Cessna, Liberty XL2 or Piper Warrior PA28
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Age: 43
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA28 wins hands down in my opinion. The Liberty although a fine aircraft in many ways is not as "genuine" in the air as is the PA28, or C150/152 for that matter ...(snip)... It requires that you use all controls in the correct manner. The PA28 is similar although it is not quite as sensitive as the Cessna. The Liberty however I found was great for IFR, nudge it into a turn and it stays there, but that's not how I want a classroom to work for PPL training. ...(snip)
If "genuine" means less responsive and more stable (and less fun
), then I might agree. (Yes I took my PPL at an unnamed school in Florida, which operates a lot of XL2s
)
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would tend to agree with the above, although it just goes to show how different people like different things. For IMC the PA28 probably is best (although that isn't what the original poster asked). Another reason I don't really like the C152 is the silly throttle control which (I know a lot planes are like this) is not logical (whoever heard of closing something by opening it?) and rather like the wing position is not like 'real' aircraft. The Warrior with everything from its direct nosewheel steering to its rudder trim just makes one think that Piper was trying to design a plane of much higher calibre than the C152.
One little point for the Liberty though, in the US, 'Liberty Nxxxx' makes a very cool callsign. 'Warrior Nxxxx' is pretty cool also, but Cessna Nxxxx is just rubbish...
One little point for the Liberty though, in the US, 'Liberty Nxxxx' makes a very cool callsign. 'Warrior Nxxxx' is pretty cool also, but Cessna Nxxxx is just rubbish...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word of warning about the advice you are getting. Most people in the UK have not flown the LX2 and are recommending what they are used to.
What are you going to fly when you get home? Most people only rent for a short period of time and then buy a share, a whole aircraft or give up. If you want to fly 4 up you are most likely to end up with a PA28 or a 172, so learning on the PA28 would make sense. If you are thinking of getting a modern VLA then the XL2 is more representative (and more fun).
Whatever you learn on you will need some time in the UK and getting checked on say a 172 having flown one of the others will take about 5 hours, and you can learn about UK radio etc at the same time.
Rod1
What are you going to fly when you get home? Most people only rent for a short period of time and then buy a share, a whole aircraft or give up. If you want to fly 4 up you are most likely to end up with a PA28 or a 172, so learning on the PA28 would make sense. If you are thinking of getting a modern VLA then the XL2 is more representative (and more fun).
Whatever you learn on you will need some time in the UK and getting checked on say a 172 having flown one of the others will take about 5 hours, and you can learn about UK radio etc at the same time.
Rod1
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever you learn on you will need some time in the UK and getting checked on say a 172 having flown one of the others will take about 5 hours
Maybe in the case of the XL2 to C172 it might take a little longer, but going from the C150 to the C172 shouldn't take more than a 1-2 hour flight.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Age: 43
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 hours for transitioning from XL2 to Warrior sounds like a lot of time. I would say 1-2 hours for the average pilot. (I took my PPL on the XL2 and did a checkout on the Warrior after PPL completion, it was my second SEP to fly as PIC)
The Warrior really has no suprises, the checkout is a non-event if you already got your flying skills in place.
The Warrior really has no suprises, the checkout is a non-event if you already got your flying skills in place.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5 hours was for the checkout and familiarisation with uk procedures. My local club worked on the basis of 5 hours, but I have not done it personally. I would have thought a low hour pilot, intensively trained in the US would need more than 1 hour.
Looking back at my log;
(200 hours of gliding followed by a conversion to power on PA38, then straight on to the 172 at the same school)
I did ½ hour general handling, ½ hour of circuits with an instructor. 1 hour flight with the aircraft at MTOW on takeoff (this was the first 4 seater I had flown). 1 hour solo followed by an hour of emergences, including PFL, PFL with no flaps, landing with no flaps, cross wind, go around with flaps stuck full down etc.
