Too fast, too much, too soon? New PPL > complex conversion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too fast, too much, too soon? New PPL > complex conversion.
It's only a week or two since I posted that I had pased my skills test. All my flying has been on Cessna 150's and 172's and I have a total of a little over 50 hours. I now need a little advice.
A friend of mine has a Turbo Arrow III and has suggested that he would be happy for me to get sufficient training to convert onto it and fly it. The benefits for me are that I would have access to a much better equipped and quicker plane than the club aircraft that I am now flying and at an attractive hourly rate. A few practicalities need sorting out such as adding me to the insurance and making arrangements with my instructor for "differences training" for retractable gear, wobbly prop, and turbo-charging. I have mentioned it to my instructor and he sees no problem in providing training to convert onto the Arrow.
I suspect however that insurance will prove to be the first stumbling block, with myself being uninsurable with such low hours, or it being offered at a prohibitive premium. The plan may therefore be dead in the water at this first hurdle.
Even if this proves not to be the case, then I still have a few personal misgivings about the idea: basically, am I too inexperienced to move to a complex fast single? I suspect that I am in danger of trying to run before I've got the hang of walking, so to speak.
Any words of wisdom, cautionary tales, (or encouragement) would be gratefully received.
Mr. W
A friend of mine has a Turbo Arrow III and has suggested that he would be happy for me to get sufficient training to convert onto it and fly it. The benefits for me are that I would have access to a much better equipped and quicker plane than the club aircraft that I am now flying and at an attractive hourly rate. A few practicalities need sorting out such as adding me to the insurance and making arrangements with my instructor for "differences training" for retractable gear, wobbly prop, and turbo-charging. I have mentioned it to my instructor and he sees no problem in providing training to convert onto the Arrow.
I suspect however that insurance will prove to be the first stumbling block, with myself being uninsurable with such low hours, or it being offered at a prohibitive premium. The plan may therefore be dead in the water at this first hurdle.
Even if this proves not to be the case, then I still have a few personal misgivings about the idea: basically, am I too inexperienced to move to a complex fast single? I suspect that I am in danger of trying to run before I've got the hang of walking, so to speak.
Any words of wisdom, cautionary tales, (or encouragement) would be gratefully received.
Mr. W
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say go for it. You might end up taking an extra couple of hours with the instructor for the conversion, but other than that it isn't such a big deal. That you've recognised that you've got something to learn is half the battle - just get an instructor to do a thorough conversion and if he is happy then so should you be.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mr Wolfie,
See no particular reason why this could not work, zoomed to the Channel Islands in a twin with only a meagre 66 hrs TT in the logbook and the ink of the rating still drying.
All depends on your skills and the quality of your instruction.
Good start would be to ring the insurance company and they will give you a pointer on what they deem the minimum requirement.
If they need anything more than 5 hours you could consider doing an IMC rating at the same time, which would come in handy.
Have fun and keep us posted.
FD
See no particular reason why this could not work, zoomed to the Channel Islands in a twin with only a meagre 66 hrs TT in the logbook and the ink of the rating still drying.
All depends on your skills and the quality of your instruction.
Good start would be to ring the insurance company and they will give you a pointer on what they deem the minimum requirement.
If they need anything more than 5 hours you could consider doing an IMC rating at the same time, which would come in handy.
Have fun and keep us posted.
FD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: England
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zoomed to the Channel Islands in a twin with only a meagre 66 hrs TT in the logbook and the ink of the rating still drying.
An applicant for a class rating for a single-pilot MEP (Land) aeroplane rating must produce evidence of having completed a minimum of 70 hours as pilot-in-command of aeroplanes.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is that the insurance company will want something like 10 hours in the aircraft (+ conversion) before they will let you fly it without an existing insured pilot in the aircraft. When insurance companies have wanted an extra premium for a very-low-hour new group member, in my experience it has only been the first year that they charge this supplement.
You are very lucky to have access to such a fine machine.
You are very lucky to have access to such a fine machine.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M r. Wolfie:
Let me help you out here.
First off the word " Complex " to describe a little bug smasher single engine airplane is just a marketing scheme thought up by the training industry to seperate you from your money.
How can adding one or two more switches or levers to any machine make it " complex ", why you probably drive a car with a stereo set that is more complex than a Piper Arrow.
So don't let the hype fool you it is just another little airplane with a couple of new features for you to play with.
Chuck E.
Let me help you out here.
First off the word " Complex " to describe a little bug smasher single engine airplane is just a marketing scheme thought up by the training industry to seperate you from your money.
How can adding one or two more switches or levers to any machine make it " complex ", why you probably drive a car with a stereo set that is more complex than a Piper Arrow.
