I will try and answer your question, at least from my experience with airplanes.

In my first post here I gave my preference for the ideal training airplane picked from the long list of airplanes I have taught on.

The Fleet Canuck was built in 1945/46.

Its handling characteristics are exceptional and in no way difficult to fly because it " IS " a excellent stable platform.

The age of an airplane really is not the governing factor of how it fly's, it is the design of the airplane that counts.

If we go to bigger airplanes my favorite machine for teaching on is the DC3 it is a magnificent design and fly's like a dream and was made in the 1930's.

Modern does not always relate to good.

Modern also does does not always relate to bad either. All airplanes have their strengths and weaknesses. Old ones are not necessarily better just because they are an old design.

The best part of these forums is it allows each of us to share our thoughts on how we think and what our preferences are.

I have shared my preferences and you have shared yours B.P.F.What could be more fair than the pleasure of sharing our preferences?

Absolutely, which is why you should contribute to the Accidents and Close Call thread, like I just did. :ok:

In your stated 50 + years of flying I am sure you have had a few close calls.

I don't know if it is the best, but I will be teaching my boys to fly in our tailwheel Waiex when we finish building it.

In an ideal world I would like to teach on the Chipmunk but the cost of maintenance makes basic PPL training on it prohibitively expensive, second choice should be the Piper Cub not as expensive as the Chipmunk but in its own way as nice to fly but still more expensive than the C152.

The bottom line is if we have to use the inexpensive and lacklustre C152 to get people through the front door then so be it, once they have a PPL we can work on getting them into more interesting aircraft.

A and C, absolutely agree. That's what happened to me! The trick is to keep the 'keen' PPL folk interested enough to complete the PPL in the disappointing C150 in order they can 'discover' the more interesting machines.

In our case (there were several of us keen young lads in the same boat) a wise CFI realised this and organised the founding of a Chipmunk group, which we joined immediately on qualifying for the licence.

These keen folk might not be so quickly disappointed, if they were not being told that they should be! Many of them are probably just delighted to be off the ground at all, and awesomely proud when they do it solo! Why spoil the mood for them?

I know many people who were very keen to learn to fly a floatplane. They would be equally disappointed with an attempt to take off a Chipmunk, as a C152 - from the water!

It's all a matter of your hopes and expectations at the beginning level.....

Always remember the tale of the Piper Cub pilot flying low and slow one summer morning! He looked up and saw a retractable single zoom past overhead

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The retractable pilot looked up and saw a fast turboprop high in the sky

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The turboprop pilot looked up and saw a PAX jet fly past way high

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The Airline pilot looked up and saw Concord zoom past way High

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy"

The silver haired Concord Captain looked down on that clear sunny morning and saw a tiny yellow speck of the Piper Cub flying low over the beautiful countryside

" if only i could fly that I would be truly happy" :ok:

Flying business jets in IFR and CAS exclusively i flew a Cessna 152 for the first time since my PPL 28 years ago and never had such fun ;) it was like coming back to an old friend and stirred many memories of times past!

its strange in life when we start we are driven for better and better and loose sight of what gave us such a massive thrill in the first place

Step, I disagree. That's not how I remember it. No-one told me I should be disappointed; it came as a shock how awful the C150 was after the gliders I'd come from, and they (Ka4 and K13) were themselves a bit ponderous, especially in roll.

Richard Bach, in his marvelously inspirational book A Gift of Wings, encapsulated my feelings perfectly:

…. perhaps in the back of our minds, as we pushed the high-winged cabin into the sky, we thought ‘This isn’t like I hoped it would be, but if it’s flying I guess it will have to do’.

Great!

But you seem to be telling everyone here with:

Why tell everyone here? To what end?

We agree on that, why expend effort to defeat that as you begin?