This was a long time ago (91), but my local club (different from the above) seem to do something similar. Given the marginal performance of a fully loaded 172 with the flaps full down and an electrical failure, I do not think I would have done very well straight after my PPL. Guess I could have flown it fine 2 up with no emergences after 1 hour though. The only problem I had (according to my notes) was the controls were horribly heavy, especially the ailerons
Rod1
Looking back at my log;
(200 hours of gliding followed by a conversion to power on PA38, then straight on to the 172 at the same school)
I did ½ hour general handling, ½ hour of circuits with an instructor. 1 hour flight with the aircraft at MTOW on takeoff (this was the first 4 seater I had flown). 1 hour solo followed by an hour of emergences, including PFL, PFL with no flaps, landing with no flaps, cross wind, go around with flaps stuck full down etc.
This was a long time ago (91), but my local club (different from the above) seem to do something similar. Given the marginal performance of a fully loaded 172 with the flaps full down and an electrical failure, I do not think I would have done very well straight after my PPL. Guess I could have flown it fine 2 up with no emergences after 1 hour though. The only problem I had (according to my notes) was the controls were horribly heavy, especially the ailerons
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only speak with experience of the PA28 out of all three types you mention, but the PA28 is really, really, REALLY dull to fly. Having flown a number of glass airframes they tend to perform much better compared to conventional spam-cans. PA28s love straight and level, don't require much rudder to coordinate (in fact you can get away without putting any in if you treat it like a lady), and they are easy to land, difficult to land well. Also having four seats doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to fit more than two on the mass and balance!
As others have also suggested, try them all out, and if you do choose the PA28, don't be afraid to stick to the 'mighty' PA28 after you've got your licence. There really is a whole new world to discover post-PPL!
I'm a huge advocate of taildraggers. Combine that with a high aspect ratio and you're in heaven. Not that I'm biased, of course!
As others have also suggested, try them all out, and if you do choose the PA28, don't be afraid to stick to the 'mighty' PA28 after you've got your licence. There really is a whole new world to discover post-PPL!
I'm a huge advocate of taildraggers. Combine that with a high aspect ratio and you're in heaven. Not that I'm biased, of course!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1
It was the same procedure here for all of my type-ratings. I COULD have flown them after one hour - but why?
What would you skip? An all-up weight check? Or emergencies?
"Hang on - which one am I most likely to use?" I hear you say. No answer, so why skimp?
They may be "similar" planes but I find they fly completely differently.
I did ½ hour general handling, ½ hour of circuits with an instructor. 1 hour flight with the aircraft at MTOW on takeoff (this was the first 4 seater I had flown). 1 hour solo followed by an hour of emergences, including PFL, PFL with no flaps, landing with no flaps, cross wind, go around with flaps stuck full down etc.
It was the same procedure here for all of my type-ratings. I COULD have flown them after one hour - but why?
What would you skip? An all-up weight check? Or emergencies?
"Hang on - which one am I most likely to use?" I hear you say. No answer, so why skimp?
They may be "similar" planes but I find they fly completely differently.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know how many of the posters here that spend time instructing, but that's where I'm coming from and that's why I say the Piper is better than some of the others. As always, each aircraft has it's own good and bad sides and the XL2 may be an excellent trainer in some respects, but not the ones that I'm looking for in a PPL trainer.
Genuine means that you get the normal responses to an input and requires that you hold the normal control inputs for standard maneuvers. Difficult flare is not a standard response for normal aircraft, not any of the 15+ I've flown extensively so far. I know this as a trait of the Europa from which the XL2 is derived but I wouldn't call it desirable. Being sensitive in turbulence is not a positive thing either, it's just plain fatiguing. In terms of IFR stability I was referring to turn stability. Most aircraft will not maintain a 20 degree bank at level without control input, but the XL2 exhibited very neutral characteristics, something that helps IFR but not PPL if you're trying to learn how aircraft behave in general and what control inputs are used, in general.
I've flown mostly glass aircraft lately (including the panel and airframe) and they may be better aircraft than the plain vanilla piper/cessna, in some respects, but as trainers go I'm not sure "better" is the correct word. Different, yes! Better, well the jury is out on that one in my opinion.
Did you stop to consider exactly how the learning process is improved by flying an XL2 versus Piper/Cessna/Diamond/Grumman/Space shuttle, or are you mixing emotion into the equation?
One really good thing about learning to fly in Cessna/Piper gear that's old and battered is that you'll enjoy the transition to a nice new Diamond/Cirrus/Cessna(!)400 so much more!!
