Please don't make me learn to fly in a Cesspit!

[JBGA]

I blame cruddy old Cessnas and PA28's as the sole cause for me never getting a PPL. I've been a glider pilot for 12 years and thouroughly enjoy power flying when I'm with friends but every time I think about getting a PPL myself I go along to the flying school and out come these beaten up 40 year old heaps and it puts me right off. It's no wonder flying is a declining sport in the UK.

This year however I'm going to bite the bullet. Despite having hundreds of hours gliding experience and a 'Silver C' I can only be credited ten hours from the PPL syllabus so I'd need to do 35 hours total. On the other hand the NPPL only requires 10 hours total flying experience. I'd love to know exactly what it is in the PPL syllabus that takes an extra 20 hours to teach me? As it's such a no brainer I'll be going the NPPL route for now.

Anyway, to the point, it's time I went to the flying school and signed up. My nearest flying school has one club with a nice fleet of shiny modern DA40's. Now that's more like it. I was all ready to sign up but as soon as I tell anyone I'm going to learn to fly in the DA40's they tell me it's a bad idea. I even had one person tell me they'd rather fly a 150! This I do not understand. So aside from reliability and diesel engine problems what's the big deal with learning to fly a DA40 as apposed to a Cesspit? Is this just another case of the die-hard fans supporting the beloved flying school aircraft that introduced them to flying?

By the way, I would MUCH rather learn to fly a Cub or a Tiger Moth or something. I am used to taildraggers (Although I appreciate the characteristics of a powered taildragger and not the same as a glider) and I intend to fly these types of aircraft once I have the licence so for me I thought it made sense to learn on them but again all the advice I got was that it would be a bad idea. Not sure why? Apart from the cost!

[mark sicknote]

Hmm.

Don't like the "Cesspit" part mate.

There is a reason why so many schools still fly these venerable aircraft. They are cheap to buy, operate and take a licking and keep on ticking.

If they are not "sexy" enough for you, remember you only have to train in them.

If I want to haul a good load and some mates around, my school's 1977 XP is more than adequate and is fully IFR rated.

Flying a leather clad, glass paneled cockpit won't make you a better pilot.

Give them a fair go.

Best,

Sicknote:ok:

[Captain Smithy]

Good luck with whatever route you choose... if you're keen on learning in a taildragger there are clubs that operate Cubs, I think there used to be a cub at Cambridge that operated solely Tiger Moths. Where in the UK are you?

If you'll be doing all your flying in the UK and have no further plans for any more ratings (CPL etc.) then the NPPL is the sensible choice. Not sure why people would tell you not to learn in the DA40... you are the one who's learning and paying so it should be your choice.

As for clapped-out 40-year-old PA28s/Cessnas, your judgment is partially correct in some cases but in many cases not. Aircraft have to be maintained to a high standard... my club has 2 PA28s and a Tomahawk (all 20-25 years old... OK not brand new but not ancient), all of which are in good condition, certainly not clapped-out or "cruddy".

P.S. If you're going to learn in a Moth or Cub then bear in mind most of those will be >60 Years old... ;)

Smithy

[Mark 1]

Had you thought about doing a motor-glider PPL and then extending it to a normal SEP?

It sounds like you'd find a Grob 109 or similar more enjoyable to fly than a spiced-ham container. Other tailwheel PPLs are available - Moths at Cambridge for instance.
Where are you based?

[robdesbois]

I blame cruddy old Cessnas and PA28's as the sole cause for me never getting a PPL.

Hmm, that sounds a bit much to me. I learnt to drive in a Rover Metro - bit of a heap, but reliable and did everything it needed to. I think if I said 'I blame Metros as the sole cause for never getting a driving license' you'd think I was mad. I drove it and thought 'I look forward to the day when I can afford to drive something more powerful and exciting'.

C150s and PA28s may not be the most glitzy or exciting things to train in, but they're for training.

I go along to the flying school and out come these beaten up 40 year old heaps and it puts me right off. It's no wonder flying is a declining sport in the UK. I think if you want the PPL(A) enough then you'll get it. If training in a trainer is so much of a big deal to you then you'd be better not wasting your money.

--rob

[Genghis the Engineer]

The "only 10 hours" is just analy retentive Euro-legislation, you don't need it, but you won't change it, so may as well live with the fact. It's possible to get your night qualification in the hours which gives you better value, or perhaps do some spinning or instrument training - if you've got to pay for it, you may as well get the maximum from it.

Why not learn in a taildragger? No reason, people did it for years with no other choice, and it prepared some excellent pilots - pretty much everybody who flew during WW2 for a start. The only problem is that relatively few flying instructors nowadays are that comfortable with an old taildragger - so your choice is limited of places you can learn. But, if you can find somewhere, it'll be a good experience.

As for the DA40 (or something else new) - it's latest technology, it has it's faults but with your existing gliding experience you'd be able to deal with that; it also is likely to have a glass cockpit quite different to what you're used to, but that's hardly a problem since you're already used to conventional instruments. If you go from that to, say, buying a share in a Chipmunk you'll have new things to learn. On the other hand, if you learned in a C150 the same would be true also. So, I'd say if it's the aeroplane that appeals to you, and it's available - get your licence on it.

Sadly you may get saddled with a C152 or equivalent, just because it's what most schools use and it's affordable. If you do, remember it's actually a pretty damned good training aeroplane that's successfully trained generations of pilots, and there's no rule that keeps you in one once you've got your license.

G

[Rod1]

I do not like the old stuff much either (ex glider pilot). Do not start on a DA40 as they will all be grounded due to lack of bits within the next month or so and there is no definite plan to get them back in the air.

Have you looked at doing a NPPL (M) on a Eurostar and then convert it to a type (A). The Eurostar is a very good trainer and will feel ok after gliding.

Another option is an AT3 which is a group (A) aircraft but modern and with proper handling.

Clacton might train you on a Cub as a residential course

Buy an LAA machine, do the licence and then sell it or sell shares. This could be a Jodel for about £10k which would sell for about £10k at the end of the course.

Hope this helps

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

There is nothing wrong with a DA40 although there has been plenty of concern expressed on here regarding the Theilert engine. Many schools using the aircraft are finding that their fleet are becoming unflyable as parts are required for the engine but are not available or too expensive. You may therefore want to be caution about whether you find you are unable to continue your training in the 40 part way through and have to change to another aircraft. If this is a concern you should read the various threads on the subject which will give you a better understanding of the current and possibly the future state of play.

Some 40s are fitted with glass screens. There is a different mind setup between glass and traditional cockpits so you may wish to think about that aspect if you intend to fly a traditional cockpit after your PPL or NPL.

There are some operating differences between a 40 and the more typical Cessnas and Pipers most of which stem from the use of a diesel engine in the 40s. The differences are relatively small but if you were to fly a Piper or Cessna in due course you would find an hour or two might be necessary to become comfortable with these differences.

