[Falcons]

Firstly, thank you all for your posts

It's how the plane is maintained, the age isn't really a factor. I've flown planes built post 2010 that were beat to he11, I've flown planes built in the 40's that were like factory new and vise versa.

People get in this mindset nowadays because they don't understand maintenance and don't buy quality products built to last anymore.

James,
I understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree.
Sure good furniture of old was man built very well, but all the soft furnishings need replacing.
In the case of these a/c, their seats, key controls, canopy all need a change and would provide a very different look and feel to many of the training a/c I saw at different schools.

At some point, even though these planes (airframes in particular) are fully depreciated, their maintenance costs will start to draw them level cost-wise with planes 15-20 years their younger.

I am not suggesting that I would want to pay for a new model of aircraft, but a more recent built date would be good. Even if the aircraft is 20 years old that would be a huge improvement.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I am not suggesting that I would want to pay for a new model of aircraft, but a more recent built date would be good. Even if the aircraft is 20 years old that would be a huge improvement.

Cessna didn't build any small airplanes between 1986 and 1996. Piper hasn't built many airplanes at all for some time. Those two were the big providers of training airplanes for decades. So most schools have either rather old airplanes or rather new airplanes, with little in the middle.

You'd need to visit some schools and take a look at their airplanes. Ratty upholstery, missing instruments or equipment that's placarded inoperative is a bad sign.

Dan

 

[JHW]

At some point, even though these planes (airframes in particular) are fully depreciated, their maintenance costs will start to draw them level cost-wise with planes 15-20 years their younger.

I see no difference in maintenance costs for a comparable airframs from 1960 vs 1990. They are both old to one degree or another and both break the same types of things

 

[Hank S]

Falcon, you don't define "decades old" airplanes. I got my PPL in 2007, flying 1979 & 1981 Skyhawks. The plane that I now own was built in 1970.

Just make sure the planes are in good mechanical shape and are properly taken care of. The required periodic inspections keep airplanes in much better shape, for much longer, than even the most fanatical car owner ever will. Something to ask is when was the engine overhauled? My 1970 plane has a 2003 engine.

 

[Kristin]

At my local airport, which is on the fringes of the greater San Francisco bay area so a relatively high rent district, a 7 year old C-172SP with a G1000 package is $210 an hour with instructor, at the club rate. A 40 year old C-150, by comparison about $145 an hour. Older C-172's are about $165 w/instructor.

Maintenance is the issue. It takes proactive maintenance to have good dispatch reliability on an older plane. You can't just wait until something breaks. You have to figure out what is going to break soon, and get it before it does. One outfit on the field as junk that I wouldn't fly, and the other has a first class maintenance facility and makes enough money that it can afford to maintain the aircraft and are aggressive about doing so.

My aircraft is 45 years old, and as a light twin, has a few things that can break. In the eight years I have owned her, I can considered her a flying restoration project in that when something starts to go wonky, the whole system will be overhauled. The result is that I use the plane for business and have criss-crossed the country and have never had a flight even delayed for a maintenance issue.

 

[James331]

Firstly, thank you all for your posts



James,
I understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree.
Sure good furniture of old was man built very well, but all the soft furnishings need replacing.
In the case of these a/c, their seats, key controls, canopy all need a change and would provide a very different look and feel to many of the training a/c I saw at different schools.

At some point, even though these planes (airframes in particular) are fully depreciated, their maintenance costs will start to draw them level cost-wise with planes 15-20 years their younger.

I am not suggesting that I would want to pay for a new model of aircraft, but a more recent built date would be good. Even if the aircraft is 20 years old that would be a huge improvement.

That's not been my experience.

I own (for going on 6yrs now) a plane built in the late 40's, average annual for me is about 500bucks.

The only large money I've spent was optional toys I didn't need but wanted.

Also for flight training, who really cares if the seats are kinda shabby or the paint ruff etc. if the plane is sound and the important stuff is kept up that's what you need for training and what matters, but hey there are plenty of places that have pretty planes with pretty plane rates who curtail to people with money to burn.

 

[Dr. O]

I am feeling that given your fixation on how new is the airplane you will fly, that maybe you are not cut out for flying.

 

[jhausch]

I think this speaks to an issue more prevalent than current pilots realize.

Putting young candidates on a pro pilot path aside, many people interested and with the means to fly are put off by the condition and age of the training fleet.

LSAs can help, but they are only a little less expensive than a newer "traditional" trainer. Its just hard to make the economics work at those acquisition costs.

 

[deltaindia]

If you're coming from the UK for the purpose of obtaining a pilot cert, you'll be best to check out the Part 141 schools that typically have a more fast paced, structured training program. Often you'll be doing ground and air work 5 days/week, and they can get you licensed in as little as 35 hours of flying time, though your mileage may vary depending on your own pace and how well you absorb the info and apply the flying skills. Many foreign students come over to the part 141 schools because of this structured design.

You'll find that many of the part 141 schools also tend to keep their fleet more up to date.