I'm saddened to hear that you're disappointed by 150's, but that is your privilege. But you seem to want to repeatedly demean those who are happy to enjoy their 150's and similar compromise planes. I'm pleased to appreciate your love of Chipmunks, and would love to join you in a flight in one - I was thinking of your pleasing words about the Chipmunk handling, while I was enjoying rolling a Harvard last month - after 15 minutes of flying it for my first time.

But after 28 years of owning it, I enjoyed putting my 150 right on the displaced runway line yesterday, and with no fuss, turning off 200 feet later at the intersection. I taxiied to the hangar, and had the meeting my client. My cost and effort to fly myself to the meeting was negligible, and saved me an hour of my life otherwise driving there. The 150 did EXACTLY what I wanted it to do, and I was entirely happy about it.

Why cut down other people's pleasure in their flight?

What if you focused on saying only positive things about planes here?

Step, I think you need to haul on board that other folk may not always agree with the views you hold. And those other folk have just as much right as you do to express their views.

I wouldn't dream of telling you to keep your views (when I disagree with them) to yourself.

SSD

I think it would be unfortunate if prospective pilots reading this started with the impression that they were being short changed if they learned to fly in a C 150, or any of the other common Cessna/Piper trainers.

I do not agree with your premise and know it is possible to learn to fly in a C 150, or equivalent aircraft, and have just as good hands and feet as someone who learned in a Chipmunk, it all depends on having a good instructor.

Yes, our privileges are equal here in terms of expressing views, and to each their own. But in light of your agreeing that we are here to encourage new "keen" PPLs, which I entirely agree with, (and is my main reason for contributing here) I can't understand why you would want to leave those people with the impression that most of the aircraft (by type) that they are likely to encounter in a training environment are: "awful" or "disappointing".

Those aircraft may be entirely fulfilling to that keen PPL candidate, if their desire is to be safely and economically airborne, with low expectations of handling and performance. But having just earned their PPL, if a pilot buys a a modest 150, and simply enjoys the pleasure of flying it around, why would you want to so repeatedly trash that type - and by extension, his decision? I suspect that you would look down on that owner, and give them a cold shoulder with muffled remarks of disrespect, as they walked in from the ramp, where they had just parked. In my opinion, actively disapproving of something which is perfectly safe and fine for someone else, is just not helpful, and worthy of being called out.

I had occasion to fly with a friend in his pride and joy, which he had spent six years meticulously restoring. It is the last of only five ever made of a Canadian bush plane. I entered the process of assisting him with preconceived impressions of how that plane would fly, based upon having flown a number of similar sized and powered aircraft. After flying his aircraft on wheels and floats, I am left appreciating the other types more than his - in all respects other than uniqueness - where he wins hands down. But did I tell him anything negative about his plane? No! I asked if he had flown other types which were similar, and he told be he had not - I smiled, and left it at that. And he and I get along just fine. I truly appreciate his dedication to his passion, and I have no interest in reducing his pride.

If you have fleets of Chipmunks at the ready for training the next generation of PPL wannabes, I'm there shoulder to shoulder with you promoting them - simply for all the good things I've heard about them. I'm not here making factual statements on the considerable work I have done maintaining Gypsy Major engines.

Understand that I'm not knocking the positive things said about training types, I am knocking the negative things being said here abut some types, where they contribute nothing to the benefit of the discussion.

Just because some types have negative characteristics is no reason to pretend they don't. Is it a US characteristic to only post good news? If so, someone ought to tell Mr Bach.

I prefer full and frank 'real world experience' discussions to 'don't frighten the horses' white washing.

And there are plenty of aeroplanes other than Chipmunks that are nice to fly trainers. Cubs, Slingsbys, Bulldogs, Condors, Pups come to mind.

I think Richard Bach's point, above, is very true.

My favourites would be Slingsby T67, Grumman AA5A, pretty well any of the Robins.

Why? Side-by-side seating is advantageous for the instructor but more importantly pleasant for the student, they are nice to handle (I would never have taken a PA28 or C152 up just to pole it round the circuit), good visibility of one's environment, and while pilots of only poor-to-moderate ability can get them safely up and down again, they reward excellent skills. Oh, and they look like real aeroplanes (which makes one feel like a real pilot).