All that said the 40 handles much like any of the common training aircraft and is a good enough for the purpose for which it was designed.

[TommyGun]

PA28s aren't clapped out heaps...most schools operate them...if you're that worried about something going wrong, you should know that they do glide...you should be good at that! ;)

[dont overfil]

There's no justice. The Cessnas look so bad but fly so well. Just like me!
DO.

[ab33t]

My Fairy tale.....

Once upon a time there was a JAA flight school in USA that operated a lot of really tired 150/152's . They decided the time was right to replace them with brand new Liberty XL's ..... sad to say the new planes were always ploughing the fields or the runways.... needless to say all the Libertys' are gone and all the same 150/152's are back on line

[Wibblemonster]

all the PA28's & 152's at the school I use are in good shape, one has even been newly refurbed & another one on the way.

I love flying the P28 :ok:

[Rod1]

“I love flying the P28 ”

I am sure the bicycle menders enjoyed flying the Wright flyer. Question is have you flown any of the modern stuff?

Rod1

[NinjaBill]

I had a wedge of glider flying expierience, and started my ppl in a C150, and didn't enjoy flying it at all. I then changed to a CAP10b, despite being told it couldn't be done, and by the time I'd finished the 35 hrs, had been checked out in PA28 and R2160 as well as the cap. Instrument flying was fun for the skills test, with no AI, but I passed.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I have had this problem twice:

When I learnt to drive, I simply didnt want to learn in a clapped out old Ford Cortina. For me, i wanted to drive a Ferrari... Why should I put up with sub-standard cars when the all the toffs are driving the best there is?

And when I learnt to glide, I was really fed up when the club said "We use the humble old K13". Well it was pretty clapped out, made of rag and tube and all I wanted to do was fly one of those fantastic glass gliders like the ASH25. All the senior members had them, and they just turned up and flew, and didnt have to spend all day pushing gliders around in return for a quick 10 mins at the end of the day!

The reason the PA28 and Cessna 150/152 are used is that they are cheap to operate (bigger profit for the club!), easy to fly (even the man in the street can hack it eventually) and therefore get used a lot (hence the 'clapped out' look). They are perfectly adequate for flying training. Lets face it, would you let a student loose in your pride and joy?

You CAN learn on sexier machines, but you'll find that even for a glider pilot, it will probably take longer and cost more..:rolleyes:

[Rod1]

A quick look at the Sywell web site indicated you can pay £185 per hour to learn on a C172, which was never designed for training. Alternatively you could learn in a brand new, purpose designed AT3 at £136 per hour. As an ex glider pilot I think I know which I would find the easiest / most fun to fly…

http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/brooklands/charges.php

Rod1

[effortless]

Do it in a motor glider. It is fun and cheap. Differences can be done later.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I learned in C150s back in the late '70s. Any spamcan is awful to fly, with poor control response (especially ailerons). They seem to be designed for Americans to cruise on instruments, straight and level, for hour on hour. They are not 'pilot's aeroplanes'. But they do the job... sort of.

Soon as I'd got the licence, I joined a Chipmunk group and discovered what I'd been looking for and hadn't found up 'till then. Once you've flown an aeroplane that handles like an aeroplane should, you won't want to fly a spamcan ever again.

If I were you I'd go straight for the taildragger if you can find a school that uses them. With today's 'hours building' instructors, only a few are enthusiastic enough to have tailwheel experience. But such instructors are worth seeking out. They'll probably be able to teach you aeros as well.

Worst case, just grit your teeth and do the PPL (or NPPL) in a spamcan, then ditch it and buy a share in a taildragger.

SSD

[VFE]

AT3's??

Glorified microlights! :ugh:

C152 all the way for me - I may be an instructor but the benefits far outweigh the negatives. You learn about FLYING in a C152 and as stated it is very forgiving. Stop being such a poncey snob!

VFE.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Playing devils advocate here slightly, the C152 has one of the best safety records of any light aeroplane - it is virtually impossible to kill yourself in it. Given it is so forgiving, does that really make it the best training aeroplane?

Or would be be better training people in something a little less straightforward? - such as a PA38 for example which is underpowered, drops a wing entertainingly at the stall, and handles like it's out of forward CG limits.

G

[Final 3 Greens]

PA38 - 1,670 lb (757 kg) MTOW – 112bhp

C152 - 1,670 lb (757 kg) MTOW – 110bhp

Am I missing something?

[Piper.Classique]

You learn about FLYING in a C152 and as stated it is very forgiving.

I agree that it can be flown badly without disaster. Flown well, it can be made to do just about anything. BUT - as many have said, it is forgiving.I don't personally consider that a good quality in a training aircraft.

If you want to learn to fly on conventional gear, do so. If you don't like the C152 then find an aircraft you do like. It is your time and money.:ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You learn about FLYING in a C152

Oh, come on! It's a soggy old pussycat, an unresponsive insult to the airman's art! In what way do you learn about FLYING in 152 (or a PA28, which is even worse)?

You can get your licence without too much skill being required in a 152 - but then you have to go find a real aeroplane to learn about FLYING!:ok:

[time4parties]

The PA28 and Cessna's are used by the biggest names in the training industry - Oxford, Flight Training Europe and Cabair. If they can manage to get people jobs in airlines like British Airways flying the A320 I think the PA28 and Cessna are perfectly good training tools - and therefore are well above the mark for the PPL. Go ahead and train with a glass cockpit, but don't moan when the GPS does not work and you have no idea where you are!

[shortstripper]

The only thing that has stopped you getting your PPL is you! We all know a poor workman blames his tools ... Is that you?

Cessnas aren't sexy, but they're fine for teaching you the bits your gliding hasn't. You already have stick and rudder skills, so as it's not handling that you need, why worry what you fly? All you'll really be "learning" for your PPL is engine management, instrument appreciation and more navigation. You an do this in anything, so put your predudice aside and get yer bum in anything you can. Plenty of time for fun aircraft later.

Probably the best route for you would be NPPL SLMG, then convert to SEP and if you feel the need PPL.

SS

[VFE]

Basically, to clarify my statement about 'FLYING', I consider anything beyond the scope of the PPL syllabus to be beyond the requirements of a PPL training aircraft. The diehards may argue but many do not teach on a daily basis - I do. You can have all singing, all spinning, all dancing old or new stuff but when it comes down to it the C152 wins everytime and does all we require of it for PPL training.

As for Ghengis the Engineer's devils advocate question - I'd say a simple, safe, stable platform is a far better option for a PPL novice than something more likely to catch them out. People who've flown for a long time and who have some number of hours in their logbook forget just how tough learning to fly ANY aeroplane can be... especially the older you start. I teach people everyday and believe you me, I would not wish to be doing it in an aircraft such as the PA38.... I already have one mate in a wheelchair from teaching spinning in one of those things and without going into the details one thing is for certain - he wouldn't be crippled had he been in a C152.

