Please don't make me learn to fly in a Cesspit!
You learn about FLYING in a C152 and as stated it is very forgiving.
If you want to learn to fly on conventional gear, do so. If you don't like the C152 then find an aircraft you do like. It is your time and money.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You learn about FLYING in a C152
You can get your licence without too much skill being required in a 152 - but then you have to go find a real aeroplane to learn about FLYING!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA28 and Cessna's are used by the biggest names in the training industry - Oxford, Flight Training Europe and Cabair. If they can manage to get people jobs in airlines like British Airways flying the A320 I think the PA28 and Cessna are perfectly good training tools - and therefore are well above the mark for the PPL. Go ahead and train with a glass cockpit, but don't moan when the GPS does not work and you have no idea where you are!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing that has stopped you getting your PPL is you! We all know a poor workman blames his tools ... Is that you?
Cessnas aren't sexy, but they're fine for teaching you the bits your gliding hasn't. You already have stick and rudder skills, so as it's not handling that you need, why worry what you fly? All you'll really be "learning" for your PPL is engine management, instrument appreciation and more navigation. You an do this in anything, so put your predudice aside and get yer bum in anything you can. Plenty of time for fun aircraft later.
Probably the best route for you would be NPPL SLMG, then convert to SEP and if you feel the need PPL.
SS
Cessnas aren't sexy, but they're fine for teaching you the bits your gliding hasn't. You already have stick and rudder skills, so as it's not handling that you need, why worry what you fly? All you'll really be "learning" for your PPL is engine management, instrument appreciation and more navigation. You an do this in anything, so put your predudice aside and get yer bum in anything you can. Plenty of time for fun aircraft later.
Probably the best route for you would be NPPL SLMG, then convert to SEP and if you feel the need PPL.
SS
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically, to clarify my statement about 'FLYING', I consider anything beyond the scope of the PPL syllabus to be beyond the requirements of a PPL training aircraft. The diehards may argue but many do not teach on a daily basis - I do. You can have all singing, all spinning, all dancing old or new stuff but when it comes down to it the C152 wins everytime and does all we require of it for PPL training.
As for Ghengis the Engineer's devils advocate question - I'd say a simple, safe, stable platform is a far better option for a PPL novice than something more likely to catch them out. People who've flown for a long time and who have some number of hours in their logbook forget just how tough learning to fly ANY aeroplane can be... especially the older you start. I teach people everyday and believe you me, I would not wish to be doing it in an aircraft such as the PA38.... I already have one mate in a wheelchair from teaching spinning in one of those things and without going into the details one thing is for certain - he wouldn't be crippled had he been in a C152.
Remember KISS folks and convert to the more interesting gear once you've got your licence. At my school we cover taildragging and often get asked the question about doing a PPL in a taildragger and the response from experience is - get yer licence on something like a C152 then convert. Cheaper too.
Flying in the UK has changed greatly since WW2.
VFE.
As for Ghengis the Engineer's devils advocate question - I'd say a simple, safe, stable platform is a far better option for a PPL novice than something more likely to catch them out. People who've flown for a long time and who have some number of hours in their logbook forget just how tough learning to fly ANY aeroplane can be... especially the older you start. I teach people everyday and believe you me, I would not wish to be doing it in an aircraft such as the PA38.... I already have one mate in a wheelchair from teaching spinning in one of those things and without going into the details one thing is for certain - he wouldn't be crippled had he been in a C152.
Remember KISS folks and convert to the more interesting gear once you've got your licence. At my school we cover taildragging and often get asked the question about doing a PPL in a taildragger and the response from experience is - get yer licence on something like a C152 then convert. Cheaper too.
Flying in the UK has changed greatly since WW2.
VFE.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on.....I'm not taking anything away from C150/152 and PA28's. I know they are great training aircraft. I know they are maintained well despite sometimes looking a bit shabby. Way I see it is if the thing has survived being slammed in to the ground by trainee pilots day in day out for 40 years it must be fine!
BUT.....the point is why fly an old, shabby, characterless aircraft when there are smart, modern, more interesting equivalents out there that do just the same thing for the same price?