I think flying schools very much under-estimate the things that genuinely could keep more students coming back for more.

Following this thread has been interesting so far. Training aircraft have evolved over the years for various reasons. The Chipmunk was designed to accommodate the RAF, it wouldn't be much use sending a pilot off in a Spitfire to fight for his life unless he was capable of aerobatics. The 150/152 is perfect for anyone who just wants to enjoy being airborne, and is quite capable of being flung about a bit, though I wouldn't fancy my chances against a 109.
Bickering about the merits of each is counterproductive when trying to encourage people to fly.
The only thing wrong with the 150/152 is the flying school that is running them. Letting them get into the condition of a tatty skip (dumpster) is not the fault of a perfectly sound aircraft.
I would ask is it a good idea to be trained on a tailwheel like Grandpa was or is it ok to only know nosewheeling?
I note that Cubs and Condors are mentioned, am I allowed to be biased as well and suggest my Emeraude with its elliptical wing it has a good rate of roll, aerobatic in other than UK atmosphere, very few vices for a taily, used by the French airforce a while ago, and it looks nice.

That is easy to answer.

When discussing light training aircraft it is very simple to learn both gear configurations, and there sure are no shortage of both configurations.

The reason this is not done is because the training industry have opted for nose wheel airplanes in the misguided belief tail wheel airplanes are to difficult for the average person to operate.

Grandpa.....

I assure you that ALL types have negative characteristics, depending upon your expectations.

Considering (just for a discussion example) the Chipmunk compared to the 150/152 as a trainer, and its market popularity, the numbers tell me that total sales of the "awful" and "disappointing" 150/152 exceeded sales of the delightful Chipmunk by 23605 aircraft. So, I guess the market spoke about the more suitable of the two for their general flight training needs.

The real world experience has been that nearly 20 times as many 150/152s have been used as Chipmunks for training, for 80% as long. I wonder today the proportion of 150/152 in primary flight training service to the number of Chipmunks in that role.......

Not at all my opinion, just data I'm aware of, no whitewashing involved.

And yes, I'm aware of many other very worthwhile trainer types, I just selected two prominent types from the preceding discussion. I seek to pronounce no opinon on the other types in this particular post. I've flown many Cubs, Cherokees, Champs, Grummans, Tomahawks, and I have many nice things to say about all of them. I'd love to fly a Bulldog, but I'm not aware of any in Canada.

I will look forward with great eagerness to my first flight in a Chipmunk. A fellow remains to fulfill his "trade" to me for some very specialized work I had to do for him, to keep his Gypsy Major running!

Chuck
No doubt Grandpa, which is a myth that should definitely be stamped out. You know as well as the rest of us tailwheel sky gods that tailwheels are not difficult, just different. Just like stick shift transmissions.:ok:

My other plane is a taildragger, and one of the least forgiving, in the opinion of most pilots who have flown them. And, I just bought a second, and returned it from England :O. I am delighted to think that a candidate would seek out a taildragger for PPL training. No tricycle plane builds piloting skills as well as even the nicest flying taildragger.

(And I have never owned a car with was not a manual transmission ;))

But, the training market (the clubs and schools who select the trainers) seem to prefer tricycles. Would that mean they have made their "best" selection for the role they have to fill?

Probably the schools decide by economics. Some prat digs a prop in the ground and it costs an engine and prop. So, they "think" a nosewheel will stop that?
Then once you get a couple of instructors who have never flown a tailwheel and they breed like rabbits. I think it's called progress:ugh:

I could not agree more. "Land-O-Matic" should have been restricted to "big" planes, and pilots who already know how to fly! But, the flood gates opened, and here we are.

I learned in 150s in the '70's. When I asked for training in the sole Citabria at that club, the instruction was not competent, and I was left rather fearful of taildraggers for some time. It was a wise fellow with a Tiger Moth (which did not have a tailwheel) who taught me better.

