Too fast, too much, too soon? New PPL > complex conversion.

[Mr Wolfie]

It's only a week or two since I posted that I had pased my skills test. All my flying has been on Cessna 150's and 172's and I have a total of a little over 50 hours. I now need a little advice.

A friend of mine has a Turbo Arrow III and has suggested that he would be happy for me to get sufficient training to convert onto it and fly it. The benefits for me are that I would have access to a much better equipped and quicker plane than the club aircraft that I am now flying and at an attractive hourly rate. A few practicalities need sorting out such as adding me to the insurance and making arrangements with my instructor for "differences training" for retractable gear, wobbly prop, and turbo-charging. I have mentioned it to my instructor and he sees no problem in providing training to convert onto the Arrow.

I suspect however that insurance will prove to be the first stumbling block, with myself being uninsurable with such low hours, or it being offered at a prohibitive premium. The plan may therefore be dead in the water at this first hurdle.

Even if this proves not to be the case, then I still have a few personal misgivings about the idea: basically, am I too inexperienced to move to a complex fast single? I suspect that I am in danger of trying to run before I've got the hang of walking, so to speak.

Any words of wisdom, cautionary tales, (or encouragement) would be gratefully received.

Mr. W

[drauk]

I'd say go for it. You might end up taking an extra couple of hours with the instructor for the conversion, but other than that it isn't such a big deal. That you've recognised that you've got something to learn is half the battle - just get an instructor to do a thorough conversion and if he is happy then so should you be.

[High Wing Drifter]

I would have thought "No problem". So long as you keep your P1 currency up. I think it is too easy to keep training after getting licensed.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi Mr Wolfie,

See no particular reason why this could not work, zoomed to the Channel Islands in a twin with only a meagre 66 hrs TT in the logbook and the ink of the rating still drying.

All depends on your skills and the quality of your instruction.

Good start would be to ring the insurance company and they will give you a pointer on what they deem the minimum requirement.

If they need anything more than 5 hours you could consider doing an IMC rating at the same time, which would come in handy.

Have fun and keep us posted.

FD

[Bodie]

zoomed to the Channel Islands in a twin with only a meagre 66 hrs TT in the logbook and the ink of the rating still drying.

I take it this was some time ago, as from Lasors:

An applicant for a class rating for a single-pilot MEP (Land) aeroplane rating must produce evidence of having completed a minimum of 70 hours as pilot-in-command of aeroplanes.

Getting back to the thread. I wish I were in the same position when I passed my PPL! I can't see it causing any major problems.

[QNH 1013]

My guess is that the insurance company will want something like 10 hours in the aircraft (+ conversion) before they will let you fly it without an existing insured pilot in the aircraft. When insurance companies have wanted an extra premium for a very-low-hour new group member, in my experience it has only been the first year that they charge this supplement.
You are very lucky to have access to such a fine machine.

[Miserlou]

It's not that fast the 'complexities' will seem natural after a couple of hours of flying.

Try it and see how you feel after that.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

M r. Wolfie:

Let me help you out here.

First off the word " Complex " to describe a little bug smasher single engine airplane is just a marketing scheme thought up by the training industry to seperate you from your money.

How can adding one or two more switches or levers to any machine make it " complex ", why you probably drive a car with a stereo set that is more complex than a Piper Arrow.

So don't let the hype fool you it is just another little airplane with a couple of new features for you to play with.

Chuck E.

[Tinstaafl]

Hi Chuck,

Unfortunately 'complex' isn't necessarily a marketing device over here. Think more along 'bureacratic regulatory authorities'... :sad:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yep, I agree, we have them over here to. :D

[KCDW]

The Yanks are masters at squeezing out training on "complex" machines... I was quoted 15 hours for conversion to an Arrow! For insurance purposes I was told :yuk:

[Lemoncake]

Just as a pointer, I did my type rating for Cessna 182 earlier this year with circa 80 hrs. Insurance company said that I must do 10 hours either with a CFI or my old man, before I can go off on my own. The conversion time spent with the CFI went towards the 10 hours.

