Starting my PPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starting my PPL
Afternoon
Im new to the forum and would like to say Hello.
I'm hopefully starting my P.P.L soon, however my local airfield only teaches on PA-28 warrior
I would like to hear your opinion on this aircraft, I've flown in one before and i loved it.
thanks for your time
Wilson
Im new to the forum and would like to say Hello.
I'm hopefully starting my P.P.L soon, however my local airfield only teaches on PA-28 warrior
I would like to hear your opinion on this aircraft, I've flown in one before and i loved it.
thanks for your time
Wilson
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfect trainer , lovely and stable good predictable stall chracteristics and vaer capable . Perhap a little bit more expensive than a PA38 or C152/150. This may be a factor if cost is . You dont really need a four seater to do your PPL , if cost no issue then great aircraft .
Good Luck and Enjoy
Good Luck and Enjoy
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a very gd a/c I did most of my PPL on a PA38 - A lot cheaper and good to fly on during the training. Like the above posts if money isn't an issue then the PA28 is a good catch.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learned to fly in a warrior, lovely plane to learn in, only thing I found when I moved on to other types was that the stall in a warrior was benign and when I started using Cessnas for hour building they were a bit more abrupt at the stall (for training thankfully - not for real).
Enjoy your training and don't panic when you hit your 'training wall'. It always gets better.
Best of Luck C172D
Enjoy your training and don't panic when you hit your 'training wall'. It always gets better.
Best of Luck C172D
Guest
Posts: n/a
231Wilson
Firstly, good luck with your PPL and enjoy
If you only have access to the Warrior, you will find her a docile friend.
However, IMHO, she is not as good an ab initio trainer as a 152, DA1/DV1 or PA38 simply because she is too easy to fly.
Firstly, good luck with your PPL and enjoy
If you only have access to the Warrior, you will find her a docile friend.
However, IMHO, she is not as good an ab initio trainer as a 152, DA1/DV1 or PA38 simply because she is too easy to fly.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is stable , but that is good .So long as you realise that different types have different stall characteristics . Providing you do a conversion when you swap types you should be okay . If you fly a PA28 , get an hour in a 38 and do some stalling with an instructor , you will notice a considerable and sometimes more frightening difference
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers guys for your replys much appreciated.
Hoping to start in the Summer Holidays and work my way from then-on
Which area of the P.P.L is more challenging? Air Law to me sounds the Hardest
Principles of flight and nav and meteorology im fine with well i've already been doing my homework
just to give me that extra help.
can't wait to start
thanks
Wilson
Hoping to start in the Summer Holidays and work my way from then-on
Which area of the P.P.L is more challenging? Air Law to me sounds the Hardest
Principles of flight and nav and meteorology im fine with well i've already been doing my homework
just to give me that extra help.can't wait to start
thanks
Wilson
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Inside CAS
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing about the PA28 is that a lot of FTO's use them for the IMC, so if you're planning on progressing to the IMC it might be an idea to stay put on the PA28?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a load of nonsense spoken and written about the Cessna -v- Piper debate.
The 172 and PA28 are both equally good trainers, they fly in kind of the same way and the 'pros and cons' essentially come down to ease of entry / egress (better in the 172) and looks (I think the Piper is prettier).
You won't go far wrong in either and picking the right instructor is a far more important choice.
The 172 and PA28 are both equally good trainers, they fly in kind of the same way and the 'pros and cons' essentially come down to ease of entry / egress (better in the 172) and looks (I think the Piper is prettier).
You won't go far wrong in either and picking the right instructor is a far more important choice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slightly more stable in choppyness possibly, but not particularly any easier
I am rather surprised that you would say this.
The Warrior is clearly easy to fly in the following regards
- more powerful with 2 up
- very easy go around with the extra power
- easier to trim than either the PA38 or the C152
- docile stall characteristics
- more stable in the cruise
About the only thing that is harder than the tommy or the Cessna is the fuel management.
I have several hundred hours in PA28 and regard them as being a great low powered tourer, but ask any seasoned instructor their preference for teaching ab initio students how to fly and I bet most will not name the Warrior.
I am rather surprised that you would say this.
