They didn't restart 152 production because the manufacturing technique and part count would have made the aircraft about the same price as a 172.
But what we need is an air frame as strong and forgiving as the 152, 100HP 10% ethanol burning EFI rotax which needs 100 hour checks rather than 50 hour. And again for the life of me I can't understand why no one has never been able to come up with a design.
W&B is a problem which is why we also operate a 172. On the plus side our 150 had a bare metal respray about 8 years ago and has absolutely no Nav kit in it (and no radio come 2017) so it weighs in at under 1000lbs. I'm only 11 stone which also helps.
"hat's a hugely novel concept... encouraging new PPL holders to fly! What next?
Actually I suggested that to the CFI at my PPL school. It didn't float..."
I fly/instruct because I enjoy doing it and I like to encourage others. I was in the fortunate position on having no medical for 14 years and it that time I've managed to source a half decent income away from aviation.
If I did one days private work/initiative list a year I would make more money than I do for a whole year instructing. And wouldn't be one my third wife and second cat
But what we need is an air frame as strong and forgiving as the 152, 100HP 10% ethanol burning EFI rotax which needs 100 hour checks rather than 50 hour. And again for the life of me I can't understand why no one has never been able to come up with a design.
Do you think a Rotax burns less fuel for a given performance than an O-200?
Also a Rotax is probably a marketing concern in the USA...
Car petrol would certainly be cheaper than 100LL, but how would you manage the storage and refills? Would you operate a bowser?
Isn't there some basic issue with car petrol in certified aircraft, especially if used for remunerated training? This is not MOGAS, is it?
They all produce some plastic fantastic rotax powered mogas sipping hotship but the overall they simply cost more to run than a 152
Interesting to learn.
I was at a US flight school operating a bunch of Czech made Evektor SportStar LSA's - management seemed happy operating them, and the students loved flying them. I simply assumed the operating costs would be minimal with the Rotax burning 3-4 gph.
Why are the LSA's that much more expensive to operate than a C152? Easier to break stuff on a LSA? (they certainly seem more flimsy)
Why are the LSA's that much more expensive to operate than a C152?
IMHO, it's the same reason that 1/x syndicate shares tend to go for more than the value of the whole plane divided by x: they are more affordable than the whole plane 
And why do people pay more for something bought in a car boot sale than they would pay in a shop? Perceived good value.
But to be fair, if you want a new plane, and many people do (as many want a new car) you can't buy a certified new plane for €80k...
The Friedrichshafen show is a good learning experience in this area...
Why are the LSA's that much more expensive to operate than a C152?
I think the Pipistrel Alpha was an attempt to break this pattern. Deliberately beefed up landing gear, simple and cheap avionics and a frugal rotax up front. As a bonus its certified for night VFR. When I was training I would have been happy to pay £20/hour (10% or so) for this over the PA28, which I paid for over the 152.
What does a 152 cost to operate, assuming >300 hours/year flown? Is the low cost largely because the hulls have devalued so much they won't decrease any more until they're scrapped? Or is it a huge difference in maintenance?
I have no idea why but wonder if perhaps it is very hard for a C152 to be legal (below MTOW) with two modern-size people. In my PPL training (PA38 and then C152) we never did W&B for flying lessons.
Before I started upgrading to the C150 (i.e. getting my FI-A), I thought the same about the C150, but was really surprised about what the C150 actually can haul. Ours has a useful load of 260 kg, with almost no chance to get her out of the envelope. So two 100kg men could easy carry 60 kg fuel around. I guess the ultralight/microlight crowd installed a false impression of two seat aerolanes, when it comes to useful load.
Do you think a Rotax burns less fuel for a given performance than an O-200?
Oh, they do, but not much. With airwork and pattern flying, the O200 absorbs around 25 litres (much time is flown full throttle though) and I read trustworthy figures for about 22 - 23 litres with an equal flight profile.
Car petrol would certainly be cheaper than 100LL, but how would you manage the storage and refills? Would you operate a bowser?
In Germany, many airfields have a MOGAS or Car Super station, but you have to ask about maximum Ethanol. Our C150 ist certified only for MOGAS with less than 1%.
Isn't there some basic issue with car petrol in certified aircraft, especially if used for remunerated training? This is not MOGAS, is it?
At least in Germany, I do not know of such a restriction. The Airframe and the engine has to be certified for it. You may have a look at petersons list, but with many airframe/engine combinations, they just tested once and did no trouble shooting, if it didn't work (would be expensive, I guess).
Greetings,
As an aircraft for flying around with two people a nice c152 is hard to beat. Rock solid and there are lovely examples around. I am all in favour of advanced avionics and systems but for learning to fly up to solo level and flying around the local area, I think a 152 is perfect.