Genuine means that you get the normal responses to an input and requires that you hold the normal control inputs for standard maneuvers. Difficult flare is not a standard response for normal aircraft, not any of the 15+ I've flown extensively so far. I know this as a trait of the Europa from which the XL2 is derived but I wouldn't call it desirable. Being sensitive in turbulence is not a positive thing either, it's just plain fatiguing. In terms of IFR stability I was referring to turn stability. Most aircraft will not maintain a 20 degree bank at level without control input, but the XL2 exhibited very neutral characteristics, something that helps IFR but not PPL if you're trying to learn how aircraft behave in general and what control inputs are used, in general.
I've flown mostly glass aircraft lately (including the panel and airframe) and they may be better aircraft than the plain vanilla piper/cessna, in some respects, but as trainers go I'm not sure "better" is the correct word. Different, yes! Better, well the jury is out on that one in my opinion.
Did you stop to consider exactly how the learning process is improved by flying an XL2 versus Piper/Cessna/Diamond/Grumman/Space shuttle, or are you mixing emotion into the equation?
One really good thing about learning to fly in Cessna/Piper gear that's old and battered is that you'll enjoy the transition to a nice new Diamond/Cirrus/Cessna(!)400 so much more!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Age: 45
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My gf trained at OBA last year in the PA28. One of her fellow PPL students suffered total instrument failure in the Liberty (a recurring theme?) at night whilst on finals. Crashed it and broke his leg - he was very lucky.
PA28 IMO - you can go on to VP, IMC, rectractable etc on the same airframe which will save you time (and money).
Also, it looks like a real aeroplane (ducks for cover).
PA28 IMO - you can go on to VP, IMC, rectractable etc on the same airframe which will save you time (and money).
Also, it looks like a real aeroplane (ducks for cover).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skyfiend, it is interesting to note from the NTSB database that you girlfriend's friend's accident is not listed. Three are three XL2 accidents/incidents that refer to OBA and a quick look at them indicates pilot (mis?) handling as the most probable cause for each. Certainly nothing about night flying and the "recurring theme" of instrument failure. 
Last edited by Lurking123; 10th Jan 2008 at 13:28.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(a recurring theme?)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But it appears to be a complete fairy tale that someone broke his/her leg after having a "total instrument failure" on final at night; there is no evidence that such an occurrence happened. I would also be intrigued to know what is meant by "total instrument failure" - does this mean the altimeter, VSI and ASI were part of that failure? I presume not.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This story isn't just a fairy tale, it is pure, unadulterated delusional fantasy.
1) "complete instrument failure" - well, let's see, the ASI, VSI and altimeter in the Liberty are round, steam gauges exactly like the round, steam gauges in most everything else. They indicate changes in ambient air pressure (and the ASI compares ram air to ambient air), so the only way all of those instruments could suffer a complete, simultaneous instrument failure is if all the atmosphere suddenly disappeared or if the static port and the pitot tube iced over, which is extremely unlikely in Florida, especially in the summer when this incident is alleged to have taken place.
2) "complete instrument failure" - the other three primary flight instruments in the Liberty are the DG, AI and turn coordinator. These are electrically powered round gauge gyro instruments, just like in many other airplanes. For these three instruments to fail completely and simultaneously, the alternator would have to fail first, and you would also have some notice from the "OFF" flags in the instruments as well as the amber "alt fail" light that something was amiss. Even with a failed alternator, you still have power in the battery to keep the gyros spinning for a while before the "OFF" flag even pops up.
3) "On final" - NONE of these instruments are absolutely vital to making a successful landing. If the subject airplane was (allegedly) already stabilized on final approach, all the pilot would have to do is sit and wait, and then flare at the right height - which is judged by EYE here, not by the altimeter. Agreed that the alleged "complete instrument failure" would freak out most student pilots (and most licensed pilots, including me), but this "complete instrument failure" would NOT preclude making a safe landing, even if the excitement level would be a bit higher than normal. The only difficulty might be maintaining the correct airspeed, but that would be minimized by trimming the airplane correctly at each stage of the approach. You can make a safe, almost drama-free landing in light trainers using only an air speed indicator. The gyro instruments are superfluous for this.
