Good and bad comments on Flight Design or Skycatcher

[bucksmith]

How come we don't see more Grumman Tigers out there for training? The newer ones are really nice.

 

[Inverted25]

Unless something has changed you cannot give instruction in an experimental to anyone but the owner without a LOA. Basically the only time they give out LOA for experimental is to do transition training in a unique experimental. They aren't going to let you use RV-12s in a flight school period. A flying club is another matter since everyone in the club is technically a owner of the airplane.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I"m looking for a newer replacement for the 152 I have now. It burns 6.1 GPH, requires a valve adjustment every 100 hours, and doesn't fit 30-40% of the students that show up. Most of the light sports out there seem to have tweeked the seating configuration for taller students, fuel burn seems to be 4.5GPH or below, and doesn't require a $440 valve adjustment every 100 hours.

You don't want a Skycatcher, they aren't very forgiving to fly, are prone to prop strikes or departing the runway, likely expensive to insure for what they are. And are still very limited on weight. Plus, I find the spartan interior rather uncomfortable.

The 9 gals/hour you probably burn in a 172 isn't much worse than the 6 you'll burn in the 162. At $4/gal, you are looking at a difference of ~$12/hour. You are already paying $5/hour for valve adjustments on the 152 that 1/3rd of your customers won't fly... Might not be the absolute cheapest option, but the early 80's vintage Cessna's are at least predictable. The aircraft is costing you money when it isn't flying, so the #1 consideration should be how much you can keep it on the line. A good way to choose airframes is to look at what other operations are using and what flies the most for them. The 172P is a good choice, enough of them out there, cheap enough at about $50k, a good trainer and also enough useful load for renters in general. Fuel costs are similar for everyone, so you aren't competing on that.

I highly doubt newer planes will save you anything in maintenance. They still need the same 100 hour inspections, will still go through tires and batteries and oil and magnetos and plugs and engine overhauls. And when they do need work, parts are probably more expensive and harder to come by.

 

[mrivc211]

You don't want a Skycatcher, they aren't very forgiving to fly, are prone to prop strikes or departing the runway, likely expensive to insure for what they are. And are still very limited on weight. Plus, I find the spartan interior rather uncomfortable.

The 9 gals/hour you probably burn in a 172 isn't much worse than the 6 you'll burn in the 162. At $4/gal, you are looking at a difference of ~$12/hour. You are already paying $5/hour for valve adjustments on the 152 that 1/3rd of your customers won't fly... Might not be the absolute cheapest option, but the early 80's vintage Cessna's are at least predictable. The aircraft is costing you money when it isn't flying, so the #1 consideration should be how much you can keep it on the line. A good way to choose airframes is to look at what other operations are using and what flies the most for them. The 172P is a good choice, enough of them out there, cheap enough at about $50k, a good trainer and also enough useful load for renters in general. Fuel costs are similar for everyone, so you aren't competing on that.

I highly doubt newer planes will save you anything in maintenance. They still need the same 100 hour inspections, will still go through tires and batteries and oil and magnetos and plugs and engine overhauls. And when they do need work, parts are probably more expensive and harder to come by.

Good points. I've been looking at 172P's and N's. I had a nightmare on the last one I bought where the owner changed the oil before I bought it and I then found out the cylinder was toast on it. Lesson learned.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Good points. I've been looking at 172P's and N's. I had a nightmare on the last one I bought where the owner changed the oil before I bought it and I then found out the cylinder was toast on it. Lesson learned.

Bummer, but a cylinder jug is a lot cheaper than an engine. One thing to consider as well (if you can afford it), is keeping a spare mid-time engine around if you come across a deal on one. You'll need to buy one eventually anyway. But a few days having the plane off-line is better than a few weeks. Even better if you have a fleet of the same type.

 

[mrivc211]

Bummer, but a cylinder jug is a lot cheaper than an engine. One thing to consider as well (if you can afford it), is keeping a spare mid-time engine around if you come across a deal on one. You'll need to buy one eventually anyway. But a few days having the plane off-line is better than a few weeks. Even better if you have a fleet of the same type.