Someone posted something earlier comparing it to learning to drive in a Metro - bit of a heap but reliable and did everything it needed to etc. I totally agree. But given the choice between learning to drive a Metro or a brand new BMW 3 series (Or whatever) for the same price it's a bit of a no brainer.
BUT.....the point is why fly an old, shabby, characterless aircraft when there are smart, modern, more interesting equivalents out there that do just the same thing for the same price?
Someone posted something earlier comparing it to learning to drive in a Metro - bit of a heap but reliable and did everything it needed to etc. I totally agree. But given the choice between learning to drive a Metro or a brand new BMW 3 series (Or whatever) for the same price it's a bit of a no brainer.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For you, with your (at this stage) limited knowledge it may be but for your instructor it is not. When we learn to fly we do not yet know enough to realise how much we do not yet know - that is why we pay the instructor. ASk any instructor regardless of what they fly and they'll tell you the C152 is as good as any - unless, perhaps, they do not have any at their school but you will not hear many experienced instructors knocking it that's for sure.
Also, C152's are not characterless! That is the voice of inexperience if ever I heard it.
VFE.
Also, C152's are not characterless! That is the voice of inexperience if ever I heard it.
VFE.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VFE
Remember KISS folks and convert to the more interesting gear once you've got your licence. At my school we cover taildragging and often get asked the question about doing a PPL in a taildragger and the response from experience is - get yer licence on something like a C152 then convert. Cheaper too.
Last edited by JBGA; 18th Jun 2008 at 23:30. Reason: Spelling correction
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildraggers are harder to control on the runway than tricycle types, the stick and rudder skill required is higher than that of other conventional tricycle aircraft which all helps to distract a student who is simply learning to fly. Orientation, RT and general airmanship will be put on the back burner until the student can control the aircraft to some degree sufficient to allow them to go solo, which will take longer. Lookout is the number one airmanship aspect and in taildraggers this is more difficult - it would help if you were first versed in the art of maintaining a good lookout before hopping into something less accomodating.
The time your instructor will need to spend with you on a taildragger at the ab-initio stage will be longer and sadly many schools do not allow adequate slot times for the extra briefing this would require, as a consequence safety standards would be in danger of lapsing below the norm.
But the main practical reason is that crosswind limits for taildraggers are much lower than conventional aircraft. In the olden days this was not a problem because airfields were exactly that - airfields. An aeroplane could always land and take-off into wind. Nowadays, runways dictate reduced take off and landing margins for taildraggers so you would get a higher percentage of lessons cancelled due to the wind whereas in a conventional tricycle type you'd be up there flying and learning. All this is not too much of a problem if you already know how to fly, but if you do not yet know how to fly then this all adds to the difficulty and your progress will suffer from the lack of continuity... it will take longer, more money and your training will have been disjointed leading to possible weak areas in basic skills which had you just done your time on a conventional type and then converted you'd have avoided. Need I go on? It's getting late.
VFE.
The time your instructor will need to spend with you on a taildragger at the ab-initio stage will be longer and sadly many schools do not allow adequate slot times for the extra briefing this would require, as a consequence safety standards would be in danger of lapsing below the norm.
But the main practical reason is that crosswind limits for taildraggers are much lower than conventional aircraft. In the olden days this was not a problem because airfields were exactly that - airfields. An aeroplane could always land and take-off into wind. Nowadays, runways dictate reduced take off and landing margins for taildraggers so you would get a higher percentage of lessons cancelled due to the wind whereas in a conventional tricycle type you'd be up there flying and learning. All this is not too much of a problem if you already know how to fly, but if you do not yet know how to fly then this all adds to the difficulty and your progress will suffer from the lack of continuity... it will take longer, more money and your training will have been disjointed leading to possible weak areas in basic skills which had you just done your time on a conventional type and then converted you'd have avoided. Need I go on? It's getting late.
VFE.
VFE,
I'd disagree heartily that learning in tailwheel is a 'distraction' to learning to fly. The only time the tailwheel airplane 'distracts' you is during taxi, takeoff, and landing. None of that figures in when you are boring around, I was expected to keep a lookout for traffic, make coordinated turns, navigate, etc just like any C152 driver.
