aviator147
Picks Trips
no, we have not lost air china's contract, there are more contract students then ever, Air China, Tokai, Eva Air, Saudi Helicopter program, Norwegian ATC, soon to be Air Force UAS
Air China
- Thread starter bigte89
- Start date
no, we have not lost air china's contract, there are more contract students then ever, Air China, Tokai, Eva Air, Saudi Helicopter program, Norwegian ATC, soon to be Air Force UAS
ProudPilot
Aeronautics Geek
Yeah, I flew that baby with I think 32 hours on it. Blackmun started to do Lazy eights with incipient spin entries at the top. Fun till I it up. Good stan ride.
aviator147
Picks Trips
they are certainly brand new
1. Yes, you can get 172's without autopilot
2. Yes, they are brand new, not refurb
3. No, they are not "half-million dollar" aircraft. $250k is right.
4. Piper's are not built better than Cessna's.
5. Piper has all but abandonded the training aircraft business. They don't support their customers well and they provide little if any financial support to collegiate aviation. Cessna supports UND and other programs with scholarships and sponsorships of the the collegiate alphabet groups like NIFA, UAA, AABI, etc.
6. What are your other options? Cirrus, Diamond, Piper? Cessna shines above them all as the best overall value to UND.
2. Yes, they are brand new, not refurb
3. No, they are not "half-million dollar" aircraft. $250k is right.
4. Piper's are not built better than Cessna's.
5. Piper has all but abandonded the training aircraft business. They don't support their customers well and they provide little if any financial support to collegiate aviation. Cessna supports UND and other programs with scholarships and sponsorships of the the collegiate alphabet groups like NIFA, UAA, AABI, etc.
6. What are your other options? Cirrus, Diamond, Piper? Cessna shines above them all as the best overall value to UND.
ProudPilot
Aeronautics Geek
I love the SR20's, but people kept stepping on the seats and breaking the dashboard. A little care and we would still have them. Instead they were doing an hr of mx per every 2 hrs of flight. I miss that aircraft dearly.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
We need to go back to complex singles. Or at least something like a 182, with the higher horsepower to get students ready for the Seminole but no single engine.
ProudPilot
Aeronautics Geek
I completly agree with that. We're getting to the point that while the bare minimums to meet standards are there, there isn't a thought process out of the box. I worry that we'll start to make Chinese pilots on the same level of Indian pilots that can't fly without the autopilot. Mentally can't do it that is.
ScoutFlyer
Well-Known Member
I used to follow this line of thinking. However, after having done quite a bit of multi-engine training with students without complex single experience, I do not see a problem with the C172 to Seminole transition. After a few lessons, everything is fine. It is up to the individual instructor to teach the student how to think by posing scenarios throughout each lesson.
Yes, the training is leaned down to the bare minimums, it just means that instructors need to be that much more effective and lesson standards must be adhered to before attempting the next lesson.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
I've been seeing that trend with AC 325's, and its dissappointing when they think they're done when the flow is complete. "OK, but the Engine is still on fire, what are you gonna do?" "blank stare" "welp, we're boned."
Or when flying ASEL, students must understand that the power off landing starts when the engine fire starts.
This Indian pilot can fly just fine without the autopilot
.I agree a complex single would be nice, but apparently a lot of forces are leaning on the FAA to take the complex requirement out of the CFI Initial as well, so the days of training in complex airplanes not for the purpose of endorsements may history soon.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
This Indian pilot can fly just fine without the autopilot
I agree a complex single would be nice, but apparently a lot of forces are leaning on the FAA to take the complex requirement out of the CFI Initial as well, so the days of training in complex airplanes not for the purpose of endorsements may history soon.
You have to have some kind of complex for CPL, if you're only getting CPL ASEL then it'd have to be there, we just get around it cause we have the seminoles.
4 is false, cessna cuts lots of corners and over all is just poor craftsmanship
5. piper was in between owners at the time und's contract was up and diamond could not handle parts support that UND needs so cessna was the only option. now piper is under new ownership and still make semis and the archer
6 cessna are fine aircraft if you are nice to them but the abuse that UND students put them through they really can't take it
FAYEV
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure they can handle it just fine with a full-time maintenance department the size of ours.
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
I think what he's trying to say is that they tend to be easier to break than the pipers
I've wrenched pretty extensively on both and I can't think of any appreciable difference in strength between the two aircraft. My flight school had new model 172s and I can't think of any time they broke hard due to something Cessna-specific. Garmin problems very rarely, and maybe once in a while Lycomong problems, but no Cessna problems. Maybe the Cessnas are easier to land nose-first, which could cause some problems. Mainly I think some of you UND boys are whiny weenies who can't handle change
Either that or don't know that the back 2 wheels are the ones you're supposed to land on.
it's little things like baggage door latches, door hinge pins, elevator/rudder/stab tips, binding cables, fuel lines, and fit and finish on the skins between the two tend to be night and day.I've wrenched pretty extensively on both and I can't think of any appreciable difference in strength between the two aircraft. My flight school had new model 172s and I can't think of any time they broke hard due to something Cessna-specific. Garmin problems very rarely, and maybe once in a while Lycomong problems, but no Cessna problems. Maybe the Cessnas are easier to land nose-first, which could cause some problems. Mainly I think some of you UND boys are whiny weenies who can't handle change
Either that or don't know that the back 2 wheels are the ones you're supposed to land on.
Blip16
Well-Known Member
I've wrenched pretty extensively on both and I can't think of any appreciable difference in strength between the two aircraft. My flight school had new model 172s and I can't think of any time they broke hard due to something Cessna-specific. Garmin problems very rarely, and maybe once in a while Lycomong problems, but no Cessna problems. Maybe the Cessnas are easier to land nose-first, which could cause some problems. Mainly I think some of you UND boys are whiny weenies who can't handle change
Either that or don't know that the back 2 wheels are the ones you're supposed to land on.
firewall on a 172 is 1/2 the thickness of a PA28, other than that, they all have their issues. I think a PA28 is more forgiving when teaching landings to a primary student who might slam it in once or twice; the PA28 could handle it, the 172, well UND has enough bent firewalls to prove it cannot.
as far as build quality, i think the materials on a 172 felt cheaper than a warrior, but as compared to the 208, it has a much better build quality, then again they cost 10x as much
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Not to mention the nose gear mount on the warrior is welded to the airframe on the engine mount braces (it directly supports the weight of the engine when on the ground/absorbs that weight on landing) whereas the cessna's nosegear is bolted to said half-as-thick firewall.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Have you looked at how flimsy that engine mount is? Maybe it's more sufficient for a little Cherokee, but they crack out on the big 6s. Have to pull the engine and swap the mount. You know, nowhere that I have worked have we had problems with the 172 firewalls. Just saying....