How to choose a training plane?

The selection of a training fleet is one of the most important decisions facing an aviation training organization (ATO) or an individual pilot wishing to develop his or her skills. It’s not a simple purchase; it’s a strategic investment that defines the school’s business model, its profitability and the quality of training for future pilots. As a distributor with years of experience in the general aviation market, we’ve seen how the right decisions can wing a center and the wrong ones can become a financial crutch. In this article, we will guide you through the key factors to consider in order to choose the most suitable training aircraft for your needs.

The market offers a wide spectrum of options, from legendary, proven designs to ultra-modern composite machines. The decision goes far beyond the “Cessna or the rest of the world” debate. It concerns operating costs, adaptation to regulatory requirements, student preferences and long-term service strategy. Our goal is not to point to one “best” model, but to provide you with substantive tools to conduct your own informed analysis. Drawing on our experience in deploying a variety of fleets, from MD helicopters to piston aircraft, we will help you understand the nuances of this complex choice.

Defining the training mission

The first and absolutely crucial step is to precisely define the profile of the training business. There is no one-size-fits-all aircraft that is ideal for every task. Different requirements are placed on a machine for ab-initio basic training (for the PPL(A)), others for advanced instrument training (IR) or commercial training (CPL), and still others for multi-engine aircraft (MEP) training. By defining the mission, you can narrow the search field and avoid overpaying for features that will not be used.

Is your center focused on training weekend recreational pilots? In that case, low operating costs and simplicity of operation will be key. This is where modern VLA (Very Light Aircraft) or LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) class designs, such as the PS-28 Cruiser. Thanks to Rotax 912 series engines, their fuel consumption is drastically lower than that of traditional designs, which directly translates into the price of a flight hour for a student.

Or is the goal to train future airline pilots? Then the fleet must be adapted to IFR and CPL training. This means having aircraft with the appropriate certification and avionics, capable of flying in IMC conditions. For years, this segment has been dominated by the Cessna 172 Skyhawk, especially the version with Garmin G1000 avionics, which has become almost a standard in the industry. An alternative here could be the IFR-certified version of the PS-28N Cruiser. The requirements for a “complex” aircraft (with variable propeller pitch and retractable landing gear) for CPL training should also be considered, although European EASA regulations have liberalized on this issue.

Costs: Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis.

For any training organization, profitability is key. However, it is a mistake to look only at the purchase price of an aircraft. A much more important indicator is theTotal Cost of Ownership (TCO), which takes into account all expenses throughout the machine’s life cycle. It is the TCO that determines the final price per flight hour, and thus the competitiveness of the school. The low purchase price of a used aircraft can quickly be offset by high fuel costs and unforeseen maintenance expenses.

The key components of TCO for a training aircraft are primarily fuel consumption. The difference between the modern Rotax 912S engine (burning about 17-19 l/h) and the traditional Lycoming IO-360 (about 38-45 l/h) in the Cessna Skyhawk is colossal. With a fleet-wide flight of 800 hours per year, the fuel savings can run into the hundreds of thousands, allowing a faster return on investment in a new machine.

Another element is maintenance. One should analyze the cost of periodic maintenance, the price of spare parts and the resurgence of key components (TBO – Time Between Overhaul), especially the engine and propeller. Modern designs often offer longer service intervals. However, the availability and prices of parts should be verified. The undoubted advantage of popular models, such as the Cessna 172, is the global availability of spare parts and a huge service knowledge base. Finally, there are the costs of insurance, hangaring and possible subscriptions to avionics databases.

Technology in the cockpit: What training aircraft for the future?

We live in a digital age, and aviation is no exception. The “glass cockpit versus traditional clocks” debate is still alive in the training community. The choice of avionics is fundamental to the training process. On the one hand, traditional analog gauges (so-called “steam gauges”) teach the basic skill of “scanning” instruments, which is the foundation of piloting. Many instructors believe this is the best way to understand raw data and develop proper habits.

On the other hand, pilots today who end up in airlines or operating modern business aircraft (such as the family jets we offer in the Citation), work exclusively in a “glass cockpit” environment. Systems such as Garmin’s G1000 NXi, G3X or Dynon SkyView offer incomparable situational awareness, data integration and navigation support. Training a student from the beginning on modern avionics (so-called “glass-native”) better prepares him or her for the realities of modern aviation and facilitates later transfers to larger aircraft.

Most modern training aircraft, such as the PS-28 Cruiser or the new Cessna Skyhawk models, are equipped with advanced glass avionics as standard. Many schools are opting for a hybrid model: basic PPL training on simpler machines (even with analog clocks or basic “glass”), and then moving to aircraft with the full IFR G1000 package for instrument training and CPL. Such a model optimizes costs while providing students with comprehensive preparation.

New or used?

The decision to buy an aircraft new or used is another strategic dilemma. The secondary market tempts with much lower purchase prices. It is possible to purchase a proven training aircraft for a fraction of the price of a new machine. However, this carries serious risks. Training aircraft are heavily used. Hidden defects, impending costly overhauls (such as an engine past its TBO life expectancy) or airframe corrosion problems can quickly turn an opportunity into a financial disaster. Aircraft downtime for service is a double loss for a flight school – repair costs and lost revenue.

Buying a new aircraft is all about predictability. You get a machine with a full manufacturer’s warranty, the latest technology and zero overflight. For the first years of operation, service costs are minimal and limited to scheduled maintenance. This gives great mental comfort and allows you to plan your budget precisely. Modern aircraft, like the aforementioned PS-28, also offer incomparably lower operating costs, allowing the higher purchase price to be amortized more quickly.