Thats ultimately the goal. I'd like to have about 4 airplanes flying about 50-60 hours a month each. I had an opportunity on a O-235 engine come up for my 152 but the seller was delusional on price. His engine only had 400 hours on it, he paid $16,000 for it. He was selling it back as a core for a trade in on a different engine for his aerobat 152. The shop that was taking it back only wanted the core so I asked how much and he said $12,000-13,000. I told him he was going to get zero for it if it goes back to the shop. He could take mine with 1600 hours on a 2400 TBO but he wouldn't budge. I offered him $5,000 for it. I just didn't want to bite on any more than that because I had no where to really put the engine as space in SNA is non existent.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Thats ultimately the goal. I'd like to have about 4 airplanes flying about 50-60 hours a month each. I had an opportunity on a O-235 engine come up for my 152 but the seller was delusional on price.

80 hours/month is a better target for actually making money on them. Which is 2.6, or about 2 lessons/day. Any less than that, and the math on my spreadsheets has never looked all that good. That used to be a fairly standard industry number, but the new normal might be a bit lower these days. Trainers tend to fly more than that here in Florida though.

 

[DE727UPS]

Totally agree with Drunkenbeagle assessment on 172 vs 152 above. I would add that you might consider a late 70's early 80's Cherokee Warrior. Same operating costs as another 172 but you get the people that think a plane looks more like a plane if the wings are on the bottom instead of on the roof.

 

[Markf64]

@mrivc211 I know Evektor Sportstars are being used as trainers at SNA. Have you looked into these?

 

[racemey]

I'm trying to purchase a newer plane. I have a 1980 cessna 152 and a 1981 cessna 172. After going through a lot of time, money, cancelled lessons trying to get the mx up to speed on these old birds, my thought process has been to move to something newer yet still relatively cheap. Both the Flight Design and Skycatcher are under $90,000 used yet still under 10 years old. I've been doing some research and it seems the flight design is the plane to buy. Does anyone have comments about either plane?

http://flightdesignusa.com/

I am currently teaching a guy in the Skycatcher he purchased a couple years ago and am pretty impressed with the thing despite the bad press and Cessna's experience. Same engine as the 150, a great avionics setup, foolproof fuel gauges (sight tube) - all in all a sturdy little bird. Our A & P was impressed. You can get them pretty cheap, though the useful load isn't great with full fuel so if you have a bigger student, you will have to start with less than full tanks. Its roomy enough. I like the seating position better than the 152.

 

[racemey]

I'm trying to purchase a newer plane. I have a 1980 cessna 152 and a 1981 cessna 172. After going through a lot of time, money, cancelled lessons trying to get the mx up to speed on these old birds, my thought process has been to move to something newer yet still relatively cheap. Both the Flight Design and Skycatcher are under $90,000 used yet still under 10 years old. I've been doing some research and it seems the flight design is the plane to buy. Does anyone have comments about either plane?

http://flightdesignusa.com/

The Flightdesign (which I haven't flown) looks very similar to a Remos GX (which I have) The Rotax engine is pretty bulletproof and sips gas. The Remos was a fun, easy, very light plane to fly and I imagine the Flightdesign is similar. I would recommend the Remos but it looks like the company is getting back on its feet after a bankruptcy so if you went this direction, the Flightdesign probably is a safer bet.

 

[mrivc211]

I am currently teaching a guy in the Skycatcher he purchased a couple years ago and am pretty impressed with the thing despite the bad press and Cessna's experience. Same engine as the 150, a great avionics setup, foolproof fuel gauges (sight tube) - all in all a sturdy little bird. Our A & P was impressed. You can get them pretty cheap, though the useful load isn't great with full fuel so if you have a bigger student, you will have to start with less than full tanks. Its roomy enough. I like the seating position better than the 152.

I appreciate and hold a lot of weight on your post due to the fact that you are flying the exact plane and you are teaching in it. I like all these opinions on this thread. Helping me a lot.

 

[racemey]

I appreciate and hold a lot of weight on your post due to the fact that you are flying the exact plane and you are teaching in it. I like all these opinions on this thread. Helping me a lot.

What the others have said about runway excursions is accurate, however. The castering nosewheel is a little quirky and Ive had to help with rudder a few times to keep us on the pavement.

 

[mrivc211]

What the others have said about runway excursions is accurate, however. The castering nosewheel is a little quirky and Ive had to help with rudder a few times to keep us on the pavement.

