I am fortunate to instruct at a club that has a varied fleet.

DA20A1, DA20C1, PA28, C172, DA40, T67M and L21B (SuperCub).

They are all great in their way, but I think the best trainers are the DA20A1 Katanas. Their meagre 80 HP means that the students need to get the climb speed exactly right, and the ball exactly in the middle in order to get any reasonable climb rate. The bubble canopy gives a fantastic all round view, the stall is benign (although the nose does not drop), they spin and recover nicely and they are not too easy to land. They have a CS prop, which prepares students for more advanced aircraft. Economical too, at 15LPH.

I love flying the Cub, and doing Tailwheel conversions in it, but I would not recommend it for ab initio training. The tandem seating makes it harder, and with a big student it is impossible for the instructor to see the instruments. Also not entirely happy with the student being the only person with access to the mixture and radio controls.

The T67 is also a great training aircraft, but a bit too easy to land. Great for aerobatics though!

dear dr jekyl

I have had the pleasure to fly both the tomahawk and the beech skipper. They may look alike but boy the skipper is a dog. Perhaps it is so robust there power to weight ratio is not as good as the tomahawk.

The owner of our club had 2 tomahawks (by my request) and they were fine, one day he brought the skipper on line and looked at me and said : why aren't you flying it?

We both took off in it, proper weight and balance. Stall warning blaring all the time, even in level cruise flight, safe airspeed NO STALL at all. Poor climb even at sea level.

The visibility from the tomahawk is a HUGE selling point for me, I taught in an exceptionally busy area (11 airports within 30 miles) airliners, military high performance, GA, gliderport everything except balloons.

good luck all


oh, I did like the VARGA KACHINA but have not seen it mentioned.

Another vote for the DA20, damn nice little aircraft.
There really is no excuse nowadays for training on old techology, especially the scruffy examples typical of so many flight schools.

The new pilots joining us in the 21st century deserve better than 40 year old aircraft with steam guages, we should be training them for the future.

I agree 100% because as time passes aircraft designers give us better equipment.

HOWEVER:

All airplanes are still controlled by the same control surfaces and the pilot still has to understand how to use these surfaces to produce the required control of the airplane....

SOOOoo...

If all new pilots were started on a Cub off a farmers grass strip until solo would not that make them ready to learn to control the modern easy to fly machines??:hmm::hmm:

Yup! :ok:

(Or a Chipmunk, if they can find one!) ;)

I truly wish I could have gotten my first rides in a cub. I did fly a supercub and enjoyed it. sadly, someone crashed our cub.

the most important gauge is the airspeed indicator in my view...just sad that it is not the biggest and first in the modern electric world

Flying a Cub of a grass strip is pretty awesome on a sunny summers day, not so nice on a cloudy, cold, windy December day, though

If you want to learn on a small taildragger than I think the Cessna 120/140 is a much more practical trainer than a Cub.

You pretty much would have to buy one of your own to do that now, but it is entirely possible. I had 2 PPL students that did exactly that. One had a polished aluminum one with silver doped wings that was absolutely gorgeous. The other was owned by a young man that was not rich, so it represented almost his entire net worth. It was ugly looking but still flew beautifully.

For ab initio look for a C 120/140 that has a good intercom, the gear extensions, and brakes on the right side.

I like the c120/140. Having flown both gear configurations I like it without the extenders. It is a good airplane. One of the guys in the association does training in his 140. No brakes on the right and that is where he starts his students.

With the instructors I know it seems they are about 50/50 on the gear extensions. The airplane is definitely easier to wheel land with the stock gear and also looks better.

I like the extenders because it makes it less likely for the student to do a nose over, especially early in the training. I feel the aircraft is also more directionally stable when 3 pointing it. However there is definitely no right or wrong answer on this issue as a lot of the preference for one style of landing gear over the other is subjective.

When I started this thread I expressed my own personal preference for the best ab-initio training airplane.

There are many different airplanes used in training people for the PPL and for sure I have not flown anywhere near all of them.

Just to expand on why I chose the Fleet Canuck it was because I found it to have the best handling characteristics of the tail wheel airplanes I learned and taught on in the early fifties until the early sixties.

The school where I learned and worked as an instructor at had four Cessna 140's and four Fleet Canucks as their main training fleet.

The Fleet Canuck did have one small drawback in that there were no brakes on the right hand side, but its handling was so good the lack of brakes for the instructor was never a problem.

In the ten or so years I observed these machines train students there was zero loss of control incidents that I know of in all the thousands of take offs and landings these machines did.

We also had some other tail wheel airplanes over the years such as the PA12 probably Pipers best little machine. We also had a Cessna 170 another nice trainer.....then of course Cessna made the " Land O Matic " 172 and we all know what happened to tail wheel training after that.

The one airplane that was a bit tricky was the Piper Pacer / Clipper without right hand brakes and it was a bit more tricky to teach on.

So basically in my personal opinion it is better to have brakes on both sides of side by side trainers, but the lack of brakes on the instructors side does not mean the airplane is not suitable as a trainer.

Of course the above is subjective supported by having thousands of take offs and landings with zero loss of control.

Oh and while I am here rambling on and on there were two airplanes over my career that I really paid attention to on the runway....the Pitts Special and the Grumman Turbo Goose those suckers keep you awake on the runway. :ok:

Don't get me started on that subject! :rolleyes: :hmm::p:E

Chuck .... I still reckon the best aircraft to learn on is a glider :D

SS

Actually the airspeed indicator can cause some real sloppy flying that can be observed by watching poorly trained pilots chase it during climb, resulting in a roller coaster climb path.

The AOA indicator is far more useful and accurate.

