Cessna 150 Price Outlook

[Charles Talleyrand]

Anyone want to guess the medium term price trends for a C-150?
By medium term I mean the next five-ish years.

My guess would be "more of the same" meaning increases of a few
percent a year with mild year-to-year variations.

The only effects I can see are whatever's left of the upward bounce-back
from the 9-11 price drops, any price drops that might occur becuase of
the current political trends against general aviation, and the possible
coming influx of "Sport Light Airplanes".

[Gilan]

if you are looking for opinions then I have to say I think if Sport Pilot
ever becomes a reality then a Cessna 150 or 152 will get very cheap. The
new SLSA and ELSA will change a lot of things if and when it becomes a
reality.
--
Florida Flying Gators
http://www.flyinggators.com

Join "The Ultralight & Experimental Aircraft SiteRing"
http://pub27.bravenet.com/sitering/add.php?usernum=2286862090

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gilan wrote:
>
> if you are looking for opinions then I have to say I think if Sport Pilot
> ever becomes a reality then a Cessna 150 or 152 will get very cheap.

Why?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[DaveSproul]

I still pine for a well-maintained 152 Aerobat. Happy to have an off-line
discussion with anyone who has owned one. Maybe I'll saunter over to their club
website. New planes may displace them, but I put a lot of safety confidence in
an airframe proven over many, many years of use.

New designs may bring lots of improvements, but you just can't be sure what
kind of unseen booby trap is waiting for you.

David Sproul - Staunton, VA and Washington, DC

[David H]

DaveSproul wrote:

> I still pine for a well-maintained 152 Aerobat. Happy to have an off-line
> discussion with anyone who has owned one. Maybe I'll saunter over to their club
> website. New planes may displace them, but I put a lot of safety confidence in
> an airframe proven over many, many years of use.

You'll find plenty of happy 150 and 152 owners here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cessna_150_152_group/

> New designs may bring lots of improvements, but you just can't be sure what
> kind of unseen booby trap is waiting for you.

I'm sure that the light sport airplanes will have their advantages (if they ever
approve it, and if the planes ever appear) but it's pretty tough to beat the
humble old 150 or 152 for all-around, basic, cheap flying.

David H
1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Charles Talleyrand]

"David H" > wrote in message ...
> You'll find plenty of happy 150 and 152 owners here:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cessna_150_152_group/
>
> > New designs may bring lots of improvements, but you just can't be sure what
> > kind of unseen booby trap is waiting for you.
>
> I'm sure that the light sport airplanes will have their advantages (if they ever
> approve it, and if the planes ever appear) but it's pretty tough to beat the
> humble old 150 or 152 for all-around, basic, cheap flying.
>
> David H
> 1965 Cessna 150E
> Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA

I like my plane ('66 C-150) but paying for the eventual engine overhaul
will be no fun. The way a SLA can be cheaper is in the engine. The price
of an engine overhaul plus the price of my eventually runout plane might
approach the cost of a nice SLA plane, and some of them even cruise faster
than my C-150. Of course, so do some seagulls.

Seriously, cheaper engine overhauls plus bigger side windows would make
me awfully tempted. Any my plane is pretty nice for a C-150.

[Gilan]

If you have to ask why you must not have any knowledge of the light sport
aircraft developments.
I fly a C150 now but have flown ultralights and experimentals for 18 years
now. The new SLSA and ELSA are going to make the 30 something year old 150s
and 152s drop in price as well as several other GA aircraft that won't fit
into the requirements for LSA category. There will be so many new 2 place
aircraft come on the market when SP starts the hardest thing will be
deciding which one to buy. Time will tell all.

--
Florida Flying Gators
http://www.flyinggators.com

Join "The Ultralight & Experimental Aircraft SiteRing"
http://pub27.bravenet.com/sitering/add.php?usernum=2286862090

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[Dave Stadt]

"Gilan" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> If you have to ask why you must not have any knowledge of the light sport
> aircraft developments.
> I fly a C150 now but have flown ultralights and experimentals for 18 years
> now. The new SLSA and ELSA are going to make the 30 something year old
150s
> and 152s drop in price as well as several other GA aircraft that won't fit
> into the requirements for LSA category. There will be so many new 2 place
> aircraft come on the market when SP starts the hardest thing will be
> deciding which one to buy. Time will tell all.

Just like the Recreational Pilots Certificate eh. I doubt the SP will have
much effect on anything.


>
> --
> Florida Flying Gators
> http://www.flyinggators.com
>
> Join "The Ultralight & Experimental Aircraft SiteRing"
> http://pub27.bravenet.com/sitering/add.php?usernum=2286862090
>
> Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt > wrote:
: Just like the Recreational Pilots Certificate eh. I doubt the SP will have
: much effect on anything.

... except training for people who have too much money to begin
with. $15-$25k will get a perfectly useable C-15[02] for primary
training. It isn't sexy, but it gets the job done. After that, unless
all you do it bop in the pattern, sunday fliers or light cross-countries,
a SP probably doesn't quite measure up.

FWIW
-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Just like the Recreational Pilots Certificate eh. I doubt the SP will have
> much effect on anything.

If the DOT puts the medical certificate requirement back in (like they did
with the Recreational Pilots Certificate), then you're correct.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Peter Dohm]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> Gilan wrote:
> >
> > if you are looking for opinions then I have to say I think if Sport Pilot
> > ever becomes a reality then a Cessna 150 or 152 will get very cheap.
>
> Why?
>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
> be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

If Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft reach their full potential, then we
should have reasonably priced aircraft with the payload of the 150/152 and the
speed (forgive the misuse of the word) and range of the 172.

That is certainly not a given; since I think that the gross weight limit is
about 250 to 350 pounds lower than it should be, and that the average LSA will
frequently operate over gross.

Peter

[Brent Rehmel]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> If Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft reach their full potential, then
we
> should have reasonably priced aircraft with the payload of the 150/152 and
the
> speed (forgive the misuse of the word) and range of the 172.

For a flyable aircraft, new, roughly 1/3rd the cost of a new aircraft from
Cessna or Piper.

> That is certainly not a given; since I think that the gross weight limit
is
> about 250 to 350 pounds lower than it should be, and that the average LSA
will
> frequently operate over gross.

Actually, that's not quite true. It would be true if we were talking about
existing certified aircraft. A Cessna 150 weighs 1600 lbs. I am disappointed
that LSA does not cover the Cessna 150 or Piper Tomahawk. However, for
homebuilt planes, the weight is okay. My only disappointment there was the
Murphy Rebel which is too heavy; the Murphy Maverick fits because it was
designed for the overseas microlight market. Almost all of the aircraft from
Fisher fit the category although they perform more like a Piper Cub than a
172. There are aircraft from Capella, Rans, and Zenith that fit the class.

It should also be noted that even EAA only recommended an increase to 1300
lbs even and that was only to allow additional (heavier) engines. As it
currently stands, the primary engines would be either Rotax or Jabiru
(perhaps Hirth). With an additional 78 lbs, Suburu conversions, Continental
O-200s and Lycoming 235's as well as the smallest Franklin are usable.

As far as the weight being a problem, again a Cessna 150 at 1600 lbs only
has a 600lb payload. A Zenith 601 at 1200lbs has the same 600lb payload. My
feeling was that they should have put in a waver for certified aircraft to
allow light trainers to exceed the weight limit. However, it won't be a
problem for homebuilts.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:40:23 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

> As far as the weight being a problem, again a Cessna 150 at 1600 lbs only
> has a 600lb payload. A Zenith 601 at 1200lbs has the same 600lb payload. My
> feeling was that they should have put in a waver for certified aircraft to
> allow light trainers to exceed the weight limit. However, it won't be a
> problem for homebuilts.

Quoting the FAA's page on LSA...

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter
or powered-lift, that is limited to:

1. A maximum takeoff weight of 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) or, for lighter-than-air aircraft, a maximum gross weight of 660 pounds (300 kilograms);
2. A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of 115 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions;
3. A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of 115 knots CAS for a glider;
4. A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of 39 knots CAS;
5. A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of 44 knots CAS;
6. A maximum seating capacity of two persons, including the pilot;
7. A single, non-turbine engine, if powered;
8. A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, if powered;
9. A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane;
10. A non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin; and
11. Fixed landing gear, or for seaplanes, repositionable landing gear.


The planes you mentioned have a higher gross weight than 1,232 lbs and
exceed the VNE as well. If you look at it as I am, the limitations will
be so severe that you will fly single seat as you would have to fly an
ultralight otherwise. Take 2 190 lbs adults, that 380 lbs, subtracted
from 1,232 gives 852 lbs for the aircraft and fuel. Assume 26 gal of fuel,
subtract 156 lbs from 852 giving 696 lbs for you plane. That doesn't give
you a whole lot of plane. My numbers are derived from the newer 190 lb
average weight now, 26 gallons of fuel being what the 150 has and usually
the smaller amount in certified aircraft. The 1,232 lb gross weight from
the NPRM from the FAA's website. The rest being basic math. You'll
notice on line 1 from their site there is the word "or" before the 660 lbs
gross weight, so it does not apply to planes, those being limited to 1,232
lbs total.