The Warrior is clearly easy to fly in the following regards
- more powerful with 2 up
- very easy go around with the extra power
- easier to trim than either the PA38 or the C152
- docile stall characteristics
- more stable in the cruise
About the only thing that is harder than the tommy or the Cessna is the fuel management.
I have several hundred hours in PA28 and regard them as being a great low powered tourer, but ask any seasoned instructor their preference for teaching ab initio students how to fly and I bet most will not name the Warrior.
Guest
Posts: n/a
so the PA28-161 isn't a good trainer because it does everything that Piper meant it to do to be a good trainer
If you get off your high horse and put your hyperbole to bed for a while, you might try and do some research about Piper trainers.
Piper designed the PA38 to be their ab initio trainer, based on a large scale survey of flight instructors, despite the PA28 having been in production for some time - perhaps you may wonder why they did that?
Now many of us do not particularly like the tommy, but the fact remains that it does exactly what is was designed to do, including providing a sporting stall, a 'student proof' fuel management system and better all round vision.
I'll let someone else respnd to your comments about the C152, as I only have about 50 hours in those and don't feel I know the type well enough to speak about it. (by the way nearly as many hours as you have in total.)
With regards to a cub, it is also a very easy aircraft to fly, you really need to get some experience before being so emphatic.
Hardly any of the PPL course is basic handling anyway
Unbelievable comment, what do you think all the circuit work is?
If you get off your high horse and put your hyperbole to bed for a while, you might try and do some research about Piper trainers.
Piper designed the PA38 to be their ab initio trainer, based on a large scale survey of flight instructors, despite the PA28 having been in production for some time - perhaps you may wonder why they did that?
Now many of us do not particularly like the tommy, but the fact remains that it does exactly what is was designed to do, including providing a sporting stall, a 'student proof' fuel management system and better all round vision.
I'll let someone else respnd to your comments about the C152, as I only have about 50 hours in those and don't feel I know the type well enough to speak about it. (by the way nearly as many hours as you have in total.)
With regards to a cub, it is also a very easy aircraft to fly, you really need to get some experience before being so emphatic.
Hardly any of the PPL course is basic handling anyway
Unbelievable comment, what do you think all the circuit work is?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Citation from Piper?
Sorry, no can do, as Piper went out of business many years ago and New Piper never built the PA38.
However, AOPA in the US has high credibility and you may wish to read this article, which I would rather rely on than Wiki.
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learn...icles/0107.cfm
A significant extract says "Flight instructors we spoke to feel strongly that the Tomahawk does what Piper intended. "It's the best primary trainer ever built," says Jim Tafta of Richmond Flight Center in West Kingston, Rhode Island. "The student is well trained, and they can't get away with some of the things they can in other trainers." The feedback is overwhelmingly positive, with one caveat: This airplane, though a trainer, still demands proper training of its pilots from a qualified instructor. Those with the training have flown the Tomahawk for thousands of hours without incident."
NB: My italics and emboldening.
I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect.
Let me know what part of that you don't understand.
Also, kindly note that I have claused my comments 'ab initio' trainer throughout.
Sorry, no can do, as Piper went out of business many years ago and New Piper never built the PA38.
However, AOPA in the US has high credibility and you may wish to read this article, which I would rather rely on than Wiki.
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learn...icles/0107.cfm
A significant extract says "Flight instructors we spoke to feel strongly that the Tomahawk does what Piper intended. "It's the best primary trainer ever built," says Jim Tafta of Richmond Flight Center in West Kingston, Rhode Island. "The student is well trained, and they can't get away with some of the things they can in other trainers." The feedback is overwhelmingly positive, with one caveat: This airplane, though a trainer, still demands proper training of its pilots from a qualified instructor. Those with the training have flown the Tomahawk for thousands of hours without incident."
NB: My italics and emboldening.
I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect.
Let me know what part of that you don't understand.
Also, kindly note that I have claused my comments 'ab initio' trainer throughout.
