Cherokee or Tecnam?
No, and even if you did, you'd be able to fly under the supervision of an instructor. You only need type ratings for larger or more complex types of aircraft, though you may need additional training to fly e.g. a plane with retractable gear, or a tailwheel.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good approach, Stu. When I learned to fly (30 yrs ago) my instructor never missed the opportunity to give a student a lesson (often for free) in whatever new aircraft type was around, often throwing in some aerobatics for good measure. By the time I had my PPL I had a real curiosity about different aircraft and their handling. I've never lost my affection for the C-A150 or the C172 (the latter took a whole 45 mins 'conversion') but it dawned on me pretty early that we choose our aircraft for the job at hand, even if the job on a given day is a joy flight around the local patch. I hope you continue to have fun and my only suggestion would be to see if you can hop in a taildragger for a bit. The fact that you know what a rudder is from your P2002 experience will stand you in good stead.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, so not an expert on all things Italian or flying/licensing regulations.....
Any difference training like that would be a local rule (club for instance) to fly a C172 from a C150 - not a legal requirement for a PPL holder in the UK.
Helicopters, I believe do have 5 hours (?) type rating training between types. Not on fixed wing though, apart for glass cockpit, tailwheel, retracts, CS prop etc.
Bizarre.
PS There's no 'h' in Tecnam.
Any difference training like that would be a local rule (club for instance) to fly a C172 from a C150 - not a legal requirement for a PPL holder in the UK.
Helicopters, I believe do have 5 hours (?) type rating training between types. Not on fixed wing though, apart for glass cockpit, tailwheel, retracts, CS prop etc.
Bizarre.
PS There's no 'h' in Tecnam.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how you would need any training on going from 172 to 150/152 or vice versa. I had about 10 hours with 172 and I just jumped on a 152 and went flying. They fly the same, just know your numbers and wear deodorant on 152 if flying with someone.
Interesting about the helicopters - didn't know that.
I can think of things that could catch you out transferring from a 152 to a 172, e.g. having a fuel selector if you'd never flown an aircraft with one before. Not rocket science but I didn't begrudge my checkout with an instructor - would have done so if it had lasted 5 hours though!
I can think of things that could catch you out transferring from a 152 to a 172, e.g. having a fuel selector if you'd never flown an aircraft with one before. Not rocket science but I didn't begrudge my checkout with an instructor - would have done so if it had lasted 5 hours though!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats why it has a checklist 
"Fuel selector - on". Yeah, true, a quick "transition training" obviously wont hurt, but its not really a requirement either. And 5 hours sounds excessive.
"Fuel selector - on". Yeah, true, a quick "transition training" obviously wont hurt, but its not really a requirement either. And 5 hours sounds excessive.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dera, 172 to 152 is OK. Going the other way could get rather embarrassing depending upon the type of 172. Regardless, most sensible people would ask for an hour or so familiarisation with someone who is competent on type.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, with the newer 172's I can understand that. But the older ones, they are pretty much the same I think. I would say you can jump from a 152 to 172N/P, and have no problems flying it around.
Again, an hour or so is always a good idea, but 5 hours 152->172 sounds like alot. Unless its a G1000 transition at the same time, or something like that.
Again, an hour or so is always a good idea, but 5 hours 152->172 sounds like alot. Unless its a G1000 transition at the same time, or something like that.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another vote for the Tecnam here. I've flown the C152 and the PA 28 but I find the Tecnam to be a great little aeroplane to train on.
I stand to be corrected here, but I think the P2002 actually has quite a lot of rudder authority but its the fact that it's very light and the more powerful Rotax generates a swing that needs to countered with a good bit of right rudder on takeoff.
I stand to be corrected here, but I think the P2002 actually has quite a lot of rudder authority but its the fact that it's very light and the more powerful Rotax generates a swing that needs to countered with a good bit of right rudder on takeoff.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost right Groundbased. The Rotax is about the same power as the C150’s 0-200 but the P2002 is perhaps 150 kg lighter. The C152 is a bit more powerful but a bit heavier than the C150. in the end, you do end up with better power to weight on the Tecnam, and that's where the considerably better climb mainly comes from (no magic!). I also agree that it's the higher power to weight on take-off and the resultant need for right rudder that catches many unawares. The aircraft is not short on rudder authority, as you see from the 22kt demonstrated crosswind.