Now, none of this is to say that a part 61 school isn't for you either. It's just a different pace. You will still be trained to the same FAA standards at either a part 61 or 141 school. At a part 61 school, it may take you longer if you don't get an instructor who can work with you on an accellerated schedule.

Here's a recent article about the differences:
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-technique/new-pilots/flight-school-part-61-or-part-141

Assuming you are not a US citizen, also keep in mind that whatever route you choose, you will need to have the flight school work with you on getting your TSA background check and approval before you can begin any air training. Most part 141 schools have this process pretty streamlined since they commonly train foreigners. A lot of part 61 schools don't due to the time and paperwork involved.

 

[Falcons]

I am feeling that given your fixation on how new is the airplane you will fly, that maybe you are not cut out for flying.

Denny,
Maybe you are right.
However if I wanted to fly the planes my grandfather flew in the 30s and 40s I would want a vintage plane.
I do not wish to fly the planes my father flew in the 80s when even then they were not new or considered vintage.

Do I want a glass cockpit 172, no, do I want a tatty old one either, no.

As I have said, maybe my orginial post around the airframe age is unecessary for training, but there are parts you can replace to make the planes feel newer.

A C-152 / 172, PA28-161 might be great trainers but as I pointed out, flying is not a cheap hobby, so it does not fit with the image, when it looks like you are flying a cheap 2nd-hand machine.

Sure the engine is less old and the plane passes airworthiness, but my 16-year old car passes its annual test (here in the UK) but that is cheap and chips to run!

If flying costs £8k+ for a license and £3k/yr+ for fun, then I have to price what £3k+ a year buys in other activities.
Even if they were old but faster at least you could go to fun places in a day. Remember that around London so much of the airspace is controlled, it is not like we just go up and have fun.

If there is no middle ground between expensive new planes that are used by individuals and private syndicates and the cheap old planes that flying clubs use (and have used for 20+ years), then I am indeed disappointed.

 

[Falcons]

If you're coming from the UK for the purpose of obtaining a pilot cert, you'll be best to check out the Part 141 schools that typically have a more fast paced, structured training program. Often you'll be doing ground and air work 5 days/week, and they can get you licensed in as little as 35 hours of flying time, though your mileage may vary depending on your own pace and how well you absorb the info and apply the flying skills. Many foreign students come over to the part 141 schools because of this structured design.

You'll find that many of the part 141 schools also tend to keep their fleet more up to date.

Now, none of this is to say that a part 61 school isn't for you either. It's just a different pace. You will still be trained to the same FAA standards at either a part 61 or 141 school. At a part 61 school, it may take you longer if you don't get an instructor who can work with you on an accellerated schedule.

Here's a recent article about the differences:
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-technique/new-pilots/flight-school-part-61-or-part-141

Assuming you are not a US citizen, also keep in mind that whatever route you choose, you will need to have the flight school work with you on getting your TSA background check and approval before you can begin any air training. Most part 141 schools have this process pretty streamlined since they commonly train foreigners. A lot of part 61 schools don't due to the time and paperwork involved.

Insightful - thank you.

I might not do it in one go, but use it nearer the end to build hours maybe?

 

[deltaindia]

If there is no middle ground between expensive new planes that are used by individuals and private syndicates and the cheap old planes that flying clubs use (and have used for 20+ years), then I am indeed disappointed.

There is plenty of middle ground. I commonly fly late 70's, early 80's Pipers from flight schools that have very nice interiors, panels and avionics. It's been a while, for example, that I've been in one of those types of planes that did not have a panel GPS, for example.

 

[JHW]

is it about age or appearances or both ?

I gutted my interior and put < $1500 into it, seats, side panels, carpet. It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to have something that might not be a lexus but is certainly very presentable.

My airplane was made in 1958. Would the OP fly in it ?

 

[Falcons]

Great examples

There is plenty of middle ground. I commonly fly late 70's, early 80's Pipers from flight schools that have very nice interiors, panels and avionics. It's been a while, for example, that I've been in one of those types of planes that did not have a panel GPS, for example.

I gutted my interior and put < $1500 into it, seats, side panels, carpet. It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to have something that might not be a lexus but is certainly very presentable.

My airplane was made in 1958. Would the OP fly in it ?

I think you have both provided great examples.
As I have now realised to keep it affordable you probably need an older airframe. But that does not mean it has to look that old (and naf, if that word is used over the pond) inside!

Both those sounds way better than I saw over here in the less than £150/hr flying price.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Train in the cheapest thing you can find.
Your PPL will look the same whether you paid 6k or 16k

 

[Dan Thomas]

Train in the cheapest thing you can find.
Your PPL will look the same whether you paid 6k or 16k

The paper will look the same. The abilities within the pilot might be vastly inferior. Cheap airplanes are often rented by cheap flying schools that hire cheap instructors interested only in cheap time-building for themselves and train the pilot just barely enough to get that license. Some of them will milk the pilot, making him take more flight time just to get his money, with the excuse that he isn't ready yet. There are too many 80-hour students out there who have already paid way more for that cheap license than if they'd gone to a respectable school.

