Complex singles

[bigbloke]

Hi

For those on here that do fly complex singles or have done, when did you move on to them relative to earning your PPL ie: learned on one, straight after PPL, after getting an IMC or IR, a couple of hundred hours in etc and why ?

I'm assuming for the purpose of this discussion that this means wobbly prop, retractable undercarriage, a bit heavier and a bit quicker than a 172 or warrior and instrumentation for IFR.

Thanks

BB

[dublinpilot]

Moved onto a TB9 which unusually for TB9's had a constant speed prop, straight after PPL.

Move on to the Arrow II (CSP, Retractable) after about 80 hours total. (PPL completed just under 50, so 30-35 post PPL.)

Why? Convenience really. The TB9 belonged to the school that I trained with, and was generally reserved for PPL's rather than training, so have much better availability.

When that school got taken over, things went downhill quickly, so I changed clubs. The new one had only two aircraft, one of which was the Arrow, so it made sense to get checked out on both.

dp

[IO540]

Did the PPL in Tomahawks, C150s C152s then rented PA28s, and with 50hrs post-PPL got a TB20. Never looked back, the transition was easy.

There is nothing complex about retractable gear and a CS prop. One rarely touches those controls anyway.

[julian_storey]

Yes - what IO540 said.

I originally learned to fly in a Cessna 172. I had a go in a Katana DA20 shortly after getting my PPL (C/S prop) and at about 200 hours did my MEP in a Twin Comanche - which obviously has rectractable gear.

Didn't actually get round to flying a retractable single until I went for a CPL.

Neither 'complexity' is expecially difficult to grasp although if you forget to put the wheels down it'll get expensive :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When describing light airplanes that have constant speed props and or retractable gear as " complex " it is nothing more than someone trying to make it look like something it is not......

[Final 3 Greens]

Chuck

I went to the USA and did a few hours in a PA28R-200 and some ground school.

For that, the Feds gave me both 'complex' and 'high performance' endorsements - your views on that would be gratefully received.

[Contacttower]

I've always thought the notion of 'complex singles' is a bit misleading. Yes they are more complicated but really a CSP and retractable gear doesn't really constitute a major increase in complexity.

I had a lesson in the Arrow during my PPL (because the school had run out of standard PA28s) and since then I've flown the C185C amphib as well and a few other types with CSPs. There is nothing difficult about them and in fact the Arrow could quite easily be used for PPL training.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I went to the USA and did a few hours in a PA28R-200 and some ground school.

For that, the Feds gave me both 'complex' and 'high performance' endorsements - your views on that would be gratefully received.


****************************************
****************************************

You have been hoodwinked by the bureaucracy because it is disingenuous to try and pretend that a PA28R-200 is anywhere near complex or high performance.

Using that mindset what would a Lear Jet be?

[Final 3 Greens]

You have been hoodwinked by the bureaucracy because it is disingenuous to try and pretend that a PA28R-200 is anywhere near complex or high performance.

My thoughts entirely, but I did learn that the difference between aviation oxygen and medical oxygen was that the former cannot contain moisture. :confused:

A Learjet is definitely not a complex single (not unless one goes bang!)

[julian_storey]

I might be wrong here (and I've not got my FAR / AIM to hand), but I thought that you needed to fly an aircraft with MORE than 200hp to get an FAA high performance endorsement?

[Tony Hirst]

You have been hoodwinked by the bureaucracy because it is disingenuous to try and pretend that a PA28R-200 is anywhere near complex or high performance.Until you try an explain that ridiculous pressure sensing system to somebody. What were they thinking of :hmm:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

By describing what is in reality basic machines as somehow " complex " it serves several purposes...it gives bureaucrats something to do in their cubicles that sounds real professional. ( to them )

It also gives flying schools another way to make money...gone are the days when you could just take a check out from someone who was proficient on the airplane...

.....now we have a sort of Voo Doo Black Magic Doctor mentality whereby we must go to the Dr. who will get the chicken entrails, bones and ashes and using his/her magic stick poke through the ashes and find the magic answers.