The only thing I see that could change this would be how maximum takeoff
weight is interpreted. If it means the weight of the plane and
passengers, then this new rule will not hurt any existing aircraft, be it
a 150 or a Cub, they all have more capability than the limitations listed
above which came from the FAA's page on the nprm for the sport pilot.

Anybody who thinks a 150 will drop in value has their head in the clouds
because PP's will continue to fly it over the lower performing category
until such time as they can't.

[Brent Rehmel]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
> The planes you mentioned have a higher gross weight than 1,232 lbs and
> exceed the VNE as well.

You are mistaken. These aircraft fit the Light Sport classification in all
respects.

Rans Cyotee II - 540lb useful load
Avid Aircraft Mark IV - 540lb useful load
Zenith Zodiac 601 - 542lb useful load
Fisher Dakota Hawk - 550lb useful load
Sonex ltd. Sonex - 550lb useful load
Aerocomp Merlin - 600lb useful load
Capella XLS - 600lb useful load
CGS Hawk Arrow 2 - 600lb useful load
Skystar Kitfox Classic 4 - 650lb useful load

> Take 2 190 lbs adults, that 380 lbs, subtracted
> from 1,232 gives 852 lbs for the aircraft and fuel. Assume 26 gal of
fuel,
> subtract 156 lbs from 852 giving 696 lbs for you plane.

A 1969 Cessna 150 has a useful load of only 540 lbs.
It has 22.5 gallons of fuel and a no reserve endurance of 4.1 hours.
This gives a fuel burn of 5.5 gal/hr.
The extra 3.5 gallons is unusable and makes up 21 lbs of the empty weight.

A Zenith Zodiac has a very similar useful load of 542 lbs. Let's compare.

2 x 190 = 380 lbs. (for occupants)
22.5 x 6 = 135 lbs. (for fuel)
380 + 135 = 515 lbs.
540 - 515 = 25 lbs. (remaining)
For the Cessna 150, full fuel would leave only 25 lbs for baggage.

Now for the Zodiac. First we need to figure how much fuel we need to match.
The Rotax 100HP 912S engine only burns 4.9 gal/hr @ 75 HP.
4.1 hours endurance x 4.9 gal/hr = 20.1 gallons
20.1 x 6 = 120.6 lbs. Let's round up to 121 lbs.
380 + 121 = 501 lbs.
542 - 501 = 41 lbs. (remaining)

Compared to a Cessna 150, Zodiac:
Has 16 more lbs. for baggage.
Cruises 17 mph faster.
Climbs 310 fpm faster.
Has a wider cockpit.
And is stressed to +/- 6.4 Gee's

You can buy a Zodiac ready-to-fly today for $42,500 plus shipping.
If Light Sport becomes law, this aircraft would be legal to fly already
assembled.
If a Cessna 150 is adequate then a Zodiac is more than adequate.
This will change the value of a Cessna 150.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:12:06 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

> You can buy a Zodiac ready-to-fly today for $42,500 plus shipping.
> If Light Sport becomes law, this aircraft would be legal to fly already
> assembled.
> If a Cessna 150 is adequate then a Zodiac is more than adequate.
> This will change the value of a Cessna 150.

Have you flown the Zenith? I have, it's a nice plane, and definitely
beats the 150 in most every area you can compare. But, you should also be
aware that the specs that Zenith claim for the plane are optimistic. In
reality they rarely meet them, that includes weight and most definitely
speeds. The weight could be done by excluding much of the typical
avionics, but if you equip it like a 150 using certified engines it will
not meet the weight specs. The one I flew didn't. I suspect it will be
like ultralights, people will ignore a few lbs here and there, plus how
many times will it really be checked after the fact?

However, the price you quote is twice that of a typical 150, and the one I
flew was only 10 mph faster than my 150, $20,000 more didn't buy much speed
in this case. 117 mph was the best it could do that day. This was the
factory demo plane if you want to know. There will be no effect on value
because it will be just like the Piper vs Cessna vs whatever that we have
right now. A lot of pilots fly planes based on what they can afford and
those planes you mentioned cost more than a 150. Why would a 150 drop in
price because a newer more expensive plane is introduced? That idea is
silly, did all GA planes drop in value when Cessna introduced it's new
jet? It's faster and more capable, yet the fleet seems to retain it's
value. Did Cessna's drop in value when Mooney introduced a newer faster
version? That's not how the market works. It works by supply and demand,
and the 150's target audience will not change. People said the same thing
about the recreational certificate, not many took them up on it. Same
thing will happen here. You will only see those who can no longer pass a
medical using it. I just hope they have enough sense to no longer fly
when it's not sensible to do so.

So, in essence you posted a list of planes very similar in performance to
a 150 costing twice as much and think they will drive the price of a 150
down. I wish it would, but I don't think it will because I don't think
people will flock to the new license. It will be a trickle at best.

[Brent Rehmel]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message

> aware that the specs that Zenith claim for the plane are optimistic. In
> reality they rarely meet them, that includes weight and most definitely
> speeds. The weight could be done by excluding much of the typical
> avionics, but if you equip it like a 150 using certified engines it will
> not meet the weight specs. The one I flew didn't. I suspect it will be

Your argument now has come full circle. The standard engine for the Zodiac
is the Rotax 912S; an O-200 Continental would weigh about 70lbs more. This
was what I already mentioned in my first post about the EAA wanting a full
1,300 lbs gross weight to allow more engines. As it now stands, a Zodiac
will meet the 1232 lb requirement only by using a Rotax. If the gross weight
were increased to 1300 lbs, you could use a Jabiru 3300, Continental O-200,
a Lycoming 235, or Franklin 4A-235 and still meet the weight requirement.

> However, the price you quote is twice that of a typical 150, and the one I

No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price. It is
ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new. If
you actually add up mainenance costs and avionics upgrade cost, your cheap
150 costs more than a Zodiac, not less.

BTW, was the factory plane you flew in an HD, HDS, or XL model? My guess is
that it was an HD. The HD uses the 80 HP Rotax 912 and easily meets the
weight requirement, however it doesn't fly as fast as the HDS. It wouldn't
surprise me a bit if a stock 601 HD with 80 HP would not be faster than a C
150 with 100 HP. A stock 601 HD would easily meet all reqirements for Light
Sport except I believe the stall speed is a couple of mph too high at gross
weight. The HDS flies faster with its shorter wing and higher wing loading
but wouldn't be close to the stall requirement. The XL is a heavier version,
designed for 100 HP, with more wing area and designed for Light Sport.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Brent Rehmel wrote:
>
> This will change the value of a Cessna 150.

I doubt it. It doesn't appreciably outperform a 150 and it costs over twice as
much.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[G.R. Patterson III]

Brent Rehmel wrote:
>
> No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price.

You can't buy a new 150 at all - they haven't been made for decades.

> It is
> ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new.

Then why are you doing so?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Brent Rehmel]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> I doubt it. It doesn't appreciably outperform a 150 and it costs over
twice as
> much.

I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old
cars, versus newer.

[Brent Rehmel]

Actually, I'll have to agree with you that Light Sport will not change the
value of a $20,000 Cessna 150. A two seat trainer would need a value of
$35,000 or more to be affected.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Brent Rehmel wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > I doubt it. It doesn't appreciably outperform a 150 and it costs over
> twice as
> > much.
>
> I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old
> cars, versus newer.

And, in fact, people who don't make much money *do* prefer old cars. For exactly
those reasons.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[noah]

> > I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old
> > cars, versus newer.
>
> And, in fact, people who don't make much money *do* prefer old cars. For exactly
> those reasons.

I've gotta add my weight to the "buy used" market segment. Until
my/our dreams come true and airplanes start costing $25,000 and
$50/year to operate, Aviation will be expensive! Even a 'dream' sport
aircraft will be expensive to own and operate. How would you expect to
get your 25' wingspan kitplane from the field to your local cheap auto
mechanic? Does anyone expect that on-field mechanics are going to be
as cheap for an oil change as the jiffy-lube down the street charging
$19.95?

Back to the used argument. I own, 100%/no financing, a 1997 Toyota
Camry that I purchased a year ago. I purchased it because it was
relatively safe, decent looking, reasonable on gas, and would get me
to and from work/weekend events etc. I went that route, because I want
to have enough money someday to own (part of?) a plane. When it comes
time to buy a plane, I'll probably go the same route: a used 172 or
cherokee for a first plane... why? the depreciation is mostly done
(almost all with the airplanes)... The safety records don't show that
2003 Toyotas are significantly better than 1997 ones, and with
airplanes this is even more obvious. When a pilot gets disoriented in
a cloud, or flies into the earth in IMC, no newfangled
Cirrus/Diamond/Kitplane/Cessna/whatever is going to save them and
their pax. Most of these airplanes (except the diamond/kitplane) use
the same engines that you can get at overhaul - negating a possible
argument for better reliability.

Finally - there's the tried and true argument I've read many times
here... I've also read horror stories about the new Cirrus planes
being in the shop for more labor hours than in the air by a factor of
2.

