Will training in a more complex airplane be beneficial for ab-initio

[zegnaangelo]

I've got a chance to train in either a C152 or a Grob 115. I've done a few lessons in the C152 but recently tried a Grob. It's a really nice plane but more complex (higher 180 HP, constant propeller). I took a lesson in it, I really liked it... but then again I also felt the airplane was running away from me (things happening much faster and having to understand the MP and RPM...) - it would definitely slow down my learning (but then again maybe I am not in a rush) but one side of me also thought it may make me a better pilot mastering a more complex airplane, and makes the C152/172 easier down the road. On the other hand, the C152 is nice and relaxing in comparison (can understand why it's such a popular trainer!)...

So, are there any advantages of upgrading at this stage of my learning? Or should I wait later on before upgrading?

[pilotmike]

Stick to simple is probably best.

There are enough ways to confuse and trip up a student without dealing with extra complexity. Why not do the PPL on the Cessna then move on to the Grob once qualified? It will give you wider experience on more types, making you a better pilot. What's not to like?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've not flown the Grob (although have several similar aeroplanes, including the Bulldog and T67), but have plenty of hours in C152 which I think is an excellent learning platform. My thoughts nonetheless..

- In the grand scheme of things, adding a VP prop doesn't really make it much more complex
- Odds are that they're probably both perfectly good training aeroplanes
- If you enjoy the aeroplane more, you'll probably enjoy the learning journey more, and thus do better at it
- On the other hand, the Grob is doubtless more expensive.

On the whole, I'd say you're choosing between two good options there - go with your gut feeling, and you're unlikely to be disappointed.

G

[DB6]

The Grob is a far better aircraft than the Cessna in many ways, it depends what you want. If just to get a PPL in the minimum time and expense - stick to the Cessna. If you can see yourself moving on to aerobatics etc, or even military flying - go for the Grob. The complexity doesn't matter that much - people learn what they're taught and in the grand scheme of things it's not very difficult, and as mentioned you can always upgrade later. Probably all comes down to money.

[chevvron]

The Grob 120TP (turbo prop) named the 'Prefect' is used by the RAF for Elementary Flying Training so if it's OK for them it should be OK for any ab initio pilot.
Mind you ,considering there was a previous 'Prefect' in the RAF it being a glider, I wish they'd chosen another name.
I flew the Prefect TX Mk 1 many times and it was great fun, my first single seater.

[Pilot DAR]

What DB6 said.

I've flown both, and they are different. you can learn well in either. The Cessna is tougher, and will tolerate poor runways better, the Grob is a delight to fly, very precise. The constant speed prop is a complete learning non event. You could fly it with the propeller set to full fine nearly all the time, and it would not matter, but you'll quickly learn the pleasure of being able to coarsen the propeller pitch. Do fly both at some point of your training, just to learn the differences.

[T21]

Chevvron

Remember that the RAF use specially selected instructors to train specially selected students. For the average hours building instructor teaching Joe Bloggs who walked off the street keen to fly I would say use a simple type and convert when the PPL is completed.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The quality of your PPL is almost totally dependent on the quality of your instructor. What airplane you do it in is IMO irrelevant. The only caveat is that the more complex the aircraft the more structured the aircraft system operation training must be.

I instructed a student from zero to PPL in a Nanchang CJ6A. So geared supercharged 9 cylinder radial with cowl shutters and oil cooler shutter, variable pitch prop, powerful split flap, retractable gear with pneumatic brakes. The first 10 hours of flying training was entirely about learning how to operate the aircraft systems. with me doing all the flying. After that the flying training proper started with attitudes and movements. From that point on the student took about the same amount of time to master the air exercises than if he had been flying a Cessna SEP.

[megan]

Remember that the RAF use specially selected instructors to train specially selected students. For the average hours building instructor teaching Joe Bloggs who walked off the street keen to fly I would say use a simple type and convert when the PPL is completedExcellent advice, my military training was in a T-34 (retractable, variable pitch prop), solo was on the twelfth flight after fifteen hours, same instructor all the way through, twelfth flight was a check flight by an instructor who had not previously flown with you. A feature of the system was you were scheduled by the number of flights ie if you didn't go solo on your twelfth flight you were required to front a board to see if you were up for remedial training or whether they said goodbye.