Remember KISS folks and convert to the more interesting gear once you've got your licence. At my school we cover taildragging and often get asked the question about doing a PPL in a taildragger and the response from experience is - get yer licence on something like a C152 then convert. Cheaper too.

Flying in the UK has changed greatly since WW2.

VFE.

[JBGA]

Hang on.....I'm not taking anything away from C150/152 and PA28's. I know they are great training aircraft. I know they are maintained well despite sometimes looking a bit shabby. Way I see it is if the thing has survived being slammed in to the ground by trainee pilots day in day out for 40 years it must be fine!

BUT.....the point is why fly an old, shabby, characterless aircraft when there are smart, modern, more interesting equivalents out there that do just the same thing for the same price?

Someone posted something earlier comparing it to learning to drive in a Metro - bit of a heap but reliable and did everything it needed to etc. I totally agree. But given the choice between learning to drive a Metro or a brand new BMW 3 series (Or whatever) for the same price it's a bit of a no brainer.

[VFE]

For you, with your (at this stage) limited knowledge it may be but for your instructor it is not. When we learn to fly we do not yet know enough to realise how much we do not yet know - that is why we pay the instructor. ASk any instructor regardless of what they fly and they'll tell you the C152 is as good as any - unless, perhaps, they do not have any at their school but you will not hear many experienced instructors knocking it that's for sure.

Also, C152's are not characterless! That is the voice of inexperience if ever I heard it. :(

VFE.

[JBGA]

Remember KISS folks and convert to the more interesting gear once you've got your licence. At my school we cover taildragging and often get asked the question about doing a PPL in a taildragger and the response from experience is - get yer licence on something like a C152 then convert. Cheaper too.

Why does the experienced advice say learn in a tricycle then convert to taildragger? Surely if you learn on a taildragger you will find converting to tricycle easy whereas doing it round the other way the conversion is more difficult? Like learning to drive a manual instead of an automatic.

[VFE]

Taildraggers are harder to control on the runway than tricycle types, the stick and rudder skill required is higher than that of other conventional tricycle aircraft which all helps to distract a student who is simply learning to fly. Orientation, RT and general airmanship will be put on the back burner until the student can control the aircraft to some degree sufficient to allow them to go solo, which will take longer. Lookout is the number one airmanship aspect and in taildraggers this is more difficult - it would help if you were first versed in the art of maintaining a good lookout before hopping into something less accomodating.

The time your instructor will need to spend with you on a taildragger at the ab-initio stage will be longer and sadly many schools do not allow adequate slot times for the extra briefing this would require, as a consequence safety standards would be in danger of lapsing below the norm.

But the main practical reason is that crosswind limits for taildraggers are much lower than conventional aircraft. In the olden days this was not a problem because airfields were exactly that - airfields. An aeroplane could always land and take-off into wind. Nowadays, runways dictate reduced take off and landing margins for taildraggers so you would get a higher percentage of lessons cancelled due to the wind whereas in a conventional tricycle type you'd be up there flying and learning. All this is not too much of a problem if you already know how to fly, but if you do not yet know how to fly then this all adds to the difficulty and your progress will suffer from the lack of continuity... it will take longer, more money and your training will have been disjointed leading to possible weak areas in basic skills which had you just done your time on a conventional type and then converted you'd have avoided. Need I go on? It's getting late.

VFE.

[IFMU]

VFE,

I'd disagree heartily that learning in tailwheel is a 'distraction' to learning to fly. The only time the tailwheel airplane 'distracts' you is during taxi, takeoff, and landing. None of that figures in when you are boring around, I was expected to keep a lookout for traffic, make coordinated turns, navigate, etc just like any C152 driver.

But, as I've grown from a tailwheel snob kid to a middle aged adult, I see less wrong with the C152 or other nosedragger airplanes. Ultimately, any aircraft that can do the job of converting a non-aviator into an aviator, whether is a lowly C152, or an SGS 2-33, or an R22 is a good machine in my book. I'm glad I learned to fly in a tailwheel airplane. But I'm just as glad for anybody who learns to fly in anything.

JGBA,

I think you should hold out for learning to fly in a Spitfire. If one does not become available, you have another good reason to not have finished up your PPL, and it won't be your fault!

-- IFMU

[RTN11]

My flying experience started on motor gliders.

I then moved onto the DA20 for initial training up to 1st solo, then did the remainder of my training in a pa-28.

Although the DA20 was much nicer to fly, the pa-28 was much better to learn in. Now i've had my PPL just over a year, and i've moved to the PA-38, and now i'm about to start flying a robin.

As has been said before, it doesn't matter what aircraft you train in. It won't be the most glamourous or exiting aircraft in the world, but for a trainer the important things are cost and reliability.

I wouldn't dismiss the pa-28 so quickly, although i've never flown a cessna so can't really comment.

[Mickey Kaye]

Flying training is expensive and the paying customer usually wants to pay as little as possible. Cessna/piper are the most popular because no one has come up with anything cheaper. However with their 20 litre an hour fuel burn and AVGAS rumoured to hit the 2 quid mark by the end of the year maybe things will change.

The recent troubles at thielert may have dampened the popularity of the DA40 but not far from where I live one can train in a brand new AT-3 and it costs 5 quid an hour less than a 150/2. Now I've not yet flown in this aircraft and time will tell if it is suitable for the training market but if I was trying to get my PPL today it would be a no brainer on which aircraft type I would be learning on.

[Rod1]

The 152 is out of production and is likely never to be produced again. 152’s are used for training because they are cheep to buy, being 30 years old and have been cheap to run. As the age catches up with them and the price of fuel increases the 152 will stop being used for training.

The AT3 is designed as a trainer and will compete head on with the new Cessna, when it eventually gets uk approval. I have not flown an AT3 but I have considerable experience of similar aircraft and this class of aircraft will take over as they are the fastest growing GA sector world wide. If you are planning on getting a PPL and then buy a nice new LAS/VLA burning 15lph of mogas and doing up to 160kn, then you would be mad to learn on the old tec. It is economics, not suitability, which has kept the 152 in use well beyond its sell by date.

Rod1

[Fake Sealion]

An interesting thread.....raising similar points to the "fantastic plastic" one a couple of days ago, which centred around elderly thirsty "spamcans" vs frugal Rotax lightweights.

As far as PPL/NPPL training is concered, its really about economics for most mere mortals. Faced with choice of AT-3 at £113 or PA28 at £129, the decision is obvious???? This assumes however that the AT-3 does not suffer (or will not suffer) from weather/crosswind/servicability downtime issues as compared to PA28/152 etc. If this does indeed become the case then continuity problems & assocated revision extra hours could erode this cost advantage.

