Me too. Just not enough Pups to go around I guess. :sad:


MJ:ok:

Yeah, so er...we agree then.

Five pages, 82 posts. The OP could have read the POH and done a check flight by now.

Sadly I think the OP will have given up on this thread as soon as it became a pxxxxxg contest. :(



MJ:ok:

He could have also paid a lot more of his hard earned cash than he needed to by now converting from a Ford fiesta to a Volkwagen polo. ;)

Pace

:=:p

MJ:ok:

On a somewhat complex airplane like a 421, Baron or a Skymaster 337, etc., at the very least I would visually check for adequate fuel in the tanks, know the fuel system, know the emergency gear extend and know Vmc, if applicable (this was before red and blue lines on the AI)...and of course, a guy has to know his limitations.

Yes agreed but these were all singles apart from an awful Seneca 1 and an absolute must is to read the POH as well as cold touching every knob and switch if you are to take an aircraft you do not know

Pace

I was just thinking about the way I first flew the different SEP types I have flown.

C150/C152 PPL in it.

PA28-180 - 2 of us went to FSO with an instructor to pick up our FAA tickets and did our bi-annual on the way there and on the way back.

PA28 slab wing trimmer on the roof. Got in and flew it.

C172- check out next time I went back to the US for hour building 45mins.

robin- got in and flew it

Katana- 1 hour in the circuit with a bloke on his FIC for his mutual. With instructions to screw with his head which I did.

Garda Horizon- maint trip with owner when the wx was pants.

PA38- 3 circuits then sent on my way for a ferry to swap aircraft for a star annual. Did some stalls and a spin or two over the vale of York on my way.

Arrow- got in and flew it.

And there were another three or 4 permit types which was just a chat with the owner before flying them somewhere.

So as such I have never done a formal differences training on any SEP type. And never scared myself either on any of them.

Never flown a MEP as PIC.

Well down this way those all require their own type rating. And currency in one doesn't mean currency in another.

We just have SEP class.

And you only need currency for carrying pax in the class students count as flight crew. Nothing stopping you not flying any thing in the class for 12 months then jumping in solo and flying off.

Done it myself in the C172 not flown one for 3 years and 9 months since I last flew a SEP. Day job is flying a twin TP. Then went flying with I might add full permission of the insurance company for a maint ferry.

500ft
 

It strikes me that you are over regulated by people who have no idea that one SEP is much like another.

I blame the blood sucking leaches that are draining society white (some call them Lawyers) who are making improper use of the law and forcing airworthiness authorities to legislate far beyond what common sense dictates.

If trained to a reasonable standard any PPL holder should having spent time reading the POH be able to get to grips with most SEP's albeit that some powerful aerobatic types are going to require a little more work.

However simple airmanship should tell a PPL holder with 50 hours in a C152 that he will need a fair deal of instruction to fly an Extra 300 NOT a bunch of restrictive regulations.

I see no aircraft in Mad Jocks list that require any more than a good look at the POH and a quick circuit with an instructor to get a competent PPL up to speed to fly.

So in NZ do they literally write C-152, C-172, PA-28 etc etc on your licence?
Those licences must be mighty big (or the font mighty small).

Whilst this is true, you have to look at what is going on when most people change type, most are doing it in a school environment and often having changed school/club or joining a group where their capabilities are unknown. As an instructor I do conversions/checkouts for a couple of groups and this will vary from three or four trips (unusual, but has been needed - I am not including the 10 hours on type that the insurance company occasionally demands!) down to about 45mins chock to chock - the 45 mins I would agree was probably more than the guy actually NEEDED, but I would have felt I was not looking after the group interests if I had done less and not satisfied myself 100% that I had shown all that I needed to show and I feel for the types involved would be a minimum.
Anyway, what is the rush to do it in minimum hours?
I do think there are some ridiculous requirements though - I believe Goodwood require 5 hours to convert to their glass screen Cessnas, and flew a Harvard many moons ago that the insurance company wanted over 50 hours on aircraft over 250HP - but no requirement for tailwheel time (before the days of tailwheel endorsement)!

