Best training airplane?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Here is a question for all you people out there in the flying community, especially flight instructors.

What is your choice for the best training airplane you have taught / learned on?

For me it is the Fleet Canuck a tube and fabric tail wheel airplane that was designed and built in Canada.

It has the best combination of control balance, response and all around flying characteristics of any airplane I have used for teaching basic flying skills at the PPL and CPL level on.

What is yours?.

[IFMU]

I learned in a PA12. It is a great airplane for the private rating.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Rans S6. Tolerates beginner's errors very much but does not let its pilot get lazy.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

dHC 1 Chipmunk. Won't bite unless really provoked, but very difficult to fly well, and immensely rewarding to fly well! Will not mask a pilot's mistakes, but unlikely to kill him for them!

[Flyingmac]

Bulldog.....

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Chuck,

For my money, the best basic training aeroplane is another Canadian design namely the De Havilland Chipmunk.

The RAF used it as their basic trainer for donkey's years; that must say something.

Regards,

BP.

[Johnm]

PA 28, works like any other sensible aeroplane so suitably representative.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think the airplane you learn on is ultimately irrelevant. By far the greatest determinate of flight training success is the quality of your instructor.

A good instructor will teach you to be a good pilot on any airplane. I have personally taught the PPL on the 7 AC Champ, C 120, C 150, C 172, Pa 28 series PA 38 and the Nanchang CJ6A. I personally don't think there was any significant difference on how the student turned out that was related to the airplane.

[PBY]

Luscombe is a great airplane. With proper training, it is not a problem.
But otherwise can bite. Pleasure to fly, though. Lost to Cessna as a trainer due to narrow undercarriage.

[Them thar hills]

Without a doubt, the trusty Rollason Condor.

Tailwheel, very pleasant controls, and will spin convincingly.

All of the Condors I learned to fly in had the placard "All aircraft bite fools"
A truer word was never spoken.
This was in 1972/3 !!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

This is an interesting discussion.

So far most of the airplanes tend to be tail wheel airplanes which makes sense as learning to fly on a tail wheel airplane "" DOES '' make for a better hands and feet pilot compared to learning on a nose wheel airplane.

I never got the chance to fly the Chipmunk but that is the one machine I would like to fly just because of what everyone says about it.

I am getting to the age now where I like to just sit and remember all the neat things my over sixty years in aviation has allowed me to experience.

My last day flying in the air show business was probably one of the most exciting for me because when they parked me in the parking place for the next two days of flying I fuc.in near died from excitement because right in front of me was a Grumman Tiger Cat painted dark blue....

....of all the airplanes on earth that is my very favorite one and I spent the next two days with the guy who was flying it.

And being parked right behind him I got to taxi out behind him and hold right beside the runway while he did his display.....it was awesome, simply awesome the power that machine has.

That was my last day in the airshow flying business and couldn't have been better.

Wow.....that was in October 2005 almost ten years ago...yup I'm getting old. :O:O:O

[Mach Jump]

It depends on what you want to achieve.

If you want to produce the best pilots/eliminate the less able, then something demanding, with lots of adverse yaw will defeat the less able, and make the Instructor work harder with the ones who make it.

If you want to be able to teach almost anyone who walks in off the street to fly, You need something more benign, and forgiving of hamfistedness. (Is that even a word?) These aircraft can, however lead to sloppy instruction.

I agree with both BPF and Johnm. A good Instructor is far more important than an ideal aircraft, although some aircraft are so benign that some things are impossible to demonstrate in a meaningful way, and learning in something broadly representative of the types of aircraft you are likely to fly in the future is probably best.


All of the Condors I learned to fly in had the placard "All aircraft bite fools"
A truer word was never spoken.
This was in 1972/3 !!

TTH. I too flew Condors in Yorkshire in the 70s. Was G-AYFD one of them?


MJ:ok:

Ps. Chuck, Get to fly a Chipmunk soon. It has the sweetest, best balanced handling of anything I've ever flown. Now, if only it had another 50hp and a CSU.........;)

[GGR155]

First entry in logbook is Rollason Condor, trial lesson. Then PA 28 followed by C172 but without a doubt my favourite the Beagle Pup.

[Wolvesflyer]

Grob 115.......

[ecosse]

Ikarus C42 :D

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If you want to be able to teach almost anyone who walks in off the street to fly, You need something more benign, and forgiving of hamfistedness. (Is that even a word?) These aircraft can, however lead to sloppy instruction.

Worse, they can lead to disillusion. I did my PPL on the dreadfully-handling C150 and seriously considered jacking it in as the aeroplane was so unresponsive and rubbery to fly; like having sex wearing a leather condom.

Then I flew the Chipmunk. Oh! This was flight as it should be! And a few other aeroplanes with adverse yaw etc but really nice to fly kept me in the fold. That led to decades of aviation fun I'd have missed if I'd never flown anything nice in those early months.

[Them thar hills]

MJ
Yes, I remember G-AYFD, G-AVZE and G-AWEI all at Sherburn in the early '70's (perhaps also G-AWSO and G-AVOH ?? - I'd have to dig out my first log book to check)
My first solo was on 'EI and it's still around despite all the "wear and tear" of being a club trainer and another life with Mike Peare's Condor Club.

They don't make trainers like that any more, more's the pity !

TTH

[Mach Jump]

Sorry, I rambled on a bit in my last post, without answering the OPs question.

I think you would go a long way before you found a better all-rounder than the Slingsby T67c for basic training.


MJ:ok:

Ps. TTH, I think the T67 is the modern day Condor, and may be a distant relative through it's French ancestry.

[PAPI-74]

I agree, the Firefly is a great machine, but it drinks fuel and is a bit noisy - great fun, just don't have the bad habit of picking up the wing with rudder in the stall.
The PA38 is a sweetie but can be unforgiving - the PA28 has blind spots when teaching nav.
The Bulldog is strange for students to fly left handed, but lovely to play with.

I think, for me anyway, a nice new C172 is the best. Great for trial lessons with Granny in the back, stable yet sporty and loves a field beat-up!
I had a share in a PA28-235 in '95 but was sold on the injected 172.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To instruct - I think that the AA5 is a firm favourite with me for handling, ergonomics and teaching of systems management at about the right level.

When I was a newish student I think that the aeroplane I most enjoyed learning in was the CFM Shadow. As an engineer I think it has a great deal lacking about it - but as a student, it was a superb learning environment.

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Just another personal observation regarding ab-initio flight training.

A lot of people claim it is more intimidating for a student to teach them on a tail wheel airplane than on a nose wheel airplane.

However from my experience in learning and teaching there is no real difference time wise between students learning on tail wheel airplanes versus nose wheel...they just have better airplane handling skills when they finish than those who learned on nose wheels.

