Grob G115 or Cessna 172?

[hghazoly]

i would like to know which is better for training
the Grob G115 or the Cessan 172???

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

What sort of training? If you mean PPL, then I'd go for the 172. There are a lot of places using them, so if you want to move schools, it shouldn be less of a problem than if you are used only to the Grob.

How many Grobs on the fleet? If fewer than the number of 172s then you might be delayed by aeroplanes going tech if you choose the Grob.

Finally, which Grob? I've only flown the lower-powered ones and they are woefully underpowered. I was also unimpressed by the soggy handling (they look as if they should handle better than that). I'm told the higher powered, faster, ones are a lot better in this respect.

SSD

[Hour Builder]

Why not do it on a C150/152...cheaper then the 172 and just as good for training towards a licence, if not better? Lot of places use the 150/152 to train as well.

HB

[Rod1]

If you are thinking of Barton, go 152/172 and avoid the Grob G115.

Rod1

[aerobatic_dude]

And if you're thinking of Cork, go for the 172.

[Send Clowns]

What???!!!!!

There is a choice of a Grob and people advocate a Cesspit??????

The Cessna 172 is an incredibly dull aircraft to fly. It is a great workhorse, a tractor. It carries stuff into and out of short and rough fields and is good for pleasure flights. It also handles like a tractor. I have flown 15 different fixed-wing aircraft: the C172 is the least pleasure to fly of the lot. Anyone can fly one, so changing schools is harder as you won't know how to handle anything but a Cessna.

OK I have only flown 160 hp Grobs, but the less powerful models cannot be as dull to fly as a 172 even if they do have steering wheels rather than a stick.

Don't worry too much about the number of aircraft, I have worked for a school with only one 2-seater and there was no significant problem due to down time except that caused by the specific manufacturer, and that was because they were French so closed for the summer. Most mainenance is planned, and they will arrange your flying around that.

The 150/152 is a lot better than the 172 by the way - it actually rolls without you having full aileron deflection.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Send Clowns - I agree with your sentiments, the 172 is indeed a dull thing to fly (as are most of that ilk, such as PA 28, 150, 152, PA38 etc etc). I've never, ever, understood why pilots put up with these when there are proper aeroplanes to fly. Maybe they don't know what they are missing?

When Barton aquired 2 smart looking G115s a great many years ago now, I just had to check out on this sleek looking machine. It did not deliver. It was awful. Underpowered, and handling no better than the 172. So I tried the other one.

It was exactly the same.

I never flew one again. Ever.

So in a straight choice, the 172 wins on grounds of practicality. However, I have heard that the more powerful 115s are nice. But I'll only be convinced after I've flown one. The airframe's the same, innit!

SSD

[jai6638]

"Send Clowns - I agree with your sentiments, the 172 is indeed a dull thing to fly (as are most of that ilk, such as PA 28, 150, 152, PA38 etc etc). I've never, ever, understood why pilots put up with these when there are proper aeroplanes to fly. Maybe they don't know what they are missing?"

What kind of planes would you recommend for a PPL?


thanks

[Final 3 Greens]

Send Clowns

If you find any aircraft dull to fly, perhaps you need to reconsider what you get from flying.

Give me a 172 any day over not flying.

Yes, I'd prefer a Bulldog's handling, but I don''t find any flying experience to be dull.

100 years ago, there was no 172 and we couldn't enjoy the privileges that our PPLs offer us.

30 odd thousand 172s have helped to make this possible.

I get a bit fed up of some of the "Spamcan'' snobbery on this forum.

[DB6]

hghazoly, what sort of training and what sort of G115? If it's airline-type training with an eye on CPL/ATPL then the C172 will make a better instrument platform and introduce you to weight and balance, plus which you can take 3 passengers (useful for cost-sharing hours building).
If it's for pure PPL with an eye on enjoying flying and developing good handling skills, seeing out of the aircraft (C172 limited visibility) and possibly some aerobatics then it has to be the Grob, particularly if it has a stick. We have G115D2's which have 160hp, inverted systems and +6/-3g limits and blow the pants off any Cessna, and from what I remember the lower powered Grobs are OK too. Wouldn't like to fly an NDB approach in one though.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

"Send Clowns - I agree with your sentiments, the 172 is indeed a dull thing to fly (as are most of that ilk, such as PA 28, 150, 152, PA38 etc etc). I've never, ever, understood why pilots put up with these when there are proper aeroplanes to fly. Maybe they don't know what they are missing?"

What kind of planes would you recommend for a PPL?

Good question! Most flying schools use the C152 / PA38 /C172 / PA28 because they are plentiful, tough enough for school use, and they do the job.

But it depends what you want from your PPL. If you want to emerge with good handling skills, you can't beat learning on a taildragger. Many wise old flying instructors (not young low houred ones) have confided in me that if they were king, they would decree that at least up to first solo, training would be on a tail dragger. It'll tech you what your feet are for, and will not allow sloppy landing technique.

However, few schools have such machines because they tend to be more expensive to operate and that makes the school uncompetitive, so unless you really want the best handling training and are prepared to pay a premium for it (and you can find such a school) it's probably a non-starter.

If you are not particularly bothered about the above, the usual run of machines do the job just fine. I learned on C150s but was appalled at how horibble they were to fly. It wasn't at all how I'd imagined a flying machine would be. As soon as I got my PPL, I converted onto the Chipmunk and discovered that there are aeroplanes that do handle extremely well, and I wondered (still do) why the spamcans had to handle so badly. If I hadn't made that discovery I reckon I'd have given up flying within 6 months.

But times have moved on since I was doing my PPL (back in the late 1970s). There are some interesting modern trainers around now that weren't an option back then. If I were you I'd give some of those a serious looking at.

SSD

[PH-UKU]

. . . GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

"Send Clowns - I agree with your sentiments, the 172 is indeed a dull thing to fly"

You've obviously never flown a Reims Rocket .....

or a 172 on floats ......

or both at the same time ........

[Flik Roll]

Depends on the variant of the Grob115... Some are utter pants, but i would rather fly one than a spam can.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I had the misfortune to be forced to spend a large number of hours in a G115B model. Horrible, horrible, horrible.......

The power was laughable (115hp) and landing it could be a lottery (if you were just a couple of knots out it would float forever and if you got the nose wheel down too firmly it would fling the thing straight back up again. Ugh...)
It's handling was ok for what is basically a motor glider but don't look behind you if you do any near Vne dives, the tail tends to wag a bit. Not a great thing in a glass fibre machine!

If you fly a Reims rocket or Hawk XP, the 172 is a totally different machine. Our XP has quite startling performance for a spam can and makes a great noise whilst doing it. Lovely 6 cylinder rumble.

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of the Grob Tutors however, those do look like fun.

[Flik Roll]

They are