Bring back the Avro 504K it even has a skid under the nose to save the heavy handed.:cool:
I came from gliders in 2006/7
The first time I ever flew power was as a pax at the gliding club in a Jodel 1050. Pilot had only one eye and got a bit of grit in it on downwind, "here, you do it," he said. My first experience of a taildragger with a fan on the front. Closed the throttle at the end of downwind and landed power off. Prob more luck than judgement.

the best training plane is one that is comfortable to student and instructor and allow large people an uncramped environment.

it should allow for both student and instructor equal access to all critical controls

it should allow excellent visibility to allow for visual clearing and vigilance in avoiding other planes/traffic


It should be robust and reliable and of pleasant, not unusual handling qualities. It should be of sufficient range and reserves to allow for long cross country requirements in obtaining both private and commercial licenses. It should also be a good instrument platform for obtaining INSTRUMENT RATING.

IT should have heated pitot and be capable of handling a lightning strike.

FOR practical purposes, I would think that the piper cherokee series is about right.


There is plenty of time to allow a student to go hunting for odd planes, tail draggers, biplanes, eaglerocks after the gentle introduction to the world of the air.

Four pages and only a passing nod to the PA38 Tomahawk.

Great little aeroplane, designed by instructors purely for training.

The only training a/c that doesn't land itself so the stude learns the most difficult bit in learning to fly-the landing- at a very early stage.

Cusco

Agreed, the Tomahawk is a nice basic trainer in fact I added one to my flying school but the instructors did not like teaching with it.

It would be nice if we could stick to discussing basic flying trainers used in the PPL area of training and not wander into advanced training such as IFR and lightening strike conditions.

You know basic training like using a Cub off a farmers grass field up to solo then move them into a something else like a Cessna or more modern Piper for instance

My 2c on this? I agree 100% regarding the instructor is more important than the aircraft. I would prefer to learn from someone who is as passionate about flying as I am and not some box ticking sausage factory graduate who sees me as a means to their ends.

As for the aircraft, one of the reasons I think a lot of flight schools have abandoned taildraggers is insurance. Our flying school has a 180 on the books but insurance stipulates I cannot fly it solo until I've had 10 hours dual in 180s and have more than 100 hours PIC. So much for it being an ab initio aircraft.

I am a fairly hefty bloke so fitting inside something like a Tiger Moth or a Chippie would be problematic. I think I could squeeze into a Super Cub but I don't know how comfortable I would be.

Dak
 

Four pages and no mention of the C-47 (DC3) either :eek:

Seems to me it addresses a number of noted shortcomings - it's not (overly) cramped, indeed they have space for a few mates to come along for the ride, you also get to fiddle about with wobbly props, multi engines and retract, and of course it's a taildragger.

Most of all they're a wonderful 'plane to fly and to learn and continue to learn from.

FP.

I guess I'm easy to please because I've flown and enjoyed hugely a number of the classic trainers - both nosewheel and conventional gear - mentioned in this thread. I learned to fly in a C-A150 and later owned a C150F, in which I toured a fair bit of Australia. They are great little aircraft and I never at any stage feel short-changed when flying a 150 or 152.

While I enjoy flying just about anything, I don't think we need be too crestfallen about what's on contemporary offer these days. For example, for a number of reasons (not least curiosity) I bought a used P2002JF a few years ago. It's an all-metal EASA-certified VLA (600+ kg MTOW), has a 100 hp 912s, gets along at 100 kt on 16 lph of mogas, has about 5.5 hrs endurance, a proper bubble canopy and stick, crisp and conventional handling and good shoulder room.

Is it perfect? Of course not. For a start, it's a VLA and if you're two very big guys you might find yourself limited to 3-ish hours cross-country. And it's not approved for spins. And I buy a lot of SPF50 sunscreen. Furthermore, nothing in the VLA/LSA catergory is going to have much margin for agricultural construction. However, I observe my favourite flying school now approaching 3000 hrs on a couple of P2002s, operated alongside a more traditional fleet, with few problems and many good words from instructors and students.