When I learned we only had tail wheel trainers, the nose wheel machines did not appear on the scene until the late fifties.

Also we used two stage amber when teaching instrument flight.....no one ever heard of wearing a hood.

Wearing a hood to simulate IMC is like someone else said here a few posts ago it is like wearing a leather condom to have sex.

[A and C]

I will take a guess that more than 50 % of the worlds current pilots have flown the C152 at some time during training.

When it comes to basic flying training and economics it's hard to beat the C152.

Chuck

There are some who like the leather thing !

[cumulusrider]

The problem with older designs like the 150/152 is the internal space. Humans are getting bigger with every generation. I am wide across the shoulders and found it difficult to fly with an instructor of average dimensions.

[Cows getting bigger]

Citabria 7ECA

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

When it comes to basic flying training and economics it's hard to beat the C152.

Which is why most flying schools use them. It's possible to turn those of mediocre skill and aptitude into qualified PPLs in a short time using them! If I ran a flying school I'd most likely do the same, or the competition would put me out of business with cheaper PPL courses and higher pass rates!

However, in my book that does NOT make them a good basic trainer. Probably the reverse!

[Miroku]

Robin HR 200.


After this aircraft, a Piper Warrior / Cessna 172 were like flying buses!

[9 lives]

a Piper Warrior / Cessna 172 were like flying buses!

It's possible to turn those of mediocre skill and aptitude into qualified PPLs in a short time using them

I agree.

[It's possible to turn those of mediocre skill and aptitude into qualified PPLs in a short time using them!] .....

However, in my book that does NOT make them a good basic trainer. Probably the reverse!

Not so fast...

If a candidate learns to fly in a demanding, yet forgiving aircraft does this not provide an environment for better learning? Better learning results in a better pilot, so the objective was met? The tool did the job?

My other airplane is not at all nice in the air, and worse on the runway. It is a constant effort to keep it straight and level, and co-ordinated. A total attention demander to prevent groundlooping. I could think it is not a "good" aircraft because of this, but if you can fly it well, you can probably fly most planes well, because they are more stable, and much more nicely harmonized.

For myself, I find that when I master the less pleasant plane, the more pleasant planes come naturally. Does that not make the less pleasant plane a better trainer?

[shortstripper]

The best aeroplane to learn in? - A glider of course! :ok:

I converted to power by way of Tigermoth and Supercub, with some of the nav in a C150. I'd say the DH82 was a terrible trainer as I couldn't really hear the instructor. So a lot of the learning was in the briefing and de-briefing. That said, I enjoyed it and solo'd pretty quick - so it wasn't too bad. I'm another who loved the odd flight I had in a Chipmunk, but I've never flown one in the 26 years since I passed my PPL, so hardly and informed opinion.

Having come from flying gliders and the taildraggers, I can't imagine how learning on a nosewheel aeroplane could have been any easier? You learn to fly what you learn to fly in. At that point you have no preconceived ideas that one type is any more difficult than another? As someone else said ... Your instructor is the most influential ingredient in the learning process.

SS

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If a candidate learns to fly in a demanding, yet forgiving aircraft does this not provide an environment for better learning? Better learning results in a better pilot, so the objective was met? The tool did the job?

But the C150 / 152 is not a demanding aeroplane. For a start, it doesn't demand you co-ordinate rudder and ailerons and doesn't reward you with crisp roll/turn performance if you do (it doesn't care if you do or don't!), it doesn't display classic stall characteristics (masking them with lots of washout and limited elevator authority) and it certainly doesn't demand you land it properly! (Land-o-Matic undercarriage was Cessna's claim!).

Most rewarding things in life are also demanding. The C150 / 152 is neither.

[9 lives]

But the C150 / 152 is not a demanding aeroplane

SSD, I agree with your observation. Though I stand by the theme of what I wrote, your point is quite valid.

[Big Pistons Forever]

.

For myself, I find that when I master the less pleasant plane, the more pleasant planes come naturally. Does that not make the less pleasant plane a better trainer?

If you take that premise to the logical conclusion than everyone should do their PPL on a 2 seat Pitts. Of course if that were to happen I bet only about 5 % would finish, but yes they would have pretty awesome hands and feet. Unfortunately GA as we know it wouldn't last very long under that model.

I think one has to be careful to not slide into the hero pilot hubris of "I must be a better pilot than you because I learned on a ( insert airplane type here)".

Precise aircraft control is a choice. You can fly a C 172 very accurately or let it fly you. Yes it is true that the margin for error is higher in the C 172 than some other types but that doesn't mean you should not make the effort to fly it well.

This point directly relates to my early comment about the importance of good instruction. A good instructor in a C172 will instill the desire and ability to fly the airplane properly and that skill will transfer to any other aircraft they fly

Finally there often seems to be an under current of "real" pilots fly taildraggers when ever this topic comes up. The hands and feet skills are important but so is the knowledge and judgement and pilot decision making skills which are airplane independent.

I know a guy can grease the more demanding taildraggers on in a gusting cross wind every time, however he is pretty much universally considered as a accident in waiting, time and place to be determined, due to his massive ego and constant gratuitous risk taking.

[c100driver]

The best aeroplane for flight training is the one that gets the most new pilots in the air and through to a completed pilot certificate.

GA needs more people to take up flying!

[9 lives]

The best aeroplane for flight training is the one that gets the most new pilots in the air and through to a completed pilot certificate.

GA needs more people to take up flying! :ok::D

This point directly relates to my early comment about the importance of good instruction

I entirely agree that good instruction is the key to a good pilot, but the question was about airplane type, not instructor type... ;)

[Pace]

Sia Marchetti SF260 flew one twice and loved it

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Best training airplane ? For purely selfish reasons it would be the C 172. It seems to be one of the few GA trainers that has a comfortable seating position and enough shoulder room for me, plus you can open the window on the ground during hot days and stand under the wing when it is raining to "supervise" the students walk around. :ok:

[Pace]

BPF

Well the Grumman Tiger should suit you ;) loved the aeroplane and you could roll the canopy back on hot days even in flight for a bit of fresh air extravaganza :ok:

Pace

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I had a Grumman Cheetah in my school and just loved it, beautiful flying machine.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Step Turn, when I was in the training business I also had Cessna 150's because they were good cheap and reliable.

I got to thinking about it and converted a Cessna Aerobat to a Texas Tail Dragger which made it a far better trainer in my opinion, not only could I teach basic flying on it I could teach basic aerobatics legally with it.

I sold it to a good friend who still has it parked beside his Husky Amphib in his hangar in Pitt Meadows....he loves the thing and fly's it regularly.