Yes the Rotax does burn less than an o-200 in the training environment. Whether this is due to the fact that by and large they are pulling a lighter airframe around I do not know.
I also think that a lot of the current LSA that one can use for instruction are in fact overpowered with the AT-3 springing to mind. I think it would perform perfectly adequately on 80hp and then one would benefit from further reduced fuel burn. However rotax don’t do a certified 80hp powerplant.
I would also like to see the Rotax 912is available in a decent training airframe as well. I’ve heard it gives a real world decrease in fuel consumption of 10 to 15%. Which to me would be multiple thousands a year. It also gets rid of the carb set up which I’m told is a bit of an Achilles heal.
I know peter bemoans efi and that one should lean to ROP but with the current training fleet that’s not possible. Its also pretty difficult when you bashing around the circuit or going up and down doing PFL. I should add that I do teach my students on how to lean.
As for the yanks well they have got to come round at some point. The 912 is simply a better engine with lower operating costs. Its good for 4000 hours and has no pesky mags to overhaul. Also with a o-235 you have to budget on a replacement camshaft at say 1200 hours and on the o-200 new cylinder heads. I also suspect its only a matter of time before the 2000 hour TBO is increased further.
Although the CAA approved the 150 for Mogas as part of that approval they would not approve it for flight training. Which in my opinion was bolloxs. Either the aircraft is safe to fly or it is not. However its all abit academic now as you can no longer get ethanol free Mogas. I’m sure its possible to convert the airframe and engine to be ethanol compatible but the costs I suspect would be horrific.
The tecnam P2006T is certified to run on Mogas with 10% ethanol and one can use that fuel for training. However the CAA insist that a full paper trail has to be in place (basically the same as that you get with Avgas). Of course the microlight boys use forecourt mogas with out concerns.
Hodja
Although the new wave of LSA bring the benefits of the rotax engine sadly the overall cost of ownership is higher.
In a 150/2 you have realistic 25 knot crosswind limit, you can fly IFR and night. You can if its an aerobat also do aeros in it. So there are many days then the 150 is airborne and the LSA is grounded and where I operate from we only have one runway so this is critical.
The air-frame and interior are much more robust and with the Cessna I’ve never know my maintenance organisation have to wait longer than 48 hours for spare parts. Whereas I’ve heard of a 3 month wait for a new canopy that broke in the wind for one of the LSA.
Also look at the accident statistics for the LSA air-frames I don’t want to name types but one that’s reasonably popular in the UK I think pretty well every air-frame has been written off once and not one of them has over 100 hours on it.
You also have to have to factor in the costs/bank repayments on forking out 80 grand for an LSA compared to 25 for a top notch 152.
So when you take into account all of the above the 152 still comes out the most cost effective training aircraft.
Is there a problem with taking a C152 and throwing some money at it?
For say £15k you would have a full respray, upholstery, and some other bits.
Presumably it will be difficult to throw all that much at a C152, because one isn't doing fancy avionics.
I have seen some which cost ~£7k at every Annual but that was because they were in syndicates where no agreement could be reached, so they were run into the ground.
Or are most C152s corroded? I have seen a good number of them worked on in shops, where it was obvious that it was not sensible to continue, due to widespread corrosion.
In my pre-TB20 days I looked at a PA28-181, for about 45k (those were the days you will say) and then doing it up with another 30k or so. It would have yielded a good IFR machine, good for FL140 on a good day. But that 30k would have been half avionics, which you wouldn't do in a training C152.
I know peter bemoans efi and that one should lean to ROP but with the current training fleet that’s not possible
I think you mean peak-EGT (or even LOP which I don't use myself). I realise one cannot generally do LOP on a carb engine, but if an engine installation cannot be leaned to somewhere around peak EGT, there is something very wrong with it. If the flight manual has a Best Economy column, that is peak-EGT.
But yes I can see an O-200 burns more juice than a Rotax because the O-200 needs to be full-rich for climb, for slow flight, and anything else where there isn't enough cooling, whereas the Rotax should be running at a more optimal operating point.
OTOH I have spent quite a lot of hours in the PPL training environment and have never been trained to fly anything other than full-rich. So you may be doing it, but I am sure the vast majority aren't. It doesn't matter, but it does undermine the Rotax case if people don't do it. Full-rich is about 30% less MPG than peak-EGT. That is an awful lot of juice.
Interesting, let's face it most LSA manufacturers are on the brink of collapse on a constant basis (certified manufacturers also!) They just don't have the money to tie up huge amounts of working capital in inventory.