Anyhow - if a C152 ever drops in price from the current (guess range)
$20k to even $15k, I may just have to buy one! and that's supply and
demand... the price isn't going to drop much and I doubt at all...

[Brent Rehmel]

"noah" > wrote in message
> I've gotta add my weight to the "buy used" market segment. Until
> my/our dreams come true and airplanes start costing $25,000 and

You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time,
about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it
does not have to built at an airport.

A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000.

[Brent Rehmel]

"Brent Rehmel" > wrote in message
> You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
> about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction
time,
> about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it

The build time for a Zodiac is a big factor. You can build a Zodiac 601 HD
from just the plans, shaping and cutting all of the aluminum yourself in
less time than it takes to build an RV-4. You can build a Zodiac from
scratch in the same amount of time it takes to build the latest prepunched
kits, like the RV-8.

You can build a Zodiac kit in about 1/4 the time as an RV-8 standard kit,
and it will still take 2 1/2 times as long to build the latest RV-8
quickbuild kit. The fastest a standard kit RV has ever been built is 87
days, the fastest a Zodiac has ever been built is 7 days.

[noah]

> You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
> about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time,
> about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it
> does not have to built at an airport.
>
> A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000.

1. I don't know much about the Zodiac, and don't know anything about
the Sakota.

2. Explain to me how purchasing a fully functioning, on-field C152
with a good low time engine costs more than buying even the kit for a
Zodiac? Does the Zodiac at $34K include engine in the kit? (maybe -
I'm just asking). You can find good-looking, good spec C152s for well
under $25K.

3. Can I fly the Zodiac with pax? Can I put it on leaseback to a
flight school? Can I fly it in a busy class Bravo airspace
(Oakland/San Francisco, CA) ?

4. Can I build it in my 4th floor walkup (no elevator) apartment in a
city, with no garage? - even if I could - it wouldn't fit in my living
room, yet alone the fact that it wouldn't be a 'living room' anymore.

5. What is my time worth? You mention 1/5th the build time - let's say
300hrs @ 35/hr = $10,500 - and I have to work more than 40hrs/week as
it is!

6. Ok - the wings fold off. I don't have a garage - so what am I
supposed to do? purchase a trailer, have my Camry outfitted with a
hitch, and move it to the airport?

7. Does the Zodiac need a hangar for rain protection? (just asking -
maybe it's fine outdoors)? The local airports have decade long hangar
waiting lists.

These are just a few of my questions... I have nothing at all against
kitplanes - in fact, I have as a *long* term goal a great desire to
build something like an RV-6... faster, more fun, bubble canopy, great
looking, etc.

Maybe one day when I have a house, garage-workspace, and a very
supportive family, I'll consider that... for now - I can daydream of a
C172 partnership that I *know* will get me off the ground safely and
at practically the lowest cost possible.

[Dave Stadt]

"noah" > wrote in message
om...
> > You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
> > about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction
time,
> > about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so
it
> > does not have to built at an airport.
> >
> > A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000.
>
> 1. I don't know much about the Zodiac, and don't know anything about
> the Sakota.
>
> 2. Explain to me how purchasing a fully functioning, on-field C152
> with a good low time engine costs more than buying even the kit for a
> Zodiac? Does the Zodiac at $34K include engine in the kit? (maybe -
> I'm just asking). You can find good-looking, good spec C152s for well
> under $25K.
>
> 3. Can I fly the Zodiac with pax? Can I put it on leaseback to a
> flight school? Can I fly it in a busy class Bravo airspace
> (Oakland/San Francisco, CA) ?
>
> 4. Can I build it in my 4th floor walkup (no elevator) apartment in a
> city, with no garage? - even if I could - it wouldn't fit in my living
> room, yet alone the fact that it wouldn't be a 'living room' anymore.
>
> 5. What is my time worth? You mention 1/5th the build time - let's say
> 300hrs @ 35/hr = $10,500 - and I have to work more than 40hrs/week as
> it is!
>
> 6. Ok - the wings fold off. I don't have a garage - so what am I
> supposed to do? purchase a trailer, have my Camry outfitted with a
> hitch, and move it to the airport?
>
> 7. Does the Zodiac need a hangar for rain protection? (just asking -
> maybe it's fine outdoors)? The local airports have decade long hangar
> waiting lists.
>
> These are just a few of my questions... I have nothing at all against
> kitplanes - in fact, I have as a *long* term goal a great desire to
> build something like an RV-6... faster, more fun, bubble canopy, great
> looking, etc.
>
> Maybe one day when I have a house, garage-workspace, and a very
> supportive family, I'll consider that... for now - I can daydream of a
> C172 partnership that I *know* will get me off the ground safely and
> at practically the lowest cost possible.

Ask him about resale value and insurance cost.

[N7155A]

Charles,

The cost of aviating is increasing and made a major increase after
9/11.

The result is that most people have had to move down one notch in
plane ownership:
- Doctors who used to buy new bonanza's are now getting used ones,
- (Lawyers are too scared to fly)
- Engineers that use to have Mooney's now get Cessna's or cherokees.
- Blue collar workers who used to get 182/172's now get 150/2s.

Also, more people are looking at total cost of ownership, which favors
the lower maintenance cost of single engine, fixed pitch, fixed gear
simple planes.

The result is:
- more demand at the bottom end and solid pricing for 150/2.
- Less demand for the older bo's and Mooneys.

Mitch - That my $0.02...Businessmen buy jets



"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> Anyone want to guess the medium term price trends for a C-150?
> By medium term I mean the next five-ish years.
>
> My guess would be "more of the same" meaning increases of a few
> percent a year with mild year-to-year variations.
>
> The only effects I can see are whatever's left of the upward bounce-back
> from the 9-11 price drops, any price drops that might occur becuase of
> the current political trends against general aviation, and the possible
> coming influx of "Sport Light Airplanes".

[David Megginson]

(N7155A) writes:

> The result is:
> - more demand at the bottom end and solid pricing for 150/2.
> - Less demand for the older bo's and Mooneys.

I had a chat with a busy (Canadian) broker last December. He told me
at the time that the singles were selling fine (especially the simpler
ones, as you note), but that the used twin market had almost
completely collapsed.

I'd be surprised to see too many people buying a 150/2 for financial
reasons -- a Cherokee 140 costs about the same to purchase, fuel, and
maintain, but it has two more seats and flies faster. I think that
people who buy the 150/2 do it because of personal preferences for
style or handling.


All the best,


David

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:56:47 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

> No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price. It is
> ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new. If

You can find C150's all the time for 15K - 18K. And they'll be airworthy
to boot. It's not ridiculous to compare the two. What major design
difference is there now between a metal Zenith vs a 25 year old design?
Look closely, you'll find many older designs that are better than the
Zenith, and some of the others you mentioned. Not one of them us cutting
edge, all they are is just new paint and metal. The Tiger is more
revolutionary than the designs you mentioned, as is the Mooney and many
others. You must keep in mind that old does not mean bad, I'd rather fly
in a T210 than the Zenith in IFR conditions, it's a better plane in every
single respect you can list. You also listed planes using tube and
fabric, that is very old technology, and yet you belive those are superior
to the newer laminar flow wings found on some of the 25 year old certified
aircraft. Again, newer does not mean better. We have not come full
circle, just branched off is all.

> you actually add up mainenance costs and avionics upgrade cost, your cheap
> 150 costs more than a Zodiac, not less.

Not hardly, my maintenance is very low. My A&P allows me to assist in
things if I choose to, and since the plane is built already I don't need
to pay them to install stuff. But in any event, unless you build the
plane, you can't work on it without somebody else willing to sign off on
things, ala the conditional inspection. I don't know if the new planes
will be the same in terms of working on them as current ones are. I don't
know where you get your figures from, but you can buy an IFR certified
C150 for $25K pretty easy, why would I want to upgrade that? None of your
planes used a Garmin 430 or better, or the newer UPS moving map stuff.
Don't give me the avionics upgrade hassle, I could imagine every plane out
there needing it. I've seen people buy a plane with a 430 in the panel
and want to upgrade it. There's always something better no matter what
you buy.

> BTW, was the factory plane you flew in an HD, HDS, or XL model? My guess is

It was the 601XL and had the Lycoming o-235 in it. It most definitly did
not meet the sport pilot requirements at the time.

> surprise me a bit if a stock 601 HD with 80 HP would not be faster than a C
> 150 with 100 HP. A stock 601 HD would easily meet all reqirements for Light

If you don't believe me, then look at the matronics list and you'll notice
lots of people who've complained that their planes come no where near the
specs Zenith claimed for them.

> but wouldn't be close to the stall requirement. The XL is a heavier version,
> designed for 100 HP, with more wing area and designed for Light Sport.

They claim that now, but I doubt it since the plane existed before the
proposal, at least I didn't hear of this NPRM until well after the 601xl
debut and shortly after that their adds appeared touting the facts you
quote now. In fact, the planes specs changed after that as well as the
engine. I liked the o-235, very nice combination in my opinion.