4) Additionally, the runways at the airport where this "incident" allegedly took place are 4,000 feet long, so there is plenty of room for an extended rollout, even if touchdown was a third or even half way down the runway.
5) The only other instruments which could suffer "complete instrument failure" are the engine instrument displays on the FADEC. Again, if the airplane was already on final approach, it wouldn't make a d*mn bit of difference if the pilot did not know the oil temperature or even the RPMs - remember that he is supposed to reduce and then CLOSE the throttle to land . . . idle is idle, no matter what the tach does or does not say. The amount of throttle used on final is determined by looking out the window and seeing if you are above or below the glide path, add if below, reduce if above, not by reference to the tachometer.
If the FADEC display (or the FADEC) exhibits a problem during the runup, you take the airplane back to maintenance, exactly the same way you would take the airplane back to maintenance on a non-FADEC equipped airplane which exhibits excessive mag drop. Any system on any airplane can develop problems - that's exactly why you do a preflight and a runup before you take off. You are verifying that everything works and that this aircraft is safe to fly.
Even in the unlikely event of a total failure of the FADEC display in flight, you do not have an emergency, all you do is land the airplane. You can ignore the blank screen in perfect safety - do you need to monitor or even know the EGT on landing? I don't think so.
6) Therefore, to get a "complete instrument failure" in this (or in fact most any other) airplane, both the electrical system and the pitot-static system would have to fail totally, at the exact same instant. The only way that could happen is if the entire, physical instrument panel burst out of the airplane and fell onto the ground. Not very likely.
Wild allegations of this sort, totally unrelated to basic aviation technology are worthy only of ignorant newspaper reporters OR of people who have an agenda which is not entirely related to flight safety.
Best Regards,
Echo Mike
P.S. What was the GF's last name? I'll look on my attendance sheets and in the arrivals list to see when she attended my ground school, or when (or if) she was even here.
1) "complete instrument failure" - well, let's see, the ASI, VSI and altimeter in the Liberty are round, steam gauges exactly like the round, steam gauges in most everything else. They indicate changes in ambient air pressure (and the ASI compares ram air to ambient air), so the only way all of those instruments could suffer a complete, simultaneous instrument failure is if all the atmosphere suddenly disappeared or if the static port and the pitot tube iced over, which is extremely unlikely in Florida, especially in the summer when this incident is alleged to have taken place.
2) "complete instrument failure" - the other three primary flight instruments in the Liberty are the DG, AI and turn coordinator. These are electrically powered round gauge gyro instruments, just like in many other airplanes. For these three instruments to fail completely and simultaneously, the alternator would have to fail first, and you would also have some notice from the "OFF" flags in the instruments as well as the amber "alt fail" light that something was amiss. Even with a failed alternator, you still have power in the battery to keep the gyros spinning for a while before the "OFF" flag even pops up.
3) "On final" - NONE of these instruments are absolutely vital to making a successful landing. If the subject airplane was (allegedly) already stabilized on final approach, all the pilot would have to do is sit and wait, and then flare at the right height - which is judged by EYE here, not by the altimeter. Agreed that the alleged "complete instrument failure" would freak out most student pilots (and most licensed pilots, including me), but this "complete instrument failure" would NOT preclude making a safe landing, even if the excitement level would be a bit higher than normal. The only difficulty might be maintaining the correct airspeed, but that would be minimized by trimming the airplane correctly at each stage of the approach. You can make a safe, almost drama-free landing in light trainers using only an air speed indicator. The gyro instruments are superfluous for this.
4) Additionally, the runways at the airport where this "incident" allegedly took place are 4,000 feet long, so there is plenty of room for an extended rollout, even if touchdown was a third or even half way down the runway.
5) The only other instruments which could suffer "complete instrument failure" are the engine instrument displays on the FADEC. Again, if the airplane was already on final approach, it wouldn't make a d*mn bit of difference if the pilot did not know the oil temperature or even the RPMs - remember that he is supposed to reduce and then CLOSE the throttle to land . . . idle is idle, no matter what the tach does or does not say. The amount of throttle used on final is determined by looking out the window and seeing if you are above or below the glide path, add if below, reduce if above, not by reference to the tachometer.