So don't let the hype fool you it is just another little airplane with a couple of new features for you to play with.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Herts
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a pointer, I did my type rating for Cessna 182 earlier this year with circa 80 hrs. Insurance company said that I must do 10 hours either with a CFI or my old man, before I can go off on my own. The conversion time spent with the CFI went towards the 10 hours.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the previous posts ... once you try it, you'll find that the Arrow is no big deal.
I don't fault Mr. Wolfie for wanting to learn to fly a glitzier aircraft, but I'd like to note that the general pilot obsession with faster, "better" airplanes is often counter-productive. A IFR equipped, known-ice certified, twin turbo Statusmaster may be just the thing for a salesman or executive who often has to make continent-wide business trips, but for the ordinary recreational owner-pilot it is just too much airplane: all the fancy avionics and other toys are expensive to maintain, and add nothing to the flying experience.
More money doesn't necessarily translate into more fun. For Sunday afternoon flying (which, let's face it, most of us normally do), there's nothing wrong with flying an older, slower, simple airplane like a Cub, a 120, or even a 150.
I would have access to a much better equipped and quicker plane than the club aircraft that I am now flying
More money doesn't necessarily translate into more fun. For Sunday afternoon flying (which, let's face it, most of us normally do), there's nothing wrong with flying an older, slower, simple airplane like a Cub, a 120, or even a 150.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi MLS,
Don't be such a spoil sport!!
Different trips call for different mounts.
Sunday afternoon bimble -> Cub, 120, 150 could not ask for anything better suited.
Over to the ILs for a few days -> Arrer, 172, 182 suitable, quick and you can take more than a toothbrush.
Serious trips abroad whereby you need to get to somewhere at a more or less certain time -> 210, Cirrus or a twin.
Appreciate that life is a compomise so one will have to choose the one which covers the biggest slice of the cake.
FD
Don't be such a spoil sport!!
Different trips call for different mounts.
Sunday afternoon bimble -> Cub, 120, 150 could not ask for anything better suited.
Over to the ILs for a few days -> Arrer, 172, 182 suitable, quick and you can take more than a toothbrush.
Serious trips abroad whereby you need to get to somewhere at a more or less certain time -> 210, Cirrus or a twin.
Appreciate that life is a compomise so one will have to choose the one which covers the biggest slice of the cake.
FD
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello FD,
Yes, you're right: horses for courses. But most PPLs can only afford one aircraft, or only have the time to stay fully current in one aircraft.
It saddens me whenever I see someone buying an overly complicated airplane that they can't afford to fly. Personally, I'd rather own or rent a little airplane that I can use whenever I feel like it, than be the unhappy operator of a hangar queen.
Retractable undercarriage, turbo-charging, variable pitch props, approach-certified GPS, ILS, ADF, AI, DG, etc. etc. All perfectly fine things in their own way, but seldom necessary, occasionally distracting, always expensive.
Cheers,
MLS-12D
P.S. I also see too many pilots with four seat gas-guzzling airplanes when they fly alone 95% of the time.
Yes, you're right: horses for courses. But most PPLs can only afford one aircraft, or only have the time to stay fully current in one aircraft.
It saddens me whenever I see someone buying an overly complicated airplane that they can't afford to fly. Personally, I'd rather own or rent a little airplane that I can use whenever I feel like it, than be the unhappy operator of a hangar queen.
Retractable undercarriage, turbo-charging, variable pitch props, approach-certified GPS, ILS, ADF, AI, DG, etc. etc. All perfectly fine things in their own way, but seldom necessary, occasionally distracting, always expensive.
Cheers,
MLS-12D
P.S. I also see too many pilots with four seat gas-guzzling airplanes when they fly alone 95% of the time.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLS wrote:
The eternal debate and tension between needs and desires!
Luckily still allowed to have the latter, after all there is very little necessary aviation.
Would be an interesting debate to see which one is *really* *necessary*
FD
P.S. I also see too many pilots with four seat gas-guzzling airplanes when they fly alone 95% of the time.
Luckily still allowed to have the latter, after all there is very little necessary aviation.
Would be an interesting debate to see which one is *really* *necessary*
FD
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyin'Dutch' - Sure, you're absolutely right.
I usually fly a Super Cub, but this weekend I will be commencing flight training on the Harvard. No one could seriously suggest that that is necessary ... it's just something that I want to do!
I usually fly a Super Cub, but this weekend I will be commencing flight training on the Harvard. No one could seriously suggest that that is necessary ... it's just something that I want to do!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLS-12D
This is an interminable argument, between those who have enough money and those who don't.
