C172 -> PA28-161 Time needed to convert?..

[TODA.1]

I would value your opinion as to the length of time it would take to achieve solo status on a PA28.161.
I am a PPL holder, with c.80 hours, 30hrs C172SP, 35hrs C152, 10 hrs gliding and 5 other SEP's. I am yet to experience flight in the PA28.

With this in view, what time frame should one aim for to achieve solo standard in a PA28?

Kind regards to all informative replies in advance!
TODA.1

[Unusual Attitude]

Guess like everything in flying it varies person to person but as long as you've studied the POH and are reasonably current I'd suggest its probably only 1 or 2 flights. Seem to recall thats what I had to do but it was about 18 years ago!!!

Regards

UA

[Mach Jump]

I'd suggest its probably only 1 or 2 flights.

Sounds about right to me.

Do your homework with the POH, be familiar with the systems, speeds, mass and balance, and takeoff / landing performance. Then up to an hour of G/H and an hour of circuits should easily cover it for most folks.


MJ:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

I agree with MJ

Assuming you show up with good flying skills, Around 1 hour on the ground to go over the POH, systems, and the walk around and 1 hour flight time including 3 or 4 circuits to get use to the airplane.

[Straighten Up]

My sign off from c152 to pa28 was a couple of flights with an instructor - one in the circuit with different approaches (normal/flapless/glide) and one doing stalls just to note the different characteristics in the stall. I think you could probably do it in one 90min flight (pilot dependent) if you have read the POH beforehand.

Main differences I recall are switching fuel tanks every half hour and adding fuel pump into your pre take off and pre landing checks. Also a bit more float in the flare due to lower wing and more pronounced ground effect.

Overall I prefer it to 152/172.

[Steevo25]

I just did my conversion. I learnt in a 152 and then converted to a 172 which was 1 hour. I then went on to the PA28 of which I had 2 hours in.

[TODA.1]

Great response, thank you all for your info. Better than expected in terms of time needed, POH is in the mail!

Thanks all!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with everybody else.

Three gotchas going from C172 to PA28:-

(1) Numerous instructors will advocate extra speed on approach. You really don't need it - stick to the speed in the manual.

(2) The manual says not to use use carb heat on approach unless there is evidence of carb icing. This is rather different to a C172 where it's pretty much mandatory. I have 100+hrs on a -161 and never saw signs of carb icing with, or without, the carb heat including right in the middle of the icing curve.

(3) No door on the pilots side, which is irritating as you can't get your pax strapped in then have a last walk around the aeroplane.


Apart from that, they are pretty similar to fly, enjoy.

G

[slam525i]

(2) The manual says not to use use carb heat on approach unless there is evidence of carb icing. This is rather different to a C172 where it's pretty much mandatory. I have 100+hrs on a -161 and never saw signs of carb icing with, or without, the carb heat including right in the middle of the icing curve.

Funny. I transitioned from the 172 to a PA28. 100+ hours in Cessnas and never saw carb ice. I had 4 hours on the PA28 when I got carb ice in 75% power cruise. At 1000 AGL. At night. (This happened just 2 nights ago.)

It took 4 minutes of carb heat and me wondering if we were going to be able to maintain altitude before we recovered full power. By that point, I was already within gliding distance of the airport I had diverted towards.

Don't take it for granted that a Lycoming powered PA28 won't get carb ice.

[A and C]

Normally the C152 to PA20-180 checkout at the club I instruct at is about an hour in the air.

However there is about three hours on the ground looking at the technical aspects such as W&B, aircraft performance and the Avionic system.

As the PA28-180 is the first aircraft that the guys will fly that can take them distances that can make fuel consumption and engine management critical and they can load the aircraft outside the limits while also being well away from the eye of an instructor we like to make sure that the guy is not going to make any stupid mistakes.

As the pilots have been trained to fly the C152 IAW the manual speeds we have no problem with them flying the PA28 at the correct speeds so the actual flying of the aircraft is not a big part of the conversation.

[thing]

I had 4 hours on the PA28 when I got carb ice in 75% power cruise. At 1000 AGL. At night. (This happened just 2 nights ago.)
I had carb icing on my very first flight in a 28! It's the only time I've ever had it in any aircraft as far as I know.

To the OP, I would say one flight with general handling and a few circuits chucked in at the end will do it. The biggest difference IMO is the view, you can actually see where you are going when you turn. Quite novel at first.

[18greens]

Pa 28s are cool , quadrant throttle, low wing, rudder trim and all the diffs the above posters have mentioned which are all very valid.

But the coolest thing about the pa 28 is the manual flap lever. Electric flap is so naff and slow. It's the only aircraft where you can really show the effect of flap. Chunking the flap in shows that attitude change immediately. Electric flap is so slow the attitude changes kind of morph.

