PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Forgotten your Username/Password?


The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30th May 2008, 06:44   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: emerald australia
Posts: 6
texan top class

hey just some info,
ive just started my license with freeflying flight school in emerald qld, flying a new top class texan plane and was wondering if these are good planes to learn in and any tips for starting off. any feedback would be great thanks
dsjoshua
dsjoshua is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 08:04   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: emerald australia
Posts: 6
Thumbs up flight training

is there any benefit in starting training in a certain plane. i have just started my training in a top class texan. any feedback would be great and anytips for first starting off would be great
cheers
dsjoshua is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 08:45   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,440
Lasiorhinus is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 08:53   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
flying a new top class texan plane


Learning to fly in a T6 Texan!

Now that would be interesting!

Dr

Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 30th May 2008 at 09:24.
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 09:05   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,054
They are not a bad machine to learn in generally. They have a reasonable cruise somewhere from 100 to 110 knots generally and a very slow stall speed. They have the reliability of the Rotax and are a nice machine to fly. Being fairly easy to fly, don't be surprised if it took you a few hours to "upgrade" to a Jab or similar.

Personally I would not like to be a private owner of one. The bubble canopy is extremely hot, you have to stand on the seats to get in it, they are not painted (they are gelcoat) and they are very expensive to buy.
VH-XXX is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 11:43   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 240
I hope the Texan has nothing to do with Rod Tyson...
VH-FTS is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 11:45   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 240
Hmmm...this thread answered my comment in the other thread you started.

Beware of RT. He has more potential to damage your career than the texan.
VH-FTS is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 11:59   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: emerald australia
Posts: 6
im not sure who rod tyson is but i think hes to do with the brissy side of things. never heard of him. my instructor is pretty cool but ill keep that in mind
thanks for the feedback
dsjoshua is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 13:33   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 457
Sonny,

Head down, bum up, keep studying. Work hard and learn your craft.

Who you train with (or what you fly) has far less impact on your career over time than the pilot YOU become through YOUR self-discipline.

Keep the faith

.... and use the force, Luke.
Bendo is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 15:55   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Up yer nose, again.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,134
Actually the PC-9 derived T-6 is the Texan II

A Texan is the AT-6/SNJ depending on whether you're an Air Force or Navy man.

Much different beast.
Peter Fanelli is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 22:07   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Coast, represent...
Age: 40
Posts: 1,073
All aircraft fly the same way, eg, push forward and houses get bigger, pull back and houses get smaller, keep pulling back and houses get bigger again.

Seriously there are some minor differences between types, eg cessnas tend to come out of a stall if you yell "STOP IT", whereas a tomahawk will almost always want to drop a wing (much better for developing recovery technique in my view), but the school teaching is of more consequence than the aircraft being used.

Cheers
MakeItHappenCaptain is offline   Reply
Old 30th May 2008, 22:57   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 240
Quote:
im not sure who rod tyson is but i think hes to do with the brissy side of things. never heard of him. my instructor is pretty cool but ill keep that in mind
thanks for the feedback
Good to hear.

So there is no confusion, this is the Texan being discussed:



It's the FlySynthesis Texan, not the Texan II.

My only concern is whether logging RA hours will affect things we you go for a CASA CPL. I don't know the answer to this, maybe someone else does.
VH-FTS is offline   Reply
Old 31st May 2008, 02:05   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 457
RAAus hours can count towards the 200-hour syllabus, but not towards the 150-hour syllabus.

The requirement for the 150 hour syllabus is that ALL the 150 training hours must be done as a part of the course - I suppose that someone might get an RAAus component approved as part of a 150-hour syllabus, but I would be surprised.
Bendo is offline   Reply
Old 31st May 2008, 02:28   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: emerald australia
Posts: 6
yeah thats the texan however im still a little confused wether it is a disadvantage to learn in a texan if i want to get my cpl it being a recreational aircraft. it seems that it doesnt really matter as long as i work hard to be a good pilot. is this true. im very committed to this and am willing to spend as much time as i need to to acheive my goal of cpl and beyond. wether it be 200 or 500 hrs. thanks everyone for givin me some heads up and advice
dsjoshua is offline   Reply
Old 31st May 2008, 02:37   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,761
The secret

The secret of sucess is
Early to bed
Early to rise
Work like hell
And advertise.
bushy is offline   Reply
Old 31st May 2008, 06:44   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 240
Quote:
yeah thats the texan however im still a little confused wether it is a disadvantage to learn in a texan if i want to get my cpl it being a recreational aircraft. it seems that it doesnt really matter as long as i work hard to be a good pilot. is this true. im very committed to this and am willing to spend as much time as i need to to acheive my goal of cpl and beyond. wether it be 200 or 500 hrs. thanks everyone for givin me some heads up and advice
It shouldn't take you that long to get your CPL. Given RA hours only count towards the 200 hour course, you may be better off (less expensive) completing the 150 hour course at a GA flying school.
VH-FTS is offline   Reply
Old 1st Jun 2008, 15:08   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 331
The Texan TC is a great aircraft to fly and learn on. It has wings, tail and a rudder and a fan in the front. It does good speed and is certainly more fun to fly than a Jab. RAA is only a questionable affair if your instructor/school/aircraft is sub-standard. Use it for the cheap flying, hour building, etc, then do a quick conversion to PPL/CPL plus a few endorsements. Cheapest way to learn to fly, as well as great fun. As others have said, study hard and make sure you get the basics down pat, it'll serve you well in the long run. There is no difference in the basic physics between a Texan TC and an airliner.

sc
sprocket check is offline   Reply
 
 
This ad will disappear if you login
Reply
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 18:58.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".