Guest
Posts: n/a
a) you made an incorrect statement regarding the purpose of the 161 series
No I did not. I did not make any statement regarding the purpose of the Warrior (151 included, since they OP did not state which series.) What I did say is that I believe there are better ab initio trainers and that the Warrior is a great low powered tourer
b) you contradicted yourself regarding the 152. First stating that in your opinion it was a better trainer than the Warrior, secondly stating that you had less hrs on type than an average student in their first year of training
No I did not. I said I believe it is a better ab initio trainer than the Warrior and that I would let someone else respond to your comments (about that stall spin comparison between the C152 and Warrior)
I made no reference to my hours on type in relation to an average student in their first year of training, I simply made the comparison between my hours on the C152 and your total hours and that I did not feel experienced enough to respond to your comments.
Do you know what ab initio means? Have you learned enough yet (here to learn, not to inform) to appreciate why an aircraft may be a very good choice for some types of training and not for others?
No I did not. I did not make any statement regarding the purpose of the Warrior (151 included, since they OP did not state which series.) What I did say is that I believe there are better ab initio trainers and that the Warrior is a great low powered tourer
b) you contradicted yourself regarding the 152. First stating that in your opinion it was a better trainer than the Warrior, secondly stating that you had less hrs on type than an average student in their first year of training
No I did not. I said I believe it is a better ab initio trainer than the Warrior and that I would let someone else respond to your comments (about that stall spin comparison between the C152 and Warrior)
I made no reference to my hours on type in relation to an average student in their first year of training, I simply made the comparison between my hours on the C152 and your total hours and that I did not feel experienced enough to respond to your comments.
Do you know what ab initio means? Have you learned enough yet (here to learn, not to inform) to appreciate why an aircraft may be a very good choice for some types of training and not for others?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do You think about the Diamond Katana DA-20 as training aircraft for initial PPL-training?
Due to cost reasons I decided to start with a restricted national PPL and joined a flying club where they use a rotax-propelled Katana DA-20 for initial training. Later on a H-36 Dimona TMG will be used as second type of training aircraft...
Due to cost reasons I decided to start with a restricted national PPL and joined a flying club where they use a rotax-propelled Katana DA-20 for initial training. Later on a H-36 Dimona TMG will be used as second type of training aircraft...
Guest
Posts: n/a
G-EMMA
Let's try one last time to deal with some of your comments in a rational and logical way.
I would read that slowly dear the 'Warrior' is implicitly the 161 series
Why? There are 38 examples of the 151 series on the UK register, as opposed to 320 161 models, so 12% of the UK Warrior fleet is the 151 type - why is a Warrior 'implicitly' a 161?
I also note that you added (sic) after 151, which suggests to me that you are unaware of the lineage of the PA28, since the 151 is the original (Cherokee) Warrior, whereas the 161 is the Warrior II (or III.)
Conclusion, your comment displays a lack of knowledge.
You perpetuate the myth that the 152 is the better ab initio training aircraft. In fact there is little in it and many prefer the Warrior.
I do not perpetuate any myth. I gave my own opinion, claused 'IMHO' (In My Humble Opinion) in my original response. Having learned on both C152 and PA28 and flown several hundred hours (aggregate) in both types since 1993, I feel able to have an opinion.
Some people may disagree with that opinion, but I have yet to encounter a flying instructor who has expressed a belief that the PA28 is a better ab initio platform than the C152.
You say that many (which I understand to mean students in this context) prefer the PA28 for training and this seems to be a reasonable statement.
I switched half way through my training due to geographical reasons and prefered the PA28 at the time, but with hindsight believe that my basic handling skills and in particular flying in balance and trimmed out, would have been of a higher standard on granting of PPL, had I continued with the C152.
I would be interested in how a 60 hour student pilot can state facts on the relative merits of training aircraft. WHere did these 'facts' come from?
Conclusion, you have a strong opinion, which you present as 'fact', whereas I have a strong opinion, which I present as opinion.
Unfortunately all this rubbish has been posted on a thread started by someone new to flying. A simple, 'is the Warrior OK??' the answer 'yes it is great thousands of people have trained in it' would have done.
Someone about to start training asked a question and I gave an honest opinion, which I thought might be helpful to the OP, but apparently you now give advice on the content of responses - I didn't realise that Danny and Rob had made you a moderator of this forum.