I will tell you this, the Zenith 601XL I flew was more stable than my 150,
10 mph faster in cruise, and probably 2400 fpm faster in climb. I have to
guess there since the prototype didn't have a VSI in it, so it was seat of
the pants stuff. It's stall was benign, easier than the Cessna 150,
similar I think to a C172 in characteristics. The stick was pretty easy
to get used to, and the only reason I'm not building one now is because at
the time they didn't have the manuals for it in print, and in the past
Zenith has abandoned a design that was started but never finished. The
Gemini for example. They also dropped the aerobatic plane they had, so I
was reluctant to plop down money. There was no clock in the plane, I
didn't have a watch, so I had no way to do accurate timings for VSI.

I am now gearing up to build the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 because my mission
profile does not work well with a 2 seater, and I wanted something more
capable than my 150, closer to a 172. But I didn't want a certified
aircraft. My only requirement is that I fly behind a certified AC engine,
no Rotax's or auto conversions. I don't trust them. I don't like Rotax
in a plane, and I figure if the Katana dropped them in favor of something
else then that proves my point. I don't like their TBO, which is not
mandatory for part 91 flying.

I've always heard it's great to fly an experimental, but to fly an
experimental with an experimental engine is much more work and more
dangerous.

So for me, it's Continental or Lycoming, or none at all.

Now if you want to compare the XL to the HD, or HDS, it goes like this.
The HDS is the most stable due to the higher wing loading, then HD, then
XL. All are fine flying aircraft.

I live but 20 minutes by air from Mexico and so I've been there many times
and am very familar with their planes. The 4 place design of theirs is
nice, but it's cramped in terms of where to put the feet. I like it
however, but have never flown it.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:54:05 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

> Ask him about resale value and insurance cost.

What resale value, and about that insurance. Mine is cheaper than what
I'd pay to fly a Zenith. I think he's got pie in the eye and is missing
something. I've known experimental owners to cut them up rather than sell
them, or other similar things so that they won't be sued by the next owner
when they crash. Not many do stupid things like that however.

Sure, you can build a Zenith for the price he's quoting, but I challenge
him to make it IFR equipped with a 0 time engine. I say 0 since he's
comparing a brand spanking new plane to 25 year old stuff like the older
planes are dangerous.

He can't do it. Look at what the kit costs, then add in a new engine, and
an IFR panel and he's well above what you can buy a 25 year old plane for.

[Brent Rehmel]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message >
> I live but 20 minutes by air from Mexico and so I've been there many times
> and am very familar with their planes. The 4 place design of theirs is
> nice, but it's cramped in terms of where to put the feet. I like it
> however, but have never flown it.

Are you referring to the 640? It's cramped? Might as well ask another
question while I'm at it. The 44 inch wide cockpit for the Zodiac seems a
bit narrow to me, although I've even heard people say that the C 150's 39.5
inch cockpit was wide. How do you have room for your arms with 44 inches?

[Brent Rehmel]

Are you saying that you can buy a Cessna 150 that is IFR capable with, say,
1500 hours TBO for $25,000 - $35,000? If so, then I agree a C 150 would be a
good deal.

A Zodiac XL ready to fly would cost about $46,000 IFR equipped.

A Zodiac HD ready to fly would cost about $42,500 IFR equipped. However, it
wouldn't be legal to fly the HD in the U.S. so the comparison has to be for
the XL.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:17:37 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

> question while I'm at it. The 44 inch wide cockpit for the Zodiac seems a
> bit narrow to me, although I've even heard people say that the C 150's 39.5
> inch cockpit was wide. How do you have room for your arms with 44 inches?

No, I'm saying the passengers will feel cramped because there's not enough
room for their feet to stretch out much. As to up front, it's palatial
and I never felt cramped in any Zenith.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:29:22 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:

> Are you saying that you can buy a Cessna 150 that is IFR capable with, say,
> 1500 hours TBO for $25,000 - $35,000? If so, then I agree a C 150 would be a
> good deal.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Cessna 150 club has 7 of them listed
right now, of course the highest in price is $38K, but I think it could be
had cheaper. It's got some very nice avionics however, better than what
you could put in that homebuilt for the prices you seem to think it can be
built for.

The o-200 has an 1800 TBO btw, and several of these planes had anywhere
from 0 to 1400 SMOH, a couple with less than 300 SMOH so they have more
hours to TBO than your Rotax has to start with.

This is what I'm saying, you have been under the impression a C150 is an
expensive plane, it's not. Nor is the Piper Tomahawk, or some other
trainers that have been produced. There are many planes for under $35,
including some older C172's, but a good one of those will usually run a
little more. You can usually find a Cherokee of under 35K as well. This
new class of plane will not hurt that market. If anything it will create
it's own niche because it's priced higher than similar used planes, but
lower than the new versions of those planes if they are even produced.

Many pilots buy a plane to meet their finances, not because it's new.
Given the choice of a Zenith 601XL for a price range in the $40's or a
C172 or older Mooney I'll go with the certified aircraft, especially the
Mooney as it's a much more capable plane.

I don't care about the new pilots certificate that may come out because I
don't need it. I can pass a medical right now, if I ever fail to pass one
forever, then I would convert, but not until then.

For all the training involved, I'd go the PP route, it's not going to cost
that much more by the time all is said and done. Remember, the numbers
are guides only, I doubt few will be able to accomplish the required goals
in the fewer number of hours.

[David Megginson]

"Brent Rehmel" > writes:

> Are you saying that you can buy a Cessna 150 that is IFR capable
> with, say, 1500 hours TBO for $25,000 - $35,000?

That much or less, I'd hope (and the TBO is a little higher). Of
course, if you expect to find shiny, new avionics on board, you'll
have to raise the price a bit.


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

Brent Rehmel wrote:
>
> Are you saying that you can buy a Cessna 150 that is IFR capable with, say,
> 1500 hours TBO for $25,000 - $35,000? If so, then I agree a C 150 would be a
> good deal.

You should be able to buy one for around 20K. In 1996, I had my '69 model up for
sale at $17,000 with an IFR stack, new interior, decent paint, and something
like 700 SMOH.

Right now, the most expensive 150 on the ASO site is an IFR 1975 model with a
new engine for $32,500. The least expensive is an IFR 1972 model with a nearly
run-out engine for $16,500.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Brent Rehmel]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message

> little more. You can usually find a Cherokee of under 35K as well. This
> new class of plane will not hurt that market. If anything it will create
> it's own niche because it's priced higher than similar used planes, but
> lower than the new versions of those planes if they are even produced.

I would have to agree. At this level, I don't think light-sport would have
any effect on the price of Cessna 150s, Tomahawks, Cherokees, or 172s.

In a way, this is a bit sad because it seems to show that there is not
enough demand. Considering that these aircraft have either not been
manufactured in large numbers or not at all for some time, one would think
that the market would now be short of aircraft and have driven up the cost.
I guess the problem is not enough owners/pilots instead of not enough
aircraft.

[David Megginson]

"Brent Rehmel" > writes:

> In a way, this is a bit sad because it seems to show that there is
> not enough demand. Considering that these aircraft have either not
> been manufactured in large numbers or not at all for some time, one
> would think that the market would now be short of aircraft and have
> driven up the cost. I guess the problem is not enough owners/pilots
> instead of not enough aircraft.

The problem (for the manufacturers) is that aircraft seem to last
forever: aircraft from the late 1950's are not even considered
vintage. Unless someone comes up with an AD or regulatory change that
makes most existing planes too expensive to keep, or the pilot
population suddenly doubles (not likely, even with the sport license),
manufacturers will be basically pushing a few new planes into the top
of the fleet every year to replace the few old ones leaving service at
the bottom. That's a mature market for you.


All the best,


David

[Edward Todd]

There are an awful lot of us renters out here that fly under 100 hours
or so per year. Much cheaper to rent for us.

[David Megginson]

Edward Todd > writes:

> There are an awful lot of us renters out here that fly under 100 hours
> or so per year. Much cheaper to rent for us.

It might be even cheaper to join a partnership, if you have enough
partners. It's worth running the numbers, anyway.


All the best,


David

[Greg Goodknight]

"Brent Rehmel" > wrote in message
news:SY9cb.563589$o%2.250672@sccrnsc02...
> Are you saying that you can buy a Cessna 150 that is IFR capable with,
say,
> 1500 hours TBO for $25,000 - $35,000? If so, then I agree a C 150 would be
a
> good deal.
>
> A Zodiac XL ready to fly would cost about $46,000 IFR equipped.

That's more than a very solid, IFR certified late 70's Warrior with a mid
time engine currently books for, which, with newish paint, is
indistinguishable from a 2003 Warrior.

I'm glad the Zodiacs are out there (the more planes the merrier) but one has
to value "new" much more than I do to make Zodiacs look better than older
PA-28-151/161's.

-Greg
>
> A Zodiac HD ready to fly would cost about $42,500 IFR equipped. However,
it
> wouldn't be legal to fly the HD in the U.S. so the comparison has to be
for
> the XL.
>
>

[Greg Hopp]

David Megginson > wrote in message
>
> I'd be surprised to see too many people buying a 150/2 for financial
> reasons -- a Cherokee 140 costs about the same to purchase, fuel, and
> maintain, but it has two more seats and flies faster. I think that
> people who buy the 150/2 do it because of personal preferences for
> style or handling.