[MrAverage]

I'm with T21 on this and I thank him/her for reminding me of how much I enjoyed my time in the Sedbergh!

[chevvron]

I'm with T21 on this and I thank him/her for reminding me of how much I enjoyed my time in the Sedbergh!
Me too. Also in the Mk3 and later Prefect and I went on to fly over 500 launches (ie landings) mostly carrying Air Experience cadets.
When I started my PPL course about 4 years later, all this counted for nothing because I hadn't got a Silver C but with the PPL course lasting a minimum of 35 hours I completed the syllabus in 31 hours.
I am convinced that this gliding experience made me a much more competent powered pilot.

[pulse1]

....... all this counted for nothing because I hadn't got a Silver C

I don't know when you trained but I only had to do 20 hours for my PPL with a Bronze C. I agree that gliding helps to make one a better pilot all round.

With reference to training on complex aircraft, I watched a friend getting his PPL on a complex aircraft and his main difficulties were due to a combination of complexity and the higher speeds. He enjoyed several interesting experiences from getting lost while sorting out the engine. I am sure that all that did make him a better pilot eventually.

[ShyTorque]

Chevvron

Remember that the RAF use specially selected instructors to train specially selected students.

Not quite correct.

The system may have changed since my time as a UAS QFI on Bulldogs but many ab initio pilots on UASs successfully learned to fly that aircraft (and to a more advanced level than the bare PPL) and it also had a CS prop. University Air Squadron students were chosen by the UAS staff themselves, via a series of interviews and not via the RAF “mainstream” pilot aptitude tests.

[T21]

Big Pistons Forever

Your student must have had plenty of money, a lot of spare time and loads of patience to sit for 10 hours desperate to get his hands on the controls of an aircraft.

ShyTorque

So the fact that you were a chosen UAS QFI teaching university students who were "chosen by the UAS staff themselves, via a series of interviews" means that any student can cope with any instructor on a CS prop aircraft with ease?

[zegnaangelo]

thanks all for comments.
in the end I had a chat with my instructor and stuck to the C152 to at least the RPL (pre-Nav stage) given I was making progress in that. We will switch over to the Grob at a more advanced stage in training if I choose (I have an good instructor that I am working well with that can teach in both)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Big Pistons Forever

Your student must have had plenty of money, a lot of spare time and loads of patience to sit for 10 hours desperate to get his hands on the controls of an aircraft.

ShyTorque

?

Well 2 hours of that were just learning how to taxi as no nose wheel steering and grabby air brakes operated by a handle on the stick and just the right amount of rudder bar deflection makes this a significant challenge. Also every flight needs an extra 15 minutes or so in winter for the engine to warm up before the run-up so air time hours will be less than flight time by more than you see in a Cessna.

Operating all the engine controls has to be second nature as it is easy to over or under temp the cylinders and oil. Also many of the controls and indicators such as the carb heat control and fuel and air pressure gauges plus the radio frequency selector are not duplicated in the back so I need to be sure that the front seater knows what they are doing.

Bottom line I can teach an ab initio student how to run the airplane or how to fly it but not both at the same time.

[Pilot DAR]

Your student must have had plenty of money, a lot of spare time and loads of patience to sit for 10 hours desperate to get his hands on the controls of an aircraft.

And some candidate PPLs do! That's okay - good for our industry, and okay for the candidate as long as they demonstrate the required patience and perseverance. One of my clients has a Cessna 182 amphibian, equipped with a carburetted 550 engine, reversing MT propeller, both glass and round instrument presentation, 3 axis autopilot, and a number of other mods. While I was training the new owner in it a number of years ago, he asked me to take his son (mid 30's) flying in it, which I happily did. To my delight, when I returned to visit them the following summer, the son (rather than dad/my client) picked me up in it at the airport, he'd earned his PPL in it! He flew it very well, and had obviously been well trained. He showed a few signs of "new PPL", but he was a new PPL, so okay!