Complex singles
Guest
Posts: n/a
Big Bloke
Neither particularly complex nor particularly high performance, but I always enjoyed the PA32-300 (Piper Six.)
A bit heavier than the PA28, more stable and a bit faster, still docile.
Well worth a look.
And it is not certified for known icing, nor for high energy aerobatics, re-entry from space or VTOL ops, but a great plane IMHO.
Neither particularly complex nor particularly high performance, but I always enjoyed the PA32-300 (Piper Six.)
A bit heavier than the PA28, more stable and a bit faster, still docile.
Well worth a look.
And it is not certified for known icing, nor for high energy aerobatics, re-entry from space or VTOL ops, but a great plane IMHO.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"there is no SEP with fixed gear certified for flight into know icing conditions (FIKI). Now, doing that is probably not a great idea in a SEP anyway, but if you want an airplane for business travel"
you need a Mooney! (FIKI certified with RG and perfectly safe for business travel)
SB
you need a Mooney! (FIKI certified with RG and perfectly safe for business travel)
SB
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sb you left the AFAIK out of my quote. For argument's sake (and out of interest): IS there a fixed-gear SEP certified for FIKI ?
Not trying any wind-up, neither attempting re-entry from space
Not trying any wind-up, neither attempting re-entry from space
Hi Bigbloke (hmmm, that sounds like the sort of intro you get in...um....certain types of late night establishment...moving swiftly on) 
As Chuck says, VP/CS and retractable gear might be a big step in your mind but it isn't a big step up in reality. I converted onto a C182 within days of getting my PPL on C152s and had no problems. Yes, there is another aspect to engine management, but within a few hours it becomes second nature. It's probably more taxing getting used to the increased size, weight and power than the extra lever!
Go for it!
Edited to add that the guys flying Spits and Hurris in the Battle of Britain had something like 10 hours on type before action. A Spitfire might even be more 'complex' that a C182, so that's impressive, and I've never been shot at on downwind whilst trying to remember my itchybum mnemonic...they were
As Chuck says, VP/CS and retractable gear might be a big step in your mind but it isn't a big step up in reality. I converted onto a C182 within days of getting my PPL on C152s and had no problems. Yes, there is another aspect to engine management, but within a few hours it becomes second nature. It's probably more taxing getting used to the increased size, weight and power than the extra lever!
Go for it!
Edited to add that the guys flying Spits and Hurris in the Battle of Britain had something like 10 hours on type before action. A Spitfire might even be more 'complex' that a C182, so that's impressive, and I've never been shot at on downwind whilst trying to remember my itchybum mnemonic...they were
Last edited by Mikehotel152; 4th Dec 2007 at 14:19.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
B.B. the addition of a CS prop and retractible gear will of course add to the purchase cost and maintenance cost to some degree, but the increased performance is a reward well worth having.
The difficulty of flying the thing is a non issue, its just another type check out and it is not difficult nor complex.
Where you must take care when flying is using common sense and knowing what not to do.
I'm pleased to see we are back to actually answer people's questions....
172 Driver, it would seem that I do not quite fit into your world of aviation so would you like me to quit posting on your forum?
You asked me in a snotty attitude what I fly so here is my answer.....I have flown stuff that I doubt you have even seen pictures of...and probably to " complex " for you to figure out.
This getting pissed off is a two way street.
B.B. the addition of a CS prop and retractible gear will of course add to the purchase cost and maintenance cost to some degree, but the increased performance is a reward well worth having.
The difficulty of flying the thing is a non issue, its just another type check out and it is not difficult nor complex.
Where you must take care when flying is using common sense and knowing what not to do.
I'm pleased to see we are back to actually answer people's questions....
172 Driver, it would seem that I do not quite fit into your world of aviation so would you like me to quit posting on your forum?
You asked me in a snotty attitude what I fly so here is my answer.....I have flown stuff that I doubt you have even seen pictures of...and probably to " complex " for you to figure out.
This getting pissed off is a two way street.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to the initial question, as a happy Arrow III owner, I don't think that these are difficult machines to convert to at all; In my experience, 5 hrs was more than enough to convert to type and after 30 hrs, I've forgotten that it was ever even an issue.
Having said that, I reckon that you should be completely comfortable with flying, navigating and landing a fixed gear/fixed prop machine (and before anyone asks "why would you even have a licence if you weren't?" - I have met a few fresh PPL's who needed to work at this...) before increasing the work load.
Having said that, I reckon that you should be completely comfortable with flying, navigating and landing a fixed gear/fixed prop machine (and before anyone asks "why would you even have a licence if you weren't?" - I have met a few fresh PPL's who needed to work at this...) before increasing the work load.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Blurk (just in case you're a Geordie )
I reckon you should get some hours under your belt on something reasonably docile before you go out and buy your ThunderShip. Not because of the knobs or levers for the CS prop and gear, as has been said herein amongst the willy-waving, these are not the issue : but simply because driving something with two or three times the power of the aircraft you've learned on, probably much heavier and faster, probably with engine-management requirements which will impose further conditions on your flying (and cost you dearly if you get them wrong), whilst still trying to get used to the hassles of real-world cross-country flying in the UK is asking quote a bit of most people, and IMHO far more tricky than remembering to dangle the Dunlops ...