But, as I've grown from a tailwheel snob kid to a middle aged adult, I see less wrong with the C152 or other nosedragger airplanes. Ultimately, any aircraft that can do the job of converting a non-aviator into an aviator, whether is a lowly C152, or an SGS 2-33, or an R22 is a good machine in my book. I'm glad I learned to fly in a tailwheel airplane. But I'm just as glad for anybody who learns to fly in anything.
JGBA,
I think you should hold out for learning to fly in a Spitfire. If one does not become available, you have another good reason to not have finished up your PPL, and it won't be your fault!
-- IFMU
I'd disagree heartily that learning in tailwheel is a 'distraction' to learning to fly. The only time the tailwheel airplane 'distracts' you is during taxi, takeoff, and landing. None of that figures in when you are boring around, I was expected to keep a lookout for traffic, make coordinated turns, navigate, etc just like any C152 driver.
But, as I've grown from a tailwheel snob kid to a middle aged adult, I see less wrong with the C152 or other nosedragger airplanes. Ultimately, any aircraft that can do the job of converting a non-aviator into an aviator, whether is a lowly C152, or an SGS 2-33, or an R22 is a good machine in my book. I'm glad I learned to fly in a tailwheel airplane. But I'm just as glad for anybody who learns to fly in anything.
JGBA,
I think you should hold out for learning to fly in a Spitfire. If one does not become available, you have another good reason to not have finished up your PPL, and it won't be your fault!
-- IFMU
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My flying experience started on motor gliders.
I then moved onto the DA20 for initial training up to 1st solo, then did the remainder of my training in a pa-28.
Although the DA20 was much nicer to fly, the pa-28 was much better to learn in. Now i've had my PPL just over a year, and i've moved to the PA-38, and now i'm about to start flying a robin.
As has been said before, it doesn't matter what aircraft you train in. It won't be the most glamourous or exiting aircraft in the world, but for a trainer the important things are cost and reliability.
I wouldn't dismiss the pa-28 so quickly, although i've never flown a cessna so can't really comment.
I then moved onto the DA20 for initial training up to 1st solo, then did the remainder of my training in a pa-28.
Although the DA20 was much nicer to fly, the pa-28 was much better to learn in. Now i've had my PPL just over a year, and i've moved to the PA-38, and now i'm about to start flying a robin.
As has been said before, it doesn't matter what aircraft you train in. It won't be the most glamourous or exiting aircraft in the world, but for a trainer the important things are cost and reliability.
I wouldn't dismiss the pa-28 so quickly, although i've never flown a cessna so can't really comment.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying training is expensive and the paying customer usually wants to pay as little as possible. Cessna/piper are the most popular because no one has come up with anything cheaper. However with their 20 litre an hour fuel burn and AVGAS rumoured to hit the 2 quid mark by the end of the year maybe things will change.
The recent troubles at thielert may have dampened the popularity of the DA40 but not far from where I live one can train in a brand new AT-3 and it costs 5 quid an hour less than a 150/2. Now I've not yet flown in this aircraft and time will tell if it is suitable for the training market but if I was trying to get my PPL today it would be a no brainer on which aircraft type I would be learning on.
The recent troubles at thielert may have dampened the popularity of the DA40 but not far from where I live one can train in a brand new AT-3 and it costs 5 quid an hour less than a 150/2. Now I've not yet flown in this aircraft and time will tell if it is suitable for the training market but if I was trying to get my PPL today it would be a no brainer on which aircraft type I would be learning on.
Last edited by Mickey Kaye; 19th Jun 2008 at 12:12.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 152 is out of production and is likely never to be produced again. 152’s are used for training because they are cheep to buy, being 30 years old and have been cheap to run. As the age catches up with them and the price of fuel increases the 152 will stop being used for training.
The AT3 is designed as a trainer and will compete head on with the new Cessna, when it eventually gets uk approval. I have not flown an AT3 but I have considerable experience of similar aircraft and this class of aircraft will take over as they are the fastest growing GA sector world wide. If you are planning on getting a PPL and then buy a nice new LAS/VLA burning 15lph of mogas and doing up to 160kn, then you would be mad to learn on the old tec. It is economics, not suitability, which has kept the 152 in use well beyond its sell by date.
