Starting my PPL

[231WILSON]

Afternoon

Im new to the forum and would like to say Hello.

I'm hopefully starting my P.P.L soon, however my local airfield only teaches on PA-28 warrior

I would like to hear your opinion on this aircraft, I've flown in one before and i loved it.

thanks for your time

Wilson

[coodem]

Good trainer, good reputation, nice and stable. I still fly one, makes a great budget IFR tourer

[maxdrypower]

Perfect trainer , lovely and stable good predictable stall chracteristics and vaer capable . Perhap a little bit more expensive than a PA38 or C152/150. This may be a factor if cost is . You dont really need a four seater to do your PPL , if cost no issue then great aircraft .
Good Luck and Enjoy

[231WILSON]

Thanks for your reply's

:ok:

[stoneyrosetreered]

It's a very gd a/c I did most of my PPL on a PA38 - A lot cheaper and good to fly on during the training. Like the above posts if money isn't an issue then the PA28 is a good catch.

[Cessna-172-Pilot]

I learned to fly in a warrior, lovely plane to learn in, only thing I found when I moved on to other types was that the stall in a warrior was benign and when I started using Cessnas for hour building they were a bit more abrupt at the stall (for training thankfully - not for real).
Enjoy your training and don't panic when you hit your 'training wall'. It always gets better.
Best of Luck C172D

[Final 3 Greens]

231Wilson

Firstly, good luck with your PPL and enjoy :D

If you only have access to the Warrior, you will find her a docile friend.

However, IMHO, she is not as good an ab initio trainer as a 152, DA1/DV1 or PA38 simply because she is too easy to fly.

[maxdrypower]

It is stable , but that is good .So long as you realise that different types have different stall characteristics . Providing you do a conversion when you swap types you should be okay . If you fly a PA28 , get an hour in a 38 and do some stalling with an instructor , you will notice a considerable and sometimes more frightening difference

[Put1992]

Very stable indeed. Once she's trimmed out, that's a large work load off your shoulders.

Also fairly comfortable

Cheers

Put

[231WILSON]

Cheers guys for your replys much appreciated.

Hoping to start in the Summer Holidays and work my way from then-on

Which area of the P.P.L is more challenging? Air Law to me sounds the Hardest
Principles of flight and nav and meteorology im fine with well i've already been doing my homework :ok: just to give me that extra help.

can't wait to start

thanks

Wilson

[XX621]

231Wilson

However, IMHO, she is not as good an ab initio trainer as a 152, DA1/DV1 or PA38 simply because she is too easy to fly.

Slightly more stable in choppyness possibly, but not particularly any easier. All the above types are equally easy to fly at the PPL stage. If the 152 was harder to learn on as it simply wouldn't survive as an ab-initio trainer, however cheap the hourly charge.

One thing about the PA28 is that a lot of FTO's use them for the IMC, so if you're planning on progressing to the IMC it might be an idea to stay put on the PA28?

[julian_storey]

There's a load of nonsense spoken and written about the Cessna -v- Piper debate.

The 172 and PA28 are both equally good trainers, they fly in kind of the same way and the 'pros and cons' essentially come down to ease of entry / egress (better in the 172) and looks (I think the Piper is prettier).

You won't go far wrong in either and picking the right instructor is a far more important choice.

[Final 3 Greens]

Slightly more stable in choppyness possibly, but not particularly any easier

I am rather surprised that you would say this.

The Warrior is clearly easy to fly in the following regards

- more powerful with 2 up
- very easy go around with the extra power
- easier to trim than either the PA38 or the C152
- docile stall characteristics
- more stable in the cruise

About the only thing that is harder than the tommy or the Cessna is the fuel management.

I have several hundred hours in PA28 and regard them as being a great low powered tourer, but ask any seasoned instructor their preference for teaching ab initio students how to fly and I bet most will not name the Warrior.

[Final 3 Greens]

so the PA28-161 isn't a good trainer because it does everything that Piper meant it to do to be a good trainer

If you get off your high horse and put your hyperbole to bed for a while, you might try and do some research about Piper trainers.

Piper designed the PA38 to be their ab initio trainer, based on a large scale survey of flight instructors, despite the PA28 having been in production for some time - perhaps you may wonder why they did that?

Now many of us do not particularly like the tommy, but the fact remains that it does exactly what is was designed to do, including providing a sporting stall, a 'student proof' fuel management system and better all round vision.

I'll let someone else respnd to your comments about the C152, as I only have about 50 hours in those and don't feel I know the type well enough to speak about it. (by the way nearly as many hours as you have in total.)