Just my ten cents, as someone who has done exactly what you say you're intending to do ...
FF
)I reckon you should get some hours under your belt on something reasonably docile before you go out and buy your ThunderShip. Not because of the knobs or levers for the CS prop and gear, as has been said herein amongst the willy-waving, these are not the issue : but simply because driving something with two or three times the power of the aircraft you've learned on, probably much heavier and faster, probably with engine-management requirements which will impose further conditions on your flying (and cost you dearly if you get them wrong), whilst still trying to get used to the hassles of real-world cross-country flying in the UK is asking quote a bit of most people, and IMHO far more tricky than remembering to dangle the Dunlops ...
Just my ten cents, as someone who has done exactly what you say you're intending to do ...
FF
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"IS there a fixed-gear SEP certified for FIKI ?"
Cessna Caravan is the only one I can think of.
AFAIK fixed gear known ice certification is generally thought to be a non-starter because of ice accumulation on the undercarriage. I read that on PPRUNE so it must be true!
SB
Cessna Caravan is the only one I can think of.
AFAIK fixed gear known ice certification is generally thought to be a non-starter because of ice accumulation on the undercarriage. I read that on PPRUNE so it must be true!
SB
Moderator
I've got to agree with Chuck on this one. There seems to be a perceived need in general avaiation to categorize aircraft for no good reason I can see. "Complex"? What's complex about it, a few extra controls and instruments, which as previously stated, are only used a few times per flight anyway? I actually find that some of the older, more basic aircraft are more "complex" to fly than their newer versions. The complexity only becomes noticable when things are going wrong. Other than that, it's just a few extra checklist items. A J3, with no accelerator pump, can get pretty comlex at the worst possible time, if you jam the throttle!
Indeed, "complex" aircraft are often easier to fly, because some systems are more automated. What's more complex trying to start a piston or a turbine? In going from a Schweizer 300 to a Hughes 500D during training, I found the 500 much less complex from an engine managment standpoint. Push the button, turn on the fuel at the right time, and watch. The 300 is much more complex to start, particuarly if you're trying to not exceed limitations!
A DHC Turbo Beaver is similarly much more trouble free to start than it's pistion brother, which is more complex? After recently applying to be added to a Cessna 172 insurance policy, the agent called and asked me: "How many of your 3000 hours in single engine Cessnas are actually on 172's?". As my pilot report lists single Cessnas from 140 through 210 without missing many, I informed the agent that it really did not matter how many were on a 172. Eventually they agreed, and that was that.
Simply answered (lest I be accused of not answering the original question), Fly anything and everything you can get you hands on, as early in your learning as you can. Don't yet the school try and talk you out of it. When I was learning to fly, the school's C177RG was the top of the heap. With 80 hours total time, they insisted on a 5 hour checkout for me. No problem, 3 of it was a night cross counrty under the hood. That was good use of my rental dollar! (by the way, at the time, that plane rented for $55 per hour wet, those were the days!) I put more than 100 hours on that beauty before someone wrecked it. That was all that was needed to be insured on most singles, and I have not had a problem (other than the aforementioned insurance agent) since!
Pilot DAR
Indeed, "complex" aircraft are often easier to fly, because some systems are more automated. What's more complex trying to start a piston or a turbine? In going from a Schweizer 300 to a Hughes 500D during training, I found the 500 much less complex from an engine managment standpoint. Push the button, turn on the fuel at the right time, and watch. The 300 is much more complex to start, particuarly if you're trying to not exceed limitations!
A DHC Turbo Beaver is similarly much more trouble free to start than it's pistion brother, which is more complex? After recently applying to be added to a Cessna 172 insurance policy, the agent called and asked me: "How many of your 3000 hours in single engine Cessnas are actually on 172's?". As my pilot report lists single Cessnas from 140 through 210 without missing many, I informed the agent that it really did not matter how many were on a 172. Eventually they agreed, and that was that.
Simply answered (lest I be accused of not answering the original question), Fly anything and everything you can get you hands on, as early in your learning as you can. Don't yet the school try and talk you out of it. When I was learning to fly, the school's C177RG was the top of the heap. With 80 hours total time, they insisted on a 5 hour checkout for me. No problem, 3 of it was a night cross counrty under the hood. That was good use of my rental dollar! (by the way, at the time, that plane rented for $55 per hour wet, those were the days!) I put more than 100 hours on that beauty before someone wrecked it. That was all that was needed to be insured on most singles, and I have not had a problem (other than the aforementioned insurance agent) since!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Chuck you have a lot of aggression at the moment!!