Ahhhh how I miss the days when life was so much less " Complex"

[172driver]

You know what guys? Sometimes Pprune p:mad:es me off. Here's someone who asks a question and some :mad: here have to sound off about how irrelevant this is. Well, Chuck, what hyper-complex all-singing, all-dancing spaceship do you fly then? :yuk:

We could argue about what constitutes a 'complex' or a 'high-performance' airplane until Chuck Yeager descends from the clouds. These definitions, like all in aviation, have been introduced by someone in an office - live with it. And answer the OP's question, which I do here: immediately after my PPL for 'complex' (C172RG), a couple of years later for 'high performance', i.e. C182, etc.

PS: btw 99% of N-reg PA28R-200's are NOT good enough for the high-performance sign-off as they are rated at 199BHP. Must be some insurance thing. The FARs stipulate more than 200 for that....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well 172 driver I guess we all get pissed off at different things and what pisses me off is the dumbing down of aviation by those who have to make the relatively simple into complex.

Now that I have explained my position what does the type of airplanes I fly have to do with this?
If going from one basic simple single engine airplane to one with a couple of extra knobs, levers or switches is difficult for you that is not my fault.

But I will try and answer your question.

---------------------------------------------------------
You asked:::
Well, Chuck, what hyper-complex all-singing, all-dancing spaceship do you fly then?
--------------------------------------------------------

I don't fly spaceships...but I do fly aircraft that might meet the description of being more " Complex " than a basic single engine airplane such as being discussed here.

So where would you like me to start?

Helicopters or airplanes?

Piston engine, turbo prop or jet?

Land or Sea?

[bigbloke]

Easy folks

The reason for the post is that I am coming toward the end of my PPL training and starting to look at buying a first aeroplane. It looks like I might have to go it alone as I want it for business travel and will want it when I want it.

So I'm looking at a market where the "complex" singles arent a great deal more expensive than the basic models. Part of me says I dont really need all that stuff and it just adds to the running costs. Another part says well why not.

Not necessarily running before I can walk, just looking ahead a bit.

Thanks for the answers to date, very informative. Especially the view that a CS prop and retractable undercarriage do not make anything a lot more complex.

BB

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Thanks for the answers to date, very informative. Especially the view that a CS prop and retractable undercarriage do not make anything a lot more complex.

B.B. the addition of a CS prop and retractible gear will of course add to the purchase cost and maintenance cost to some degree, but the increased performance is a reward well worth having.

The difficulty of flying the thing is a non issue, its just another type check out and it is not difficult nor complex.

Where you must take care when flying is using common sense and knowing what not to do.

It is known as airmanship which trumps all other considerations.

[Rod1]

The added “complexity” will not cause you much of a problem unless you forget the gear, but do not expect to get much of an increase in performance by going for a “low end” retractable. I have some time in a PA28R, and a Robin DR400 180 with fixed pitch and fixed gear will leave it behind and carry more weight. It was also an excellent instrument platform and cost much less to maintain than my friends Arrow did over the same period.

Rod1

[BackPacker]

I've heard much the same thing. Below approximately 200 knots cruising speed, the added weight, complexity, maintenance and insurance issues etc. of disappearing dunlops is not worth it, compared to well-streamlined fixed gear. That's the reason that for instance the Cirrus has fixed instead of retractable gear. (Plus, in the Cirrus the fixed gear is an integral part of the BRS system, to cushion the landing.)

As for VP or CS, always a good idea. Even better if you combine it with FADEC like on the Diamond or Liberty. Although FADEC does mean a greater dependence on the electric system. (Discussion already underway in another thread.)

[172driver]

B.B. the addition of a CS prop and retractible gear will of course add to the purchase cost and maintenance cost to some degree, but the increased performance is a reward well worth having.
The difficulty of flying the thing is a non issue, its just another type check out and it is not difficult nor complex.
Where you must take care when flying is using common sense and knowing what not to do.

I'm pleased to see we are back to actually answer people's questions....

I'll second most of what has been said here, there is, however one issue with fixed gear vs retractable. At least AFAIK, there is no SEP with fixed gear certified for flight into know icing conditions (FIKI). Now, doing that is probably not a great idea in a SEP anyway, but if you want an airplane for business travel, this might be a consideration.

[Troy McClure]

I always describe our Arrow to prospective students as being complex for training reasons, not for performance reasons. Don't expect blistering performance, but you can do a CPL in it.

[Final 3 Greens]

Big Bloke

Neither particularly complex nor particularly high performance, but I always enjoyed the PA32-300 (Piper Six.)

A bit heavier than the PA28, more stable and a bit faster, still docile.
Well worth a look.

