What 4 seater? 172SH vs PA28 warrior
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Obviously he needs to be sure of his navigation (carry a GPS) and of the weather (look at the forecasts, but actually you can almost see LTQ from almost anywhere in Kent once you get airborne.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not have a fly out experience with instructor to Le Touquet? This will also allow you to pass "Channel Crossing Test" which is required by many in order to hire the aircraft to cross the channel.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
cross channel check
Instructor: Do you think you can find your way then?
Me: Well, I've managed to find my way to Lydd and back, and its only another ten minutes from there, so how hard could it be?
Instructor: Fine, off you go.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Medway, Kent
Age: 41
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your reply Peter, what you say is pretty much what i have been told by Every instructor + Examiner that i have personally spoke to at my flying school and others local -which is (well, was) Rochester, however i shall be doing my last 10 hours at headcorn. They all say that crossing the channel really isn't much of a challenge so long as its planned well and in the event that a drop in vis hides my horizon, then i just scan my altimeter, gyro and VSI periodically and stick to my plog workings until i can clearly see land again. I will have to do a cross channel check with my flying school with the instructor before i am allowed to go solo, they say that altho the flying is easy, its the France end that can be daunting as French ATC like chatting in French and sometimes there English is not all that easy to understand, so that combined with un-familiar airspace / airport, it can become all a little stressful if things start going not to plan!
Btw, some of you mention flying close to the MTOW and how its very different to what i am 'probably used to'.. Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW? and on the other end of the scale, i have flown the 152 solo with about 25L fuel remaining and the thing took off like a helicopter! Either way tho, i did not find the weight difference any more tricky to manage at the light end or the heavy end, i found i just adjusted my flying to suit it - ie, when heavy, slightly more RPM whilst cruise, slightly more power on approach etc, little more gentle on the controls etc.. I guess i get this from years of driving Articulated lorries / fuel tankers as they obviously handle differently when there empty at 13~14 tonnes or full at 44 tonnes, especially with a liquid load.
With regard to flying my Gf's parents to France on there first trip, i can assure you it will not be there first time up in a light aircraft with myself! My gf came along on my very first lesson in a pa28 and she was sick and to make it worse she passed me the sick bag as she got out of the aircraft and the bag split and went all down my leg
I myself got a funny stomach whilst flying on a couple of my early lessons too, so with that experience i shall certainly be doing some local flights in a 152 to start with so my passengers can get a feel for it etc.
** By the way, thanks to everyone else's replies also! So much advice and information in this thread, its hard to remember who said what! bare in mind tho i have read all and taken onboard any advice! Thanks loads
Btw, some of you mention flying close to the MTOW and how its very different to what i am 'probably used to'.. Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW? and on the other end of the scale, i have flown the 152 solo with about 25L fuel remaining and the thing took off like a helicopter! Either way tho, i did not find the weight difference any more tricky to manage at the light end or the heavy end, i found i just adjusted my flying to suit it - ie, when heavy, slightly more RPM whilst cruise, slightly more power on approach etc, little more gentle on the controls etc.. I guess i get this from years of driving Articulated lorries / fuel tankers as they obviously handle differently when there empty at 13~14 tonnes or full at 44 tonnes, especially with a liquid load.
With regard to flying my Gf's parents to France on there first trip, i can assure you it will not be there first time up in a light aircraft with myself! My gf came along on my very first lesson in a pa28 and she was sick and to make it worse she passed me the sick bag as she got out of the aircraft and the bag split and went all down my leg
I myself got a funny stomach whilst flying on a couple of my early lessons too, so with that experience i shall certainly be doing some local flights in a 152 to start with so my passengers can get a feel for it etc.** By the way, thanks to everyone else's replies also! So much advice and information in this thread, its hard to remember who said what! bare in mind tho i have read all and taken onboard any advice! Thanks loads
Last edited by RyanRs; 13th May 2012 at 21:46.
Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Btw, some of you mention flying close to the MTOW and how its very different to what i am 'probably used to'.
In a 172 the occupants sit quite a ways removed from the center of gravity. This means it's easier to load the aircraft at the edges, or even outside the balance envelope - something that's near impossible in a side-by-side two-seater unless you take a ridiculous amount of baggage. Flying at the edges of the envelope will alter the flight characteristics, especially if you don't trim properly.
But there's something else too. Having weight far away from the center of gravity, even if the weight fwd and aft balances out, still leads to an increased polar moment of inertia. That means the aircraft will pitch up and down slower, and might take more time and effort to stabilize on a given pitch angle/speed. It's not something that's impossible to handle, but it is something to be aware of, especially during the flare.
In other words, the difference in flying characteristics between a "light" and a "heavy" 152 is less than the difference in flying characteristics between a "light" and a "heavy" 172.
But I'll admit that the difference between a "light" and a "heavy" articulated lorry is probably even bigger.
this should have been calculated for each flight!
Last edited by BackPacker; 14th May 2012 at 11:09.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW?
Just a little bit. (it goes on all round the country and has done since the aircraft were imported, but its not the done thing to talk about it, cause folk get quite upset.)