A trick I've learned is that if the crosswind is really howling across the strip, and if you realistically have a choice of takeoff or landing direction, put the crosswind on the right. You keep the absolute maximum rudder authority right up to crosswind speeds at which you probably shouldn't fly anyway.
If you want to experiment for yourself and build confidence, ask your instructor to do a takeoff with a maximum-strength left crosswind. If you add in a short strip, I believe it's one of the more challenging bits of P2002 handling.
One short strips, I agree with EDMJ that the Hoffmann prop looks chunkily coarse, and no doubt that's where the decent cruise speed comes from. But we've been having some very hot weather here lately and flying the P2002 alongside C152s and C172s reminds me of the much shorter Tecnam takeoff distance. But yes, you can find LSAs with a shorter roll still.
A trick I've learned is that if the crosswind is really howling across the strip, and if you realistically have a choice of takeoff or landing direction, put the crosswind on the right. You keep the absolute maximum rudder authority right up to crosswind speeds at which you probably shouldn't fly anyway.
If you want to experiment for yourself and build confidence, ask your instructor to do a takeoff with a maximum-strength left crosswind. If you add in a short strip, I believe it's one of the more challenging bits of P2002 handling.
One short strips, I agree with EDMJ that the Hoffmann prop looks chunkily coarse, and no doubt that's where the decent cruise speed comes from. But we've been having some very hot weather here lately and flying the P2002 alongside C152s and C172s reminds me of the much shorter Tecnam takeoff distance. But yes, you can find LSAs with a shorter roll still.
Last edited by tecman; 5th Feb 2014 at 11:58.
I really do think the canopy rails are a significant issue if you are 180cms+ in height and the rudder is too small on the Tecnam:
Look at the Eurostar. No look-out issues and a decent sized rudder. No swing issues on take off and no requirement for pre-emptive half right rudder:
Another picture of the atrocious lookout!
Plus the Eurostar is approximately 2/3rds the cost of the Tecnam.
I know where the smart money is!
LJ
Look at the Eurostar. No look-out issues and a decent sized rudder. No swing issues on take off and no requirement for pre-emptive half right rudder:
Another picture of the atrocious lookout!
Plus the Eurostar is approximately 2/3rds the cost of the Tecnam.
I know where the smart money is!
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice scenery, LJ. I'm afraid we can't match that green around here this time of year. Unfortunately, I don't think the fish-eye image fairly conveys the pilot view from the Tecnam, in that neither the side nor top sight lines are evident. But I'm not photographer enough to know how to do that in one shot.
I have flown a Sportstar, which I think is the same model as the Eurostar sold in the UK and Europe. Not sure if the Sportstar we see in Australia has the aileron modification made by the manufacturer to increase the crosswind handling. I enjoyed flying the aircraft but thought the general handling was not as crisp as the P2002 and, in choosing an aircraft, I was also attracted to the beefier roll protection on the Tecnam.
I was also concerned by the reported nosewheel fragility, in that those local LSA training accidents I mentioned earlier were on Sportstars. And reading the incident reports from around the world seemed to indicate a bit of a pattern. However, I didn't put a lot of store by the nosewheel issue, for the reasons to do with the GA to LSA transition I mentioned before. But I did make a mental note that the P2002s on line locally had not had similar issues.
I'm not sure how you equate rudder required on takeoff to poor rudder authority. I regularly fly a P2002 JF to at least the published crosswind limits with no issues. Nose swing on takeoff can be due to a number of factors, most obviously including (in a tricycle configuration) slipstream effects and engine orientation choices. If you declared this characteristic to be your show-stopper, you'd miss the fun of some of the best-handling classic aircraft around.
We all make our choices and for my part I've enjoyed the LSA/VLA experimentation. Coming in just as a PPL with no axe to grind, it's been a good excuse to go flying.
I guess the OP has taken away the recommendation to try out the possibilities before making a final decision.