An enthusiastic teenager asked me a few weeks ago for a recommendation of instructors, flying schools, etc. I made the obvious point about quality of instruction being the biggest criterion but gave him my honest view that he had a range of good aircraft from which to choose, of which the P2002 (and in fact a high wing and tail-dragger stablemate) was but one.

So, keen young folks are still being captivated by little aircraft, and smart flying schools are adjusting their operations to embrace the VLA/LSA sector, often operated alongside the GA stream by the same instructors. In some ways, we might even be returning to our Cub etc roots, except that everyone wants to load up with avionics these days - but that's another story.

Learning to fly on a tail dragger is a bit like learning to drive in a 1932 Alvis IMHO

Well given the standard of driving of many young people who have learnt on cars with power steering, synchromesh on all gears, parking sensors etc etc, I'd say that learning on a 1932 Alvis would probably be a very good idea if there were enough of them.

Um, there are a few tail wheel trainers that fit that descriptio a bit more accurately than the PA38.

Only a tail dragger demands correct landing technique - it won't let you get away with sloppyness. Correct technique can of course be taught in a trike, but the aeroplane won't insist on it being applied. As the countless 3-pointed 172s and even wheelbarrowed ones you see every day, and the monotonous monthly reporting by AAIB of nose leg collapses gives testament to.

Perhaps we should take the sting out of discussion. Personally, I think the following attributes are essential for a PPL training aircraft:

Balanced controls
The ability to clearly demonstrate the primary and secondary effects of all controls (including power/throttle).
An aircraft that rewards use of rudder
Relatively benign behaviour when executing a go-around (not totally benign, just something that allows the student to learn)
Predictable stall characteristics, demonstrating all the attributes that one could expect including buffet and wing drop.
Forgiving in the landing, notably aversion to PIOs and excessive bounces.

FUN! Something that doesn't intimidate the student.

For those of you who look at tail wheel airplanes with disdain and below your level as a pilot the above post is something you should ponder because it is fact.

The number of airplanes that get wrecked by pilots breaking the nose wheel gear is astonishing and undeniable proof that flight training is woefully substandard in many cases.

If every new pilot were taught to solo on a tail wheel airplane then switched to a nose wheel airplane the broken nose wheel accidents would become rare.

Also some of the most beautiful looking and flying airplanes ever built are tail wheel airplanes...the Spitfire and the DC3 are examples.

Some of the most elegant cars were designed and built in the 1930s but this is 2015.

I think that is a pretty good list and the C 150 pretty much ticks every box

I have flown the Chipmunk and it is one of the nicest handling aircraft I have ever flown however from a commercial perspective it is a disaster though. Realistically a school would have to charge twice the hourly rate of a C 150, or even more to make it pay.

My advice is find a good instructor, learn in one of the common trainers, get your PPL and then search out the cool airplanes.

However if you do one thing post PPL,do this. Take an introductory aerobatic course. Even if you think you won't like aerobatics do it anyway, it will massively increase your personal skills and confidence in controlling the aircraft and you might be very surprised how much fun you are having by the end of the course. :ok:

The best training aircraft ever has to be the Piper Tomahawk, its certainly taught many flying instructors a lesson

Naïve question here. But why did the Beechcraft Skipper sell poorly and how did it compare to the Tomahawk?

Guys, the discriminating factor is always money.
I learned on a Piper Tomahawk and I loved it. Then I changed school and flew the C-152. It was a dog. But it was all they had, so take it or leave.
I would looove to fly a Chipmunk, but a trainer has to be cheap. Otherwise no boys will walk through that door.

And for those of you that would love to get a flight instructor passionate about his/her job and not a time builder: are you willing to pay him more for his passion and his committment? Or just the same as the other guy?