And it is not certified for known icing, nor for high energy aerobatics, re-entry from space or VTOL ops, but a great plane IMHO.

[scooter boy]

"there is no SEP with fixed gear certified for flight into know icing conditions (FIKI). Now, doing that is probably not a great idea in a SEP anyway, but if you want an airplane for business travel"

you need a Mooney! (FIKI certified with RG and perfectly safe for business travel)

SB

[S-Works]

not to mention various Cessna's.........

[172driver]

sb you left the AFAIK out of my quote. For argument's sake (and out of interest): IS there a fixed-gear SEP certified for FIKI ?

Not trying any wind-up, neither attempting re-entry from space ;)

[Mikehotel152]

Hi Bigbloke (hmmm, that sounds like the sort of intro you get in...um....certain types of late night establishment...moving swiftly on) :}

As Chuck says, VP/CS and retractable gear might be a big step in your mind but it isn't a big step up in reality. I converted onto a C182 within days of getting my PPL on C152s and had no problems. Yes, there is another aspect to engine management, but within a few hours it becomes second nature. It's probably more taxing getting used to the increased size, weight and power than the extra lever!

Go for it!


Edited to add that the guys flying Spits and Hurris in the Battle of Britain had something like 10 hours on type before action. A Spitfire might even be more 'complex' that a C182, so that's impressive, and I've never been shot at on downwind whilst trying to remember my itchybum mnemonic...they were :p

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote:
B.B. the addition of a CS prop and retractible gear will of course add to the purchase cost and maintenance cost to some degree, but the increased performance is a reward well worth having.
The difficulty of flying the thing is a non issue, its just another type check out and it is not difficult nor complex.

Where you must take care when flying is using common sense and knowing what not to do.


I'm pleased to see we are back to actually answer people's questions....


172 Driver, it would seem that I do not quite fit into your world of aviation so would you like me to quit posting on your forum?

You asked me in a snotty attitude what I fly so here is my answer.....I have flown stuff that I doubt you have even seen pictures of...and probably to " complex " for you to figure out.

This getting pissed off is a two way street.

[S-Works]

Wow Chuck you have a lot of aggression at the moment!!

[172driver]

Wow Chuck you have a lot of aggression at the moment!!

Probably just grumpy in the morning ;)

[wsmempson]

In answer to the initial question, as a happy Arrow III owner, I don't think that these are difficult machines to convert to at all; In my experience, 5 hrs was more than enough to convert to type and after 30 hrs, I've forgotten that it was ever even an issue.

Having said that, I reckon that you should be completely comfortable with flying, navigating and landing a fixed gear/fixed prop machine (and before anyone asks "why would you even have a licence if you weren't?" - I have met a few fresh PPL's who needed to work at this...) before increasing the work load.

:)

[FullyFlapped]

Big Blurk (just in case you're a Geordie :))

I reckon you should get some hours under your belt on something reasonably docile before you go out and buy your ThunderShip. Not because of the knobs or levers for the CS prop and gear, as has been said herein amongst the willy-waving, these are not the issue : but simply because driving something with two or three times the power of the aircraft you've learned on, probably much heavier and faster, probably with engine-management requirements which will impose further conditions on your flying (and cost you dearly if you get them wrong), whilst still trying to get used to the hassles of real-world cross-country flying in the UK is asking quote a bit of most people, and IMHO far more tricky than remembering to dangle the Dunlops ...

Just my ten cents, as someone who has done exactly what you say you're intending to do ...

FF :ok:

[scooter boy]

"IS there a fixed-gear SEP certified for FIKI ?"

Cessna Caravan is the only one I can think of.

AFAIK fixed gear known ice certification is generally thought to be a non-starter because of ice accumulation on the undercarriage. I read that on PPRUNE so it must be true!;)

SB

[Final 3 Greens]

Wow Chuck you have a lot of aggression at the moment!!

Maybe, but anyone who can fly a Catalina across the Atlantic has my respect.

[Contacttower]

Cessna Caravan is the only one I can think of.



SE Piston?

[Pilot DAR]

I've got to agree with Chuck on this one. There seems to be a perceived need in general avaiation to categorize aircraft for no good reason I can see. "Complex"? What's complex about it, a few extra controls and instruments, which as previously stated, are only used a few times per flight anyway? I actually find that some of the older, more basic aircraft are more "complex" to fly than their newer versions. The complexity only becomes noticable when things are going wrong. Other than that, it's just a few extra checklist items. A J3, with no accelerator pump, can get pretty comlex at the worst possible time, if you jam the throttle!