Obviously if you turn up at a flying club unknown they will want a checkout as they will want to see how competent a pilot you are who has walked through their door.

But simple aircraft to simple aircraft one circuit and a bit of time on the POH is all that should be required.

I was looking at buying some Cirrus hours until I was informed there was a required 10 hrs checkout regardless of experience levels at a cost of over £2000 Crazy! Insurance requirement or operator manipulated insurance requirement?
What is so unique about the Cirrus as an aeroplane NOTHING! if its the displays should you be learning those while in the air at £200 plus per hour? or with the aircraft hooked up on the ground so you can concentrate totally or even better like Garmin did with the 550 A pretty good simulation for a home computer?

Sorry but it all stinks of making money out of the punter

Pace

I don't know the school I worked at had a standard 3 circuit checkout.

I did ask the boss if we shouldn't be doing more and he just said no it just annoys the punters.

And to be fair during the summer we had 4 aircraft in the air for 7 plus hours a day. And in the year I was there we didn't have any incidents.

But then again we got a lot of unrequired requests for instructor flights. Maybe the fact that the punters didn't feel they were getting shafted for check flights and skills tests every time they came in made them less bitter and twisted about going up with an instructor.

Back to the question in hand.

The PA28 will feel bigger, heavier and more solid in flight. Its also heavier to pull out the hanger! It doesn't suffer the nose wheel shimmy of the 152 when on the ground. The white arc extends further allowing higher speed flap settings, which can be very useful, particularly on the Archer. The fuel pump and tank change need memorising. You can not check the effects of the trimmer and rudder on the ground from inside as you can not see out the back. Sometimes, the door is a pain to latch and needs a jolt top and bottom to make sure it is shut properly.

There is far more room and space for all manner of things including your legs if you are tall. Hence, it feels more refined.

An hour of general handling stalls etc, followed by some circuits will do you to get the feel, speeds and settings sorted. You'll probably find that you'll never set foot in a 152 again if you're post PPL training.

Local Variation - I am sure you are right about the differences but it's actually the other way round. The OP (who seems to have quite understandably vanished) is converting from the Pa 28.
IMO the Cessna is a pretty decent aircraft. Easy to fly acceptably well, but takes more work to make it sing.

I agree with local Variation. His comments are a pretty good summary.

As for how long it takes to check out well I have a few comments on that.

1) It is not your airplane that you are flying in, it belongs to someone else. As the owners they are entitled to demand what ever they want as a checkout. Don't like it, go else where or buy your own aircraft

2) My experience with doing checkouts is that the time required varies all over the map. However most PPL's showed significant weaknesses in basic flying skills. A bit, to a lot, of extra time was required to address those skill deficits, in addition to showing the handling differences.

3) The people that complain the most about the length of the checkout were usually the worst pilots.

If I where doing the checkout with the OP then it would consist of about an hour on the ground doing a complete review of the POH with some W & B calculations, a few performance calculations and then a complete walk around with an emphasis on what in particular is prone to leaking/breaking/coming loose. We then sit in the cockpit and go over the normal and emergency checklist to get the pilot familiar with the cockpit and build some muscle memory.

The flight will review, steep turns, slow flight, departure and arrival stall scenarios, an in flight emergency that will develop into a PFL, and enough circuits to show take off and landing proficiency.

Total air time will be about an hour if there is good solid basic flying skills. If skills are not there then however long it takes. The current record was a guy who needed 10 hrs of additional dual before he was safe to take the airplane.:ugh:

Aah well spotted Mr Classique!

In which case, the 152 will feel smaller, lighter and less solid in flight and is easier to pull out the hanger......

Me too ............:O

Pace
 

I got the 10 hour conversion course crap from the insurance company and we told them we would take all our business away if they insisted apon this condition but did look a lot more carefully at the named pilots.