If the FADEC display (or the FADEC) exhibits a problem during the runup, you take the airplane back to maintenance, exactly the same way you would take the airplane back to maintenance on a non-FADEC equipped airplane which exhibits excessive mag drop. Any system on any airplane can develop problems - that's exactly why you do a preflight and a runup before you take off. You are verifying that everything works and that this aircraft is safe to fly.
Even in the unlikely event of a total failure of the FADEC display in flight, you do not have an emergency, all you do is land the airplane. You can ignore the blank screen in perfect safety - do you need to monitor or even know the EGT on landing? I don't think so.
6) Therefore, to get a "complete instrument failure" in this (or in fact most any other) airplane, both the electrical system and the pitot-static system would have to fail totally, at the exact same instant. The only way that could happen is if the entire, physical instrument panel burst out of the airplane and fell onto the ground. Not very likely.
Wild allegations of this sort, totally unrelated to basic aviation technology are worthy only of ignorant newspaper reporters OR of people who have an agenda which is not entirely related to flight safety.
Best Regards,
Echo Mike
P.S. What was the GF's last name? I'll look on my attendance sheets and in the arrivals list to see when she attended my ground school, or when (or if) she was even here.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EF, thank you. I think you have, quite succinctly, echoed my cynicism about this report.
FWIW, I would plumb for the XL2 ahead of the others. Why? Because it isn't 1950's technology which is being held in perpetuity by a bunch of conservative luddites. I would much prefer an engine monitoring system which, occasionally, did a self test on the ground and said "hold on, I'm not sure we should be flying today" than rely on some old fashioned piloting 'skills' whereby I just ran the engine up to something near 75% and listened for anything unusual through my extremely effective ANR headset.
FWIW, I would plumb for the XL2 ahead of the others. Why? Because it isn't 1950's technology which is being held in perpetuity by a bunch of conservative luddites. I would much prefer an engine monitoring system which, occasionally, did a self test on the ground and said "hold on, I'm not sure we should be flying today" than rely on some old fashioned piloting 'skills' whereby I just ran the engine up to something near 75% and listened for anything unusual through my extremely effective ANR headset.
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 52
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurking.
I agree completely.
I spent my PPL training in a variety of decrepit Cessnas. These aircraft are not bad by design. They are fine training platforms. Most, however, happened to be older than I!
This is now the 21st century however and even GA aircraft design needs to move along.
Best,
Sicknote
I agree completely.
I spent my PPL training in a variety of decrepit Cessnas. These aircraft are not bad by design. They are fine training platforms. Most, however, happened to be older than I!
This is now the 21st century however and even GA aircraft design needs to move along.
Best,
Sicknote
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is now the 21st century however and even GA aircraft design needs to move along.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same goes for newer planes like the Liberty, sure it's newer, but is it actually a better trainer?
Examples:
Nosewheel vs. tailwheel made aircraft much easier to handle, for novice pilots, on tarmac (and to some extent even on grass).
Fuel injection made engines a little more efficient and reliable, and did away with the carb heat knob
FADEC made engines even more efficient and reliable, and did away with the mixture knob
Advanced in aerodynamics greatly diminished traits such as adverse yaw, made airframes less draggy but therefore harder to slow down before landing
An invention called flaps meant that at a whim you can greatly increase the drag of an airframe so sideslipping was no longer needed
Better understanding of stalls, and stall warners made spinning far less likely, so spin training could be removed from the syllabus
But... The GA fleet currently consists of everything from the 30+ year old stuff to the very modern. The question is: what are you going to train for? If you eventually end up flying a Diamond TDI, or even end up flying a bus, then why would you need to know about carb heat, mixture, side slipping, spinning and such? But if you eventually decide to plunge into the other end of GA, flying vintage aeroplanes and/or aerobatics, you definitely do.
At the end of it all, what probably influences things the most is what the students intentions are. If his intentions are to fly for the airlines, by all means let him do his PPL in a Liberty or Diamond, with nosewheel, glass cockpit, FADEC controlled engines and all adverse aerodynamics tweaked out. In contrast, if the student intends to fly for fun, then have him fly more "traditional" types during the PPL, perhaps including some Super Cub or similar flights once or twice.