On licence award - the AT-3 is surely a good enough VFR bimbler/tourer? If you want to carry more than one pax and or luggage, then convert to a 4 seater - simple?

Will the AT-3 class of aircaft stand up to the rigours of countless student landings, month after month......only time will tell?

Under new EASA regs, when will we see a NEW TECHNOLOGY 4 or even 3 seat a/c consuming less than 20 ltrs/hr at 100Kts

Standby to be informed there already is one!!!!!!!:bored:

[soay]

The 152 is out of production and is likely never to be produced again.
Isn't the SkyCatcher (http://se.cessna.com/skycatcher/) going to be the new C152?

http://se.cessna.com/skycatcher/images/162_mainpage_header2.jpg

[Rod1]

That is why I pointed out the AT3 and the SkyCatcher are direct competitors and are built to similar rules. Difference is the AT3 is being used now and has full European approval. The SkyCatcher is also likely to use 20-25% more fuel. The AT3 is already undercutting the opposition as it is running on fuel which costs 50p less per L than the 152 and uses 25% less volume. Pure economics, but if you are a seat of the pants glider pilot, I would expect the AT to talk your language in a way the 152 never could.

“Standby to be informed there already is one!!!!!!!”

The 4 seat 18lph 120kn aircraft exists, but will not be available in the UK for a short while yet. I had a ride in the back of one 4 years ago and was very impressed indeed!

Rod1

[youngskywalker]

Doesnt look very rugged to me! I reckon a few bad student landings and that nose leg is off!

[VFE]

The only time the tailwheel airplane 'distracts' you is during taxi, takeoff, and landing


Well the take off and landing are 2/3rds of the battle when learning to fly.

Look, I'm not saying it's impossible, of course not, nor that you won't benefit from the challenge but I'm just saying it's not ideal when you have something like a C152 sat there doing nothing, that's all. Flying in the UK nowadays is as much about operational procedures as much as being able to pole the aircraft about. Skill increasing coordination exercises make up only a small percentage of what a student needs to learn in the short time between starting a PPL and completing. In the old days the course could be more geared towards become a good stick and rudder pilot whereas now it's just not possible given everything else that has to be learned in the 45 hours. Cram too much in and it becomes a waste of time because the average human being cannot absorb it all.

It's just less hassle all round to go from tricycle to taildragger but hey, you pays yer money you takes yer choice... just don't complain you weren't advised properly before making your decision.

VFE.

[Fake Sealion]

I suppose its because fuel consumption/cost is just not such an issue to US General Aviation as it is in UK/Europe. Mr Cessna may have to re-consider this now?
By the way - what is the average cost of AVGAS in the US.???

[soay]

I wonder if Cessna have thought about dropping a 100HP rotax in their new skycather.
According to this article (http://www.lightsportaircraft.ca/aopaconvention2007/cessna-skycatcher162.html):

When we first saw the SkyCatcher flying at Sebring it was powered by a Rotax 912 S 100 HP aircraft engine. According to Cessna President and CEO Jack Pelton "after feedback from Cessna buyers, dealers and service outlets it was decided to switch the power plant to a Teledyne Continental 0-200D 100 HP aircraft engine."

"Listening to our 300 pilot centers they had some major concerns. They didn't have the history and experience with the Rotax engine, and it doesn't have quite the same warranty as the Continental. They drove us into the configuration of the Continental 0-200" "While there is a slight weight penalty, but with the warranty and TBO perspective it is going to be the best marriage with out airframe."

Of course, that was before fuel prices shot up.

[Rod1]

The O-200 used is a special light weight development version. This been proving to be a problem. Perhaps the European version will have the Rotax?

Rod1

[dont overfil]

Fake sealion.
Avgas was $6.35 at Fort Pierce at the end of April yet only $5.50 at Stella Maris. Guess the last increase hadn't filtered through.
DO.

[EchoMike]

The original Skycatcher did have the Rotax. Problem is the Rotax is made in Germany and priced in Euros. When the Euro was 80 cents, this engine cost $10,000 or so. Now the Euro is $1.60 or so, and the SAME Rotax engine now costs twice as much, same for parts, etc.

With the O-200, Cessna doesn't have the exposure to exchange rates which can drastically affect their cost of parts.

This was a financial decision - an airplane is a collection of compromises flying in formation.

As far as the alleged, unspecified and mysterious "problems with the lightweight O-200", I've not heard nor read of any, so this is a red herring. The O-200 is a good, solid, reliable and well understood aircraft engine, and if you don't like them, prepare to be unhappy, because they are going to be around for many years to come.

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

[modelman]

I blame cruddy old Cessnas and PA28's as the sole cause for me never getting a PPL.


I personally blame cruddy old Cessnas and PA28's as the sole cause for me getting a PPL.Was getting 1 hours instruction in a 152 for £98/hr 18 months ago in the Midlands and it's not much more now.

By the way, I would MUCH rather learn to fly a Cub or a Tiger Moth or something. Do it then!!!:ugh:

If you want to train on something a bit more 'flash',get your wad out and go and do it,(it won't necessarily make you a better pilot) instead of coming on here and bleating.It never ceases to amaze me how easily people can find reasons not to to do something.

MM

[Piper.Classique]

Taildraggers are harder to control on the runway than tricycle types, the stick and rudder skill required is higher than that of other conventional tricycle aircraft

Please people.......
Conventional gear is the wheel at the back, i.e a tailwheel. A lower drag configuration than putting the third wheel at the front.

Yes, more skill needed with conventional gear in taxi and landing, but when in the air rather better fuel economy for the same speed, or speed for the same fuel consumption. Better prop clearance and better on rough fields, too. I would also argue that take-off is easier too, as once the tail is in the air the aircraft will fly off the ground once there is enough speed, the wing is already in the flying attitude so there is no need for a positive rotation. As for learning on a tailwheel aircraft, I wish I had been able to, but I had to go with the cheapest option at the time.

If you have a good instructor conversion after the PPL is not too much of a problem, a fully held off landing will work whichever end you put the wheel, and you can learn wheel landings to cope with rough conditions and crosswinds. I fly a Pa18 and a Rans Coyote (tailwheel version), and I can fly any time the club DR400 can, I think actually I have less of a problem in crosswind than either the DR400 or the 180 Rallye that I also fly (club tug a/c)

If you want to learn ab initio on a tailwheel type, I don't see any problem. Maybe a C140 ;) of course it will be pretty old too.....My Cub is older than I am :O and I'm not about to give you that information, but the C152 I soloed on had only done ten hours.

Remember that just like tricycle gear aircraft, some conventional wheel aircraft are harder to fly than others. How about just getting out there and doing the licence, then tell us all about it?

[VFE]

You don't see any problem?

I do.

But hey, given the choice I'd have a fleet of Chipmunks - beautiful aircraft for teaching but hey, this is the UK in 2008......