Partner and I purchased a '67 150G in late June. Why?

1. It's what we're most familiar with;
2. First time ownership meant K.I.S.S.;
3. It fits our mission profile & it fits our wives' expense profile.

Best,

Greg Hopp
N4691X

[DaveSproul]

>Partner and I purchased a '67 150G in late June. Why?
>
>1. It's what we're most familiar with;
>2. First time ownership meant K.I.S.S.;
>3. It fits our mission profile & it fits our wives' expense profile.
>
>Best,
>
>Greg Hopp
>N4691X
>
AND, you'll never find a Cherokee that can legally do loops and spins like the
A150/152!

[John Godwin]

(DaveSproul) wrote in
:

> AND, you'll never find a Cherokee that can legally do loops and spins
> like the A150/152!

Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[DaveSproul]

>Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.

Wow. I never knew that. What changed later? The airframes were identical for
many years, right?

[Ron Natalie]

"DaveSproul" > wrote in message ...
> >Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.
>
> Wow. I never knew that. What changed later? The airframes were identical for
> many years, right?
>
All the 140's were approved in the utility category up to 1950 lb gross weight.
The 150 and the 160 were only certificated in the normal category (making
them not spinable). Might have been that the empty weights crept up so
high as to make the CG envelope of the utility category fairly unusable.
I know that my Navion has a utility envelope that's only places gross only
a couple of hundred pounds over the empty weight...I could only get in it with
minimal fuel and no passengers/baggage.

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
: All the 140's were approved in the utility category up to 1950 lb gross weight.
: The 150 and the 160 were only certificated in the normal category (making
: them not spinable). Might have been that the empty weights crept up so
: high as to make the CG envelope of the utility category fairly unusable.
: I know that my Navion has a utility envelope that's only places gross only
: a couple of hundred pounds over the empty weight...I could only get in it with
: minimal fuel and no passengers/baggage.

The Cherokees have a pretty wide CG envelope, but normally operate
very far forward CG. I have done the calculations and determined that
it's *impossible* to aft-load the thing and stay under the 200 lbs in the
baggage compartment (min fuel, 70 lb pilot, 200 lbs baggage and back seats
full to gross).

Funny thing about the spins is that in the 140 manual, they don't
actually say spins are approved on so many words, but rather that spins
are not approved in 'Normal' category. I remember reading somewhere that
a test pilot was killed in the Cherokee certification when a spin turned
into an unrecoverable flat spin. Probably operating in the aft CG region
outside of 'Utility.'

I can't imagine any difference between the 140s and 160/180 in
spin characteristics. Minimally different engine weight, but perhaps the
battery further back changes moment of inertia?

FWIW
-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[John Galban]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "DaveSproul" > wrote in message ...
> > >Actually, the early Cherokee 140s were certified for spins.
> >
> > Wow. I never knew that. What changed later? The airframes were identical for
> > many years, right?
> >
> All the 140's were approved in the utility category up to 1950 lb gross weight.
> The 150 and the 160 were only certificated in the normal category (making
> them not spinable). Might have been that the empty weights crept up so
> high as to make the CG envelope of the utility category fairly unusable.
> I know that my Navion has a utility envelope that's only places gross only
> a couple of hundred pounds over the empty weight...I could only get in it with
> minimal fuel and no passengers/baggage.

I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
Utility Category. Not all were. It depended on the equipment
installed. Most that were not approved had A/C and the big fresh air
fan in the tail. My '68 180D is approved for spins in the utility
category (and spins great).

The big change came in '73 when most models got a 5" stretch to the
fuselage, and longer wings and stabilator (and the resulting CG
change). The 140, which was not stretched, retained spin approval in
the Utility Category until they quit building them in '77.

The Cherokee is very sensitive to CG position. When I spin mine, I
can tell whether the CG is in the front or rear of the Utility
envelope. The spin is noticably flatter (but still quite recoverable)
when close to the back of the Utility range.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[DaveSproul]

>The spin is noticably flatter (but still quite recoverable)
>when close to the back of the Utility range.

Fascinating. I'd never heard of people spinning Cherokees. I've had an
ingrained assumption (prejudice?) that low wing airplanes are much more
susceptible to unrecoverable spins than high wing. That's what always made me
feel safer in low-end Cessnas.

Maybe I was unfairly traumatized, but I saw a guy get killed when he couldn't
get his Pitts out of an inverted flat spin. I know that's a different beast
than what we've been discussing, but I'll always be hugely wary of spins.

Dave Sproul - Bethesda, MD

[[email protected]]

DaveSproul > wrote:
:>The spin is noticably flatter (but still quite recoverable)
:>when close to the back of the Utility range.

Good to know. It's a pretty difficult beast to nail down, from
what I've seen. I happen to know that it's not legal to run mine in the
utility category anyway because of the engine upgrade, so that legally
kill the spin idea.

: Fascinating. I'd never heard of people spinning Cherokees. I've had an
: ingrained assumption (prejudice?) that low wing airplanes are much more
: susceptible to unrecoverable spins than high wing. That's what always made me
: feel safer in low-end Cessnas.

I've got a friend who used to do rolls in his Cherokee 140.
Especially entertaining because when he took his brother up and did an
aileron roll, his brother went back to his instructor and was then
informed that it was, "impossible to do a roll in a Cherokee." Right....
:)

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ron Natalie]

"John Galban" > wrote in message om...

> I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
> Utility Category.

Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.

The PA-28-140, -180, -181 are certificated in the utility category

For those models that are certificated with for utility category operations.
1. You have to get the CG in the utility envelope.
2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.
3. There is a serial number limit on the -180 for utility category operations.
4. You can only use the two front seats.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message om...
>
> > I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
> > Utility Category.
>
> Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
> certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
> and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.
>
> The PA-28-140, -180, -181 are certificated in the utility category
>
> For those models that are certificated with for utility category operations.
> 1. You have to get the CG in the utility envelope.
> 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.
> 3. There is a serial number limit on the -180 for utility category operations.
> 4. You can only use the two front seats.
>
Oh, and by the way, I forgot one important thing. If your PA-28 can be
operated in the utility category, it will be placarded as such (with the gross
weight for that category). That's perhaps the easiest way to tell (provided
your aircraft is airworthy).

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
:> I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
:> Utility Category.

: Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
: certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
: and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.

Hrmm... sounds illegal to me then?

: The PA-28-140, -180, -181 are certificated in the utility category

: For those models that are certificated with for utility category operations.
: 1. You have to get the CG in the utility envelope.
Of course.

: 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.
Probably not too many of them left.

: 3. There is a serial number limit on the -180 for utility category operations.
Probably the old (non-clamshell cowling) version?

: 4. You can only use the two front seats.
Of course

Mine need not legally apply since the engine upgrade expressly
says Normal only.

Thanks for the info though... I would think it's pretty much a legal
issue. The important thing would be to keep it loaded in the Utility CG
range. Other than that there's no real difference between the airframes.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Neal]

>> 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.

???

You sure about that? The Checkerbird's paperwork says it has a max
gross weight of 2150 when operated in the normal category, 1950 in the
utility category. It has both the original placard on the panel, plus
the AFM text stating that spins are an approved aerobatic manuever
when operated in the utility category with no aft baggage pax.

I'm far too chicken to try spinning it however. ;-)

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.

I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years ago when a spin
went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

[[email protected]]

G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
: wrote:
:>
:> I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.

: I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years ago when a spin
: went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

The Normal category is much more aft CG, and was most likely the
cause. I know from flying mine that it's a whole different animal in
'Utility' loading... extremely benign stall, etc. More aft it's tricky.
Aside from that, however, the airframes are identical.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[David Megginson]

writes:

> :> I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.
>
> : I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years
> : ago when a spin went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.
>
> The Normal category is much more aft CG, and was most likely the
> cause. I know from flying mine that it's a whole different animal
> in 'Utility' loading... extremely benign stall, etc. More aft it's
> tricky. Aside from that, however, the airframes are identical.

The different engine weights (and accessory weights) will affect the
CG and the ability to recover, together with other small differences.
The later four-place Cherokees also have various combinations of a
longer fuselage and semi-tapered wings.

Either Piper spin-tested the other models and found them
unsatisfactory, or else the test pilots wouldn't even try spinning
them in the first place (because of engineering predictions). Neither
thought makes me too comfortable.


All the best,


David

[JJS]

"Neal" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on
the -140.
>
> ???
>
> You sure about that? The Checkerbird's paperwork says it has a max
> gross weight of 2150 when operated in the normal category, 1950 in
the
> utility category. It has both the original placard on the panel,
plus
> the AFM text stating that spins are an approved aerobatic manuever
> when operated in the utility category with no aft baggage pax.
>
> I'm far too chicken to try spinning it however. ;-)
>
Same here! My 2150 pound g.w. 1966 Cherokee has the same placard on
the panel. It also has four seats. I pulled out the flight manual,
also.

The airplane flight manual maneuvers section lists entry speed for
spins, steep turns, lazy eights and chandelles.

