Want to fly a Cessna!

[P1 Forever]

Hi there,

I have a PPL however, I have never flown a cessna 150/172 and wish to learn to fly it. Could someone please tell me what is involved in learning to fly it eg Number of hours I would need to do with an instructor before being able to go solo?

Thanks a million!

P1.

[Aussie Andy]

I guess it depends what you've been flying to date, what you're familiar with and how current you are...

I'm sure a quick call to your local flying club would reveal the answers!

Andy

[Whirlybird]

I learned on a tomahawk, and the C152 conversion took me a little over an hour, if I remember rightly. I always found the C172 a bit harder, but that's partly because except in the very modern ones I can't reach the pedals and see over the cowling without more cushions than is either comfortable or safe. :eek: The C150/152 is a very easy aircraft to fly, but if you learned on low wing aircraft, it will feel a bit different. And you'll need to get used to the fact that in the circuit, as soon as you turn, you can't see where you are!

[Chilli Monster]

Could someone please tell me what is involved in learning to fly it eg Number of hours I would need to do with an instructor before being able to go solo?
It takes as long as it takes. Like Whirly a learnt on a PA38 and then moved onto a PA28-181. I think my C172 check out was about an hour, all done at MTOW.

Top tip - don't try and land it too fast. Anything more than 60-65Kts and you'll bounce down the runway quite happily. Nail that and the rest of flying it is easy.

[P1 Forever]

Thanks for the reply guys, cheers!

[coopervane]

What about the other way round? I learned on 150/152/172. What sort of stuff will I encounter when I go for a PA28 or similar?

I know u got all that fuel pump stuff and fuel balance but I mean in general. Is a low wing Piper easy to get to grips with and are all those nasty Tomahawk stories true!!???

Landing techniques are of interest along with approach speeds.

Quite fancy getting to grips with an Arrow (VP prop and R/G) but I thought it would be sensible to learn the basic aeroplane first and move up to the GT!!

Any tips most welcome.

Coop & Bear

[Charlie Zulu]

Hi,

The other way around?

Okay this will be for a Warrior...

You will find that you'll have a little more ground effect than that you are used too. This in effect will mean you *will* float down the runway unless you have your approach speeds nailed. Some clubs will teach a 70 knots over the fence speed, but this'll mean you'll float like there is miles and miles of runway... 65 knots is more sensible. With full flap... anything less like second stage will involve another long float down the runway. Talking about flaps they are manually controlled, like a car handbrake.

Quite a few people will tend to land the warrior flat... thus giving more strain on the nosewheel... try and get the correct picture and get the nose up as high as possible. This is even more so as if the aeroplane is in trim for the approach there is quite a severe back pressure required in order to keep that nose up for the flare.

Stalling a warrior is benign... just a like a Cessna. It'll nod its nose down and that is about it.

Of course always check that you are within the Utility category CofG W+B before doing any maneouvers that are outside of the Normal category.

Other than that you have the fuel system which has the selector near the left foot on the left hand wall near the normal P1 seat. There is an Off, Left and Right selector.

The Warrior is a normal aspirated Lycoming engine, so you have all the usual Carurettor Heat controls, Primer etc... the Lycoming isn't as prone to Carb Ice as the Continental but it still does happen.

Other than that 2300 RPM will give you 90 to 100 knots IAS, 2450 RPM will give you 105 - 110 knots IAS, depending on weight, density, etc etc...

Oh and the Warrior only has 1 door for all of its 4 occupants.

Differences between the Arrow and the Warrior:

Assuming the usual non-turbo 200 HP fuel injected Lycoming Arrow you will find there will be a different starting technique, but it'll only take one or two starts to get used to it.

The Arrow as it has a VP prop will have a new lever. Take off is normally fully forward with everything, above 500' 25" Manifold and 25OO RPM for the climb with 23" Manifold and 2300 RPM for the cruise. However some operators will suggest different settings. Usually the Mixture WILL be leaned. The Arrow has a Fuel Flow instrument, so brining it back to 10 Galls per hour is the normal lazy mans way of doing it... however Arrows normally have EGT guages so that'll be quite useful.

The speeds are different, ie the Arrow's Vy is 87 kts whereas the Warriors is 79 kts. Lift off in a Warrior is around 60 kts whereas the Arrow is 70 kts. You get the general idea...

There will be new speeds to learn such as Vlo, Vle and emergency gear extension procedures but nothing too drastic. Be warned that on some Arrows if you have the Nav Lights on the Green Gear Lights are very dull...

The Arrow III and IV have 72 US Gallons useable fuel... not bad eh?

The Arrow I find is very heavy in the flare and it will sink like a brick when doing glide approaches.

Apart from that its not much of a difference.

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.