VFE.

['India-Mike]

My club is training 3 ab-initios using tailwheel aircraft (Chipmunks). And I'm doing my FIC on the aeroplane as well. So it can still be done in places. It does seem to take longer and it is more expensive.

I'd argue that with certain exceptions, it's the training not the aircraft that maketh the pilot:)

[Piper.Classique]

You don't see any problem?
No, I don't.
It is still possible to go for the desired option rather than one size fits all. You need to accept that not everyone wants to fly the standard trainer. If that means travelling further or spending more time in the circuit then that is the paying customer's choice.
As I said earlier, if the initial instruction is good then a conversion should not be a problem. I agree, chipmunk is a lovely trainer. It's even better with a lycoming on the front (ready to get shot down for heresy here).
BTW, we aren't all in the UK ;)

[gingernut]

:)Hey JB, I sort of know where your coming from.

If the plane you walk around was a car, you'de probably walk away. But the guy's who service these things are fanatical (ever seen the workshops-wish I could get an NHS ward as organised&clean}-I'd rather fly in a 30 yr old cessna (?cesspit) that's been lovingly serviced, than chance a prototype shiny glider:)- 'spose I could get a bit scientific now, and ask about how many old planes fall out of the sky compared to new 'un's but the data available is probably not that reliable.

Never felt that India Lima was gonna fall out of the sky. Was more worried about getting the kids round the M56 than landing at the aerodrome:)

How can you use such vitriolic language to a thing of such beauty...(india lima , flies pretty good as well:O)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v617/gingernut123/DSCN1860.jpg

[JBGA]

So we've managed to establish the following:

- Cessnas are good training aircraft
- Cessnas fly nicely (Although I personally think this means that they are so docile any monkey could fly one)
- Cessnas are reliable
- Cessnas have a good safety record
- Tatty looking aircraft are just as well maintained as shiny new ones

So nobody can offer a reason why I shouldn't learn to fly on a DA40. Therefore I can only conclude that either those who responded have never flown a DA40 or they have but know of no reason not to learn to fly on one.

I must admit I'm quite surprised with the overwhelming emphasis on flying the easiest possible plane so you can get the licence as soon as possible. People don't seem to look beyond getting the licence and realise that if you intend to fly anything other than a basic trainer you will have to do more training anyway. Surely anyone like me who has no interest in flying basic trainers after getting the licence might just as well train on a more advanced/difficult plane in the first place?

[Rod1]

”So nobody can offer a reason why I shouldn't learn to fly on a DA40.”

I did, but perhaps you were not listening.:ugh:

Rod1

[modelman]

Surely anyone like me who has no interest in flying basic trainers after getting the licence might just as well train on a more advanced/difficult plane in the first place?


I must admit I'm quite surprised with the overwhelming emphasis on flying the easiest possible plane so you can get the licence as soon as possible.
This appears to be your intention also as you state your reasons for going NPPL:ugh:

So what are you waiting for? ( or are you going to talk yourself out of it again?)

MM
(another Cessna driving monkey)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If you want to train on something a bit more 'flash',get your wad out and go and do it,(it won't necessarily make you a better pilot)

Oh yes it bleedin will!

'Flash'? Maybe not. Conventional gear, YES absolutely!

You can get a PPL on a C150 or PA28 or PA 38 as many do and have no idea how to land. Go position yourself at the touchdown point of any GA field in the country and watch the 'arrivals' of the trikes. Most will be 3-point, with little attempt at any sort of hold-off. It's painfully horrid to see!

They will also be about 20% too fast. But the tri-gear masks those gross handling errors and presumably the instructors ignore it as the aeroplane doesn't seem to care - until some poor sap, who may be the one in ten who does a correct fully-held-off touchdown, has that toothpick nosegear collapse because of all that previous misuse. (Just in case some haven't yet got it, nosewheels are not designed to take touchdown forces!). And Up Up UP go all our insurance premiums with a shock-loaded engine, bent firewall, and scrap prop!

Learn to fly with conventional gear, and the aeroplane will reject such sloppy technique; you just won't get away with it, thus producing a far better pilot. A pilot who actually knows how to land!

Now, can someone please invent an aeroplane that prevents pilots flying 'bomber' circuits? :\

SSD

[EchoMike]

Why learn to fly in a simple airplane? Because you can't join the army as a general. Because learning to fly starting with a Learjet isn't going to make you a great pilot, it is going to make you a statistic. Because learning to fly in a simple airplane means you will be able to find one locally, you will be able to afford to rent it, the owner will be able to afford to keep it maintained, the instructors will be familiar with it, and it isn't going to turn around and bite you or kill you from a moment's inattention or distraction - and there ARE airplanes that WILL. From the discussion, I get the impression that you have not actually started your flight training. Rest assured you will be adequately challenged during the course of your training by even the most humble, tatty, slow, low-status, monkey-drivable Cessna 150, busted interior plastic and all. Yes, you could learn in a DA-40, unless it has one of the whiz-bang Thierlert engines, the financial problems of which portend the imminent grounding of the entire fleet . . . and it is hard to learn to fly in an airplane with a busted engine and no parts available. Flight schools use 150s, 152s, PA28s and such-like disgusting beginner aircraft because THEY WORK - they do the job - you can learn to fly in them, and both you and your wallet are likely to survive the experience. Once you HAVE your license (and it is going to be harder than you think, it may even give you some respect for the lowly Cessna-driving monkey crowd), you can fly absolutely anything your ego demands, as long as your wallet can support it - and here's a hint - oh, boy are you in for an unpleasant surprise. Flying *anything* beats driving - look down FROM the Cessna, not down AT it. If you can find a DA-40 at a price you can afford, great, go for it. But don't get caught up in the idea that if it isn't new, it isn't any good - that just means you've bought into all the advertising about longer-lower-wider-more chrome means better - and it doesn't. Tell you what, I do the ground school at a well known and very busy FTO here, and you should SEE the hotshot ace pilot (candidates) after a session doing unusual attitudes under the hood in the so-called meek and mild Cessna 150. Another happy Cessna driving monkey here . . . (since 1976) Best Regards, Echo Mike

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There is no simpler aeroplane I know of than the Piper J3 Cub. Far, far simpler than a C150. If you can fly one of those, you can call yourself a pilot.

SSD

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD - answer me a question.

Why did the tricycle or 'safety' undercarriage gain popularity over 'conventional' gear

We are not duscussing 'service' machines here, but basic trainers. It would be silly for a B747 to have conventional gear, with the resultant sloping floor and other practical disadvantages.

My points in the above posts are in answer to the starter of this thread - 'please save me from the C152 for basic training'. The flying training industry uses tricycle gear aeroplanes for the reasons I've already described - they are easier to master so you get your studes to PPL quicker and cheaper. If you don't, your competiton will. Is why the C150/152 has dominated flying training for at least 4 decades.