The Placards section has this: "For spin recovery, use full rudder
against spin, followed immediately by forward wheel".

I also looked at my copy of the type certificate and saw nothing
prohibiting spins.


--
Joe Schneider
8437R
(Remove No Spam to Reply)
X-No-archive: yes

[John Galban]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
>
> Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
> certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
> and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.
>
> The PA-28-140, -180, -181 are certificated in the utility category
>
> For those models that are certificated with for utility category operations.
> 1. You have to get the CG in the utility envelope.
> 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.
> 3. There is a serial number limit on the -180 for utility category operations.
> 4. You can only use the two front seats.

Very interesting! Now I'm going to have to go back and check my
logbook. I was pretty sure they were 150/160s that I'd spun (and now
I'm not). They had the placard with manuever entry speeds, including
spins, in the utility category.

Odd that the 150/160 would not be certified in the utility category
and the -180 is. They're basically the same airframe. Where did you
get the above info? TCDS?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Ron Natalie]

"John Galban" > wrote in message om...

>
> Odd that the 150/160 would not be certified in the utility category
> and the -180 is. They're basically the same airframe. Where did you
> get the above info? TCDS?

Yep.

[John Galban]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
>
> Either Piper spin-tested the other models and found them
> unsatisfactory, or else the test pilots wouldn't even try spinning
> them in the first place (because of engineering predictions). Neither
> thought makes me too comfortable.
>

Piper spin tested the "stretched" models. They had to as part of
the certification testing. That's a whole different ballgame than
approval for intentional spins. Oddly enough, the original stretched
models were not restricted from intentional spins when they 1st came
out. Spin approval was rescinded for those models a few years later
by AD.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Chris Kennedy]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>>I would think it's pretty much a legal issue.
>
>
> I don't think so. Two CFIs were killed near Solberg a few years ago when a spin
> went flat. I think they were flying a Cherokee.

I've spun (with utility loading) a '68 PA28-180 that wasn't placarded
against it.

It didn't spin well. By that I mean it was _really_ uninterested in
entering a spin; stick back full stall (well, mush) and full rudder made
it want to spiral. A jab of throttle was needed to convince it to
wallow over and spin.

Recovery was normal and uneventful.

Some PA28's (notably later ones) are placarded against spins, I suspect
because some CG loadings may make recovery -er- difficult.

[Neal]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:17:51 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net> wrote:
>>
>Same here! My 2150 pound g.w. 1966 Cherokee has the same placard on
>the panel. It also has four seats. I pulled out the flight manual,
>also.

Mine is a 1966 year model too.

[Rich Stowell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
> >
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message om...
> >
> > > I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
> > > Utility Category.
> >
> > Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
> > certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
> > and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.
> >
> > The PA-28-140, -180, -181 are certificated in the utility category
> >
> > For those models that are certificated with for utility category operations.
> > 1. You have to get the CG in the utility envelope.
> > 2. You have to not have the 2150 gross weight increase.on the -140.
> > 3. There is a serial number limit on the -180 for utility category operations.
> > 4. You can only use the two front seats.
> >
> Oh, and by the way, I forgot one important thing. If your PA-28 can be
> operated in the utility category, it will be placarded as such (with the gross
> weight for that category). That's perhaps the easiest way to tell (provided
> your aircraft is airworthy).



We need to be very careful here -- just because an airplane is
approved for operation in the Utility Category does NOT mean it is
certified for intentional spins!

Here's how certification works in this regard:

Normal Category operation -- intentional spins are NOT approved;

Acrobatic Category operation -- intentional spins ARE apporved;

Utility Category operation -- intentional spins MAY or MAY NOT be
approved, depending on whether or not the manufacturer elects (and it
is up to the manufacturer to choose) to spin test as if in the Normal
category or as if in the Acrobatic category.

That said, here's what I've got for the Piper PA-28-140 and PA-28-180
airplanes, excerpted from my stall/spin due for publication in 2004.

Hope this helps,

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com


-------start of excerpt--------
The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness
Copyright (c) 2003 by Rich Stowell

Chapter 16
THE TRUTH ABOUT MANUFACTURER-SUPPLIED INFORMATION

CASE STUDY -- PIPER PA-28-140
Piper PA-28-140 models (a.k.a.: Cherokee Warriors, Cruisers, and
Executives) were produced under TC No. 2A13. FAA-approved documents
are required on board all of these airplanes. The associated TCDS
refer to flight manuals approved prior to June 16, 1976 as AFM's, but
as POH's thereafter. The PA-28-140 was certificated as a dual category
airplane. Intentional spins are not approved when in the Normal part
of its operating envelope; intentional spins are approved, however,
when in the Utility part of its operating envelope.

The earliest approved AFM's issued were sparse in operating details.
One version of AFM Report VB-160, revised in March 1964 for example,
required the following placard: For Spin Recovery, Use Full Rudder
Against Spin, Followed Immediately By Forward Wheel. Power and aileron
settings are not mentioned here. The Procedures Section offers no
advice relevant to spinning the airplane, even though intentional
spins are approved when in the Utility envelope.

By comparison, the June 1976 version of the PA-28-140 flight manual
(Report VB-770), now called a POH, contains a separate Emergency
Procedures section with the following information: If a spin is
inadvertently entered, immediately move the throttle to idle and the
ailerons to neutral. Full rudder should then be applied opposite to
the direction of rotation followed by control wheel full forward. When
the rotation stops, neutralize the rudder and ease back on the control
wheel as required to smoothly regain a level flight attitude.

This POH also includes a sequential spin recovery checklist:
Throttle...idle
Ailerons...neutral
Rudder...full opposite to direction of rotation
Control wheel...full forward

Similar to the Cessna 150 series, the quality and depth of spin
information provided to pilots flying the Piper PA-28-140 certainly
was an evolving process. A rash of spin accidents in PA-28-140's,
however, prompted the issuance of Service Bulletin No. 753 in December
1982. The four-page bulletin, affecting all PA-28-140's built,
included expanded spin information and was to be kept in the airplanes
at all times.

It seems pilots generally were unaware just how critical it was that
this airplane be in the spins-approved Utility envelope when
performing spins. Cross the line into the spins-prohibited Normal
envelope--even a little bit--and the airplane could become
unrecoverable from the spin. Which hole the front seats were adjusted
into literally could be the difference between recovering and spinning
into the ground. Accurately assessing weight and center of gravity in
the Piper PA-28-140 is absolutely imperative. Yet little in the flight
manuals or the flight training environment drove home the seriousness
of this point.

The Service Bulletin also contained practical information about
spinning the airplane:
The spin should be entered from a power-off glide.... The ailerons
must remain neutral throughout the spin and recovery, since aileron
application may alter the spin characteristics to the degree that the
spin is broken prematurely or that recovery is delayed...

For spin recovery:
1. Apply and maintain full rudder opposite the direction of rotation.
2. As the rudder hits the stop, rapidly move the control wheel full
forward and be ready to relax the forward pressure when the spin
rotation has stopped.
3. As rotation stops, neutralize the rudder and smoothly recover from
the dive.
Normal recoveries may take up to 1-1/2 turns when proper technique is
used; improper techniques can increase the turns to recover and the
resulting altitude loss.

The Service Bulletin goes on to offer additional advice on spinning:
Application of full aft control wheel and full rudder before the
airplane stalls is not recommended as it results in large changes in
pitch attitude during entry and the first turn of the spin. The
recommended procedure has been designed to minimize turns and altitude
loss during recovery.... The immediate effect of applying normal
recovery controls may be an appreciable steepening of the nose down
attitude and an increase in rate of spin rotation. It is essential to
maintain full anti-spin rudder and to continue to hold the control
wheel full forward until the spin stops.... Delay in moving the
control wheel forward may result in the aircraft entering a very fast,
steep spin mode which could disorient a pilot.... depending on the
control column position [when the airplane recovers], it may be
necessary to move the column partially back almost immediately to
avoid an unnecessarily steep nose down attitude, possible negative "g"
forces and excessive loss of altitude.

Finally, solid information. But pilots either weren't getting the
message, or still didn't understand the critical nature of weight and
balance on spin behavior. Another bulletin, Special Airworthiness
Information Bulletin, ACE-97-02, had to be issued as a result. The
purpose was to advise pilots again of the need to comply with the
Service Bulletin issued nearly 15 years earlier:

Issuance of SB 753 was prompted by reports of spin training accidents;
recent events have indicated that the procedures presented in the SB
are not being followed or are/were not known to the participants in
the events. Spins must be performed correctly or the results can be
disastrous. All aspects of the spin maneuver must be understood
including: weight and balance, airspeed control, altitude required,
spin entry procedures, spin recovery procedures, etc. An unsafe and
deadly condition can develop rapidly if all of these aspects are not
taken into account.

All of the information contained in the 1982 Service Bulletin is then
reprinted in the 1997 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin....

CASE STUDY -- PIPER PA-28-180
Like the PA-28-140, the Piper PA-28-180 (a.k.a.: Piper Archer) was
manufactured under TC No. 2A13. FAA-approved flight manuals are
required (referred to as AFM's in the TCDS). Intentional spins are
prohibited in this airplane.