Good to know. I already have to help with the rudder throughout training so it doesn't help that the nose wheel is not torque linked.

 

[KVNC]

I have about 70 hours dual given in the Shenyang 162. It gets a lot of crap, but for what it's worth for the purpose of training it gets the job done. There are a lot of limitations though. Useful load is non-existent. For dual, the student is limited to 6' Max and under 175 pounds (I'm also 165 lbs) and you still can only take 1/2 tanks, which gives you roughly 2 hours endurance. Aft CG is also maxed out here so it takes almost full nose down trim to get straight & level at cruise. As mentioned by others flight controls need getting used to for most people because the lateral control stick can be weird for some. The castering nose wheel is also tricky for students to learn as mentioned. They'll almost always come to a stop in turns because they use too much differential braking then they'll jam in the power, not straighten the wheel and spin in a 360. Speaking of braking, the design of the rudder pedals contribute to placing your full foot on the pedal and you'll always have students inadvertently dragging brakes on the taxi, takeoff roll, or worse landing with brakes.Then there's the cheaply designed/made doors which are prone to depart the aircraft is not properly secured (Happened twice to the 162's at my school). Flight controls are very light as per a 1320lb LSA. Most people will fly it too fast on landing as if it were a 172, whereas is happiest at 50kts on approach, then struggle to get it into the flare. It gets bounced around in wind & gusts because its light. Other than that, like I said it get the job done for training. O-200 is bulletproof. G300 is simple to learn and operate. If you get a deal on one it wouldn't be too bad. (Other than the lack of support now from Cessna) But really as everyone mentioned previously, the more practical approach would be a 150/2, a 172,or Cherokee 140. All are able to be found in the 25k-30k range. Which is what I'd do.

I've never flown a Flight Design, but I've personally witnessed two nose wheels split like a toothpick when side loaded on landing. After seeing the thing with the cowling off, the design of the forward floating nose wheel strut gives me some apprehension about solo students in one.

 

[IslandFlyer]

I had carb ice 20 mins after acceptance flight bringing it down from the factory.

A door almost ripped completely off in flight from a renter.

There were a couple tailstrikes while I was a CFI.

All of this happened toward the end of my CFI Days. Didn't like it then, wouldn't fly it now. Not a good trainer by any stretch of the means.

One or two possibly experienced people in a cool climate sure. John smith learning how to flare and land, no thanks.

 

[bucksmith]

I have about 70 hours dual given in the Shenyang 162. It gets a lot of crap, but for what it's worth for the purpose of training it gets the job done. There are a lot of limitations though. Useful load is non-existent. For dual, the student is limited to 6' Max and under 175 pounds (I'm also 165 lbs) and you still can only take 1/2 tanks, which gives you roughly 2 hours endurance. Aft CG is also maxed out here so it takes almost full nose down trim to get straight & level at cruise. As mentioned by others flight controls need getting used to for most people because the lateral control stick can be weird for some. The castering nose wheel is also tricky for students to learn as mentioned. They'll almost always come to a stop in turns because they use too much differential braking then they'll jam in the power, not straighten the wheel and spin in a 360. Speaking of braking, the design of the rudder pedals contribute to placing your full foot on the pedal and you'll always have students inadvertently dragging brakes on the taxi, takeoff roll, or worse landing with brakes.Then there's the cheaply designed/made doors which are prone to depart the aircraft is not properly secured (Happened twice to the 162's at my school). Flight controls are very light as per a 1320lb LSA. Most people will fly it too fast on landing as if it were a 172, whereas is happiest at 50kts on approach, then struggle to get it into the flare. It gets bounced around in wind & gusts because its light. Other than that, like I said it get the job done for training. O-200 is bulletproof. G300 is simple to learn and operate. If you get a deal on one it wouldn't be too bad. (Other than the lack of support now from Cessna) But really as everyone mentioned previously, the more practical approach would be a 150/2, a 172,or Cherokee 140. All are able to be found in the 25k-30k range. Which is what I'd do.

I've never flown a Flight Design, but I've personally witnessed two nose wheels split like a toothpick when side loaded on landing. After seeing the thing with the cowling off, the design of the forward floating nose wheel strut gives me some apprehension about solo students in one.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?