I have flown a Sportstar, which I think is the same model as the Eurostar sold in the UK and Europe. Not sure if the Sportstar we see in Australia has the aileron modification made by the manufacturer to increase the crosswind handling. I enjoyed flying the aircraft but thought the general handling was not as crisp as the P2002 and, in choosing an aircraft, I was also attracted to the beefier roll protection on the Tecnam.
I was also concerned by the reported nosewheel fragility, in that those local LSA training accidents I mentioned earlier were on Sportstars. And reading the incident reports from around the world seemed to indicate a bit of a pattern. However, I didn't put a lot of store by the nosewheel issue, for the reasons to do with the GA to LSA transition I mentioned before. But I did make a mental note that the P2002s on line locally had not had similar issues.
I'm not sure how you equate rudder required on takeoff to poor rudder authority. I regularly fly a P2002 JF to at least the published crosswind limits with no issues. Nose swing on takeoff can be due to a number of factors, most obviously including (in a tricycle configuration) slipstream effects and engine orientation choices. If you declared this characteristic to be your show-stopper, you'd miss the fun of some of the best-handling classic aircraft around.
We all make our choices and for my part I've enjoyed the LSA/VLA experimentation. Coming in just as a PPL with no axe to grind, it's been a good excuse to go flying.
I guess the OP has taken away the recommendation to try out the possibilities before making a final decision.
Here are a bunch of accidents all linked to the yaw tendanciis of the Tecnam Sierra:
I note a significant trend with this aircraft. Don't know if it is an issue with insufficient rudder or fin area, but it sure felt like it when I flew it last year. Maybe you're right, it is something else, but it doesn't feel right - certainly not for a PPL student. I know of quite a few 6 footers who refuse to fly it because they can't see out of it properly as well.
LJ
17 Sep 06 G-TESI Immediately after lifting off from an undulating grass airstrip, the aircraft rolled to the left and landed heavily some 25 m to the left of the runway.
11 Jun 07 G-RLMW During takeoff on a grass runway, the aircraft crested a rise in the runway, became briefly airborne, settled onto the ground and then bounced back into the air. It then veered to the left and struck a fence.
30 Sep 07 G-NESE During the takeoff roll, the aircraft went over a bump in the grass runway and the steerable nosewheel lifted off the ground. The aircraft then veered off the runway to the left and was substantially damaged when it went into a ditch.
19 Apr 08 N532MA The student pilot reported that while landing, the airplane bounced twice and he elected to abort the landing and applied full engine power. The flight instructor reported that as full engine power was restored insufficient rudder was applied and the airplane drifted left of the runway. Taking over the airplane's controls, the flight instructor initiated a left bank in an attempt to avoid hitting the airport windsock. While banking, the left wing tip impacted the ground followed by the airplane's fuselage.
4 May 08 EI-LFC The surface wind was estimated at 200 degrees at 10-14 kts, resulting in a crosswind condition. As the aircraft approached take-off speed it swung to the left and departed the paved surface of the runway. The Pilot applied full right rudder to correct but, as the aircraft came back on the paved surface, the left main landing gear detached damaging the tailplane as it travelled rearwards. The Pilot abandoned the take-off, the aircraft decelerated rapidly and came to rest in the grass on the left side of the runway.
15 Oct 09 G-CDTE During takeoff from the grass airfield, the aircraft swung left despite the application of full right rudder. It left the runway, crossed a road and collided with two parked vehicles.
28 Jan 12 N14HV Upon landing, the aircraft, a Tecnam P2002 Sierra, N14HV, exited the runway sustaining minor damage. The sole pilot on board the aircraft was not injured.
26 Oct 13 F-GXEC. The pilot lost control of the aircraft during take off at Andernos Airfield - LFCD and crashed into a dig. The pilot suffered minor injuries.
11 Jun 07 G-RLMW During takeoff on a grass runway, the aircraft crested a rise in the runway, became briefly airborne, settled onto the ground and then bounced back into the air. It then veered to the left and struck a fence.
30 Sep 07 G-NESE During the takeoff roll, the aircraft went over a bump in the grass runway and the steerable nosewheel lifted off the ground. The aircraft then veered off the runway to the left and was substantially damaged when it went into a ditch.