The fact is that if the statistics were available for the training 2 seater fleet in the UK and how often they take off over weight I suspect there would be compleling evidence to increase C150/152' and PA38's MTOW by a good 60-100 kg.
(With 17 and 13 stone, they probably *are* the center of gravity.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reckon Peter has it about right.
There is no reason why you shouldn't be doing it (ignore those who tell you that you need 1,000 hrs before you do anything meaningful with an aeroplane), but at the same time it's never a good idea to push the boundaries of what is legal and possible too much.
A PA28 Archer (180) would be a good shout. They can take a fair amount of weight and a decent amount of fuel at the same time.
However, the weight and balance situation is really, really simple. Do the full calculations for any aircraft you consider using for this trip. Decide how much fuel you need (no reason why you need to carry enough for the return trip, you can top up at Le Touquet) and then make conservative assumptions about how much everyone weighs. Then tell the ladies that handbags have to stay in the car, but add 20-30lb for general junk/coats/etc to the calculations anyway. Do the maths. You can either go or you can't. Make your rules about how much fuel you need before you do the maths - don't decide to make it fit the W&B.
I don't wouldn't fancy my chances if I was in the back of a C172 and the engine quit over water. Not only do they tend to flip, but can you imagine trying to get out of the back in a hurry - possibly with the people in the front incapacitated? At least in a PA28 you can climb over the seats if you have to.
It really is just a methodical process. Do the W&B and make sure it can be done with sufficient fuel. Then if that works out, make sure you're happy with the paperwork that needs to be done to fly abroad. It isn't too complex, but you do need to be absolutely clear you understand what needs to be done. As someone pointed out, file both flight plans the night before to make things easier. Then assuming we're still on, it's basically down the the weather. If you've done your PPL, then you'll know what is good enough and what isn't. To be honest, if it isn't good enough on the day then the authorising instructor probably won't let you go - but you should arrive at that decision yourself before you even try to sign the aircraft out.
No reason at all why you shouldn't plan this. But a lot of things will have to go right for you to get as far as backtracking to use every last yard, then lining up with 25 degrees of flap and putting full power against the brakes.
There is no reason why you shouldn't be doing it (ignore those who tell you that you need 1,000 hrs before you do anything meaningful with an aeroplane), but at the same time it's never a good idea to push the boundaries of what is legal and possible too much.
A PA28 Archer (180) would be a good shout. They can take a fair amount of weight and a decent amount of fuel at the same time.
However, the weight and balance situation is really, really simple. Do the full calculations for any aircraft you consider using for this trip. Decide how much fuel you need (no reason why you need to carry enough for the return trip, you can top up at Le Touquet) and then make conservative assumptions about how much everyone weighs. Then tell the ladies that handbags have to stay in the car, but add 20-30lb for general junk/coats/etc to the calculations anyway. Do the maths. You can either go or you can't. Make your rules about how much fuel you need before you do the maths - don't decide to make it fit the W&B.
I don't wouldn't fancy my chances if I was in the back of a C172 and the engine quit over water. Not only do they tend to flip, but can you imagine trying to get out of the back in a hurry - possibly with the people in the front incapacitated? At least in a PA28 you can climb over the seats if you have to.
It really is just a methodical process. Do the W&B and make sure it can be done with sufficient fuel. Then if that works out, make sure you're happy with the paperwork that needs to be done to fly abroad. It isn't too complex, but you do need to be absolutely clear you understand what needs to be done. As someone pointed out, file both flight plans the night before to make things easier. Then assuming we're still on, it's basically down the the weather. If you've done your PPL, then you'll know what is good enough and what isn't. To be honest, if it isn't good enough on the day then the authorising instructor probably won't let you go - but you should arrive at that decision yourself before you even try to sign the aircraft out.
No reason at all why you shouldn't plan this. But a lot of things will have to go right for you to get as far as backtracking to use every last yard, then lining up with 25 degrees of flap and putting full power against the brakes.
Last edited by niceday2700classic; 15th May 2012 at 15:33.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I can lift four adults weighing 672lbs, more or less three quarters tanks and about 100lbs of baggage in a C182 from a sensible length runway at sea-level or thereabouts. It's technically OK. Luckily it's also legal and in accordance with the POH.
If you want to lift four adults and go anywhere practical, a PA28 or a 172 is unlikely to cut it.
If you want something completely different, which isn't outrageously expensive (although you'll have to buy either a whole one or a share), get hold of a Yak-18T. That'll lift four easily and you also have the advantage of a fully aerobatic machine two-up.
If you want to lift four adults and go anywhere practical, a PA28 or a 172 is unlikely to cut it.
If you want something completely different, which isn't outrageously expensive (although you'll have to buy either a whole one or a share), get hold of a Yak-18T. That'll lift four easily and you also have the advantage of a fully aerobatic machine two-up.
Last edited by Tay Cough; 15th May 2012 at 17:15.