Maybe, but anyone who can fly a Catalina across the Atlantic has my respect.
Final Three Greens, the problem we have here is I'm playing in a sand box where I don't belong.
It is not a matter of who has the biggest co.k that determines who can answer questions here or what value ones opinions should have.
You will notice I seldom post here?
Part of the reason is the sand box mentality of this forum.
Flying the Atlantic both the North and South is only a small part of what we do for a living.
Sometimes I'm at a loss to know if I should answer some of these questions or not......
......such as this one.....
Well, Chuck, what hyper-complex all-singing, all-dancing spaceship do you fly then?
So what the fu.k here are the last ten in order of sequense flown.
Husky A1B
Beech D18S
Boeing 767-300ER
Super Decathalon
PBY5A
DC3
Pitts S2B
RV8
Cessna 208
Cessna 185 on Whipline amphibs.
Note...the Boeing 767 did not have constant speed props, but it did have retractable gear.
Maybe, but anyone who can fly a Catalina across the Atlantic has my respect.
Final Three Greens, the problem we have here is I'm playing in a sand box where I don't belong.
It is not a matter of who has the biggest co.k that determines who can answer questions here or what value ones opinions should have.
You will notice I seldom post here?
Part of the reason is the sand box mentality of this forum.
Flying the Atlantic both the North and South is only a small part of what we do for a living.
Sometimes I'm at a loss to know if I should answer some of these questions or not......
......such as this one.....
Well, Chuck, what hyper-complex all-singing, all-dancing spaceship do you fly then?
So what the fu.k here are the last ten in order of sequense flown.
Husky A1B
Beech D18S
Boeing 767-300ER
Super Decathalon
PBY5A
DC3
Pitts S2B
RV8
Cessna 208
Cessna 185 on Whipline amphibs.
Note...the Boeing 767 did not have constant speed props, but it did have retractable gear.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"SE Piston? "
Oops! I forgot it was a turboprop!
Well it just has to be the Mooney again.
Commander and Socata have TKS equipment as an option but I'm not certain about FIKI certification.
SB
Oops! I forgot it was a turboprop!
Well it just has to be the Mooney again.
Commander and Socata have TKS equipment as an option but I'm not certain about FIKI certification.
SB
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bigbloke,
I transitioned at about 200 hours. For the first few hours I did feel I was very busy in the circuit, operating the constant speed prop, monitoring the manifold pressure gauge, learning to use a combination of cowl flaps and mixture to control cylinder head temps via the GEM, and of course remembering the undercarriage. On X-country flight remembering to ease off the throttle as you loose altitude to prevent excessive manifold pressure was something I found hard to remember, as I was often distracted by ATC.
By far the biggest thing to deal with was wading through all the stuff about mixture control (ROP/LOP), manifold pressures (Undersquare/Oversquare), and just what exactly was the Manifold pressure gauge reading anyway, and what do the number mean? and cylinder head temps, what does the manufacturer say (engine and airframe don’t always agree!) is OK, vs. what the engine rebuilders say, vs. what other owners say and so on ad nauseum. (Bottom line keep them below 380 deg) so that one understood what one was doing, what effect it had on the engine, on fuel consumption, on engine life, etc, etc so one could be fairly sure one was not abusing ones engine.
(Very important when you own the aircraft, and pay the bills)
Total time before I felt comfortable flying the aircraft and handling the extra systems by the numbers, about 6 hours. I’m still learning about all the engine stuff though, and finding out there are so many old wives tales that were taught to me, and are still taught to students that are completely wrong about engine management.
Regards,
White Bear.
I transitioned at about 200 hours. For the first few hours I did feel I was very busy in the circuit, operating the constant speed prop, monitoring the manifold pressure gauge, learning to use a combination of cowl flaps and mixture to control cylinder head temps via the GEM, and of course remembering the undercarriage. On X-country flight remembering to ease off the throttle as you loose altitude to prevent excessive manifold pressure was something I found hard to remember, as I was often distracted by ATC.
By far the biggest thing to deal with was wading through all the stuff about mixture control (ROP/LOP), manifold pressures (Undersquare/Oversquare), and just what exactly was the Manifold pressure gauge reading anyway, and what do the number mean? and cylinder head temps, what does the manufacturer say (engine and airframe don’t always agree!) is OK, vs. what the engine rebuilders say, vs. what other owners say and so on ad nauseum. (Bottom line keep them below 380 deg) so that one understood what one was doing, what effect it had on the engine, on fuel consumption, on engine life, etc, etc so one could be fairly sure one was not abusing ones engine.
(Very important when you own the aircraft, and pay the bills)
Total time before I felt comfortable flying the aircraft and handling the extra systems by the numbers, about 6 hours. I’m still learning about all the engine stuff though, and finding out there are so many old wives tales that were taught to me, and are still taught to students that are completely wrong about engine management.
Regards,
White Bear.