They backed down quite quickly......... After all it's just another fixed gear SEP with the option of landing by parachute.

There's a Tomahawk at Goodwood.

'There's a Tomahawk at Goodwood' ... and there it should stay ... on the ground! Only kidding :eek::eek:

When I set about trying to gain my PPL in USA (hmmm) I started flying the C-152 but hated how twitchy it was. I struggled to land it, but not sure if that was due to poor instruction. I still hadn't gone solo at 20 hours :mad: . I changed to the PA-28 (Cadet) and within 4 hours (2 flights) i'd gone solo. I said that i'd never fly the 152 again.

A few years ago (due to cost mainly) I decided to try flying the 152 again. Ive flown it ever since! Not flown since Feb 2013 (due to having a baby and studying for my ATPL ), but am looking forward to getting back in the saddle in summer ... in a 152 :D

I recently went the other way from 152/172 to a PA28-181.

Differences:
The two doors below the wing is much easier when you keep forgetting stuff in the flight bag for the walk around.

You will dent your head on a 152's wing, and the flaps on a 172.

Inspection of gear, fuel, brakes and wing is much easier on the Cessna.

The 152/172 landing gear is not directly connected to the rudder. It's via a bungee/spring system. I find I use a lot more differential brakes on the Cessnas.

The stall warning is mechanical in the Cessna.

No static-drain port on the Cessna. No alt-static at all in the 152.

Electric flaps are nice (Doesn't look like a ruddy great hand-brake to passengers), but don't give you the same control-feel as in the Piper.

The 152's fuel switch is either on or off. 1 less thing to worry about.

In flying, the 152 is lighter, less wing loading. It's less stable, but more nimble. I find it more fun, but probably not the passengers.

The 152, loaded in utility category, is spin approved. Have fun. :ok: (If you know what you're doing, legal requirements, etc. etc.)

The tube-steel gears on the Cessnas will result in bounces rather than thumps if you land it a little hard. The Piper makes a crap pilot like me seem like a genius at landing. I'll still bounce the Cessnas on occasion, but my only "thump" landing in the Piper was the first one. All of the rest have been "greasers" and I don't know why. (well, I do, some low wing, ground effect, etc. etc., but I never really "felt" the difference. I just flew them.)

All of that having been said:

FLY THE AIRPLANE. All of these differences are minor, and the airplane tells you what it wants from you. I've flown the a few Cessna types, this Piper, and a few tail draggers and in the end, they're all airplanes and the fly very similarly. Switching between types is a great way to learn to feel the airplane.

Go 152 Aerobat ;) - That might actually warrant some 'conversion' :E

Apologies for the thread hijack (not that it matters since the OP seems MIA) but could anyone elaborate on what to expect going from a PA28-161 to a C172? I basically managed to book some 172 time this upcoming weekend & for the better part of my hourbuilding stint, I have been flying the PA28 (DA40 & Grob115 too) religiously. Fancied a change of type so decide to add the C172 to my resume... any advice/hints/tips will be much appreciated prior to my checkout come Saturday??? :}

Have a good read of the POH before you start, and be familiar with W&B and takeoff/ landing performance.

The fuel guages are almost useless, so be sure you have a step ladder and a dipstick to check the tanks before you fly.

The 172 flies much like a Warrior, except that use of the rudder is more important to maitian balance.The speeds for most things are very similar. The big thing you will notice is the complete lack of visibility into the turn, so have a good look before turning.

The stall can be a surprise, after the other aircraft yoiu are used to. Expect quite a hefty wing drop at the stall in the approach config. especially if you forget to prevent yaw with the rudder.

On landing, the back pressure on the controls to hold the landing attitude will seem huge with just two in the front, so be sure you are trimmed properly on the approch, and at the right speed at the threshold.