19 Apr 08 N532MA The student pilot reported that while landing, the airplane bounced twice and he elected to abort the landing and applied full engine power. The flight instructor reported that as full engine power was restored insufficient rudder was applied and the airplane drifted left of the runway. Taking over the airplane's controls, the flight instructor initiated a left bank in an attempt to avoid hitting the airport windsock. While banking, the left wing tip impacted the ground followed by the airplane's fuselage.
4 May 08 EI-LFC The surface wind was estimated at 200 degrees at 10-14 kts, resulting in a crosswind condition. As the aircraft approached take-off speed it swung to the left and departed the paved surface of the runway. The Pilot applied full right rudder to correct but, as the aircraft came back on the paved surface, the left main landing gear detached damaging the tailplane as it travelled rearwards. The Pilot abandoned the take-off, the aircraft decelerated rapidly and came to rest in the grass on the left side of the runway.
15 Oct 09 G-CDTE During takeoff from the grass airfield, the aircraft swung left despite the application of full right rudder. It left the runway, crossed a road and collided with two parked vehicles.
28 Jan 12 N14HV Upon landing, the aircraft, a Tecnam P2002 Sierra, N14HV, exited the runway sustaining minor damage. The sole pilot on board the aircraft was not injured.
26 Oct 13 F-GXEC. The pilot lost control of the aircraft during take off at Andernos Airfield - LFCD and crashed into a dig. The pilot suffered minor injuries.
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the quoted accident list would make more of an argument if there were details of pilot experience included. An aircraft type cannot be blamed for pilot short comings...
The first time I flew a Eurostar (80hp), I was amazed at how much rudder pedal force was required to keep on the straight and narrow. At the time I owned (and was very current) on a 200hp CS prop RV-6 - and the rudder force was much more than that required for the RV.
I suspect that all Rotax powered singles require a decent amount of rudder input on the take off roll. I've only flown the EV97 (1 hr), Tecnam P2002-JF (20 hrs) and RV-12 60 hrs). It is a very torquey motor as far as yaw with power is concerned.
Certainly a cross wind from the right is preferable to one from the right but it isn't an issue if you know the aircraft - and can fly accurately.
Regarding the vision - okay so the windscreen hoop in the P2002JF obscures the view out more than with the Eurostar or the RV-12. But it is strong (heavy duty roll bar is behind the head on the RV-12). Still better than a PA28 or Cessna though.
Regarding costs, the P2002JF is a fully certified aircraft - VLA not an LSA or RTC. There is cost involved in that certification.
The first time I flew a Eurostar (80hp), I was amazed at how much rudder pedal force was required to keep on the straight and narrow. At the time I owned (and was very current) on a 200hp CS prop RV-6 - and the rudder force was much more than that required for the RV.
I suspect that all Rotax powered singles require a decent amount of rudder input on the take off roll. I've only flown the EV97 (1 hr), Tecnam P2002-JF (20 hrs) and RV-12 60 hrs). It is a very torquey motor as far as yaw with power is concerned.
Certainly a cross wind from the right is preferable to one from the right but it isn't an issue if you know the aircraft - and can fly accurately.
Regarding the vision - okay so the windscreen hoop in the P2002JF obscures the view out more than with the Eurostar or the RV-12. But it is strong (heavy duty roll bar is behind the head on the RV-12). Still better than a PA28 or Cessna though.
Regarding costs, the P2002JF is a fully certified aircraft - VLA not an LSA or RTC. There is cost involved in that certification.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find that adverse comments relating to rudder authority on the Rotax family of VLA/LSA normally comes from people who have become excessively lazy with their feet thanks to Cessna and Piper.
There is nothing intrinsically unsafe with the Tecnam (or indeed the Eurostar, AT3, sportcruiser etc). The problem lies with people who do not understand that the throttle is a control and needs to be handled accordingly - it is not an on/off switch.
Perhaps more of us should hone our skills on taildraggers?
PS. Of all the VLA/LSA, the Tecnam is probably at the top of the list as far as handling is concerned. My only personal gripe is that there is a knack to getting in/out. Then again the Cub, which is possibly one of the most loved aircraft ever, has a 'routine' for mounting/dismounting.
There is nothing intrinsically unsafe with the Tecnam (or indeed the Eurostar, AT3, sportcruiser etc). The problem lies with people who do not understand that the throttle is a control and needs to be handled accordingly - it is not an on/off switch.