But if you have stude who really wants to fly, as opposed to just getting a quick PPL, and who is willing to pay a tad extra for the privaledge, you can give them a far better grounding using a conventional gear aeroplane.

I'd take it further than that and add that becuase the tricycle gear masks very basic handling errors in landing, it turns out pilots who can't land unless in an aeroplane that tolerates such errors - until the nosegear breaks. If you doubtb that's true, just spend a while observing the landing techniques at any GA field. "It's enough to make ya weep", as the guy in the 'Battle of Britain' film said.

SSD

[IFMU]

If you want to learn ab initio on a tailwheel type, I don't see any problem. Maybe a C140 of course it will be pretty old too.....
Amen! The C140 is a great little airplane. One of my favorite 'cesspits'. Amazingly fast on amazingly low fuel burn. Ours will do an honest 100 kts, slow it down a little bit and you can zip along at 100 mph at 4gph or there abouts. It's a pussycat as far as taildraggers go too. If my kids ever learn to fly, it will be the C140 after gliders.



Oh yes it bleedin will!...... But the tri-gear masks those gross handling errors and presumably the instructors ignore it as the aeroplane doesn't seem to care ......

Learn to fly with conventional gear, and the aeroplane will reject such sloppy technique; you just won't get away with it, thus producing a far better pilot. A pilot who actually knows how to land!

Amen to that too! That is the truth of it, the tailwheel airplane tells you what you are doing wrong, and it does it right from the get-go. You never get a chance to get ingrained in the bad habit of poorly lined up landings. It is not that people can't learn tailwheel after, but it's like this: Here I am at 41, I could learn French or German, but it would have been a lot easier and I would have been a much better speaker had I done it at 4, or 14.

Now, can someone please invent an aeroplane that prevents pilots flying 'bomber' circuits?
I don't think it is an airplane problem, more like an instructor problem. We get some of that over here too.

-- IFMU

[BeechNut]

Getting back to the old aircraft bit, I own a 1979 Beech Sundowner 180; rare aerobatic certified model. It used to belong to a government-run training facility (part of a community college). It has over 10,500 hours on the airframe, but was maintained to a very high standard (the original paint still shines on it, always hangared, meticulous and documented maintenance).

It has been a delight to fly, and has been cheap to maintain, certainly cheaper than my previous PA28-140, though it's a bit expensive on fuel.

An old, well maintained aircraft may not be sexy, but they can be fun, safe and reliable. Mine is as unsexy as they get. It is painted in high-visibility yellow, and I call it my "school bus"...

Beech

[Grayfly]

I,ve been following this thread and I have now started to feel a bit perplexed. I fly both nosewheel and tailwheel aircraft, I like flying both types. I just like flying. Both types have their 'issues'. Am I normal or just a bit wierd?

[Rod1]

Grayfly

You and me both…

Rod1

[BartV]

I find the C152 a very difficult plane to land CORRECTLY.. that's why it's called 'a good trainer'...

[Piper.Classique]

I must admit I'm quite surprised with the overwhelming emphasis on flying the easiest possible plane so you can get the licence as soon as possible.Mmmmm. I must have read different posts to the ones you read. I thought there was some well balanced and considered advice in many of the posts.

Re-reading your original post, I see that you have a silver C and hundreds of hours. It just so happens that I do fly gliders, so have an inkling what you are talking about. I would be interested to know why you haven't gone on to say a gold C, maybe a diamond or two?

Now don't get me wrong, I am not accusing you of lack of ability, but usually people get bored with local soaring after a while, and want to do a few longer flights. The silver C is a pretty basic qualification in any glider with a glide angle better than 30 to 1. Most club gliders (which I assume you fly, as you don't mention being a private owner) are well capable of 300 k closed circuits. My forty year old libelle certainly is ;) as is its somewhat older owner. And beat up it is not, even though I might be.

There are plenty of good motor gliders around, though you may be surprised at how different to gliders the motor glider experience is. Why not have a go at the motor glider to SEP route?

You say (Although I appreciate the characteristics of a powered taildragger and not the same as a glider)You may be startled when you actually try one :D to find out just how different.

Anyway, how about getting off the computer and go do that licence.

[Piper.Classique]

Beechnut, can we swap rides?
I have a pretty yellow super cub, goes along not too fast but you should see it in and out of a short field!

[1800ed]

I had several lessons a few years back in a Cessna 172R. I wasn't that good at flying it and found it fairly difficult to fly accurately. I have recently started lessons again flying in a Robin HR2160i. I think it is probably a combination of the aircraft, recieving much better quality tuition from my new flying club and me being slightly older; but I am getting on far better now.

I am due to be doing my skills test some time in September now weather permitting. But any how, I'd recommend having a go in a Robin as they are a nice trainer to fly about in. I think even when I have completed my training I shall continue to fly them for a while :ok:

[JBGA]

Now don't get me wrong, I am not accusing you of lack of ability, but usually people get bored with local soaring after a while, and want to do a few longer flights. The silver C is a pretty basic qualification in any glider with a glide angle better than 30 to 1. Most club gliders (which I assume you fly, as you don't mention being a private owner) are well capable of 300 k closed circuits. My forty year old libelle certainly is as is its somewhat older owner. And beat up it is not, even though I might be.

I've never been much of a badgehunter. I did several 50km and 100km cross countries, several 3000ft height gains and a couple of five hour flights, mostly in the club K8, before actually declaring them and getting the silver. And I only did that because of peer pressure from my syndicate partners who were keen to get our insurance costs down! I've done a 9000ft climb in wave over the Pyranees (Jaca) which was about 800ft short of Gold height (That'll teach me for not getting a good low point before starting!!). I've been out to Jaca every year for the past 6 years and I only know one occasion whilst I've been there when the weather has been good enough for someone to claim a diamond. The club glider (Pegase) I hired that day didn't have oxygen so a climb to 15000ft was out of the question for me. I guess I'm just unlucky.

Anyhow, I'm leaving this thread now. I just came on here to ask a simple question about learning to fly on DA40's and taildraggers so that when I go to the the airfield this weekend I'll have some idea of which flying school I want to sign up to. What I seem to have recieved in response is four pages of people going on about how great Cessna's are, people telling me that I'm looking for excuses not to fly, that I have no talent but a big ego, I have no respect for anyone who flies a Cessna etc. etc. all because I dared to say I would rather fly a modern trainer than a tatty outdated one.

I'll repeat what I said before, it's no wonder private flying is in decline in this country.

[XL319]

I learnt to fly on a Liberty XL (previously a few hours on the UAS Bulldog) and they were very unforgiving especially on landings (loads of ground effect), however it had a mean engine and cruised at 120kts. I now in a C152 group and they are exactly what people have said, easy to fly, cheap, unforgiving and because of the high wing zero (more or less) ground effect.