I'd like a Jag XKR (though would settle for an XK8) but instead drive a 20 year old Jap banger which has never broken down. But I don't see anything wrong with someone driving an XKR (10mpg?), and let's face it a Mits Shogun (< 10mpg) is the entry level for a school run these days
Compared with the ludicrous Shogun school run scene, flying a well equipped 4-seater is a far lesser crime. I did my PPL in planes which were gradually falling apart (not legally falling apart of course), then spent 100 hours renting more planes which in the end were doing well to have one working radio, with the rest of the panel defunct... at £120/hour. Anyone with more than two pennies to rub together is going to get away from this typical-UK-GA scene as soon as they can. If you want to fly IFR for real then you have no choice; planes with well maintained avionics are almost nonexistent on the rental scene for obvious financial reasons.
When it comes to modern planes, it is true that there is far more choice (mostly European designs) in 2-seaters than 4-seaters. And some of the "permit" versions have amazing performance figures. But as with a car, if you sometimes carry more than one person you have to get a 4-seat car. And for IFR flight the choice is made for you, on several fronts simultaneously.
I fly a complex retractable and wish I had done my PPL in it... Unless you have particular difficulty grasping the most basic technical issues (in which case getting through the PPL exams will be pretty hard) there is very little extra to learn. Far harder (in terms of cockpit workload) is flying some decrepit old plane in which the DI loses 10 degrees every 10 minutes.
This is an interminable argument, between those who have enough money and those who don't.
I'd like a Jag XKR (though would settle for an XK8) but instead drive a 20 year old Jap banger which has never broken down. But I don't see anything wrong with someone driving an XKR (10mpg?), and let's face it a Mits Shogun (< 10mpg) is the entry level for a school run these days
Compared with the ludicrous Shogun school run scene, flying a well equipped 4-seater is a far lesser crime. I did my PPL in planes which were gradually falling apart (not legally falling apart of course), then spent 100 hours renting more planes which in the end were doing well to have one working radio, with the rest of the panel defunct... at £120/hour. Anyone with more than two pennies to rub together is going to get away from this typical-UK-GA scene as soon as they can. If you want to fly IFR for real then you have no choice; planes with well maintained avionics are almost nonexistent on the rental scene for obvious financial reasons.
When it comes to modern planes, it is true that there is far more choice (mostly European designs) in 2-seaters than 4-seaters. And some of the "permit" versions have amazing performance figures. But as with a car, if you sometimes carry more than one person you have to get a 4-seat car. And for IFR flight the choice is made for you, on several fronts simultaneously.
I fly a complex retractable and wish I had done my PPL in it... Unless you have particular difficulty grasping the most basic technical issues (in which case getting through the PPL exams will be pretty hard) there is very little extra to learn. Far harder (in terms of cockpit workload) is flying some decrepit old plane in which the DI loses 10 degrees every 10 minutes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wolfie
I converted onto a Cherokee 6 at 74 hours. Fixed gear, constant speed prop, 50% more weight at gross and 140kts cruise.
Absolutely no problem, so long as you attend carefully to the new features, until they become second nature, which does not take too long. There is a temptation at first to monitor the RPM gauge when reducing the power, but the penny soon drops that it's the manifold pressure that you need to watch
The only thing that has ever concerned me on the Arrer is that automatic gear extension device, which can be quite counter productive if not managed properly.
If this Arrer has that feature, make sure you get a full briefing and you'll have no problems at all.
The other area to start being aware of is turbocharged engines. Now the turbo Arrer has an engine that is pretty forgiving, but if you progress to some bigger aircraft, they have turbo engines that are prone to 'shock cooling' if you close the throttle too quickly. If you learn to handle the Arrer engine sensitively, you'll be preparing yourself for 'faster, higher, farther' in the future.
It's a lovely aeroplane - with docile, safe PA28 handling in oodles - I hope that you will enjoy it very much.
I converted onto a Cherokee 6 at 74 hours. Fixed gear, constant speed prop, 50% more weight at gross and 140kts cruise.
Absolutely no problem, so long as you attend carefully to the new features, until they become second nature, which does not take too long. There is a temptation at first to monitor the RPM gauge when reducing the power, but the penny soon drops that it's the manifold pressure that you need to watch
The only thing that has ever concerned me on the Arrer is that automatic gear extension device, which can be quite counter productive if not managed properly.
If this Arrer has that feature, make sure you get a full briefing and you'll have no problems at all.
The other area to start being aware of is turbocharged engines. Now the turbo Arrer has an engine that is pretty forgiving, but if you progress to some bigger aircraft, they have turbo engines that are prone to 'shock cooling' if you close the throttle too quickly. If you learn to handle the Arrer engine sensitively, you'll be preparing yourself for 'faster, higher, farther' in the future.
It's a lovely aeroplane - with docile, safe PA28 handling in oodles - I hope that you will enjoy it very much.