Indeed, "complex" aircraft are often easier to fly, because some systems are more automated. What's more complex trying to start a piston or a turbine? In going from a Schweizer 300 to a Hughes 500D during training, I found the 500 much less complex from an engine managment standpoint. Push the button, turn on the fuel at the right time, and watch. The 300 is much more complex to start, particuarly if you're trying to not exceed limitations!

A DHC Turbo Beaver is similarly much more trouble free to start than it's pistion brother, which is more complex? After recently applying to be added to a Cessna 172 insurance policy, the agent called and asked me: "How many of your 3000 hours in single engine Cessnas are actually on 172's?". As my pilot report lists single Cessnas from 140 through 210 without missing many, I informed the agent that it really did not matter how many were on a 172. Eventually they agreed, and that was that.

Simply answered (lest I be accused of not answering the original question), Fly anything and everything you can get you hands on, as early in your learning as you can. Don't yet the school try and talk you out of it. When I was learning to fly, the school's C177RG was the top of the heap. With 80 hours total time, they insisted on a 5 hour checkout for me. No problem, 3 of it was a night cross counrty under the hood. That was good use of my rental dollar! (by the way, at the time, that plane rented for $55 per hour wet, those were the days!) I put more than 100 hours on that beauty before someone wrecked it. That was all that was needed to be insured on most singles, and I have not had a problem (other than the aforementioned insurance agent) since!

Pilot DAR

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Wow Chuck you have a lot of aggression at the moment!!
Maybe, but anyone who can fly a Catalina across the Atlantic has my respect.

Final Three Greens, the problem we have here is I'm playing in a sand box where I don't belong.

It is not a matter of who has the biggest co.k that determines who can answer questions here or what value ones opinions should have.

You will notice I seldom post here?

Part of the reason is the sand box mentality of this forum.

Flying the Atlantic both the North and South is only a small part of what we do for a living.

Sometimes I'm at a loss to know if I should answer some of these questions or not......

......such as this one.....

Well, Chuck, what hyper-complex all-singing, all-dancing spaceship do you fly then?

So what the fu.k here are the last ten in order of sequense flown.

Husky A1B
Beech D18S
Boeing 767-300ER
Super Decathalon
PBY5A
DC3
Pitts S2B
RV8
Cessna 208
Cessna 185 on Whipline amphibs.

Note...the Boeing 767 did not have constant speed props, but it did have retractable gear.

[scooter boy]

"SE Piston? "

Oops! I forgot it was a turboprop!

Well it just has to be the Mooney again.

Commander and Socata have TKS equipment as an option but I'm not certain about FIKI certification.

SB

[White Bear]

bigbloke,
I transitioned at about 200 hours. For the first few hours I did feel I was very busy in the circuit, operating the constant speed prop, monitoring the manifold pressure gauge, learning to use a combination of cowl flaps and mixture to control cylinder head temps via the GEM, and of course remembering the undercarriage. On X-country flight remembering to ease off the throttle as you loose altitude to prevent excessive manifold pressure was something I found hard to remember, as I was often distracted by ATC.

By far the biggest thing to deal with was wading through all the stuff about mixture control (ROP/LOP), manifold pressures (Undersquare/Oversquare), and just what exactly was the Manifold pressure gauge reading anyway, and what do the number mean? and cylinder head temps, what does the manufacturer say (engine and airframe don’t always agree!) is OK, vs. what the engine rebuilders say, vs. what other owners say and so on ad nauseum. (Bottom line keep them below 380 deg) so that one understood what one was doing, what effect it had on the engine, on fuel consumption, on engine life, etc, etc so one could be fairly sure one was not abusing ones engine.
(Very important when you own the aircraft, and pay the bills):rolleyes:

Total time before I felt comfortable flying the aircraft and handling the extra systems by the numbers, about 6 hours. I’m still learning about all the engine stuff though, and finding out there are so many old wives tales that were taught to me, and are still taught to students that are completely wrong about engine management. :uhoh:
Regards,
White Bear.

[Solar]

Chuck
Can I play in your sandbox, seems like a lot more fun with a large % of common sense, such a rarity these days.