[MLS-12D]

I agree with the previous posts ... once you try it, you'll find that the Arrow is no big deal.

I would have access to a much better equipped and quicker plane than the club aircraft that I am now flying I don't fault Mr. Wolfie for wanting to learn to fly a glitzier aircraft, but I'd like to note that the general pilot obsession with faster, "better" airplanes is often counter-productive. A IFR equipped, known-ice certified, twin turbo Statusmaster may be just the thing for a salesman or executive who often has to make continent-wide business trips, but for the ordinary recreational owner-pilot it is just too much airplane: all the fancy avionics and other toys are expensive to maintain, and add nothing to the flying experience.

More money doesn't necessarily translate into more fun. For Sunday afternoon flying (which, let's face it, most of us normally do), there's nothing wrong with flying an older, slower, simple airplane like a Cub, a 120, or even a 150.:ok:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi MLS,

Don't be such a spoil sport!!

Different trips call for different mounts.

Sunday afternoon bimble -> Cub, 120, 150 could not ask for anything better suited.

Over to the ILs for a few days -> Arrer, 172, 182 suitable, quick and you can take more than a toothbrush.

Serious trips abroad whereby you need to get to somewhere at a more or less certain time -> 210, Cirrus or a twin.

Appreciate that life is a compomise so one will have to choose the one which covers the biggest slice of the cake.

FD

[MLS-12D]

Hello FD,

Yes, you're right: horses for courses. But most PPLs can only afford one aircraft, or only have the time to stay fully current in one aircraft.

It saddens me whenever I see someone buying an overly complicated airplane that they can't afford to fly. Personally, I'd rather own or rent a little airplane that I can use whenever I feel like it, than be the unhappy operator of a hanger queen.

Retractable undercarriage, turbo-charging, variable pitch props, approach-certified GPS, ILS, ADF, AI, DG, etc. etc. All perfectly fine things in their own way, but seldom necessary, occasionally distracting, always expensive.

Cheers,

MLS-12D

P.S. I also see too many pilots with four seat gas-guzzling airplanes when they fly alone 95% of the time.

[Flyin'Dutch']

MLS wrote:

P.S. I also see too many pilots with four seat gas-guzzling airplanes when they fly alone 95% of the time.

The eternal debate and tension between needs and desires!

Luckily still allowed to have the latter, after all there is very little necessary aviation.

Would be an interesting debate to see which one is *really* *necessary*

FD

[MLS-12D]

Flyin'Dutch' - Sure, you're absolutely right.

I usually fly a Super Cub, but this weekend I will be commencing flight training on the Harvard. No one could seriously suggest that that is necessary ... it's just something that I want to do! :D

[Flyin'Dutch']

MLS, you lucky devil!

Currently on the lookout for a Cub but not successful so far.

Can hire the rest.

FD

[IO540-C4D5D]

MLS-12D

This is an interminable argument, between those who have enough money and those who don't.

I'd like a Jag XKR (though would settle for an XK8) but instead drive a 20 year old Jap banger which has never broken down. But I don't see anything wrong with someone driving an XKR (10mpg?), and let's face it a Mits Shogun (< 10mpg) is the entry level for a school run these days :O

Compared with the ludicrous Shogun school run scene, flying a well equipped 4-seater is a far lesser crime. I did my PPL in planes which were gradually falling apart (not legally falling apart of course), then spent 100 hours renting more planes which in the end were doing well to have one working radio, with the rest of the panel defunct... at £120/hour. Anyone with more than two pennies to rub together is going to get away from this typical-UK-GA scene as soon as they can. If you want to fly IFR for real then you have no choice; planes with well maintained avionics are almost nonexistent on the rental scene for obvious financial reasons.