You usually get what you pay for.

Dan

 

[flyingron]

My Navion was built in 1950. It has been through several major renovations over the years. The last one I did in 2004 which involved putting brand new IO-550, overhauling most of the systems, new paint, ultra leather interior, complete new panel fabricated with the "then" latest (GNS480, MX20, STEC-55X autopilot, XM Weather weather). I could have gone out and bought a new A36 I suppose, but it lacks the class of the older aircraft.

 

[James331]

The paper will look the same. The abilities within the pilot might be vastly inferior. Cheap airplanes are often rented by cheap flying schools that hire cheap instructors interested only in cheap time-building for themselves and train the pilot just barely enough to get that license. Some of them will milk the pilot, making him take more flight time just to get his money, with the excuse that he isn't ready yet. There are too many 80-hour students out there who have already paid way more for that cheap license than if they'd gone to a respectable school.

You usually get what you pay for.

Dan

That's not true at all.

Most places pay their CFIs 25ish a hr, also the best instruction I've recieced was not in pretty planes, and the newest plane I paid for instruction in was at ATP inc, and was probably the worst instruction I have experienced thus far.

Best way to earn your PPL, find a freelance CFI who is also an ATP & Goldseal, rent a Citabria and LEARN how to really fly

 

[JHW]

The paper will look the same. The abilities within the pilot might be vastly inferior. Cheap airplanes are often rented by cheap flying schools that hire cheap instructors interested only in cheap time-building for themselves and train the pilot just barely enough to get that license. Some of them will milk the pilot, making him take more flight time just to get his money, with the excuse that he isn't ready yet. There are too many 80-hour students out there who have already paid way more for that cheap license than if they'd gone to a respectable school.

You usually get what you pay for.

Dan

wow have you drank the kool aid

 

[murphey]

Denny,

A C-152 / 172, PA28-161 might be great trainers but as I pointed out, flying is not a cheap hobby, so it does not fit with the image, when it looks like you are flying a cheap 2nd-hand machine.

And here's the crux of the matter (my emphasis above). The OP wants to look good flying. It's all about the impression he makes.

Every once in a while (usually in Hour 4 of a 6 hour flight) I think about a faster airplane. Then I remember - I have an airplane. Think about how few people learn to fly, and how even fewer own an airplane.

 

[JHW]

And here's the crux of the matter (my emphasis above). The OP wants to look good flying. It's all about the impression he makes.

it's a little like snother poster. He could have flown a champ etc but he was married to the idea of a shiny new skycatcher as the definition of aviation.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Then clear the sky when I'm flying because I learned in a 1964 Cessna 172.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I'm not really sure how to reply to this.

If you want to learn in a newish Cirrus then there are schools who cater to you. You're going to pay significantly more to do so (apparently $23,000 plus fuel costs) because the costs of maintaining a fleet of new Cirri are going to be higher than a comparable (yes, I said comparable) fleet of 30-40 year old "cheap 2nd-hand machine". And there are people who are willing to go this route.

There are more people who want to get their training (relatively) affordably and efficiently, and there's a solid role for older airframes here. Where I live that same 70 hours of flight time in a mechanically sound 172 costs $9,540 if you assume the same 70 hours of rental, but this includes fuel. That's a significant savings for most folks, and I'd think most aspiring pilots see the private pilot ticket as a stepping stone, not an experience to be cherished. Money saved here is loans that don't need to be paid back, a happier wife, or money that can be put toward more training or (heaven forbid) a sizable chunk of his/her own "cheap 2nd-hand machine."

The nicest planes you see are privately owned planes, not heavily used trainers. Buy an old, "cheap, 2nd-hand" plane that suits your mission, invest in the perfect paint job, upgrade the interior to your standards, upgrade the engine if you want more power, redo the panel to suit, and fly it for the next 30 years. Take pride in it, pamper it, baby it, upgrade it constantly until it's absolutely perfect for you. And you'll end up with a plane better than you can buy new, for cheaper, even if it was built before Reagan was in office.

Or, hell, spend $515,000 for the new Cessna Skylane and keep it immaculate. But don't be surprised if its appeal drops depressingly quickly once you put it on the flight line where it'll be flown by students. And in ten years, the fancy new plane is gonna be used and second-hand for the next buyer anyway.

Edit: check out this 34 year old plane whose asking price is 40% of a new Skylane. Just 'cause it's old doesn't mean it sucks.

 

[cowman]

For less than half the cost of a new 172, archer, etc I could buy a mid 70s model and give it a new engine, new interior, new paint, and new avionics. At that point, you'd be hard pressed to even tell the difference between old and new.

Or for a bit more than 1/10 the cost just keep all the old stuff and fly something that performs just as well.

Wait, why does anyone even buy a new trainer? They're selling them so someone must be.