[Big Pistons Forever]

BPF

Well the Grumman Tiger should suit you ;) loved the aeroplane and you could roll the canopy back on hot days even in flight for a bit of fresh air extravaganza :ok:

Pace

You don't have to convince me as one of the airplanes I own is a Grumman AA1B. It is a great flying airplane roomy, excellent visibility and with delightfully light and effective controls but I can see why it did not succeed as a flying school aircraft. It is just not built tough enough to survive ab initio students.

[fatmanmedia]

one thing that i have noticed in this thread is that most of the aircraft mentioned are older aircraft, most of them are from the '70s no one has mentioned any new aircraft, nothing from diamond or pipistral..

Learning to fly in something that is older than you or even your parents will not get new people in to the field as much as we would like.

A good sable platform to learn is more important at the start than a aircraft with "interesting" handling characteristics, you don’t learn to drive a car in a 1970's Stag so why should you learn to fly in a 1970's aircraft.

fats

[Chuck Ellsworth]

A good sable platform to learn is more important at the start than a aircraft with "interesting" handling characteristics, you don’t learn to drive a car in a 1970's Stag so why should you learn to fly in a 1970's aircraft.

I will try and answer your question, at least from my experience with airplanes.

In my first post here I gave my preference for the ideal training airplane picked from the long list of airplanes I have taught on.

The Fleet Canuck was built in 1945/46.

Its handling characteristics are exceptional and in no way difficult to fly because it " IS " a excellent stable platform.

The age of an airplane really is not the governing factor of how it fly's, it is the design of the airplane that counts.

If we go to bigger airplanes my favorite machine for teaching on is the DC3 it is a magnificent design and fly's like a dream and was made in the 1930's.

Modern does not always relate to good.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Modern does not always relate to good.

Modern also does does not always relate to bad either. All airplanes have their strengths and weaknesses. Old ones are not necessarily better just because they are an old design.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The best part of these forums is it allows each of us to share our thoughts on how we think and what our preferences are.

I have shared my preferences and you have shared yours B.P.F.

Best training airplane ? For purely selfish reasons it would be the C 172.

What could be more fair than the pleasure of sharing our preferences?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The best part of these forums is it allows each of us to share our thoughts on how we think and what our preferences are.



Absolutely, which is why you should contribute to the Accidents and Close Call thread, like I just did. :ok:

In your stated 50 + years of flying I am sure you have had a few close calls.

[IFMU]

I don't know if it is the best, but I will be teaching my boys to fly in our tailwheel Waiex when we finish building it.

[A and C]

In an ideal world I would like to teach on the Chipmunk but the cost of maintenance makes basic PPL training on it prohibitively expensive, second choice should be the Piper Cub not as expensive as the Chipmunk but in its own way as nice to fly but still more expensive than the C152.

The bottom line is if we have to use the inexpensive and lacklustre C152 to get people through the front door then so be it, once they have a PPL we can work on getting them into more interesting aircraft.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

A and C, absolutely agree. That's what happened to me! The trick is to keep the 'keen' PPL folk interested enough to complete the PPL in the disappointing C150 in order they can 'discover' the more interesting machines.

In our case (there were several of us keen young lads in the same boat) a wise CFI realised this and organised the founding of a Chipmunk group, which we joined immediately on qualifying for the licence.

[9 lives]

The trick is to keep the 'keen' PPL folk interested enough to complete the PPL in the disappointing C150 in order they can 'discover' the more interesting machines.

These keen folk might not be so quickly disappointed, if they were not being told that they should be! Many of them are probably just delighted to be off the ground at all, and awesomely proud when they do it solo! Why spoil the mood for them?

I know many people who were very keen to learn to fly a floatplane. They would be equally disappointed with an attempt to take off a Chipmunk, as a C152 - from the water!

It's all a matter of your hopes and expectations at the beginning level.....

[Pace]

Always remember the tale of the Piper Cub pilot flying low and slow one summer morning! He looked up and saw a retractable single zoom past overhead

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The retractable pilot looked up and saw a fast turboprop high in the sky

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The turboprop pilot looked up and saw a PAX jet fly past way high

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The Airline pilot looked up and saw Concord zoom past way High

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The silver haired Concord Captain looked down on that clear sunny morning and saw a tiny yellow speck of the Piper Cub flying low over the beautiful countryside

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy" :ok:

Flying business jets in IFR and CAS exclusively i flew a Cessna 152 for the first time since my PPL 28 years ago and never had such fun ;) it was like coming back to an old friend and stirred many memories of times past!

its strange in life when we start we are driven for better and better and loose sight of what gave us such a massive thrill in the first place

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

These keen folk might not be so quickly disappointed, if they were not being told that they should be! Many of them are probably just delighted to be off the ground at all, and awesomely proud when they do it solo! Why spoil the mood for them?

I know many people who were very keen to learn to fly a floatplane. They would be equally disappointed with an attempt to take off a Chipmunk, as a C152 - from the water!

It's all a matter of your hopes and expectations at the beginning level.....

Step, I disagree. That's not how I remember it. No-one told me I should be disappointed; it came as a shock how awful the C150 was after the gliders I'd come from, and they (Ka4 and K13) were themselves a bit ponderous, especially in roll.

Richard Bach, in his marvelously inspirational book A Gift of Wings, encapsulated my feelings perfectly:

…. perhaps in the back of our minds, as we pushed the high-winged cabin into the sky, we thought ‘This isn’t like I hoped it would be, but if it’s flying I guess it will have to do’.

[9 lives]

No-one told me I should be disappointed

Great!

But you seem to be telling everyone here with:

it came as a shock how awful the C150 was after the gliders I'd come from

Why tell everyone here? To what end?

The trick is to keep the 'keen' PPL folk interested enough to complete the PPL

We agree on that, why expend effort to defeat that as you begin?

I'm saddened to hear that you're disappointed by 150's, but that is your privilege. But you seem to want to repeatedly demean those who are happy to enjoy their 150's and similar compromise planes. I'm pleased to appreciate your love of Chipmunks, and would love to join you in a flight in one - I was thinking of your pleasing words about the Chipmunk handling, while I was enjoying rolling a Harvard last month - after 15 minutes of flying it for my first time.

But after 28 years of owning it, I enjoyed putting my 150 right on the displaced runway line yesterday, and with no fuss, turning off 200 feet later at the intersection. I taxiied to the hangar, and had the meeting my client. My cost and effort to fly myself to the meeting was negligible, and saved me an hour of my life otherwise driving there. The 150 did EXACTLY what I wanted it to do, and I was entirely happy about it.

Why cut down other people's pleasure in their flight?

What if you focused on saying only positive things about planes here?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Why tell everyone here? To what end?