Rod1
The AT3 is designed as a trainer and will compete head on with the new Cessna, when it eventually gets uk approval. I have not flown an AT3 but I have considerable experience of similar aircraft and this class of aircraft will take over as they are the fastest growing GA sector world wide. If you are planning on getting a PPL and then buy a nice new LAS/VLA burning 15lph of mogas and doing up to 160kn, then you would be mad to learn on the old tec. It is economics, not suitability, which has kept the 152 in use well beyond its sell by date.
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thread.....raising similar points to the "fantastic plastic" one a couple of days ago, which centred around elderly thirsty "spamcans" vs frugal Rotax lightweights.
As far as PPL/NPPL training is concered, its really about economics for most mere mortals. Faced with choice of AT-3 at £113 or PA28 at £129, the decision is obvious???? This assumes however that the AT-3 does not suffer (or will not suffer) from weather/crosswind/servicability downtime issues as compared to PA28/152 etc. If this does indeed become the case then continuity problems & assocated revision extra hours could erode this cost advantage.
On licence award - the AT-3 is surely a good enough VFR bimbler/tourer? If you want to carry more than one pax and or luggage, then convert to a 4 seater - simple?
Will the AT-3 class of aircaft stand up to the rigours of countless student landings, month after month......only time will tell?
Under new EASA regs, when will we see a NEW TECHNOLOGY 4 or even 3 seat a/c consuming less than 20 ltrs/hr at 100Kts
Standby to be informed there already is one!!!!!!!
As far as PPL/NPPL training is concered, its really about economics for most mere mortals. Faced with choice of AT-3 at £113 or PA28 at £129, the decision is obvious???? This assumes however that the AT-3 does not suffer (or will not suffer) from weather/crosswind/servicability downtime issues as compared to PA28/152 etc. If this does indeed become the case then continuity problems & assocated revision extra hours could erode this cost advantage.
On licence award - the AT-3 is surely a good enough VFR bimbler/tourer? If you want to carry more than one pax and or luggage, then convert to a 4 seater - simple?
Will the AT-3 class of aircaft stand up to the rigours of countless student landings, month after month......only time will tell?
Under new EASA regs, when will we see a NEW TECHNOLOGY 4 or even 3 seat a/c consuming less than 20 ltrs/hr at 100Kts
Standby to be informed there already is one!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rod1
The 152 is out of production and is likely never to be produced again.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why I pointed out the AT3 and the SkyCatcher are direct competitors and are built to similar rules. Difference is the AT3 is being used now and has full European approval. The SkyCatcher is also likely to use 20-25% more fuel. The AT3 is already undercutting the opposition as it is running on fuel which costs 50p less per L than the 152 and uses 25% less volume. Pure economics, but if you are a seat of the pants glider pilot, I would expect the AT to talk your language in a way the 152 never could.
“Standby to be informed there already is one!!!!!!!”
The 4 seat 18lph 120kn aircraft exists, but will not be available in the UK for a short while yet. I had a ride in the back of one 4 years ago and was very impressed indeed!
Rod1
“Standby to be informed there already is one!!!!!!!”
The 4 seat 18lph 120kn aircraft exists, but will not be available in the UK for a short while yet. I had a ride in the back of one 4 years ago and was very impressed indeed!
Rod1
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time the tailwheel airplane 'distracts' you is during taxi, takeoff, and landing
Look, I'm not saying it's impossible, of course not, nor that you won't benefit from the challenge but I'm just saying it's not ideal when you have something like a C152 sat there doing nothing, that's all. Flying in the UK nowadays is as much about operational procedures as much as being able to pole the aircraft about. Skill increasing coordination exercises make up only a small percentage of what a student needs to learn in the short time between starting a PPL and completing. In the old days the course could be more geared towards become a good stick and rudder pilot whereas now it's just not possible given everything else that has to be learned in the 45 hours. Cram too much in and it becomes a waste of time because the average human being cannot absorb it all.
It's just less hassle all round to go from tricycle to taildragger but hey, you pays yer money you takes yer choice... just don't complain you weren't advised properly before making your decision.
VFE.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose its because fuel consumption/cost is just not such an issue to US General Aviation as it is in UK/Europe. Mr Cessna may have to re-consider this now?
By the way - what is the average cost of AVGAS in the US.???
By the way - what is the average cost of AVGAS in the US.???