As a distributor, we support customers in both scenarios. When buying new machines, such as Cessna or PS-28 Cruiser aircraft, we provide full factory support. At the same time, we understand market realities and often advise on pre-buy inspections of used machines. Regardless of the choice, an in-depth analysis of the aircraft’s technical condition and service history is crucial.

The role of simulators in modern training

When talking about optimizing the training fleet, the role of ground training devices (FSTDs) cannot be overlooked. Modern flight simulators, such as FNPT II or FTD devices, are no longer just an “add-on” for rainy days. They are an integral part of a modern and viable training system. EASA regulations allow a significant portion of IFR training, and even a portion of PPL or CPL training, to be conducted on certified simulators.

Investment in a flight simulator pays off on many levels. First, it drastically reduces costs. An hour of simulator operation is many times cheaper than an hour of airplane flight – it does not consume fuel, it does not “add hours” to the airframe and engine. Second, it allows for more efficient training. The instructor can “stop” the flight at any time, discuss a mistake, repeat a maneuver or safely practice any emergency procedure (such as engine failure in the clouds), which would be impossible or too risky in a real aircraft.

Our portfolio includes solutions from the world’s leading simulator manufacturers, such as Alsim, Frasca, ELITE or Simnest. They allow to create a virtual copy of the ATO fleet. A student can train procedures on the ground in a simulator that mirrors the cockpit of, for example, a Cessna 172 G1000 or a multi-engine aircraft, and then seamlessly transition to the aircraft, maximizing the efficiency of time spent in the air. Integrating an airborne fleet with a fleet of ground-based simulators is standard today in the most successful training centers.

Overview of popular models

The training aircraft market is dominated by a few key players, but some very interesting alternatives are also emerging. The table below compiles three popular types of aircraft used at different stages of training, based on verified data to help you understand their basic parameters.

As you can see, the Cessna 172 Skyhawk is a robust, IFR-certified platform that is the “workhorse” of many schools, but its fuel costs are high. The PS-28 Cruiser is revolutionizing the basic training market with its extremely low fuel burn, allowing it to offer a very competitive flight hour price. It is an ideal aircraft for ab-initio PPL training. In the MEP segment, on the other hand, aircraft such as the Tecnam P2006T (which we do not have on offer, but value for innovation) have shown that multi-engine training does not have to mean astronomical fuel costs, thanks to the use of two economical Rotax engines.

The choice depends on the ATO’s strategy. Is it better to have a single, universal (but expensive to operate) platform like the C172? Or a diversified fleet: low-cost in-flight PS-28s for PPL, Cessna 172s/PS-28Ns for IFR, and a dedicated MEP aircraft? More and more schools are leaning toward the second model, optimizing costs at every stage of training.

Help with aircraft selection

Choosing the most suitable training aircraft is a complex process, requiring an in-depth TCO analysis, precise mission definition and a strategic view of the technology. There is no single correct answer. The best aircraft is the one that best meets the specific needs of your organization, ensuring safe, reliable and profitable operations.

As an experienced distributor of aircraft, helicopters and simulators, our role is not only to provide equipment. Above all, we serve as a substantive partner at every stage of the process. We analyze your business model, help you configure your fleet – both aircraft, such as the Cessna Skyhawk or PS-28 Cruiser, and complementary Alsim or Frasca simulators – and support you in the financing and deployment process. We invite you to contact us so that together we can find a solution that will become the foundation of your flight school’s success.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. better Rotax or Lycoming/Continental engine for training?

There is no “better” engine, there are engines better suited for specific tasks. Rotax engines (such as the 912 series in the PS-28) are liquid- and air-cooled, run at higher speeds and can use cheaper automotive gasoline (Mogas). Their biggest advantage in training is their very low fuel consumption (about 17-19 l/h). Traditional Lycoming or Continental engines (such as those in the Cessna 172) are air-cooled, simpler in design and have decades of proven reliability. Their disadvantages are significantly higher fuel consumption (about 35-45 l/h) and the requirement to use the more expensive Avgas jet fuel.

2. is it possible to train for a PPL license on a VLA or LSA category aircraft?

Yes, absolutely. EASA regulations allow PPL(A) training on CS-VLA (Very Light Aircraft) certified aircraft, such as the PS-28 Cruiser. This allows for a significant reduction in basic training costs due to the lower operating costs of these aircraft.

3. what is the difference between CS-23 and CS-VLA certification?

These are two different sets of EASA certification regulations. CS-23 (Certification Specifications 23) applies to “normal, utility, aerobatic and local transport” aircraft up to 5670 kg (for piston aircraft). This is the traditional, more stringent category, which includes, for example, the Cessna 172. CS-VLA (Very Light Aircraft) is a simplified regulation for aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of up to 750 kg and a maximum of 2 seats. VLA aircraft, like the PS-28, are cheaper to manufacture and certify, which translates into their price and operating costs.

4. how many hours of flying can be “done” on a simulator for PPL/CPL/IR?

According to current EASA (Part-FCL) regulations, a significant amount of training can be completed on a certified FNPT II or FTD simulator. For example, up to 5 hours can be credited to a CPL(A) (modular course). For training for an IR(A) license, up to 40 hours (in a modular course) or up to 35 hours (in an ATP integrated course) can be completed on an FNPT II simulator. This is a huge cost savings.

5. Why is the Cessna 172 Skyhawk still so popular for training?

The Cessna 172 is the most widely produced aircraft in aviation history. Its popularity in training is due to several factors: it is extremely predictable and “forgives” mistakes (which is crucial in basic training), has a very robust design, global availability of spare parts and a huge service base. The introduction of the G1000 avionics version has kept it in a leading position as an IFR training platform, despite higher operating costs than its modern competitors.