The best fun is demonstrating full flap to zero flap retraction in one go at go around speed ( at a suitable height). That will peel the skin back from your eyes and make you understand why you retract flap gradually.

Great training aeroplane.

[OhNoCB]

About an hour or so. Also remember to switch fuel tanks.

Speaking of PA28 flap, I have seen people holding the lever up (giving an extra inch or so of travel above the last 'notch') and claiming it makes all the difference. Any thoughts? :O

[Johnm]

Speaking of PA28 flap, I have seen people holding the lever up (giving an extra inch or so of travel above the last 'notch') and claiming it makes all the difference. Any thoughts?



Drivel :rolleyes:

[Genghis the Engineer]

About an hour or so. Also remember to switch fuel tanks.


Not a particularly unique system, but I just use the long hand of my watch.

If it's pointed right, I should be on the right wing tank; if it's pointed left, I should be on the left wing tank.

Tends to ensure a tank change about every half an hour, keeps me in balance, and requires virtually no mental effort to get right.

G

[Johnm]

The Garmin Aera tells me when to switch tanks, set to do it every half hour. On short flights I tend to switch tanks when preparing for the approach.

[Mach Jump]

I have seen people holding the lever up (giving an extra inch or so of travel above the last 'notch') and claiming it makes all the difference.

Hardly 'Drivel'. I'm sure it makes some difference, but if you feel you need to do this to get into a strip, maybe you shouldn't really be going there at all.

In that situation I think your hand would be better on the throttle ready to go around.


MJ:ok:

[A and C]

I tend to agree with Mach Jump, the extra flap movement will make no difference at all apart from putting the aircraft in the hedge at the far end of the runway because your hand is in the wrong place to get the power on for the go around.

As for 18 Greens pitch change demo, rather than demonstrating what you should not do, I would have favoured teaching the positive aspects of slowing the aircraft to about 70 KTS before deploying any flap thereby avoiding an uncomfortable amount of pitch change and being gentile on the aircraft.

As to it being a good trainer, it is an adequate trainer............ The C152, PA38 & DHC-1 are good trainers.

[porterpat]

who would fly ay 1000 ft at night, what about lowest safe?

[Flyingmac]

who would fly ay 1000 ft at night, what about lowest safe?

Does MSA vary according to light levels?

[Genghis the Engineer]

As to it being a good trainer, it is an adequate trainer............ The C152, PA38 & DHC-1 are good trainers.

Agreed - the PA28 is there to train baby airline pilots in hand flown precision nav. It does that adequately well.

Only problem is that they'll rarely fly hand flown precision nav, and good handling skills or managing stuff that's quite unreliable, would serve them much better.

G

[Johnm]

Why in the 21st century do we think it necessary to train pilots in aeroplanes that don 't really work properly because they were designed 100 years ago:ugh:

[slam525i]

I would have favoured teaching the positive aspects of slowing the aircraft to about 70 KTS before deploying any flap thereby avoiding an uncomfortable amount of pitch change and being gentile on the aircraft.

Nothing wrong with that at all, except sometimes flaps are good for slowing the aircraft down and one should know what to expect dropping the flaps at the top of the white arc. Also, dropping the flaps at low speed, one needs to be aware of the increased drag and not lose too much speed after.

who would fly ay 1000 ft at night, what about lowest safe?

Minimum safe was about the height I cruised at. I also had obstacle and terrain awareness on 2 separate devices, 1 of which also showed me the clearance before I took off. That said, flying at 1000 AGL at night isn't great, and contributed to where I ended up (I diverted). The reason I was at 1000 AGL was because the traffic area of our "big" airport is nearby, and everyone VFR gets pushed down by ATC to the same height. Trust me, I don't like flying at only 1000, especially at night. In my defence, there's no alternative (except to not fly), and it's considered perfectly normal and safe by everyone (probably because of the lack of alternatives).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Why in the 21st century do we think it necessary to train pilots in aeroplanes that don 't really work properly because they were designed 100 years ago:ugh:

Because that's what they'll fly after training?

Speaking as an instructor, the more failures and emergencies I can simulate in training, the better a pilot I should produce. But the odd real minor problem has training value as well.

G

[porterpat]

lowest is 1500

rubbish!
If you can't or won't fly at he min safe below cta stay on the ground, or get a clearance

[slam525i]

lowest is 1500
rubbish!
If you can't or won't fly at he min safe below cta stay on the ground, or get a clearance

I was VFR under their control at the bottom edge of their Class C airspace.

I don't know if you're rubbishing me, my flying abilities, what I said, or Nav Canada for their airspace allocation. I also don't know where you get the idea that ATC is only allowed to direct us to fly at 1500 AGL or higher. (Maybe those are your regulations in Australia?)

[A and C]

Looks like it will be handbags a dawn !