I'm pleased i flew the Liberty as it gave me some good experience early on in my aviation career.

[Pilot DAR]

JBGA, My best advice would be to learn to fly in the aircraft you just bought and paid for, You'll be so pleased with your choice, whatever it is!

After flying about 70 types over 30 years, I'm in the 21st year of proudly owning the same (now 33 year old) Cessna 150. It has never let me down in 2800 hours of flying, and as the price of gas increases, I'm even happier to own it!

Aviation will reward you with the return of all the enthusiasm you put in. Seems like you might have a tough time!

[englishal]

I havent read the entire thread as I can't be bothered ;) But I hate Cessna's too....they are like sitting in a gold fish bowl and the high wing has been a killer more than once.

Anyway......You know what I'd do if I were you? I'd go to the USA and convert to an FAA PPL. The FAA will recognise your glider hours towards the PPL hours, and you could in theory get an FAA PPL in about 10 hours (you require 10 hrs in a SEP aeroplane). Once you have that, you can fly G or N reg in the UK or if you wanted, you could convert to JAA / EASA or whatever.....

That is what I'd do anyway...;)

[IFMU]

The FAA will recognise your glider hours towards the PPL hours, and you could in theory get an FAA PPL in about 10 hours...
If I'm not mistaken, it is more like a minimum of 30 hours to add on the Airplane, Single Engine Land rating onto a glider rating. If you are already a power pilot, you can earn your glider rating with 10 additional hours. That was how I did it.

Search for e-cfr, pick title 14 from the drop down list, part 61, then the applicable rule is § 61.109 Aeronautical experience.

-- IFMU

[Pilot DAR]

I know the high wing has killed some birds. But otherwise, I'm certain that more pilots have killed high wings, than high wings killed pilots...

[mark sicknote]

Hehe,

Nicely put mate.

:ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

Oh dear god

What a thread.

I suppose that A320s result in less skilled pilots compared to DC3s?

If you can land a trike competently, then I fail to see how taildragger skills will make you better at landing a trike, as they are redundant.

If you fly a tail dragger, then you need some extra finesse and technique.

Each has its place in aviation.

Sometimes, some of the tail dragger community on here comes across as being quite arrogant and smug.

And as for the 150/152, not my favourite aeroplane, but very few people can fly one of those to the hioghest standards, they a good little trainer IMHO and have given a lot of people a start in aviation.

[shortstripper]

This thread is getting tedious!

The original poster either hasn't read the posts that give him good advice, or deliberately ignors them to keep on (successfully) trolling!

If he/she has a Silver C they can obviously handle an aircraft. Therefore all they really need is to learn engine management, radio, instrument flying ect. This they can do in any trainer ... be it tailwheel, nosewheel, modern or vintage. As has been pointed out it's their money and their choice.

So again I say ... just get on with it and stop blaming anybody, aircraft or anything else but yourself for not getting your PPL before now :rolleyes:

SS

[IO540]

Going back a bit, a lot of this kind of debate comes from many/most people not knowing why they are learning to fly.

IF you knew why you want to fly (e.g. aerobatics, going places, long range European touring, flying over Beachy Head on sunny Sundays only, etc) then you would go along to a school which will teach you in the appropriate type, and you won't waste much time afterwards converting to the eventual type.

Even better, buy the plane you want to fly and do the PPL in it. I wish I had bought the TB20 and did my PPL in it. Would have saved me £XXXX flying around in self fly hire junk heaps.

Unfortunately this is not the way the UK training system works - it tends to work around FTOs and the types they have parked outside. If one could have freelance instructors, customers would have more flexibility.

[FullyFlapped]

Cesspits. Yeah, terrible aircraft - hate 'em.

Yesterday I was forced to fly a 30 year old one over five hundred miles, cruising between 170-180 kt, with four heavy adults and a load of luggage ... spent all the time wishing I was flying a DA-40 ...

:sad:

[Pilot DAR]

Sarcasm perhaps, not sure...

In thirty years, will we be writing about still in productive service 30 year old DA-40s? Will they have lasted? It's a certainty that there will still be Cessnas flying with 60 years experience.... Like it or leave it.......

If you want to train for float flying, it won't be in a "new" plane... IO540 makes a very good point.

In Canada, our tourists are still flown commercially in well maintained 60 and 70 year old aircraft. I'm certain that some of the posters here secretly yearn to fly those Beavers and Norsemans. The new Caravans aren't pushing them out of the way very quickly.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If you can land a trike competently, then I fail to see how taildragger skills will make you better at landing a trike, as they are redundant.

If you fly a tail dragger, then you need some extra finesse and technique.


Fundamental lack of appreciation of what makes a good landing there. A conventional gear ensures you fly a fully held-off (or accurate wheeler) landing, else the aeroplane will object, quite violenty if you ignore it.

With a tri-gear, you don't have to, so most tri-gear pilots don't. Unless they also fly conventional gear, in which case they will.

That's how tailwheel experience makes you a better trike lander. Of course, a tri gear-only pilot could make a correctly held-off landing, and some do... but observation at any GA field will demonstrate that most don't.

SSD

[Crash one]

This thread is quite relevant to me at this time as I have just been signed of on the tailwheel, it is not easy like the 152, some of the landings I did in the 152 in my Emeraude would have killed me. I do not yet consider myself a tailwheel pilot, I think I have a lot of practice to do yet.
I wish I had done the NPPL on a tailwheel as I would have learned to land anything rather than learn to land a "nosey". Bit like driving an automatic & then buying a 1930s with a crash gear box, no power steering, cable brakes & wind up windows! Much better to do it the other way round.

[englishal]

Yesterday I was forced to fly a 30 year old one over five hundred miles, cruising between 170-180 kt, with four heavy adults and a load of luggage ... spent all the time wishing I was flying a DA-40 ...
Clearly wasn't a C172 then.

The T182T's I fly and the T206H won't even cruise at that speed, and despite flying very well and reasonably quick they are like sitting in a goldfish bowl. A cessna with RG looks like a crane fly to me ;) I'd rather have a TB20.

Each to their own though. I don't choose to fly a Cessna myself.

[FullyFlapped]

Clearly wasn't a C172 then. :D
Quite right, but still a Cessna single nonetheless.

Each to their own though. :D
The best and most accurate comment ever written on Proon !

[Final 3 Greens]

Of course, a tri gear-only pilot could make a correctly held-off landing

What part of my comment "If you can land a trike competently" did you find difficult to understand?

[TommyGun]

Why do you like the DA40 so much? I initially started flying on DA20 in Dundee...finished off my PPL in Jersey on PA28 and preferred the PA28. Warrior III and Archer III are great aircraft. DA20 was little more than a powered glider...is that why you like them?

I would suggest learning to fly in a training aircraft like the PA28, as after you get your PPL (if you pluck up the initial courage) you can hire aircraft from various clubs all over the country, as I'm not sure how many clubs operate the DA40 (you probably know more than I).