[mark147]

I think my C172 check out was about an hourJust a slight note of caution that it may take a lot longer. I know of a number of people, in which I include myself to an extent, that effectively learned to fly a particular aircraft type, rather than learning to fly.

When I first flew a 172 my landings were hopeless and it took a friend to point out that I just wasn't looking in the right place. I was quite able to do beautiful landings in the aircraft I learnt on, but the technique I was using was evidently very specific to that plane.

If you find it doesn't come easily, take a step back, re-read the text books and you might discover something simple that will just make it work.

Mark

[MLS-12D]

are all those nasty Tomahawk stories true!!???I am no expert, with less than 10 hours on type; but IMHO the airplane is easy and safe to fly (although slightly underpowered).

Certainly if provoked the Tomahawk will stall and spin (rather than mush, like a docile PA28-140); but it is far from unmanageable. See generally Tomahawk Safety Review (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9702.html).

Rick Stowell has said a lot of negative stuff about the PA38 (see here (http://www.ozaeros.flyer.co.uk/tomahawk/tomahawk.htm)); but as he hasn't even flown the aircraft, take his comments with a lump of salt. See further Tomahawk Controversy (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/t-hawk.html).

For a general discussion of the PA38-112, see here (http://www.pipertomahawk.com/Qualities.htm).

[coopervane]

Charlie Zulu.......Many thanks for the Piper info. Will make note of it and put it to good use when I get my hands on the beast(s)!

The main difference I can see is the view (or lack of) of the ground.
Sitting on the wing instead of hanging from it blocks out most of your view. Still I suppose this is componsated by the better view in turns!

Thnks again

Coop & Bear

[foxmoth]

The main difference I can see is the view (or lack of) of the ground.

Go and fly a Robin instead - you sit far enough forward with a good canopy that you can see up and down, plus it is a much nicer handling aircraft:ok:

[phnuff]

I learned on a 152, then converted over to 172 (about an hour) to do my night rating/IMC. I now pretty much fly PA28's (again about an hour to convert) and am converting to a TB10 (so far 1 hour).

Like many people, I assumed that because the 172 is a bigger aircraft, that more speed would be needed for landing. Big mistake. The 172 land quite happily at the same 65kts approach as a 152. Any more speed and there is a big risk of just floating on down the runway way beyond your aiming point. Once that was pointed out to me, it became pretty easy to land. PA28 are also pretty docile. The TB10 which I have so far flown once, is slightly more sporty and glides rather like a breezeblock. It is a great plane though. with vastly improved visibility compared to a PA28

[Penguina]

I also learned to fly (and land) a 150/152. Thought I'd got to grips with the 172 and then realised I hadn't quite. What I failed to notice (or be told) was that the large surface area of the wings meant you got more lift, so could land it more slowly than I thought. I know people that push it as far as 55kt on windless days.

For girls - I found the 172 hard work in the go-around - just the amount of forward pressure needed made my arms shake. An instructor brought my attention to this and the potential dangers of it.

The other thing I'd say is that PA28s are definitely more stable and smooth (had first-hand experience of this this weekend). You will feel the bumps a lot more in a 150/152 and a bit more in the 172. You also can't let go of the yoke for as long (or at all, if the rudder trim is a bit out).

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I know people that push it as far as 55kt on windless days. Must be a different version to the ones I fly ... for which the POH says 56kt (and I find it lands quite happily at the same 60-over-the-fence as the 152).

[Penguina]

Hmmm, I was taught 65-70, I think. It's been a while as I find the little ones more affordable! But then, I was taught 70 on 152s initially! Took me a while to work out why it was harder than it should have been.

[silverknapper]

Was that initial PPL training? Schools do tend to go with 70-75 from my limited experience - safer due more margin for error. It was only afterwards I began reducing my speed over the numbers and was amazed the difference it made.

[Penguina]

Yes, it was. I'm sure that's what was happening. I was talking approach speeds rather than over-the-numbers speeds, though. Just realised my phrasing was a bit confusing there. (Nonetheless, I now think 70 knots is probably too fast for an approach in a 150, unless your flaps don't work and/or you have a strong headwind. Though I'm inexperienced and only know what I find.)

[MLS-12D]

Schools do tend to go with 70-75 from my limited experience - safer due more margin for error. I don't mean to shoot the messenger, but anyone who believes that it is prudent to "add 5-10 knots for the wife and kids" to the approach speed cited in the POH is simply barking (presumably such "instructors" have never considered the possibility of overshoot accidents). :suspect:

[Tinstaafl]

As long as the 50' speed is stable and at the manufacturer's recommended speed then it matters little what the approach speed was. However, it's advantageous for most people to be stabilised at, or near, the correct speed, for a much longer lperiod in which case having to reduce speed at a late point is problematical.