Step, I think you need to haul on board that other folk may not always agree with the views you hold. And those other folk have just as much right as you do to express their views.

I wouldn't dream of telling you to keep your views (when I disagree with them) to yourself.

[Big Pistons Forever]

SSD

I think it would be unfortunate if prospective pilots reading this started with the impression that they were being short changed if they learned to fly in a C 150, or any of the other common Cessna/Piper trainers.

I do not agree with your premise and know it is possible to learn to fly in a C 150, or equivalent aircraft, and have just as good hands and feet as someone who learned in a Chipmunk, it all depends on having a good instructor.

[9 lives]

And those other folk have just as much right as you do to express their views.

Yes, our privileges are equal here in terms of expressing views, and to each their own. But in light of your agreeing that we are here to encourage new "keen" PPLs, which I entirely agree with, (and is my main reason for contributing here) I can't understand why you would want to leave those people with the impression that most of the aircraft (by type) that they are likely to encounter in a training environment are: "awful" or "disappointing".

Those aircraft may be entirely fulfilling to that keen PPL candidate, if their desire is to be safely and economically airborne, with low expectations of handling and performance. But having just earned their PPL, if a pilot buys a a modest 150, and simply enjoys the pleasure of flying it around, why would you want to so repeatedly trash that type - and by extension, his decision? I suspect that you would look down on that owner, and give them a cold shoulder with muffled remarks of disrespect, as they walked in from the ramp, where they had just parked. In my opinion, actively disapproving of something which is perfectly safe and fine for someone else, is just not helpful, and worthy of being called out.

I had occasion to fly with a friend in his pride and joy, which he had spent six years meticulously restoring. It is the last of only five ever made of a Canadian bush plane. I entered the process of assisting him with preconceived impressions of how that plane would fly, based upon having flown a number of similar sized and powered aircraft. After flying his aircraft on wheels and floats, I am left appreciating the other types more than his - in all respects other than uniqueness - where he wins hands down. But did I tell him anything negative about his plane? No! I asked if he had flown other types which were similar, and he told be he had not - I smiled, and left it at that. And he and I get along just fine. I truly appreciate his dedication to his passion, and I have no interest in reducing his pride.

If you have fleets of Chipmunks at the ready for training the next generation of PPL wannabes, I'm there shoulder to shoulder with you promoting them - simply for all the good things I've heard about them. I'm not here making factual statements on the considerable work I have done maintaining Gypsy Major engines.

Understand that I'm not knocking the positive things said about training types, I am knocking the negative things being said here abut some types, where they contribute nothing to the benefit of the discussion.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Just because some types have negative characteristics is no reason to pretend they don't. Is it a US characteristic to only post good news? If so, someone ought to tell Mr Bach.

I prefer full and frank 'real world experience' discussions to 'don't frighten the horses' white washing.

And there are plenty of aeroplanes other than Chipmunks that are nice to fly trainers. Cubs, Slingsbys, Bulldogs, Condors, Pups come to mind.

[TheiC]

I think Richard Bach's point, above, is very true.

My favourites would be Slingsby T67, Grumman AA5A, pretty well any of the Robins.

Why? Side-by-side seating is advantageous for the instructor but more importantly pleasant for the student, they are nice to handle (I would never have taken a PA28 or C152 up just to pole it round the circuit), good visibility of one's environment, and while pilots of only poor-to-moderate ability can get them safely up and down again, they reward excellent skills. Oh, and they look like real aeroplanes (which makes one feel like a real pilot).

I think flying schools very much under-estimate the things that genuinely could keep more students coming back for more.

[Crash one]

Following this thread has been interesting so far. Training aircraft have evolved over the years for various reasons. The Chipmunk was designed to accommodate the RAF, it wouldn't be much use sending a pilot off in a Spitfire to fight for his life unless he was capable of aerobatics. The 150/152 is perfect for anyone who just wants to enjoy being airborne, and is quite capable of being flung about a bit, though I wouldn't fancy my chances against a 109.
Bickering about the merits of each is counterproductive when trying to encourage people to fly.
The only thing wrong with the 150/152 is the flying school that is running them. Letting them get into the condition of a tatty skip (dumpster) is not the fault of a perfectly sound aircraft.
I would ask is it a good idea to be trained on a tailwheel like Grandpa was or is it ok to only know nosewheeling?
I note that Cubs and Condors are mentioned, am I allowed to be biased as well and suggest my Emeraude with its elliptical wing it has a good rate of roll, aerobatic in other than UK atmosphere, very few vices for a taily, used by the French airforce a while ago, and it looks nice.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I would ask is it a good idea to be trained on a tailwheel like Grandpa was or is it ok to only know nosewheeling?

That is easy to answer.

When discussing light training aircraft it is very simple to learn both gear configurations, and there sure are no shortage of both configurations.

The reason this is not done is because the training industry have opted for nose wheel airplanes in the misguided belief tail wheel airplanes are to difficult for the average person to operate.

Grandpa.....

[9 lives]

Just because some types have negative characteristics is no reason to pretend they don't

I assure you that ALL types have negative characteristics, depending upon your expectations.

Considering (just for a discussion example) the Chipmunk compared to the 150/152 as a trainer, and its market popularity, the numbers tell me that total sales of the "awful" and "disappointing" 150/152 exceeded sales of the delightful Chipmunk by 23605 aircraft. So, I guess the market spoke about the more suitable of the two for their general flight training needs.

The real world experience has been that nearly 20 times as many 150/152s have been used as Chipmunks for training, for 80% as long. I wonder today the proportion of 150/152 in primary flight training service to the number of Chipmunks in that role.......

Not at all my opinion, just data I'm aware of, no whitewashing involved.

And yes, I'm aware of many other very worthwhile trainer types, I just selected two prominent types from the preceding discussion. I seek to pronounce no opinon on the other types in this particular post. I've flown many Cubs, Cherokees, Champs, Grummans, Tomahawks, and I have many nice things to say about all of them. I'd love to fly a Bulldog, but I'm not aware of any in Canada.

I will look forward with great eagerness to my first flight in a Chipmunk. A fellow remains to fulfill his "trade" to me for some very specialized work I had to do for him, to keep his Gypsy Major running!

[Crash one]

Chuck
No doubt Grandpa, which is a myth that should definitely be stamped out. You know as well as the rest of us tailwheel sky gods that tailwheels are not difficult, just different. Just like stick shift transmissions.:ok:

[9 lives]

My other plane is a taildragger, and one of the least forgiving, in the opinion of most pilots who have flown them. And, I just bought a second, and returned it from England :O. I am delighted to think that a candidate would seek out a taildragger for PPL training. No tricycle plane builds piloting skills as well as even the nicest flying taildragger.