When it comes to modern planes, it is true that there is far more choice (mostly European designs) in 2-seaters than 4-seaters. And some of the "permit" versions have amazing performance figures. But as with a car, if you sometimes carry more than one person you have to get a 4-seat car. And for IFR flight the choice is made for you, on several fronts simultaneously.

I fly a complex retractable and wish I had done my PPL in it... Unless you have particular difficulty grasping the most basic technical issues (in which case getting through the PPL exams will be pretty hard) there is very little extra to learn. Far harder (in terms of cockpit workload) is flying some decrepit old plane in which the DI loses 10 degrees every 10 minutes.

[Final 3 Greens]

Wolfie

I converted onto a Cherokee 6 at 74 hours. Fixed gear, constant speed prop, 50% more weight at gross and 140kts cruise.

Absolutely no problem, so long as you attend carefully to the new features, until they become second nature, which does not take too long. There is a temptation at first to monitor the RPM gauge when reducing the power, but the penny soon drops that it's the manifold pressure that you need to watch ;)

The only thing that has ever concerned me on the Arrer is that automatic gear extension device, which can be quite counter productive if not managed properly.

If this Arrer has that feature, make sure you get a full briefing and you'll have no problems at all.

The other area to start being aware of is turbocharged engines. Now the turbo Arrer has an engine that is pretty forgiving, but if you progress to some bigger aircraft, they have turbo engines that are prone to 'shock cooling' if you close the throttle too quickly. If you learn to handle the Arrer engine sensitively, you'll be preparing yourself for 'faster, higher, farther' in the future.

It's a lovely aeroplane - with docile, safe PA28 handling in oodles - I hope that you will enjoy it very much.

[Ace Rimmer]

I think it kinda depends not only on the individual but on the conversion taking place

IMHO most people would have little problem in converting from say an Archer to an Arrow (the numbers are simple just add 10 kts) you have the fun of wobbly props and up and down wheels - it honestly doesn't take too long to figure out...

If on the other hand your going from say a 152 to a Bonanza or Mooney then clearly its going to take a bit more thinking about and training time (just speeding up thought processes to stay ahead of the aircraft for a start)

Having said that I know of one bloke who was blatting around in an Arrow pre PPL with no worries and another bloke who has quite a bit of time but is having trouble coping with the extra complexity.

[Lemoncake]

I found the conversion from Cessna 150 to 182 reasonably straight forward.....and all that extra room!!!!!It's certainly heavier, whereby after my 10th circuit on the trot, I had a left arm like popeye.(my instructor was quick to point out that I was a fool for not making full use of the trim ;)

[MLS-12D]

planes which were gradually falling apart ... doing well to have one working radio, with the rest of the panel defunct ... this typical-UK-GA scene Not a pretty picture. Sounds like there is an urgent need for new airplane construction in the UK. Homebuilts are all very well, but could they resurrect de Havilland, Percival, or one of the great firms of the past (we don't need any more spam cans or plastic slippers)?

[KCDW]

I would say that this is not just a UK problem. The state of the avionics in rental planes at KCDW, are if anything, worse: making instrument flight positively unpleasurable. For example, of the 2 PA28’s I fly, only one has a reliable VOR (just the one), but it doesn’t have a reliable DME. It’s the reverse with the other (ie an unreliable VOR, but a reasonable DME). At least with the warrior for rent at EGKH, the instruments are in reasonable condition.

The problem is not with the sad state of our aircraft construction industry, but the general cost of flying, and what people are prepared to pay for it – ie because the costs are so high, most of us are only prepared to pay the absolute minimum - which results in rentals with just the basics.

It is an interesting philosophical point that while the Yanks earn loads more than the Brits, and the cost of flying is easily half due to cheap gas, they too are only prepared to pay the minimum, which to us Brits is relatively dirt cheap…

[IO540-C4D5D]

MLS-12D & KCDW

There isn't a shortage of new planes; in fact quite a number of interesting and "sexy" designs have appeared recently, note the 4-seater DA40 for example and too many 2-seater composites for me to keep track of.