Perhaps more of us should hone our skills on taildraggers?
PS. Of all the VLA/LSA, the Tecnam is probably at the top of the list as far as handling is concerned. My only personal gripe is that there is a knack to getting in/out. Then again the Cub, which is possibly one of the most loved aircraft ever, has a 'routine' for mounting/dismounting.
During a recent trip to the UK I saw in a magazine that the BDFA are buying a Sierra specially modified with hand controls. Why would they do that if the Sierra has a problem with directional control on the ground? I also don't understand why the canopy rails (the parts the canopy travels on) should have any effect on the FoV, but can see why the windscreen bow could compromise the FoV for taller pilots.
Last edited by Thud105; 8th Feb 2014 at 22:15.
Perhaps more of us should hone our skills on taildraggers?
I fly the Eurostar also (microlight version) and flew the Tecnam Sierra the same day I was flying a Eurostar. They handle differently and the Tecnam had far more yaw instability on the take off roll than the Eurostar - for an aircraft to learn to fly in, I would say that the Tecnam is sub-optimal (especially, when I couldn't see out of it properly either!).
Can I fly a Tecnam - yup! But would I buy one or ever rent one again - no! I even thought it was so bad that I wrote an e-mail to the Accountable Manager of the Club and the CFI to say that I thought their recent purchase for a PPL training aircraft was a poor choice. I pleaded with them not to buy another!
I'll stick to my taildragger and the Eurostar, thanks...
LJ
PS. The roll bar on the Eurostar is behind your head so it doesn't sit in your main line of sight - now there's a novel design!
Lots of 35 + year old Cessna 150/152's with 20 K+ hours still earning a living on a flight school ramp. I find it hard to believe the new tupperware/tinfoil VLA/LSA aircraft will ever match that.....
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might be right BPF. Time will tell. In the case of a P2002JF, built as a classic all-metal design with no mandated major replacements, it's hard to see why a competent LAME armed with an Aircraft Spruce catalogue couldn't keep it in the air indefinitely.
Back from a morning's run and the opportunity to do some direct comparisons with the type of fleet you mention. I've loved all the aircraft I've owned and flown but I think you'd have to be a determined grouch not to return with a smile on your dial after an hour in the P2002.
I forgot to mention in the earlier post that, apart from the non-decorative nature of the P2002 roll protection, the sliding forward-latching canopy does allow the canopy to be opened in flight.
Back from a morning's run and the opportunity to do some direct comparisons with the type of fleet you mention. I've loved all the aircraft I've owned and flown but I think you'd have to be a determined grouch not to return with a smile on your dial after an hour in the P2002.
I forgot to mention in the earlier post that, apart from the non-decorative nature of the P2002 roll protection, the sliding forward-latching canopy does allow the canopy to be opened in flight.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Below the stratosphere
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original question.
BPF says the quality of the instruction is prime and I'd second that.
During your PPL, the aircraft type is not really important, relatively, IMHO.
It's a shame you don't have a C152 available, as they tend to be a little less expensive and are also a good learning platform.
Whatever people say about Cherokee handling, they are safe. Very safe. Very, very, very ......
Given that stability and agility tend to be at the opposite ends of a continuum, perhaps it is not so surprising that the handling is less than razor sharp, but neither will they do anything nasty, unless seriously abused, so it makes your workload a little lighter and builds your confidence on pre-PPL x-countries, if you choose the PA28.
On the other hand, if the Tecmnam operator has better instruction, I'd go there.
BPF says the quality of the instruction is prime and I'd second that.
During your PPL, the aircraft type is not really important, relatively, IMHO.
It's a shame you don't have a C152 available, as they tend to be a little less expensive and are also a good learning platform.
Whatever people say about Cherokee handling, they are safe. Very safe. Very, very, very ......
Given that stability and agility tend to be at the opposite ends of a continuum, perhaps it is not so surprising that the handling is less than razor sharp, but neither will they do anything nasty, unless seriously abused, so it makes your workload a little lighter and builds your confidence on pre-PPL x-countries, if you choose the PA28.
On the other hand, if the Tecmnam operator has better instruction, I'd go there.