(And I have never owned a car with was not a manual transmission ;))

But, the training market (the clubs and schools who select the trainers) seem to prefer tricycles. Would that mean they have made their "best" selection for the role they have to fill?

[Crash one]

But, the training market (the clubs and schools who select the trainers) seem to prefer tricycles. Would that mean they have made their "best" selection for the role they have to fill?

Probably the schools decide by economics. Some prat digs a prop in the ground and it costs an engine and prop. So, they "think" a nosewheel will stop that?
Then once you get a couple of instructors who have never flown a tailwheel and they breed like rabbits. I think it's called progress:ugh:

[9 lives]

Probably the schools decide by economics. Some prat digs a prop in the ground and it costs an engine and prop. So, they "think" a nosewheel will stop that?
Then once you get a couple of instructors who have never flown a tailwheel and they breed like rabbits.

I could not agree more. "Land-O-Matic" should have been restricted to "big" planes, and pilots who already know how to fly! But, the flood gates opened, and here we are.

I learned in 150s in the '70's. When I asked for training in the sole Citabria at that club, the instruction was not competent, and I was left rather fearful of taildraggers for some time. It was a wise fellow with a Tiger Moth (which did not have a tailwheel) who taught me better.

[Crash one]

Bring back the Avro 504K it even has a skid under the nose to save the heavy handed.:cool:
I came from gliders in 2006/7
The first time I ever flew power was as a pax at the gliding club in a Jodel 1050. Pilot had only one eye and got a bit of grit in it on downwind, "here, you do it," he said. My first experience of a taildragger with a fan on the front. Closed the throttle at the end of downwind and landed power off. Prob more luck than judgement.

[skyhighfallguy]

the best training plane is one that is comfortable to student and instructor and allow large people an uncramped environment.

it should allow for both student and instructor equal access to all critical controls

it should allow excellent visibility to allow for visual clearing and vigilance in avoiding other planes/traffic


It should be robust and reliable and of pleasant, not unusual handling qualities. It should be of sufficient range and reserves to allow for long cross country requirements in obtaining both private and commercial licenses. It should also be a good instrument platform for obtaining INSTRUMENT RATING.

IT should have heated pitot and be capable of handling a lightning strike.

FOR practical purposes, I would think that the piper cherokee series is about right.


There is plenty of time to allow a student to go hunting for odd planes, tail draggers, biplanes, eaglerocks after the gentle introduction to the world of the air.

[Cusco]

Four pages and only a passing nod to the PA38 Tomahawk.

Great little aeroplane, designed by instructors purely for training.

The only training a/c that doesn't land itself so the stude learns the most difficult bit in learning to fly-the landing- at a very early stage.

Cusco

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Agreed, the Tomahawk is a nice basic trainer in fact I added one to my flying school but the instructors did not like teaching with it.

It would be nice if we could stick to discussing basic flying trainers used in the PPL area of training and not wander into advanced training such as IFR and lightening strike conditions.

You know basic training like using a Cub off a farmers grass field up to solo then move them into a something else like a Cessna or more modern Piper for instance

[flyinkiwi]

My 2c on this? I agree 100% regarding the instructor is more important than the aircraft. I would prefer to learn from someone who is as passionate about flying as I am and not some box ticking sausage factory graduate who sees me as a means to their ends.

As for the aircraft, one of the reasons I think a lot of flight schools have abandoned taildraggers is insurance. Our flying school has a 180 on the books but insurance stipulates I cannot fly it solo until I've had 10 hours dual in 180s and have more than 100 hours PIC. So much for it being an ab initio aircraft.

I am a fairly hefty bloke so fitting inside something like a Tiger Moth or a Chippie would be problematic. I think I could squeeze into a Super Cub but I don't know how comfortable I would be.

[First_Principal]

Four pages and no mention of the C-47 (DC3) either :eek:

Seems to me it addresses a number of noted shortcomings - it's not (overly) cramped, indeed they have space for a few mates to come along for the ride, you also get to fiddle about with wobbly props, multi engines and retract, and of course it's a taildragger.

Most of all they're a wonderful 'plane to fly and to learn and continue to learn from.

FP.

[tecman]

I guess I'm easy to please because I've flown and enjoyed hugely a number of the classic trainers - both nosewheel and conventional gear - mentioned in this thread. I learned to fly in a C-A150 and later owned a C150F, in which I toured a fair bit of Australia. They are great little aircraft and I never at any stage feel short-changed when flying a 150 or 152.

While I enjoy flying just about anything, I don't think we need be too crestfallen about what's on contemporary offer these days. For example, for a number of reasons (not least curiosity) I bought a used P2002JF a few years ago. It's an all-metal EASA-certified VLA (600+ kg MTOW), has a 100 hp 912s, gets along at 100 kt on 16 lph of mogas, has about 5.5 hrs endurance, a proper bubble canopy and stick, crisp and conventional handling and good shoulder room.

Is it perfect? Of course not. For a start, it's a VLA and if you're two very big guys you might find yourself limited to 3-ish hours cross-country. And it's not approved for spins. And I buy a lot of SPF50 sunscreen. Furthermore, nothing in the VLA/LSA catergory is going to have much margin for agricultural construction. However, I observe my favourite flying school now approaching 3000 hrs on a couple of P2002s, operated alongside a more traditional fleet, with few problems and many good words from instructors and students.

An enthusiastic teenager asked me a few weeks ago for a recommendation of instructors, flying schools, etc. I made the obvious point about quality of instruction being the biggest criterion but gave him my honest view that he had a range of good aircraft from which to choose, of which the P2002 (and in fact a high wing and tail-dragger stablemate) was but one.

So, keen young folks are still being captivated by little aircraft, and smart flying schools are adjusting their operations to embrace the VLA/LSA sector, often operated alongside the GA stream by the same instructors. In some ways, we might even be returning to our Cub etc roots, except that everyone wants to load up with avionics these days - but that's another story.

[Johnm]

Learning to fly on a tail dragger is a bit like learning to drive in a 1932 Alvis IMHO

[Heston]

Well given the standard of driving of many young people who have learnt on cars with power steering, synchromesh on all gears, parking sensors etc etc, I'd say that learning on a 1932 Alvis would probably be a very good idea if there were enough of them.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The only training a/c that doesn't land itself....

Um, there are a few tail wheel trainers that fit that descriptio a bit more accurately than the PA38.

....so the stude learns the most difficult bit in learning to fly-the landing- at a very early stage.

Only a tail dragger demands correct landing technique - it won't let you get away with sloppyness. Correct technique can of course be taught in a trike, but the aeroplane won't insist on it being applied. As the countless 3-pointed 172s and even wheelbarrowed ones you see every day, and the monotonous monthly reporting by AAIB of nose leg collapses gives testament to.