In any case starting from the very first lesson every student of mine calculates the C of G at the actual takeoff weight (which obviously must be below MGTOW) and the actual endurance the fuel on board will give us at a training block fuel flow. The endurance time is then turned into a "must be on the ground time" (ie Bingo fuel time) that I expect my student to compare to the noted actual takeoff time.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 15th May 2012 at 21:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Medway, Kent
Age: 41
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue you have here though is the fact that most new students will be new to flying, no experience or knowledge in the field whatsoever and therefore there first few lessons are usually spent deciding whether flying is defiantly for them or not and if they can stomach it and adapt to 'driving' on 3 axis! I can only assume that this on its own is quite hard on the brain for some at first and then if you throw things like W&B, MTOWs, Fuel consumption calculations etc in from day one then i think that could be enough to cause brain overload for some and really put a student off! I know that on my first lesson i certainly was not thinking much more than 'am i gonna get back on the ground alive'! After all, the idea is to study for the ground exams parallel to training in the air, so your coursework is relevant to the exercises you are doing in the air, hence why W&B and fuel are not usually thrown into the equation until your due your solo navigation exercises as this is when you must have the Nav exam done and passed by.
As for training overweight in the cessna 152, like others have mentioned, i think this is a practise that is used more often than not and i think to tell a student that he has to train in a 172 is not always going to be the best idea neither. I know i could not afford 45 hours in a 172 for starters! and if i was told i could not fly dual in a 152, then i would find another instructor who could! Im pretty sure i read on here somewhere that the 152's MTOW actually has quite a large safety margin and altho i would never even consider loading to that margin, i do trust my instructors opinion as to what weight he is willing to take! After all, my instructor has had an ATPL since the 1970's and has much over 10k hours experience split between medium/heavy jets and light training aircraft and more importantly, he is still alive!
Tay -Yak sounds like a brill idea! if only i knew of a place local that owns one for hire hmmm lol.
Anyway, with regard to the le'touquet trip, i will complete my PPL, im going to gain some hours experience doing local flights with friends and i shall more than likely get a NR out of the way. Then ill do the cross channel check ride and make my mind up from there.
As for training overweight in the cessna 152, like others have mentioned, i think this is a practise that is used more often than not and i think to tell a student that he has to train in a 172 is not always going to be the best idea neither. I know i could not afford 45 hours in a 172 for starters! and if i was told i could not fly dual in a 152, then i would find another instructor who could! Im pretty sure i read on here somewhere that the 152's MTOW actually has quite a large safety margin and altho i would never even consider loading to that margin, i do trust my instructors opinion as to what weight he is willing to take! After all, my instructor has had an ATPL since the 1970's and has much over 10k hours experience split between medium/heavy jets and light training aircraft and more importantly, he is still alive!
Tay -Yak sounds like a brill idea! if only i knew of a place local that owns one for hire hmmm lol.
Anyway, with regard to the le'touquet trip, i will complete my PPL, im going to gain some hours experience doing local flights with friends and i shall more than likely get a NR out of the way. Then ill do the cross channel check ride and make my mind up from there.
Cessna-Piper
Ditto Cessna 182. Full load, full fuel, and hundreds of miles range, plus ability to do grass strips.
With regard to overweight training flights the problem here is the 'habit' overspilling to your proposed passenger flights.
The vast % number of incidents/accidents relating to take off (Or failing to take off) are due to pilots attempting such flights which fall outside of the aircrafts PERFORMANCE ability.The flight manual has this information, but it becomes critical when everything starts to get FULL, and the OAT is high. Frequently a machine will get out of a regional airport sized situation only to Fail to clear the hedge at a local club grass field.The benefit of a '182' type, is it has the power and a VP prop to do the job with a margin of SAFETY.
With regard to overweight training flights the problem here is the 'habit' overspilling to your proposed passenger flights.
The vast % number of incidents/accidents relating to take off (Or failing to take off) are due to pilots attempting such flights which fall outside of the aircrafts PERFORMANCE ability.The flight manual has this information, but it becomes critical when everything starts to get FULL, and the OAT is high. Frequently a machine will get out of a regional airport sized situation only to Fail to clear the hedge at a local club grass field.The benefit of a '182' type, is it has the power and a VP prop to do the job with a margin of SAFETY.
Last edited by POBJOY; 16th May 2012 at 08:45.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any case starting from the very first lesson every student of mine calculates the C of G at the actual takeoff weight (which obviously must be below MGTOW) and the actual endurance the fuel on board will give us at a training block fuel flow. The endurance time is then turned into a "must be on the ground time" (ie Bingo fuel time) that I expect my student to compare to the noted actual takeoff time.
Ryan - with all due respect, I am with BPF and some others on here. Having to 'guess' you are overgross sheds a very, very poor light on the training establishment where you are leaning. If they don't teach you W&B what do they actually teach you? Flying safely is about a lot more than just manipulating the controls, that's the easy part. It's about planning, decision making, knowing the machine you fly and its limitations (!!) and - importantly - knowing where to look up info you may need. It would appear from your posts that the 'school' you are at teaches you none of the above. Scary....
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 XP Hawk = 200 hp, CSU, 120 planned cruise (Usually better) 9gph fuel burn and you get 182 weight capacity. Pack the cabin full of people, full mains and it'll still leap off the ground. 182 performance in a 172 package!