The different versions of the Piper PA-28-180 FAA-approved AFM's are
cross-referenced with Report Numbers. The Procedures Section of Report
VB-163, revised 10/20/1964, reads as follows:
3. The PA 28-180 is approved under FAA Regulation CAR3 which prohibits
intentional spins. The following information is noteworthy:
a. The stall characteristics...are normal....
b. Prolonged use of full rudder during stall practice may result in a
rapid roll followed by a spin and should be avoided. Recovery from an
incipient spin may be effected in less than one additional turn by use
of opposite rudder followed by full forward control wheel.
c. In the event that a fully developed spin is inadvertently
experienced, recovery is best made by using full opposite rudder
followed by full forward wheel and full opposite aileron. The control
positions against the spin should be maintained during the entire
recovery, which may require several turns and a substantial loss of
altitude if the airplane is located [sic] heavily with a rearward
center of gravity.

This same information (sans the typo) is carried through both Report
VB-210 issued in April 1969, and Report VB-558 issued in July 1973.
The Owner's Handbook supplementing Report VB-210 lists the following
in Section IV:
Intentional spins are prohibited in this aircraft. If a spin is
inadvertently entered, immediately use the following recovery
procedures:
1. Throttle - Idle
2. Rudder – Full opposite to direction of rotation
3. Control Wheel – Full forward
4. Rudder – Neutral (when rotation stops
5. Control Wheel – As required to smoothly regain level flight
attitude.

The recommendations in the supplementary Owner's Handbook don't
conflict with anything contained in the approved Report VB-210. The
two documents merely provide different levels of information. For
instance, both are consistent regarding the sequencing of rudder and
elevator. The supplemental Owner's Manual calls for idle throttle; the
approved AFM doesn't mention throttle at all. The Owner's Manual makes
no distinction between incipient and developed spins; just as in
VB-163, however, AFM Report VB-210 recommends the use of opposite
aileron, but only during recovery from a developed spin. Let's zero in
on this aileron issue.

The Piper PA-28-180 was certificated under CAR3, spins prohibited. The
airplane was only required to demonstrate recovery from one-turn spins
within one additional turn to satisfy the standards in effect at the
time. The manufacturer wasn't required to spin test the airplane
beyond one turn--that is, spend additional time and money on it.

Did a test pilot in fact perform developed spins during testing? If
so, why? Did Piper want to certify the airplane as "spins-approved" in
the Utility Category, but the airplane just couldn't satisfy the
six-turn spin test criteria? Or did a test pilot add a couple of
multiple turn spins simply "to see what it'd do"? The AFM implies that
the PA-28-180 will recover from a developed spin in several turns, but
does it recover in part because of, or in spite of, the recommended
opposite aileron input? Could it be that no developed spins were done
at all, and the AFM's recommendation is a best guess?

The above questions aside, opposite ailerons tend to generate flat
spins in light airplanes. Where do you think airshow performers place
the ailerons for the dramatic flat spins demonstrated at airshows?
Moreover, certification criteria in effect at the time specifically
required airplanes like the Piper PA-28-180 to recover using "normal
recovery controls." The Type Certification Spin Test Procedures (AC
23-1) issued in April 1964 states, "All spin recoveries should be made
using the NASA spin recovery technique [consisting of] ailerons in
neutral position, full opposite rudder to stop rotation, followed by
forward elevator control as required..."

The context in which the Piper PA-28-180 AFM recommends opposite
aileron appears highly suspect. Practically speaking, a pilot
departing into an accidental spin in this airplane had better react
long before it stabilizes in a developed spin. And that pilot should
react with NASA Standard spin recovery actions, applied per the PARE®
checklist.

One last item: Seventy-nine Piper PA-28-180's rolled off the assembly
line at one point with placards to the effect that intentional spins
were approved when in actuality, intentional spins are NOT approved.
This prompted the issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (Amendment
39-2047, effective December 21, 1974) requesting removal of the
incorrect placard and replacement with the correct one. Mistakes do
happen, but seldom could an error as seemingly innocuous as dropping
the word "NOT" have such enormous ramifications: Proven spin and
recovery capability are implicit in the phrase, "Spins Approved,"
whereas unproven and potentially lethal spin behavior are implicit in
the phrase "Spins Not Approved."

----------end of excerpt--------

[Roy Smith]

(Rich Stowell) wrote:
> For spin recovery:
> 1. Apply and maintain full rudder opposite the direction of rotation.
> 2. As the rudder hits the stop, rapidly move the control wheel full
> forward and be ready to relax the forward pressure when the spin
> rotation has stopped.
> 3. As rotation stops, neutralize the rudder and smoothly recover from
> the dive.
> Normal recoveries may take up to 1-1/2 turns when proper technique is
> used; improper techniques can increase the turns to recover and the
> resulting altitude loss.

I hope anybody who's thinking of spinning an airplane doesn't read the
above and think they can just go out and try it. If you want to do
this, get some training first, and get it from somebody who flies and
teaches acro, not from your local CFI who has more bravado than brains.

[Ron Natalie]

"Rich Stowell" > wrote in message om...

>
> We need to be very careful here -- just because an airplane is
> approved for operation in the Utility Category does NOT mean it is
> certified for intentional spins!

That is correct, but if it's not approved in the utility category it is almost
certainly NOT approved for spins.

Furhter, there may be further restrictions on the spinning than just the
utility category loading. For example, the Cherokees prohibit anything
from being in the baggage compartment while spinning.

[John Galban]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
> >
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message om...
> >
> > > I've flown and spun 150/160s that were approved for spins in the
> > > Utility Category.
> >
> > Let me be more exact. The PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 are NOT
> > certficated in the utility category, hence no spins. The PA-28-151
> > and PA-28-161 are certificated in the utility category.
> >
<snip>

BTW - I checked my logbook and you were absolutely correct. Turns
out the planes I mentioned above were 150 and 160 hp versions of the
-140.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

(Rich Stowell) wrote in message
<snip>
> That said, here's what I've got for the Piper PA-28-140 and PA-28-180
> airplanes, excerpted from my stall/spin due for publication in 2004.
>
> Hope this helps,


Rich,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Can't wait for the book to
come out. I have a question, though.

The PA28-180 section makes repeated references to the fact that
intentional spins are prohibited. I don't think that is right.
There were several versions of the PA28-180 and some do indeed
prohibit intentional spins (primarily the stretched versions with
beginning with ser# 28-7305001). I own an earlier version ('68 180D,
ser# 28-4474) that is approved for intentional spins in the utility
category. This is according to the AFM and associated placards on the
aircraft. Specifically, the Operating Limitations placard refers to
entry speeds for manuevers approved in the utility category. Spins
are included, along with chandelles, lazy 8s, etc... I have flown
other PA28-180s, some older, some newer, that have the same placard
(these were not versions subject to AD 74-26-07). Am I missing
something?

A couple of notes on the chapter :

The 1st sentence under the PA28-140 section mentions Warriors. The
Warriors were actually PA28-151/161 models produced under sections XIV
& XVI of TCDS 2A13.

The PA28-180 under section XII of the TCDS was sold as the
Challenger ('73) and Archer ('74 &'75). This is the stretched version
(no-spins) affected by AD 74-26-02. Earlier PA28-180 versions
produced under section III of the TCDS were sold as the Cherokee.

Thanks again,

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Steve House]

Unless you're training for the PPL here in Canada, where spins and recovery
are part of the required syllabus at about lesson 11.

Steve House
CYHM


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> (Rich Stowell) wrote:
> > For spin recovery:
> > 1. Apply and maintain full rudder opposite the direction of rotation.
> > 2. As the rudder hits the stop, rapidly move the control wheel full
> > forward and be ready to relax the forward pressure when the spin
> > rotation has stopped.
> > 3. As rotation stops, neutralize the rudder and smoothly recover from
> > the dive.
> > Normal recoveries may take up to 1-1/2 turns when proper technique is
> > used; improper techniques can increase the turns to recover and the
> > resulting altitude loss.
>
> I hope anybody who's thinking of spinning an airplane doesn't read the
> above and think they can just go out and try it. If you want to do
> this, get some training first, and get it from somebody who flies and
> teaches acro, not from your local CFI who has more bravado than brains.

[David Megginson]

"Steve House" > writes:

> Unless you're training for the PPL here in Canada, where spins and
> recovery are part of the required syllabus at about lesson 11.

Transport Canada removed spin training from the syllabus in the late
1990's (I don't know the exact year). It was not part of my PPL
training in 2002.

As far as I understand (*not* confirmed from an official source),
there were two problems with spin training:

1. The stall/spin accident rate was slightly higher in Canada than the
U.S., despite the fact that all Canadian PPL holders had spin training
and most U.S. PPL holders did not.

2. There were occasional training fatalities during spin training,
including one where the rudder in a 152 jumped its stop and jammed
past full deflection.

Given #1, there was no justification for the deaths in #2 (even if
they were fairly rare).