[Cows getting bigger]

Perhaps we should take the sting out of discussion. Personally, I think the following attributes are essential for a PPL training aircraft:

Balanced controls
The ability to clearly demonstrate the primary and secondary effects of all controls (including power/throttle).
An aircraft that rewards use of rudder
Relatively benign behaviour when executing a go-around (not totally benign, just something that allows the student to learn)
Predictable stall characteristics, demonstrating all the attributes that one could expect including buffet and wing drop.
Forgiving in the landing, notably aversion to PIOs and excessive bounces.

FUN! Something that doesn't intimidate the student.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Only a tail dragger demands correct landing technique - it won't let you get away with sloppyness. Correct technique can of course be taught in a trike, but the aeroplane won't insist on it being applied. As the countless 3-pointed 172s and even wheelbarrowed ones you see every day, and the monotonous monthly reporting by AAIB of nose leg collapses gives testament to.

For those of you who look at tail wheel airplanes with disdain and below your level as a pilot the above post is something you should ponder because it is fact.

The number of airplanes that get wrecked by pilots breaking the nose wheel gear is astonishing and undeniable proof that flight training is woefully substandard in many cases.

If every new pilot were taught to solo on a tail wheel airplane then switched to a nose wheel airplane the broken nose wheel accidents would become rare.

Also some of the most beautiful looking and flying airplanes ever built are tail wheel airplanes...the Spitfire and the DC3 are examples.

[Johnm]

Some of the most elegant cars were designed and built in the 1930s but this is 2015.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Perhaps we should take the sting out of discussion. Personally, I think the following attributes are essential for a PPL training aircraft:

Balanced controls
The ability to clearly demonstrate the primary and secondary effects of all controls (including power/throttle).
An aircraft that rewards use of rudder
Relatively benign behaviour when executing a go-around (not totally benign, just something that allows the student to learn)
Predictable stall characteristics, demonstrating all the attributes that one could expect including buffet and wing drop.
Forgiving in the landing, notably aversion to PIOs and excessive bounces.

FUN! Something that doesn't intimidate the student.

I think that is a pretty good list and the C 150 pretty much ticks every box

I have flown the Chipmunk and it is one of the nicest handling aircraft I have ever flown however from a commercial perspective it is a disaster though. Realistically a school would have to charge twice the hourly rate of a C 150, or even more to make it pay.

My advice is find a good instructor, learn in one of the common trainers, get your PPL and then search out the cool airplanes.

However if you do one thing post PPL,do this. Take an introductory aerobatic course. Even if you think you won't like aerobatics do it anyway, it will massively increase your personal skills and confidence in controlling the aircraft and you might be very surprised how much fun you are having by the end of the course. :ok:

[Pull what]

The best training aircraft ever has to be the Piper Tomahawk, its certainly taught many flying instructors a lesson

[Dr Jekyll]

Naïve question here. But why did the Beechcraft Skipper sell poorly and how did it compare to the Tomahawk?

[DirtyProp]

Guys, the discriminating factor is always money.
I learned on a Piper Tomahawk and I loved it. Then I changed school and flew the C-152. It was a dog. But it was all they had, so take it or leave.
I would looove to fly a Chipmunk, but a trainer has to be cheap. Otherwise no boys will walk through that door.

And for those of you that would love to get a flight instructor passionate about his/her job and not a time builder: are you willing to pay him more for his passion and his committment? Or just the same as the other guy?

[dobbin1]

I am fortunate to instruct at a club that has a varied fleet.

DA20A1, DA20C1, PA28, C172, DA40, T67M and L21B (SuperCub).

They are all great in their way, but I think the best trainers are the DA20A1 Katanas. Their meagre 80 HP means that the students need to get the climb speed exactly right, and the ball exactly in the middle in order to get any reasonable climb rate. The bubble canopy gives a fantastic all round view, the stall is benign (although the nose does not drop), they spin and recover nicely and they are not too easy to land. They have a CS prop, which prepares students for more advanced aircraft. Economical too, at 15LPH.

I love flying the Cub, and doing Tailwheel conversions in it, but I would not recommend it for ab initio training. The tandem seating makes it harder, and with a big student it is impossible for the instructor to see the instruments. Also not entirely happy with the student being the only person with access to the mixture and radio controls.

The T67 is also a great training aircraft, but a bit too easy to land. Great for aerobatics though!

[skyhighfallguy]

dear dr jekyl

I have had the pleasure to fly both the tomahawk and the beech skipper. They may look alike but boy the skipper is a dog. Perhaps it is so robust there power to weight ratio is not as good as the tomahawk.

The owner of our club had 2 tomahawks (by my request) and they were fine, one day he brought the skipper on line and looked at me and said : why aren't you flying it?

We both took off in it, proper weight and balance. Stall warning blaring all the time, even in level cruise flight, safe airspeed NO STALL at all. Poor climb even at sea level.

The visibility from the tomahawk is a HUGE selling point for me, I taught in an exceptionally busy area (11 airports within 30 miles) airliners, military high performance, GA, gliderport everything except balloons.

good luck all


oh, I did like the VARGA KACHINA but have not seen it mentioned.

[The Ancient Geek]

Another vote for the DA20, damn nice little aircraft.
There really is no excuse nowadays for training on old techology, especially the scruffy examples typical of so many flight schools.

The new pilots joining us in the 21st century deserve better than 40 year old aircraft with steam guages, we should be training them for the future.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The new pilots joining us in the 21st century deserve better than 40 year old aircraft with steam guages, we should be training them for the future.

I agree 100% because as time passes aircraft designers give us better equipment.

HOWEVER:

All airplanes are still controlled by the same control surfaces and the pilot still has to understand how to use these surfaces to produce the required control of the airplane....

SOOOoo...

If all new pilots were started on a Cub off a farmers grass strip until solo would not that make them ready to learn to control the modern easy to fly machines??:hmm::hmm:

[9 lives]

If all new pilots were started on a Cub off a farmers grass strip until solo would not that make them ready to learn to control the modern easy to fly machines??:hmm::hmm:

Yup! :ok:

(Or a Chipmunk, if they can find one!) ;)

[skyhighfallguy]

I truly wish I could have gotten my first rides in a cub. I did fly a supercub and enjoyed it. sadly, someone crashed our cub.

the most important gauge is the airspeed indicator in my view...just sad that it is not the biggest and first in the modern electric world

[Big Pistons Forever]

If all new pilots were started on a Cub off a farmers grass strip until solo would not that make them ready to learn to control the modern easy to fly machines??:hmm::hmm:

Flying a Cub of a grass strip is pretty awesome on a sunny summers day, not so nice on a cloudy, cold, windy December day, though

If you want to learn on a small taildragger than I think the Cessna 120/140 is a much more practical trainer than a Cub.