The problem is the lack of students. As KCDW absolutely rightly points out, the decline being in the USA too shows that it isn't anything much to do with cost (whereas the UK flight training industry keeps laboriously pretending it is).

So, what keeps people away? Why are most of the pilots who still hang in there middle aged and often a lot older than that? There is a vast number of men, and some women too, in their 20s and 30s who earn £40k-£60k but few of them choose to learn to fly.

It's another subject, but basically anyone with the money to pursue a significantly time/money-consuming leisure activity is looking to buy into a useful social scene. And there isn't any, in GA, really...

The state of the aircraft is several stages down the road from the primary problem.

[MLS-12D]

Hello IO540-C4D5D
quite a number of interesting and "sexy" designs have appeared recently, note the 4-seater DA40 for example and too many 2-seater composites for me to keep track of Agreed, but as I said we don't need any more composite 'glass slippers' :yuk: (I fully acknowledge that many people would disagree with that view).

KCDW, you're perfectly right: I have flown some rather questionable airplanes in the USA (presumably reflecting the relatively loose airworthiness standards under part 91 of the FARs).

In my very limited experience, Australia seems to have quite a few newish aircraft for hire.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi

Newish aircraft can be hired for reasonable money, but peeps expect to fly quality aircraft for peanuts and that is unfortunately not possible.

You can hire a new (less than one year old just 100 hrs on the clock) DR400 at Turweston with more avionics than you can shake a stick at; £135 per hour on the Hobbs.

Pilot Flight Training do a nearly new C172S for £115 per hour (again Hobbs)

At Connington you can fly a very nicely equipped Seneca 2 for less than £200 per hour.

OK it is all a bit more expensive than the cheapest of cheap but not extortionate.

As always in life: You pays your money and make your choice.

FD

[IO540-C4D5D]

MLS-12D

One may not need glass slippers :O but what IS needed is modern-looking aircraft (by which I don't mean new Cessnas) because Joe Public's perception of this business is getting close to a vintage car rally! And it is Joe Public where new pilots come out from. There isn't some special "pilots DNA pool" out there :O

FlyinDutch

I know of businesses who have tried to operate brand new Cessnas but they got few customers, in a location where old heaps can be hired for say £20/hr less. I expect the reason is that after years of neglect the bottom has dropped out of the GA market. Otherwise, as you suggest, there would be different quality customers at different price levels. It would be interesting to see how one did operating (training in, and renting out) a fully modern fleet, at a location where there isn't competition from 1970 C150s.

[Canadian Luscombe]

I was in Stuart, Florida a couple of months ago, and one of the FBOs at the airport had just purchased a few brand-new 172s, with the intention of offering basic flight instruction to the well-healed non-pilot owners of private jets based there.

Personally, I would rather save approx. C$50 per hour and fly a less well-equipped (but still in decent shape) 172N; I don't see much benefit from fancy GPS, fuel injection, and whatever other bells and whistles the new models feature. However, certainly the intended customers have the cash, and they probably won't mind paying a bit extra for the privilege of flying a new, well-appointed aircraft. After all, if you can operate your own Challenger, renting a 172 isn't going to seem like much, no matter how new the model.;)

[FlyingForFun]

I'm surprised to hear that there's not much demand for newish aircraft.

I occassionally hire a C172, which is a couple of years old, from White Waltham, to keep my instrument skills in practice. The last time I tried to book it (the only one), it was fully booked every weekend for the next 5 weeks! A bit of a problem, since the club's currency rules is 4 weeks on type!!! This is despite the fact that they also have several PA28s which are older but cheaper.

Mind you, people who are looking for the cheapest flying possible generally don't rent from White Waltham to start with I suppose.

FFF
--------------

[Tinstaafl]

The rash of C172 hirers might have wanted the high wing for sightseeing purposes, in preference to the PA28? I certainly would.