The Jerry clown show.

I...did not know that. Interesting.
That's a multi-engine application. But Tecnams suck ass. They're cheap and forever broken and not a good alternative to the trustworthy Seminole. There's a single engine rotax engine IFR trainer out there. But I forget the name of it. I'll ask around at the airport today. We supposedly have a large order of them. Supposedly.
 

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
That's a multi-engine application. But Tecnams suck ass. They're cheap and forever broken and not a good alternative to the trustworthy Seminole. There's a single engine rotax engine IFR trainer out there. But I forget the name of it. I'll ask around at the airport today. We supposedly have a large order of them. Supposedly.
The EAA member in me likes the idea of innovation, new things, thinking outside the box, yada yada. However, when it comes to flight training aircraft there’s a reason every GA airport around the country has a fleet of C152/172, PA28s, PA23s & PA34s, PA44s, BE76s... Over the years my local airports tried some new airplanes, and each developed a small following but never took over. There were Grummans, Liberty, Diamond 20s & 40s, various LSAs, etc.

Same for owner operated aircraft: if you look T the tie downs you’ll see a sea of C182s, BE33, BE36, BE55s. You can now add RV to that list as there are over 10,000 flying.

Keep your head up Max, and keeping hitting the grind. Having down time during training sucks, but it gives you time to hit the books or even work ahead. Take the next written or even start writing lesson plans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That's a multi-engine application. But Tecnams suck ass. They're cheap and forever broken and not a good alternative to the trustworthy Seminole. There's a single engine rotax engine IFR trainer out there. But I forget the name of it. I'll ask around at the airport today. We supposedly have a large order of them. Supposedly.
Some of the Tecnam models can be pretty decent aircraft if properly maintained. Like a lot of Macchine italiane, keeping them happy does seem to require inordinate amounts of colorful language expressively declaimed by gaggles of animated mechanics.

If properly loved and maintained, they really can be a good training platform. However, given that loving maintenance - often even adequate maintenance -is generally not part of a flight school's repertoire, I would think that @Maximillian_Jenius's observation would generally be accurate.

The Cessna 152 is not the best trainer out there. But it is, I'm pretty sure, the only trainer that can be, without flare, flown into a runway onto it's nose wheel... and immediately dispatched for the next training flight. :)
 
Last edited:

z987k

Well-Known Member
Some of the Tecnam models can be pretty decent aircraft if properly maintained. Like a lot of Macchine italiane, keeping them happy does seem to require inordinate amounts of colorful language expressively declaimed by gaggles of animated mechanics.

If properly loved and maintained, they really can be a good training platform. However, given that loving maintenance - often even adequate maintenance -is generally not part of a flight school's repertoire, I would think that @Maximillian_Jenius's observation would generally be accurate.

The Cessna 152 is not the best trainer out there. But it is, I'm pretty sure, the only trainer that can be, without flare, flown into a runway onto it's nose wheel... and immediately dispatched for the next training flight. :)
The rotax 912 is an immensely superior engine to the O-200, O-235. But if you maintain it like it's a 1930's tractor engine, it won't be happy. You have to actually do the mx, not just defer it or go meh good nuf.
Honestly, if you're hiring a mechanic to work extensively on rotax, they really need to have attended rotax school. It's only a week, but they get you up to speed on how to maintain a car engine.
 
The rotax 912 is an immensely superior engine to the O-200, O-235. But if you maintain it like it's a 1930's tractor engine, it won't be happy. You have to actually do the mx, not just defer it or go meh good nuf.
Honestly, if you're hiring a mechanic to work extensively on rotax, they really need to have attended rotax school. It's only a week, but they get you up to speed on how to maintain a car engine.
I think both points are spot on.

Most of the wrenches I know who are well versed on both engines make statements similar to, "Lycoming wishes they could build an engine as good as a Rotax."

The multiple amortization effect x the coefficient of the cheap bastage effect = intertia.

Too often there's a bizarre psychology present in which the incentive to invest anything beyond any regulated bare minimum into a paid-off asset diminishes by the inverse square of time.

For many small operators, once the acquisition cost of something is amortized once, the amount that used to be payments then instead goes toward a shiny new unneeded, oversized item of invidious distinction for the owner while upkeep costs go largely ignored.

p.s. Rotax is primarily a snowmachine and jetski engine. Are there cars that use them?
 
Last edited:

z987k

Well-Known Member
I think both points are spot on.

Most of the wrenches I know who are well versed on both engines make statements similar to, "Lycoming wishes they could build an engine as good as a Rotax."

The multiple amortization effect x the coefficient of the cheap bastage effect = intertia.

Too often there's a bizarre psychology present in which the incentive to invest anything beyond any regulated bare minimum into a paid-off asset diminishes by the inverse square of time.

For many small operators, once the acquisition cost of something is amortized once, the amount that used to be payments then instead goes toward a shiny new unneeded, oversized item of invidious distinction for the owner while upkeep costs go largely ignored.

p.s. Rotax is primarily a snowmachine and jetski engine. Are there cars that use them?
Rotax also makes more engines before lunch than lycoming makes in a year. That kind of manufacturing ability lets them do things a small manufacturer can't.

No car engines that I'm aware of, but just about everything else. And the 912 series was built from day 1 as an aircraft engine and has no heritage at all with their snowmobile line.
 

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Discover XL2, is our future Rotax IFR trainer.
The Liberty XL2 was pretty good. It had nice pitch and roll for a light trainer, due to the push/ pull rods on the flight controls. More pitch sensitive and responsive than a C152 which often led to PIO on landings by less experienced pilots.

If it is just that airframe with a Rotax, it should be pleasant to fly. The IO-240F was around 120KTAS for 5ish gph.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

hammerhat

Well-Known Member
Remind me, do trainers have to be IFR certified? I got my instrument rating in a R22 but can't remember now if there was some exception for helicopters.
 

Richman

Well-Known Member
While not atypical (stuff is always going to break on you), I am not hearing very nice things about aircraft availability and airworthiness from the primary- and advanced-training ends of the operation, from the handful of people I know who are currently pursuing or have pursued ratings lately.

Not enough hardware or mechanics to keep that hardware working, apparently.
Don't expect this to improve at all. The industry has been operating in a parasitic mode since about 1988. 60 years of aviation industry got pissed away in the decade between 1970 and 1985. Everything since then has only been feeding on the dead corpse. The airlines got experienced pilots FOR FREE for decades, and it was all they could do to poop on GA whenever they could. Then the military dried up and they were all like "uh, where did everybody go?"

I could go on, but don't want a TL;DR.
 
Top