You pretty much would have to buy one of your own to do that now, but it is entirely possible. I had 2 PPL students that did exactly that. One had a polished aluminum one with silver doped wings that was absolutely gorgeous. The other was owned by a young man that was not rich, so it represented almost his entire net worth. It was ugly looking but still flew beautifully.

For ab initio look for a C 120/140 that has a good intercom, the gear extensions, and brakes on the right side.

[IFMU]

I like the c120/140. Having flown both gear configurations I like it without the extenders. It is a good airplane. One of the guys in the association does training in his 140. No brakes on the right and that is where he starts his students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I like the c120/140. Having flown both gear configurations I like it without the extenders. It is a good airplane. One of the guys in the association does training in his 140. No brakes on the right and that is where he starts his students.

With the instructors I know it seems they are about 50/50 on the gear extensions. The airplane is definitely easier to wheel land with the stock gear and also looks better.

I like the extenders because it makes it less likely for the student to do a nose over, especially early in the training. I feel the aircraft is also more directionally stable when 3 pointing it. However there is definitely no right or wrong answer on this issue as a lot of the preference for one style of landing gear over the other is subjective.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When I started this thread I expressed my own personal preference for the best ab-initio training airplane.

There are many different airplanes used in training people for the PPL and for sure I have not flown anywhere near all of them.

Just to expand on why I chose the Fleet Canuck it was because I found it to have the best handling characteristics of the tail wheel airplanes I learned and taught on in the early fifties until the early sixties.

The school where I learned and worked as an instructor at had four Cessna 140's and four Fleet Canucks as their main training fleet.

The Fleet Canuck did have one small drawback in that there were no brakes on the right hand side, but its handling was so good the lack of brakes for the instructor was never a problem.

In the ten or so years I observed these machines train students there was zero loss of control incidents that I know of in all the thousands of take offs and landings these machines did.

We also had some other tail wheel airplanes over the years such as the PA12 probably Pipers best little machine. We also had a Cessna 170 another nice trainer.....then of course Cessna made the " Land O Matic " 172 and we all know what happened to tail wheel training after that.

The one airplane that was a bit tricky was the Piper Pacer / Clipper without right hand brakes and it was a bit more tricky to teach on.

So basically in my personal opinion it is better to have brakes on both sides of side by side trainers, but the lack of brakes on the instructors side does not mean the airplane is not suitable as a trainer.

Of course the above is subjective supported by having thousands of take offs and landings with zero loss of control.

Oh and while I am here rambling on and on there were two airplanes over my career that I really paid attention to on the runway....the Pitts Special and the Grumman Turbo Goose those suckers keep you awake on the runway. :ok:

[shortstripper]

the most important gauge is the airspeed indicator in my view...just sad that it is not the biggest and first in the modern electric world

Don't get me started on that subject! :rolleyes: :hmm::p:E

Chuck .... I still reckon the best aircraft to learn on is a glider :D

SS

[Chuck Ellsworth]

the most important gauge is the airspeed indicator in my view...just sad that it is not the biggest and first in the modern electric world

Actually the airspeed indicator can cause some real sloppy flying that can be observed by watching poorly trained pilots chase it during climb, resulting in a roller coaster climb path.

The AOA indicator is far more useful and accurate.

[Jan Olieslagers]

The AOA indicator is far more useful and accurate.The WHAT??? I've learned to make do with keeping the horizon a stable line in the windshield. Seems to work.

I still reckon the best aircraft to learn on is a glider Seeing the gliders land at my homefield, I agree gliders seem to generally have very well-trained pilots (and extremely efficient air brakes, too...). Not always very careful of procedures, though, especially regarding ground security. But that may well be a local phenomenon.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The WHAT??? I've learned to make do with keeping the horizon a stable line in the windshield. Seems to work.

Um, right. How does that help me know how hard I can pull exiting from a loop without exceeding stall AOA? Or turn steeply using 'bank and yank' without departing?

At the risk of turning this into a mutual admiration society Chuck is right on the nail with this:

Actually the airspeed indicator can cause some real sloppy flying that can be observed by watching poorly trained pilots chase it during climb, resulting in a roller coaster climb path.

The AOA indicator is far more useful and accurate.

[DirtyProp]

What about the Alarus? Anyone got any experience with it?
Too bad they stopped making it, looks like a sound little airplane.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Further to the miss use, misunderstanding of the airspeed indicator as a flight instrument I would suggest the problem goes right back to the start of their training in lesson one, attitudes and movements, had they been correctly taught attitudes and movements and could demonstrate they understood that lesson they would not airspeed chase.

So how does that happen?

Anyone??:ugh:

[India Four Two]

Chuck,

I'll put my hand up. I like to think I'm a pretty good attitude flyer these days and I've had two flights where I had an ASI failure.

However, many years ago on my second or third lesson, when after having been carefully briefed on how to go from level-flight to a climb, I still ended up chasing the airspeed and my instructor had to take over! :O

So it can happen. I often think you could make a case for covering the ASI and VSI in early lessons.

[bubbers44]

Covering the instruments is sometimes the only way to get some students to look out the window for landing. Basic flight instruction should be a basic understanding of how to fly comfortably with no instruments by simply looking out the window and using that as a primary reference with just a glance at the airspeed to see how well you are doing.

Basic airplanes should also be basic. I learned in an Aeronca Champ and soloed in 5 hrs. I instructed in J3 cubs and Cessnas initially and both did a great job but learning in the Cub teaches you basics that can't be learned in a tricycle gear airplane.

I saw sloppy landings when flying with very experienced pilots in the Airlines who obviously never got the basics of how airplanes like to land.

Do yourself a favor and learn in a taildragger.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Since we no longer seen to be talking about "best training aircraft" and are now talking about flying instruction in general, I will add my 05 cents worth to that conversation as a current and active flight instructor.

When I teach attitudes and movements I don't even mention the flight instruments except for the ball. When the students ask about the panel full of instruments I tell them everything they need to know about what the airplane is doing can be discerned by looking out the windshield.

I always carry a pad of post it notes and will cover up any instruments the student is misusing.

My last PPL was done on a privately owned airplane. It had a fancy EFIS system which was great, because it had its own power switch. I only turned it on when we got to the navigation and instrument portion of the PPL, near the end of the course.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Do yourself a favor and learn in a taildragger.

Absolutely if you have the opportunity, but I do firmly believe that you can taught how to properly fly in any of the common trainers like the Cessna 150 or Piper Pa 28 series.

To imply that learning in a nosewheel aircraft will automatically make you inferior to someone who trained in a tailwheel aircraft is IMO not correct and does a dis-service to the flight training industry.