The subsequent 'rubbish' as you put it was initiated by others, I only responded.
I guess now from your previous statement that the Cub is so easy to fly it doesn't teach anyone what a 152 could
Your guess is wrong. The Cub is a good learning platform and a sheer delight to fly.
What you said originally is that "a nice Cub will teach you to be polite to aeroplanes and make up for learning in an easy aircraft."
Apart from ground handling characteristics (which is a generic taildragger trait and one of the reasons that differences training is now mandated), how is a Cub a difficult aeroplane to fly? It doesn't even have flaps.
A 152 is an easy aeroplane to fly, a Warrior is TOO easy for ab initio (IMHO.)
Although hardly a hot ship or a killer, I believe (IMHO) a DH82a is a more challenging aircraft to learn on, before you ask and that this will develop skills to a higher standard than a 152 does.
I'm amazed that after 50hrs in the 152 and hundreds in an aircraft that you seem to have trouble identifying with any amount of clarity that you can't compare the stall characteristics between the two types.
You should not be amazed, since I can indeed differentiate between the stalling characteristics of the Warrior and the 152, both of which are pretty benign generally, although a 152 (especially if the rigging is a little less than perfect) may surprise with a sharpish wing drop and the Warrior has restrictions on spinning which should make one think about why they exist before departing at heavier weights.
However, recovery is not generally taxing in either.
What I would not feel comfortable concluding is the thrust behind your statement that "If your still not sure research stall spin accidents involving students and the 152 and the PA28-161 Warrior, it will help you realise that the Warrior is a very good aircraft to be training in."
The implication seems to me to imply that flying a 152 carries more risk of a stall/spin than a Warrior.
That is why I wrote "I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect."
Perhaps I should have added that I am not a test pilot either, since those are the people who usually does this type of comparision and speak with authority on the conclusions.
Let's try one last time to deal with some of your comments in a rational and logical way.
I would read that slowly dear the 'Warrior' is implicitly the 161 series
Why? There are 38 examples of the 151 series on the UK register, as opposed to 320 161 models, so 12% of the UK Warrior fleet is the 151 type - why is a Warrior 'implicitly' a 161?
I also note that you added (sic) after 151, which suggests to me that you are unaware of the lineage of the PA28, since the 151 is the original (Cherokee) Warrior, whereas the 161 is the Warrior II (or III.)
Conclusion, your comment displays a lack of knowledge.
You perpetuate the myth that the 152 is the better ab initio training aircraft. In fact there is little in it and many prefer the Warrior.
I do not perpetuate any myth. I gave my own opinion, claused 'IMHO' (In My Humble Opinion) in my original response. Having learned on both C152 and PA28 and flown several hundred hours (aggregate) in both types since 1993, I feel able to have an opinion.
Some people may disagree with that opinion, but I have yet to encounter a flying instructor who has expressed a belief that the PA28 is a better ab initio platform than the C152.
You say that many (which I understand to mean students in this context) prefer the PA28 for training and this seems to be a reasonable statement.
I switched half way through my training due to geographical reasons and prefered the PA28 at the time, but with hindsight believe that my basic handling skills and in particular flying in balance and trimmed out, would have been of a higher standard on granting of PPL, had I continued with the C152.
I would be interested in how a 60 hour student pilot can state facts on the relative merits of training aircraft. WHere did these 'facts' come from?
Conclusion, you have a strong opinion, which you present as 'fact', whereas I have a strong opinion, which I present as opinion.
Unfortunately all this rubbish has been posted on a thread started by someone new to flying. A simple, 'is the Warrior OK??' the answer 'yes it is great thousands of people have trained in it' would have done.
Someone about to start training asked a question and I gave an honest opinion, which I thought might be helpful to the OP, but apparently you now give advice on the content of responses - I didn't realise that Danny and Rob had made you a moderator of this forum.
The subsequent 'rubbish' as you put it was initiated by others, I only responded.
I guess now from your previous statement that the Cub is so easy to fly it doesn't teach anyone what a 152 could
Your guess is wrong. The Cub is a good learning platform and a sheer delight to fly.