Be sure to practce a couple of 'go arounds' from full flap approaches, as this produces a large pitch up that you have to resist, at the same time as retracting the flap to 20


MJ:ok:

Understood MJ,

I just been consulting Google & so far managed to gather some insightful materials (checklist/notes) on the C172, all generic stuff ofcourse but yes I will be sure to thumb through the POH & get acquainted with the WB figures that are more 'specific' to the aircraft I'll be checking out in. Many thanks for the golden nuggets dropped in your posts regarding stall/landing tips! Ha! yea that high wing is going to take slight getting used to after flying low winged ships all this time:ok:

You don't need a ladder to get on the strut of a 172. There's a step on the side of the nose and a step on the strut. You only need one for the 177 and bigger Cessnas.

Read what I wrote earlier about the rudder/nose-wheel connection.

Make sure the flap-switch on the 172 isn't sticky. In some cases, you can let go of the switch but the flaps keep going down. Not a good thing if you're low, slow, and have no throttle.

While on the topic of flaps, older models with 40 degree barn-door flaps will let you stop-and-drop the airplane. Fantastic stuff. Just don't try to climb like that.

Still on the topic of flaps, the placards on the 172 say to avoid slips with the flaps down. It's not a huge deal. It causes a weird airflow over the elevators that makes them pulse against you, but you maintain elevator control despite the weirdness. If you need to slip it with flaps, do it. But try to plan around it.

What Mach Jump said about the flare is right. LOTS of back pressure. And on the go-around, LOTS of forward pressure. I like to trim for about 75. Trimming for a lower speed = more forward pressure on the go-around.

Depends on the Model.

Quote...


''He could have also paid a lot more of his hard earned cash than he needed to by now converting from a Ford fiesta to a Volkswagen polo.''




I've just converted from a Ford Focus to a Honda Civic, and have still to find out how the Sat-Nav or Voice Commands work...

The step and handle kit was an optional extra on the strutted Cessnas. Most didn't opt for it. Don't climb on the strut unless it has the step.

Best to stick with the placards. The effect of airflow over the tail varies with loading and speed. Sideslipping can also affect the ASI reading. On poorly maintained examples, it can also push the flaps sideways far enough to restrict the ailerons.

With so much flap, it's hard to imagine a situation where you would need to sideslip.


MJ:ok:

My bad. I've never seen one without it. I didn't know it's optional.

I agree that you should avoid it, just like the placard says, but note that the placard says to avoid it; it's not prohibited/restricted. There are some situations when it's useful. I don't think anyone's ever actually loss-control because of the weird airflow effects.

As for slipping causing ASI errors, yes, but every slip does. And they're fun. There's no reason to avoid slipping in general.

The placard doesn't say you can't sideslip with flaps. The POH says

Mack jump
 

Quote -Best to stick with the placards. The effect of airflow over the tail varies with loading and speed. Sideslipping can also affect the ASI reading. On poorly maintained examples, it can also push the flaps sideways far enough to restrict the ailerons.

I guess the flaps moving sideways was one of the reason that Cessna introduced the SID's checks

Ok. I dont want to get in a hair splitting contest over this, but I didn't say that sideslipping with flaps was prohibited, only that it should be avoided, as the placard says, and for the reasons I have stated.

I have played around with sideslipping cessnas with flap a lot for 'fun' when I was younger, and experienced both the sudden onset of quite severe pitching oscillations and aileron restriction. As slam says, ASI variation can be a feature of sideslipping in general, but seemed to me to be more evident on the 172.

I guess it may be part of it. Sideslipping with those big flaps at the end of those long tracks must be quite fatiguing.

Just remebered a big plus for the Cessnas. They are a lot nicer to get in and out of when it's pxxxxxg with rain! :)


MJ:ok:

Two points to remember when switching from the PA28 to C152.

Don't stand on the wing to get in, and don't wear a baseball hat around the flap trailing edge. You won't see it coming. The rest is easy.:)

I don't understand my wife either.

From Slam - 'The stall warning is mechanical in the Cessna'

Is it?