With regards to a cub, it is also a very easy aircraft to fly, you really need to get some experience before being so emphatic.

Hardly any of the PPL course is basic handling anyway

Unbelievable comment, what do you think all the circuit work is?

[Final 3 Greens]

Citation from Piper?

Sorry, no can do, as Piper went out of business many years ago and New Piper never built the PA38.

However, AOPA in the US has high credibility and you may wish to read this article, which I would rather rely on than Wiki.
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/articles/0107.cfm

A significant extract says "Flight instructors we spoke to feel strongly that the Tomahawk does what Piper intended. "It's the best primary trainer ever built," says Jim Tafta of Richmond Flight Center in West Kingston, Rhode Island. "The student is well trained, and they can't get away with some of the things they can in other trainers." The feedback is overwhelmingly positive, with one caveat: This airplane, though a trainer, still demands proper training of its pilots from a qualified instructor. Those with the training have flown the Tomahawk for thousands of hours without incident."

NB: My italics and emboldening.

I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect.

Let me know what part of that you don't understand.

Also, kindly note that I have claused my comments 'ab initio' trainer throughout.

[Final 3 Greens]

a) you made an incorrect statement regarding the purpose of the 161 series

No I did not. I did not make any statement regarding the purpose of the Warrior (151 included, since they OP did not state which series.) What I did say is that I believe there are better ab initio trainers and that the Warrior is a great low powered tourer

b) you contradicted yourself regarding the 152. First stating that in your opinion it was a better trainer than the Warrior, secondly stating that you had less hrs on type than an average student in their first year of training

No I did not. I said I believe it is a better ab initio trainer than the Warrior and that I would let someone else respond to your comments (about that stall spin comparison between the C152 and Warrior)

I made no reference to my hours on type in relation to an average student in their first year of training, I simply made the comparison between my hours on the C152 and your total hours and that I did not feel experienced enough to respond to your comments.

Do you know what ab initio means? Have you learned enough yet (here to learn, not to inform) to appreciate why an aircraft may be a very good choice for some types of training and not for others?

[Asrian]

What do You think about the Diamond Katana DA-20 as training aircraft for initial PPL-training?
Due to cost reasons I decided to start with a restricted national PPL and joined a flying club where they use a rotax-propelled Katana DA-20 for initial training. Later on a H-36 Dimona TMG will be used as second type of training aircraft...

[Final 3 Greens]

G-EMMA

Let's try one last time to deal with some of your comments in a rational and logical way.

I would read that slowly dear the 'Warrior' is implicitly the 161 series

Why? There are 38 examples of the 151 series on the UK register, as opposed to 320 161 models, so 12% of the UK Warrior fleet is the 151 type - why is a Warrior 'implicitly' a 161?

I also note that you added (sic) after 151, which suggests to me that you are unaware of the lineage of the PA28, since the 151 is the original (Cherokee) Warrior, whereas the 161 is the Warrior II (or III.)

Conclusion, your comment displays a lack of knowledge.

You perpetuate the myth that the 152 is the better ab initio training aircraft. In fact there is little in it and many prefer the Warrior.


I do not perpetuate any myth. I gave my own opinion, claused 'IMHO' (In My Humble Opinion) in my original response. Having learned on both C152 and PA28 and flown several hundred hours (aggregate) in both types since 1993, I feel able to have an opinion.

Some people may disagree with that opinion, but I have yet to encounter a flying instructor who has expressed a belief that the PA28 is a better ab initio platform than the C152.

You say that many (which I understand to mean students in this context) prefer the PA28 for training and this seems to be a reasonable statement.

I switched half way through my training due to geographical reasons and prefered the PA28 at the time, but with hindsight believe that my basic handling skills and in particular flying in balance and trimmed out, would have been of a higher standard on granting of PPL, had I continued with the C152.

I would be interested in how a 60 hour student pilot can state facts on the relative merits of training aircraft. WHere did these 'facts' come from?

Conclusion, you have a strong opinion, which you present as 'fact', whereas I have a strong opinion, which I present as opinion.

Unfortunately all this rubbish has been posted on a thread started by someone new to flying. A simple, 'is the Warrior OK??' the answer 'yes it is great thousands of people have trained in it' would have done.

Someone about to start training asked a question and I gave an honest opinion, which I thought might be helpful to the OP, but apparently you now give advice on the content of responses - I didn't realise that Danny and Rob had made you a moderator of this forum.

The subsequent 'rubbish' as you put it was initiated by others, I only responded.

I guess now from your previous statement that the Cub is so easy to fly it doesn't teach anyone what a 152 could

Your guess is wrong. The Cub is a good learning platform and a sheer delight to fly.

