Message-ID: <3660F09C.7CD1@ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 00:58:36 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Cessna 152 as a trainer thru Inst rating????
References: <19981127115707.21523.00001460@ng144.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.117
X-Trace: 29 Nov 1998 16:04:45 GMT, 129.37.111.117
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 37
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.117
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:40520

Sdc1225 wrote:
 
> Several guys in my office will soon be starting flight instruction 
> from scratch. We are considering purchasing our own 152 to use for all > the required hours thru our Inst rating and beyond. Is a 152 a viable > IFR platform, or do we need to be looking for at least a 172. Or is 
> there another A/C that would be better.

The C152 is a light aircraft (so not as stable as heavier planes) but
is perfectly viable as an instrument trainer.

Finding a C152 which is *equipped* as an instrument trainer might
be more difficult, and be aware that avionics are one of the most
expensive components of the plane (and one where investment is 
hard to recoup).  

As for "better", that kind of depends upon what you want the
aircraft to do.  A C152 is hard to beat as a low-cost, easy
to maintain trainer.  Parts are easy to come by, mechanics 
familiar with the plane are easy to find.  It's a tough little
plane.  It's pretty limited for taking trips or sightseeing with 
friends after the license though.

I think for about the same price as a good IFR C152, you can find a
good condition Beech Musketeer or older Piper PA28, or possibly
a Grumman Traveller.  Also perhaps a C175 (Skylark) particularly
one with an engine conversion away from the geared thing or a
Piper Tripacer if you look hard for the IFR capabilities.  These
are "4 place planes" meaning 3 people and not quite full fuel,
4 people only if you limit the range and leave fuel behind.  The 
Piper and Musketeer would be more stable for instrument training, and
all would have more capabilities for trips, etc.  The trade-off (and 
the reason they cost less than a C172) is parts can be harder to find,
mechanics familiar with the plane less common etc. but if you have
problem-solvers in your group they could be worth checking out.

Snowbird