All the best,


David

[Dan Thomas]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> "Steve House" > writes:
>
> > Unless you're training for the PPL here in Canada, where spins and
> > recovery are part of the required syllabus at about lesson 11.
>
> Transport Canada removed spin training from the syllabus in the late
> 1990's (I don't know the exact year). It was not part of my PPL
> training in 2002.
>
> As far as I understand (*not* confirmed from an official source),
> there were two problems with spin training:
>
> 1. The stall/spin accident rate was slightly higher in Canada than the
> U.S., despite the fact that all Canadian PPL holders had spin training
> and most U.S. PPL holders did not.
>
> 2. There were occasional training fatalities during spin training,
> including one where the rudder in a 152 jumped its stop and jammed
> past full deflection.
>
> Given #1, there was no justification for the deaths in #2 (even if
> they were fairly rare).
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

The 152 problem was due to maintenance neglect: worn rudder
hinges, bent bellcrank, and so on. An AD has forced replacement of all
rudder stops on 150s to prevent further occurences.
Stall/spin accidents most often occur near the ground, such as in
the circuit, as I understand it, and spin training isn't going to save
you there. There won't be enough altitude for recovery. Learning to
recognize the situations that lead to spins is another thing and
should be taught thoroughly. We teach spins and spin recoveries even
in PPL training, using different real-life scenarios (with lots of
altitude) and lots of wing-drop stall recoveries.
Some guys spin into the ground by being stupid: buzzing a friend
and pulling up sharply and entering an accelerated stall at low
altitude. They weren't paying attention in groundschool, I guess.

Dan

[David Megginson]

(Dan Thomas) writes:

> Stall/spin accidents most often occur near the ground, such as in
> the circuit, as I understand it, and spin training isn't going to
> save you there. There won't be enough altitude for
> recovery. Learning to recognize the situations that lead to spins is
> another thing and should be taught thoroughly. We teach spins and
> spin recoveries even in PPL training, using different real-life
> scenarios (with lots of altitude) and lots of wing-drop stall
> recoveries.

I trained in 2002 in rental 172's, before buying my Warrior. We
didn't do spins at all (except that my instructor demonstrated one
incipient spin), but we tried hard to get wing-drops on stalls -- I
succeeded well under 50% of the time, even in a power-on, 30-deg-bank
departure stall.

In my Warrior, I have yet to see a wing drop in a stall at all. I
don't want to risk a spin or snap roll by stalling severely
uncoordinated, but nothing that I am willing to do -- various
combinations of fast stall, slow stall, power-on, power-off, wings
level, banked -- will drop a wing or really do anything other than
make the nose buffet up and down a little.


All the best,


David

[[email protected]]

David Megginson > wrote:
: In my Warrior, I have yet to see a wing drop in a stall at all. I
: don't want to risk a spin or snap roll by stalling severely
: uncoordinated, but nothing that I am willing to do -- various
: combinations of fast stall, slow stall, power-on, power-off, wings
: level, banked -- will drop a wing or really do anything other than
: make the nose buffet up and down a little.

The Cherokee I fly has more or less the same tendencies, but it's
heavily dependent on the CG. The PA-28's have a very forward CG, which
makes them "auto-recover" so to speak from the stall. A bit of
buffetting, nose drops slightly and breaks the stall. Try it with a more
aft CG (than the usual full tanks and 1 or 2 people up front) and it gets
a bit more aggressive. I wouldn't recommend anything but a simple stall
in that more aft (Still in Normal, but more aft than Utility)
configuration, as spinning could be bad.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Andrew Boyd]

David Megginson wrote:

> I trained in 2002 in rental 172's
> We didn't do spins at all

About 5 years ago, Transport Canada Aviation removed the
requirement for spins from the Cdn Private licence. Spins
are still required for the Commercial licence in Canada.

Given the definition of "aerobatic maneuvre" in CAR 101.01(1)
a fully-developed spin is pretty clearly an aerobatic maneuver,
and in a perfect world, perhaps fully-developed spins (upright,
inverted, accelerated, flat, etc) would best be taught by aerobatic
instructors in aerobatic aircraft, with the occupants wearing
emergency parachutes. IMHO.

That said, I think every pilot should know how to deal with
a dropping wing, either on departure or turning final, long
before it has a chance to develop into a full spin below 500 AGL.

--
ATP www.pittspecials.com

[Dan Thomas]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
>
> I trained in 2002 in rental 172's, before buying my Warrior. We
> didn't do spins at all (except that my instructor demonstrated one
> incipient spin), but we tried hard to get wing-drops on stalls -- I
> succeeded well under 50% of the time, even in a power-on, 30-deg-bank
> departure stall.


Too much bank. Try ten degrees, and outside wing will drop fairly
promptly, especially if banking right.

Dan

[Steve House]

Am in temp hiatus in my lessons due to financial shortages but I understood
from my instructor that it was just around the corner, lesson immediately
after stalls. Let's see - lesson 13 in the FTM Aeroplane, 4th edition.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/general/Flttrain/TP13747/menu.htm

however it's not in the flight test standards.

Lesson 13 in the online version of the flight training syllabus talks about
incipient spins and recoveries but the downloadable PDF file still calls for
full spin training. Wonder what the real story is.


"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve House" > writes:
>
> > Unless you're training for the PPL here in Canada, where spins and
> > recovery are part of the required syllabus at about lesson 11.
>
> Transport Canada removed spin training from the syllabus in the late
> 1990's (I don't know the exact year). It was not part of my PPL
> training in 2002.
>
> As far as I understand (*not* confirmed from an official source),
> there were two problems with spin training:
>
> 1. The stall/spin accident rate was slightly higher in Canada than the
> U.S., despite the fact that all Canadian PPL holders had spin training
> and most U.S. PPL holders did not.
>
> 2. There were occasional training fatalities during spin training,
> including one where the rudder in a 152 jumped its stop and jammed
> past full deflection.
>
> Given #1, there was no justification for the deaths in #2 (even if
> they were fairly rare).
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

[Ron McKinnon]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steve House" > writes:
> >
> > > Unless you're training for the PPL here in Canada, where spins and
> > > recovery are part of the required syllabus at about lesson 11.
> >
> > Transport Canada removed spin training from the syllabus in the late
> > 1990's (I don't know the exact year). It was not part of my PPL
> > training in 2002.
> >
> Am in temp hiatus in my lessons due to financial shortages but I
understood
> from my instructor that it was just around the corner, lesson immediately
> after stalls. Let's see - lesson 13 in the FTM Aeroplane, 4th edition.
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/general/Flttrain/TP13747/menu.htm
>
> however it's not in the flight test standards.
>
> Lesson 13 in the online version of the flight training syllabus talks
about
> incipient spins and recoveries but the downloadable PDF file still calls
for
> full spin training. Wonder what the real story is.

The real story is you still do spin training - you don't have to enter
a full spin - incipient spins and recoveries are sufficient, and
you don't have to demonstrate spins/recoveries on your PPL flight test.

[David Megginson]

"Steve House" > writes:

> Am in temp hiatus in my lessons due to financial shortages but I
> understood from my instructor that it was just around the corner,
> lesson immediately after stalls. Let's see - lesson 13 in the FTM
> Aeroplane, 4th edition.

The fourth edition of the FTM was published in 1992, when spin
training was still part of the Canadian test standards (every PPL
candidate had to demonstrate a spin recovery). They have not
published a new edition since then, to my knowledge, but any spinning
your instructor does with you is an optional extra nowadays.


All the best,


David

[Robert M. Gary]

David Megginson > wrote in message >...
> (Dan Thomas) writes:
>
> > Stall/spin accidents most often occur near the ground, such as in
> > the circuit, as I understand it, and spin training isn't going to
> > save you there. There won't be enough altitude for
> > recovery. Learning to recognize the situations that lead to spins is
> > another thing and should be taught thoroughly. We teach spins and
> > spin recoveries even in PPL training, using different real-life
> > scenarios (with lots of altitude) and lots of wing-drop stall
> > recoveries.
>
> I trained in 2002 in rental 172's, before buying my Warrior. We
> didn't do spins at all (except that my instructor demonstrated one
> incipient spin), but we tried hard to get wing-drops on stalls -- I
> succeeded well under 50% of the time, even in a power-on, 30-deg-bank
> departure stall.
>
> In my Warrior, I have yet to see a wing drop in a stall at all. I
> don't want to risk a spin or snap roll by stalling severely
> uncoordinated, but nothing that I am willing to do -- various
> combinations of fast stall, slow stall, power-on, power-off, wings
> level, banked -- will drop a wing or really do anything other than
> make the nose buffet up and down a little.


Gee, in my Mooney I have yet to do a stall that doesn't result in a wing drop.

[David Megginson]

(Robert M. Gary) writes:

> Gee, in my Mooney I have yet to do a stall that doesn't result in a
> wing drop.

As far as I understand, the tricks that make for a docile stall, like
a lot of wing twist, also increase drag. I guess that's why people
don't buy Mooneys for training or Cherokees for speed.


All the best,


David

[Dan Thomas]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
> Gee, in my Mooney I have yet to do a stall that doesn't result in a wing drop.

Either uncoordinated or the wing is out of rig. Where are the
ailerons in cruise? Deflected a bit?

Dan