What you said originally is that "a nice Cub will teach you to be polite to aeroplanes and make up for learning in an easy aircraft."

Apart from ground handling characteristics (which is a generic taildragger trait and one of the reasons that differences training is now mandated), how is a Cub a difficult aeroplane to fly? It doesn't even have flaps.

A 152 is an easy aeroplane to fly, a Warrior is TOO easy for ab initio (IMHO.)

Although hardly a hot ship or a killer, I believe (IMHO) a DH82a is a more challenging aircraft to learn on, before you ask and that this will develop skills to a higher standard than a 152 does.

I'm amazed that after 50hrs in the 152 and hundreds in an aircraft that you seem to have trouble identifying with any amount of clarity that you can't compare the stall characteristics between the two types.

You should not be amazed, since I can indeed differentiate between the stalling characteristics of the Warrior and the 152, both of which are pretty benign generally, although a 152 (especially if the rigging is a little less than perfect) may surprise with a sharpish wing drop and the Warrior has restrictions on spinning which should make one think about why they exist before departing at heavier weights.

However, recovery is not generally taxing in either.

What I would not feel comfortable concluding is the thrust behind your statement that "If your still not sure research stall spin accidents involving students and the 152 and the PA28-161 Warrior, it will help you realise that the Warrior is a very good aircraft to be training in."

The implication seems to me to imply that flying a 152 carries more risk of a stall/spin than a Warrior.

That is why I wrote "I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect."

Perhaps I should have added that I am not a test pilot either, since those are the people who usually does this type of comparision and speak with authority on the conclusions.

[Final 3 Greens]

Asrian

What do You think about the Diamond Katana DA-20 as training aircraft for initial PPL-training?

I only logged a few hours on the DV20, the Austrian manufactured Katana (some years after my PPL), but it seemed to me to be a good prospect for PPL training.

What I liked was the extra shoulder room compared to a 152, the good visibility, the constant speed prop that gave good climb performance and the crisp handling/stick.

What I didn't like was trimmer, which was not a normal wheel - perhaps that is different in the DA20.

Perhaps others with more experience on type will be able to give you a better insight.

[digital.poet]

Wilson,

Given that you are about to take your first sip of the wine, you can safely ignore the healthy debate about which vintage is the best. It will take some time before you develop the pallet to be able to differentiate, and you have a lifetime to build that pallet if you decide to become a connoisseur.

I am approaching the end of my training (although the god awful weather has been getting in the way slightly!), and yet I still only understand every other word in some of the debate raging in this thread, and I am sure that generating this kind of debate was not exactly your intention.

Check that your aircraft has 2 wings (with apologies to rotorheads!), an engine (with apologies to glider pilots) and a capable instructor in the right hand seat.... if you can tick those three boxes, the aircraft is perfectly fine for your training!

Good luck and enjoy it!

[youaintseenme]

So then.........learn to fly in a cramped underpowered C152 with wings that get in the way during turns

or in a roomy comfortable more powerful PA28?

I know which one i'd choose:E

Seriously tho', it's just a matter of what you like and can afford. Don't get caught up in all the drama...

:ok:

[bjornhall]

As for which aircraft was designed as a trainer, it's pretty simple; the PA38 and the Warrior are both designed as such, they just go about it differently. And for some reason, one was only produced for 5 years, the other has been built for decades; some hint perhaps as to which is the superior trainer in most people's opinion... :E

Which is another reason to favor the PA28; if you're lucky you could get a Warrior III, or at least a recent Warrior II in good condition; not some old beat up wreck of a 152 or PA38 that students have been puking in for 25+ years... :\

On a different note, are there actually aircraft used as trainers that are unsuitable as such? What always ends up being discussed is the relative merits of the 152/172/PA28/PA38/DA40, but so what? They are all excellent trainers, so makes no difference whatsoever...

[poss]

Perfect trainer , lovely and stable good predictable stall chracteristics and vaer capable .


I wouldn't call predictable stall characteristics a good feature of a trainer. Training in a aeroplane that you can easily predict stalls in means that transitioning to aeroplanes in which stalls are a lot easier to get into and less predictable you will be in trouble. Mainly a reason why a few pilots will not fly a Tomahawk. Warriors are not certified for spins either meaning that you miss out on a very important lesson that, even though is not part of the PPL syllabus, a good instructor would want you to know via demonstration or, if you want to learn, to be able to recover from one.
Our club has a very well maintained pair of Tomahawk MK2's (the mark of tomahawk that the tail didnt fall off when spinning in) and Piper Warror II... i've flown a different range of planes and I would recommend the PA38 out of them all as a trainer of choice, i'd say why but no doubt you've heard it all before.