[Johnm]

This is all very fine and jolly, but in the real world of regular touring aeroplanes there is a need to "fly the numbers" I watch people fly some of these machines and it makes me cringe. The key to most aircraft is to know the sensible power settings and speeds for each phase of flight as well as attitude. Then if you have some combination of rev counter, manifold pressure and air speed indicator and attitude indicator (which can be the picture out of windscreen) you can fly the thing accurately in take off, climb, descent and approach.

[Luke SkyToddler]

No mention of the Grob so far?

It is by all accounts an absolutely fantastic training platform, the RAF certainly seems to think so ...

[A and C]

The reason you have not seen mention of the Grob 115 is that the civil versions of the aircraft are of GRP construction and are not of spectacular performance, the O-235 powered Grob115 have much the same performance as a PA38 or C152, it is nicer to fly that the 152 but on par with the PA38 but costs more to operate.

The RAF are running a military Grob 115, this may look like a civilian 115 but it has an Aerobatic O-360 engine, VP prop and is constructed from CRP ( Carbon fibre). All of this puts the price up to a level that makes it prohibitively expensive for basic civil flying instruction.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes, lancs Aero Club had a couple of G115s on the fleet and they looked good (if it looks right it flies right?), so I checked out in one. Hmmm. Dullsville. Just like a PA28. So I tried the other. It was the same!

[9 lives]

a couple of G115s on the fleet and they looked good (if it looks right it flies right?), so I checked out in one. Hmmm. Dullsville. Just like a PA28. So I tried the other. It was the same!

I've never had anything to do with Grobs. But, if they are a consistent aircraft, economical to operate, with characteristics like a PA-28, they must be a suitable trainer.

The flight training industry works well with plentiful, economical, and predictable available for their fleets. Friends and I were discussing yesterday a school who have sold off their fleet of Eastern European training aircraft in favour of North American counterparts. The Eastern European types spent so much time grounded awaiting parts. No matter how good an aircraft is in the air, if it's not in the air, it's not much good as a trainer!

Those who have mass produced an acceptable aircraft have filled a market need better than more limited production and support of an aircraft with superior flying characteristics.

[A and C]

Step Turn makes a very good point, as much as I like my DR400-180 as a private aircraft and the fact that the smaller DR400 series aircraft are good trainers I would never operate them on a commercial basis as the supply of spare parts is simply not good enough to keep the aircraft serviceable.

[DaveyJay85]

I'm learning in a Grob 115 out of Coventry. The school I'm at has a mixture of C152, C172, a couple of PA28s and an R2160.
I've been up in a C152 a few times but found is too cramped. I would normally expect an instructor to buy me a drink before I sit on his lap...
The Grob for me was a really good balance between cost (only £5 more p/h than the C152) and space (it has a centre console which means plenty of room). The others in the fleet are just too expensive for me.
Also, as a personal preference, I prefer low-wing aircraft.

[Maoraigh1]

Is the 152 that cramped? I re-did my long-lapsed PPL in them, and have never been so drunk I'd sit on an instructor's lap. (I'm male with 15 stone minimum achieved weight.)(Wouldn't want to squash female instructor.)

[Luke SkyToddler]

Let me put it to you this way Maoraigh ... Mrs SkyToddler was originally my PPL student (in a C152), we started dating before her first solo, and we were married by the time she finished her PPL :ok:

Would never have happened in a Piper Cub!

[DaveyJay85]

Is the 152 that crampedI find it quite narrow. I'm a little *ahem* wide...


we were married by the time she finished her PPL :ok:There's a danger I've never thought of...

[Dr Jekyll]

So what's the consensus on the best training helicopter?

[scotbill]

Learned to fly on the Chipmunk in the dim and distant past and eventually accrued about 400 hours on them.

While I agree about its handling, it has one major disadvantage as a primary trainer which no-one seems to have mentioned - the instructor cannot see what the student is looking at.
As a greenhorn, I initially tried to fly by concentrating on the instruments - which can be quite uncomfortable for an experienced pilot. None of my early instructors picked it up and just assumed I was not a natural. It was only when it came to instrument training that my misdirected efforts paid off. The only other area of the syllabus where I did well was aerobatics - where it was necessary to look out the window!

The AT6/Harvard had the same problem - but by then I had discovered that looking at the horizon worked :)

[9 lives]

So what's the consensus on the best training helicopter?

Out of four types I tried, I preferred the SW 300 by a wide margin. It's small and reasonably economical, but feels big to fly.

[Camargue]

I've a few hours in a grob 115b (160bhp) and its ok, pretty benign to fly, no real vices

It if its spotless clean its quite quick, but in the summer with a few in dead flies, it seems to lose about 10-15kt!

couldn't say if its better than 152/172/pa etc as don't really have any hours on those and imagine the 115hp version will be underpowered. but think the B would make a very good learner.

[IFMU]

I have only flown a Grob 115 once. It was the 115 HP one. The place in Florida that had them had two of that config and one 160 hp one, which was in the shop. Seemed like a nice airplane. The one in the shop shedded its tail after it was back online, two people died, and they went back to cessna. I would disagree the higher HP airplane is the better trainer, just as a generality. A low powered trainer demands more finesse from the student and this is important.

For helicopters, I learned in an underpowered Enstrom F28A and liked it very much. Great for full autos, low powered, manual throttle. I flew a few CB300's, very nice machine, but over on rotorheads it sounds like folks are having problems getting parts. That is a shame.

[Prop swinger]

The one in the shop shedded its tail after it was back online, two people died, and they went back to cessna.The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
failure of maintenance personnel to rebalance the flight controls after the airplane had been repainted, which resulted in rudder flutter and in-flight breakup of the airplane.From NTSB ATL96FA123 (http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/Results.aspx?queryId=feb6c815-736c-4e02-9842-68f9b840baaf)

[Stationair8]

Good old Cessna C152 and then onto the C172.

Had a few lessons in a lovely immaculate Grumman AA5, at the age of 15 but the hours couldn't into the logbook. The Grumman owner organised his old instructor to take me for a lesson or two outside of his airline job.

But it would have been nice to learn in a Cub in a paddock out in the boondocks.

I know guy another that learnt to fly in his PA-34 Seneca, he employed a full time pilot, but wanted to achieve going solo in his own plane.

[India Four Two]

it has one major disadvantage as a primary trainer which no-one seems to have mentioned - the instructor cannot see what the student is looking at.

scotbill,

There is one significant exception. Many a Chipmunk student has been caught out slyly adjusting the altimeter - "Bloggs, have you set QNH?" - not aware that the wily QFI in the back could see a reflection of his hand in the canopy! :E

Ask me how I know!