What you said originally is that "a nice Cub will teach you to be polite to aeroplanes and make up for learning in an easy aircraft."
Apart from ground handling characteristics (which is a generic taildragger trait and one of the reasons that differences training is now mandated), how is a Cub a difficult aeroplane to fly? It doesn't even have flaps.
A 152 is an easy aeroplane to fly, a Warrior is TOO easy for ab initio (IMHO.)
Although hardly a hot ship or a killer, I believe (IMHO) a DH82a is a more challenging aircraft to learn on, before you ask and that this will develop skills to a higher standard than a 152 does.
I'm amazed that after 50hrs in the 152 and hundreds in an aircraft that you seem to have trouble identifying with any amount of clarity that you can't compare the stall characteristics between the two types.
You should not be amazed, since I can indeed differentiate between the stalling characteristics of the Warrior and the 152, both of which are pretty benign generally, although a 152 (especially if the rigging is a little less than perfect) may surprise with a sharpish wing drop and the Warrior has restrictions on spinning which should make one think about why they exist before departing at heavier weights.
However, recovery is not generally taxing in either.
What I would not feel comfortable concluding is the thrust behind your statement that "If your still not sure research stall spin accidents involving students and the 152 and the PA28-161 Warrior, it will help you realise that the Warrior is a very good aircraft to be training in."
The implication seems to me to imply that flying a 152 carries more risk of a stall/spin than a Warrior.
That is why I wrote "I believe I know enough about the C152 to comment on it's general effectivness as an ab initio trainer compared to the PA28, but not enough to comment on it's stall/spin risks versus the PA28 as I am not experienced enough on type in that respect."
Perhaps I should have added that I am not a test pilot either, since those are the people who usually does this type of comparision and speak with authority on the conclusions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Asrian
What do You think about the Diamond Katana DA-20 as training aircraft for initial PPL-training?
I only logged a few hours on the DV20, the Austrian manufactured Katana (some years after my PPL), but it seemed to me to be a good prospect for PPL training.
What I liked was the extra shoulder room compared to a 152, the good visibility, the constant speed prop that gave good climb performance and the crisp handling/stick.
What I didn't like was trimmer, which was not a normal wheel - perhaps that is different in the DA20.
Perhaps others with more experience on type will be able to give you a better insight.
What do You think about the Diamond Katana DA-20 as training aircraft for initial PPL-training?
I only logged a few hours on the DV20, the Austrian manufactured Katana (some years after my PPL), but it seemed to me to be a good prospect for PPL training.
What I liked was the extra shoulder room compared to a 152, the good visibility, the constant speed prop that gave good climb performance and the crisp handling/stick.
What I didn't like was trimmer, which was not a normal wheel - perhaps that is different in the DA20.
Perhaps others with more experience on type will be able to give you a better insight.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kent UK
Age: 42
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wilson,
Given that you are about to take your first sip of the wine, you can safely ignore the healthy debate about which vintage is the best. It will take some time before you develop the pallet to be able to differentiate, and you have a lifetime to build that pallet if you decide to become a connoisseur.
I am approaching the end of my training (although the god awful weather has been getting in the way slightly!), and yet I still only understand every other word in some of the debate raging in this thread, and I am sure that generating this kind of debate was not exactly your intention.
Check that your aircraft has 2 wings (with apologies to rotorheads!), an engine (with apologies to glider pilots) and a capable instructor in the right hand seat.... if you can tick those three boxes, the aircraft is perfectly fine for your training!
Good luck and enjoy it!
Given that you are about to take your first sip of the wine, you can safely ignore the healthy debate about which vintage is the best. It will take some time before you develop the pallet to be able to differentiate, and you have a lifetime to build that pallet if you decide to become a connoisseur.
I am approaching the end of my training (although the god awful weather has been getting in the way slightly!), and yet I still only understand every other word in some of the debate raging in this thread, and I am sure that generating this kind of debate was not exactly your intention.
Check that your aircraft has 2 wings (with apologies to rotorheads!), an engine (with apologies to glider pilots) and a capable instructor in the right hand seat.... if you can tick those three boxes, the aircraft is perfectly fine for your training!
Good luck and enjoy it!