[homeguard]

G-EMMA

Stop being so rude.

The Warrior was never intended to be an ab-intio trainer as such. Its market was perhaps akin to the Reps car, that is a Ford Escort or Mondeo. Piper offered luxury interiors in Velour or leather as an option to suit that market. Cessna stayed with the flying farmer. Piper also went to great lengths to remove characteristics that the commuter buyer didn't like - such as a wing drop at the stall and they built in as much stability as possible. Unlike its predecessor the Cherokee 140 which is much less stable, the aeroplane has never been cleared for deliberate spinning which at the time was a mandatory exercise in the PPL syllabus. As a retrofit little wedge things were added to the wing leading edge to minimise any tendency to a wing drop at the stall. Some of us Instructors were a bit annoyed at the time.

The Cadet was designed when Piper were going bust, presumably to ease cash flow and I believe credit from suppliers was tight. Manufactoring costs were reduced by not having a luggage door and no third window. The aircraft was sold without an engine/propellor, radios. The interior was kept simple. The panel became a bare flat metal sheet. The aircraft was sold very cheaply indeed but the buyer arranged with the dealer for the engine fit and customised the panel and radio spec. The package was very attractive to flying clubs looking to buy new aircraft on a tight budget.

Having four seats allows clubs to use the aircraft both as a trainer and also a tourer. The C150, slow and only two seats, can be cramped but otherwise it is a dedicated classroom as is the PA38. The PA38 is roomier with greater leg room but had many faults.

Emma, please enjoy your flying training and the Warrior. Whatever the arguments if you have fallen in love with the Warrior, wonderful. I wish you all the best and I intend to say nothing that will take the edge off your obvious enjoyment.

[blackdog of norwich]

Hi 321 Wilson,

Would you be off to South Africa by any chance?

Black Dog

[PompeyPaul]

Afternoon

Im new to the forum and would like to say Hello.

I'm hopefully starting my P.P.L soon, however my local airfield only teaches on PA-28 warrior

I would like to hear your opinion on this aircraft, I've flown in one before and i loved it.

thanks for your time

Wilson
Hi Wilson, like others said, welcome to your PPL training. It really is an exciting thing to get involved in and before you know it you'll have a brown wallet from the CAA with your newly minted PPL inside.

I would agree with what most people above said, apart from the squabbles between G-EMMA et al :ouch: (which looked dreadfully dull to wade through) but only offer the follow idea to the melting point:

I did all of my training in a PA28 and it was a great training aircraft. Now I've graduated and have built a few hours (yes, to the golden ones on pprune.com I'm still a rookie) I'm looking at hiring at more providers than my FTO. The only thing is there seem to be far, far, far more C172s out there than PA28's for hire.

Given my time again, and if I had an infinite set of choices, I would choose to train in a C172 since it gave me more scope after I had got the license.

Yes you can convert with a few hours, but I'm just so comfortable with the warrior and know the Vx, Vy numbers straight away (you'll learn about those during your training) where as I'm not comfortable that I would on a C172 even with 5 hours difference training.

If you only have a choice of PA28 or C152, and cost isn't an issue, then there's probably enough difference between the C152 & C172 to not really benefit you taking the cessna. Certainly the Pa28 will be "easier" because there's much more room available and so makes it easier to mess about with maps (again golden ones, I know what's going to kill you isn't inside the aircraft and you should be looking outside etc etc) which makes the training just that little bit easier.

If there were a C172 available though, I'd choose to train on that.

And no, before the golden ones come on and start screaming that statistics and the CAA and some bloke down the pub who invented flying show that there are more PA28s than cessna's about the place, I'm just saying from my point of view and I haven't done a detailed survey.

[PompeyPaul]

Having four seats allows clubs to use the aircraft both as a trainer and also a tourer.
Strange given with 4 up in a P28-141 you can just about carry a thimbleful of fuel!

[DBisDogOne]

Agree with Julian Storey, either's a good solid training/GA aircraft, I've flown both (>120 hrs on PA28's) and there are advantages/disadvantages to both as well as personal likes/dislikes. Neither is fancy/sexy/clever nor tries to be which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

To be honest though, it doesn't really matter what you train in, your choice is going to be limited anyway, C150/152/172, PA28 (various types Cadet/Cherokee etc), Robin (various) or maybe a DA20 Diamond (poss. more expensive??).
It's a bit like being over-fussy about the make of small hatchback you learn to drive in. The only exception would be dependent on your height, if you're much over 5'10" a C150/152 will be a bit cramped legroom-wise, (I know, I trained in a C150 and am 6'1"!!) but the C172 is fine in that respect.