Of course you may be minted and planning on buying a DA40?

[Wessex Boy]

There's probably more choice of aircraft in clubs nowadays than there has ever been. around where I live (S. Cambs) you can fly the following:
C152
C172
PA28
Robin 2160
PA28R
Duchess
Chipmunk
Piper Cub
Tiger Moth
Pitts
AT3
Extra 200
Harvard

I think most people could find something amongst that lot that whets the whistle?

[dont overfil]

Got to agree 100% with TommyGun. I have, albeit briefly flown the DA40 (Avgas) and although it feels less like a powered glider than the DA20, it feels delicate compared to a PA28. I did not think it handled nicely-the ailerons were stiff. The performance was slightly better than an Archer but I believe the diesel version doesn't go as well, and I've not compared available payload. If you are a renter there is no advantage in cost.
Maybe it's an age thing but getting in a PA28 (or a Cessna) is like pulling on a comfy pair of slippers.
DO.

[englishal]

DA40 has a stick. Has a 25G impact cockpit and seats. Has VP prop. Has more comfortable cabin. Better performance (Avgas version) than a basic 172 due to VP prop. Better visibility in my humble opionion. Nicer to fly IMHO again ;)..

Still a pretty basic SEP, with basic SEP performance. Most of them (SEPs) are very alike and if you can fly one, you can fly the others and the rest is just personal preference....

[Windy Militant]

Ungrateful Wretch! We should make him learn in an Evans VP 2. A few hours of that and he'll be begging to fly a 150. ;)

[Inniehoek]

You obviously don't know a good aircraft. I have done hundreds of hours in Cessna's and they are beautiful aircraft. Never ever had a bad experience in one in my 27 years of flying !!!!

[Inniehoek]

Well said !!!!!:D Windy Militant

[Inniehoek]

I did my training on a 150 . My instructor was a WW 2 instructor. He taught you to land a trike as if it were a taildragger. When converting to a taildragger it was very simple ..just had to work the rudder pedals a bit more . Taildraggers does make you more wake up !! Come and fly in South Africa ...taildraggers are bettter on some of our airstrips!!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I have done hundreds of hours in Cessna's and they are beautiful aircraft. Never ever had a bad experience in one in my 27 years of flying !!!!

Nor a good one, I suspect. I did my PPL on Cessnas and have loads of Cessna hours since, including paradropping and a host of other stuff. They do the job. It's flying so it's even fun (as long as each flight isn't too long). But over 80% of my logbook is tailwheel time.

There's a reason for that. The nicest aeroplanes to fly are not Cessnas (or PA28s, which are far worse in the boring stakes), and they have their little wheel at the back. :ok:

SSD

[OneIn60rule]

Although I do prefer the C172.

My reasoning, the cockpit is bigger.

The 152 is cheap, reliable good fun to fly solo.

Da40 is not reliable, due for PFD failures whenever you pick one.

Did I forget the problems Thielert is facing?

1/60

[Final 3 Greens]

The nicest aeroplanes to fly are not Cessnas (or PA28s, which are far worse in the boring stakes), and they have their little wheel at the back.

How many hours do you have on Hunters?

They are not taildraggers, but every one who has flown one thinks they are pretty nice to fly ;)

[5 Greens]

I'd rather drink lager than fly a Cessna :eek: & those who know me i Don't drink Lager! :yuk:

[Pilot DAR]

I'm sure that I can find something nice to say about any type I have the good fortune to fly. The privilage to fly must be extremely free and available in the UK, if so many posters from that side of the Atlantic would apparently remain on the ground than fly a Cessna. How nice for you that there is so much choice! Appreciate it, others in the world consider themselves lucky to fly at all!

I'll be sure to wave, when I happily fly over in a well maintained Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, Bellanca, Champion, Ercoupe, Maule, Mooney, Stinson, deHavilland, Lake, Teal, Found, Britten Norman, Douglas, PZL, Hughes, Bell, Schweizer, or Robinson. I have enjoyed them all! Each for thier own special reason....

[PropArt]

Like most I learnt to fly in 152's and they did the job for getting my ticket but since then I have deliberatly chosen to avoid them. Its certainly not snobery but there are much better light aircraft out there to fly.

[shortstripper]

Funnily enough, having spent years flying various homebuilts, gliders, TMG's and such-like, my last revalidation was in a C152. It wasn't the first time I'd flown one, but it had been a while! Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the flight! We messed about no end doing chandelles, spins, flying using the trimmer without touching the yoke, ect. We even flew into my 250m strip (there was a good wind blowing). How anyone can say they ar boring I just don't know? Perhaps it's just lack of imagination or something? :ok:

SS

[Rod1]

Lets go right back to the original question. We have a glider pilot who wants to convert to power. Back in 1991 I was in a very similar position. I did my conversion on a PA38, which I found very hard to fly, but easy to operate. Late on in my training I switched to a DR400 and suddenly I could fly it really accurately and I was not just operating it. I would have passed the tests by just operating the PA38, but it felt horrible. I can fully understand why a Glider pilot would find some aircraft much more attuned to their “seat of the pants” than others. The new VLA types give very good feel, so in my opinion, would be ideal for an ex glider pilot to convert on.

Rod1

[Piper.Classique]

Rod1 says

Lets go right back to the original question. We have a glider pilot who wants to convert to power.

Well, I don't think he does. I reckon it is a very sucessful wind up. Mind you, I got a real diatribe when I asked about his gliding experience :ugh:

I have seen no evidence from his posts that he is serious about flying power, and if he is then it is time he got on with finding a flying school that he likes and getting in the air.

Off to go flying now, and I really don't mind all that much in what, as long as I am airborne.Today it's weightshift, as a student.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I thoroughly enjoyed the flight! We messed about no end doing chandelles, spins, flying using the trimmer without touching the yoke, ect.

That explains it. The thing that's awful about those aeroplanes is the terribly unresponsive and soggy flight 'controls'. If you fly it using the trimmer, the doors, and shifting your weight, it's probably quite good. :ok:

SSD

[Tiger_ Moth]

JBGA,

If you want to learn on a fun plane like a Tiger Moth or a Cub just do so. They aren't much more expensive than other training planes and if they are the reason you are getting your PPL, why not just start on them?

I posted on here years ago saying I wanted to learn from scratch on the Tiger and most people said it was a dumb idea. Well I ignored them and got my PPL on a Tiger and had a great time.
It can't be that hard to fly them if everyone used to learn on them years ago can it?

Don't not do it just because someone on the internet says it's a bad idea! No doubt I'll get abuse now for saying that but I know a lot of instructors who think it's quite feasible to learn on these older types too, so it's not just my opinion.
Also, your gliding experience will help you out as you already know how to use the rudder!

Good luck