If I was doing it again, I'd try several different aircraft and choose the one I felt most comfortable with in conjuction with being happy with the school and instructors (& of course, price).

Whatever you choose, have fun and good luck.

[IFollowRailways]

Just to continue the myths............

very well maintained pair of Tomahawk MK2's (the mark of tomahawk that the tail didnt fall off when spinning in)

Quotes from the 162-page review of the Piper Tomahawk on behalf of the AOPA Air safety Foundation, which includes statistical safety data and 74 individual accident reports

The ASF report found no in-flight failures of the much-maligned Tomahawk empennage (tailplane)................. The “aggressive” spin reputation of the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk has more to do with pilots than the airplane...........



The report also revealed a distinct Tomahawk training advantage for career pilots. “Instructors interviewed told us that pilots who learn to fly in the Tomahawk have fewer problems transitioning to larger and higher performance single-engine airplanes" !!!!!

[DX Wombat]

One thing about the PA28 is that a lot of FTO's use them for the IMC, so if you're planning on progressing to the IMC it might be an idea to stay put on the PA28?Why? I am doing my IMC in a perfectly adequately equipped C152. I also fly a DA40TDi which fully airways compliant.
so the PA28-161 isn't a good trainer because it does everything that Piper meant it to do to be a good trainer It was designed as a tourer and migrated to the training area.
G-EMMA, I am appalled by your rudeness to people with FAR greater knowledge and experience of teaching people to fly in light aircraft. Does experience count for nothing or is only your opinion of any worth?will teach you to be polite to aeroplanes and make up for learning in an easy aircraft.If you leave it until AFTER you gain your licence then you have left it too late and could well end up in serious difficulties from which you may or may not be able to recover. Hardly any of the PPL course is basic handling anyway, you will be glad of the stable platform when circuit bashing in blustery conditions and doing your first solo navs. If that is really how you are being taught then I suggest you find yourself a good, reputable FTO which will teach you how to fly properly. I have a few hours in PA28s (including RG) and PA38s and found them heavy and far less responsive than the C152. That is NOT to say they are unsuitable for training, it is merely how I found them. It is intersting to note however that of those of us who converted to the DA40, it was those who flew the C152 who found it brilliant to fly, whilst those who flew the PA28 described it as "very twitchy". Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the C152 has to be flown, you can't just treat it like a motorised airborne pram?
It is interesting to note that a very well respected CPL (amongst other things) examiner once told me that he could always tell which of the CPL candidates he was examining had learned in a C152 because they were the ones who knew what to do with their feet - ie they knew how to use the rudder properly and were well coordinated.Do you remember why it says here to learn not to inform F3G? You keep using the title ad nauseum as I knew you would. You have a very short memory.

The fact is there is very little difference in the qualities of the aircraft.
....................... Thankfully plenty of time for me to get lots of experience and remain just as emphatic as ever.G-EMMA, I really hope you get the time to learn and obtain good experience, but with your apparent "Iam the only one who is right and I know it all" attitude, I fear that, in the words of a former FI who helped to teach me, "I forsee a starring rolefor X in an AAIB report." If you get off your high horse and put your hyperbole to bed for a while, I strongly recommend you take this advice to heart, listen and learn. I really do NOT want you, or anyone else to end up as an AAIB statistic.

[foxmoth]

Check that your aircraft has 2 wings

Personally I find nothing wrong with types that have 2 sets of wings (normally called Biplanes).:p

[Captain Smithy]

Come on folks, seriously, arguing about what aircraft is best... I thought we'd all be past that by now. :rolleyes:

I agree with DBisDogOne - if you're learning then what does it matter? Do you miss what you haven't yet had? I speak as a mere student (on PA-38) myself, only a humble 25 hours.

P.S. Muchos bullshyte spouted about the Tomahawk as usual, nothing wrong with it, read the POH and fly with an instructor first as you would with any other aircraft and all is OK. And I have never heard of tails falling off... utter mince. Most people who smite the Tommy (e.g. on these sorts of threads on PPRuNE) have never even flown one. I wouldn't dare criticise any other type because I've only ever flown the Tommy (well, OK, I had a couple of goes in a G115E as an Air Cadet but that doesn't really count). Why can't we all just get on here?

[dan design]

Hi 231W - bet you're glad you asked!:D


Enjoy you're flying whatever aircraft you learn in.

[Insight]

LOL Look what you started :) 231W

[Piper.Classique]

well you could always learn in a cub.......