The WHAT??? I've learned to make do with keeping the horizon a stable line in the windshield. Seems to work.

Seeing the gliders land at my homefield, I agree gliders seem to generally have very well-trained pilots (and extremely efficient air brakes, too...). Not always very careful of procedures, though, especially regarding ground security. But that may well be a local phenomenon.

Um, right. How does that help me know how hard I can pull exiting from a loop without exceeding stall AOA? Or turn steeply using 'bank and yank' without departing?

At the risk of turning this into a mutual admiration society Chuck is right on the nail with this:

What about the Alarus? Anyone got any experience with it?
Too bad they stopped making it, looks like a sound little airplane.

Further to the miss use, misunderstanding of the airspeed indicator as a flight instrument I would suggest the problem goes right back to the start of their training in lesson one, attitudes and movements, had they been correctly taught attitudes and movements and could demonstrate they understood that lesson they would not airspeed chase.

So how does that happen?

Anyone??:ugh:

Chuck,

I'll put my hand up. I like to think I'm a pretty good attitude flyer these days and I've had two flights where I had an ASI failure.

However, many years ago on my second or third lesson, when after having been carefully briefed on how to go from level-flight to a climb, I still ended up chasing the airspeed and my instructor had to take over! :O

So it can happen. I often think you could make a case for covering the ASI and VSI in early lessons.

Covering the instruments is sometimes the only way to get some students to look out the window for landing. Basic flight instruction should be a basic understanding of how to fly comfortably with no instruments by simply looking out the window and using that as a primary reference with just a glance at the airspeed to see how well you are doing.

Basic airplanes should also be basic. I learned in an Aeronca Champ and soloed in 5 hrs. I instructed in J3 cubs and Cessnas initially and both did a great job but learning in the Cub teaches you basics that can't be learned in a tricycle gear airplane.

I saw sloppy landings when flying with very experienced pilots in the Airlines who obviously never got the basics of how airplanes like to land.

Do yourself a favor and learn in a taildragger.

Since we no longer seen to be talking about "best training aircraft" and are now talking about flying instruction in general, I will add my 05 cents worth to that conversation as a current and active flight instructor.

When I teach attitudes and movements I don't even mention the flight instruments except for the ball. When the students ask about the panel full of instruments I tell them everything they need to know about what the airplane is doing can be discerned by looking out the windshield.

I always carry a pad of post it notes and will cover up any instruments the student is misusing.

My last PPL was done on a privately owned airplane. It had a fancy EFIS system which was great, because it had its own power switch. I only turned it on when we got to the navigation and instrument portion of the PPL, near the end of the course.

Absolutely if you have the opportunity, but I do firmly believe that you can taught how to properly fly in any of the common trainers like the Cessna 150 or Piper Pa 28 series.

To imply that learning in a nosewheel aircraft will automatically make you inferior to someone who trained in a tailwheel aircraft is IMO not correct and does a dis-service to the flight training industry.

This is all very fine and jolly, but in the real world of regular touring aeroplanes there is a need to "fly the numbers" I watch people fly some of these machines and it makes me cringe. The key to most aircraft is to know the sensible power settings and speeds for each phase of flight as well as attitude. Then if you have some combination of rev counter, manifold pressure and air speed indicator and attitude indicator (which can be the picture out of windscreen) you can fly the thing accurately in take off, climb, descent and approach.

No mention of the Grob so far?

It is by all accounts an absolutely fantastic training platform, the RAF certainly seems to think so ...

Luke....... It's all about the money
 

The reason you have not seen mention of the Grob 115 is that the civil versions of the aircraft are of GRP construction and are not of spectacular performance, the O-235 powered Grob115 have much the same performance as a PA38 or C152, it is nicer to fly that the 152 but on par with the PA38 but costs more to operate.

The RAF are running a military Grob 115, this may look like a civilian 115 but it has an Aerobatic O-360 engine, VP prop and is constructed from CRP ( Carbon fibre). All of this puts the price up to a level that makes it prohibitively expensive for basic civil flying instruction.

Yes, lancs Aero Club had a couple of G115s on the fleet and they looked good (if it looks right it flies right?), so I checked out in one. Hmmm. Dullsville. Just like a PA28. So I tried the other. It was the same!

I've never had anything to do with Grobs. But, if they are a consistent aircraft, economical to operate, with characteristics like a PA-28, they must be a suitable trainer.

The flight training industry works well with plentiful, economical, and predictable available for their fleets. Friends and I were discussing yesterday a school who have sold off their fleet of Eastern European training aircraft in favour of North American counterparts. The Eastern European types spent so much time grounded awaiting parts. No matter how good an aircraft is in the air, if it's not in the air, it's not much good as a trainer!

Those who have mass produced an acceptable aircraft have filled a market need better than more limited production and support of an aircraft with superior flying characteristics.

Step Turn makes a very good point, as much as I like my DR400-180 as a private aircraft and the fact that the smaller DR400 series aircraft are good trainers I would never operate them on a commercial basis as the supply of spare parts is simply not good enough to keep the aircraft serviceable.

I'm learning in a Grob 115 out of Coventry. The school I'm at has a mixture of C152, C172, a couple of PA28s and an R2160.
I've been up in a C152 a few times but found is too cramped. I would normally expect an instructor to buy me a drink before I sit on his lap...
The Grob for me was a really good balance between cost (only £5 more p/h than the C152) and space (it has a centre console which means plenty of room). The others in the fleet are just too expensive for me.
Also, as a personal preference, I prefer low-wing aircraft.

Is the 152 that cramped? I re-did my long-lapsed PPL in them, and have never been so drunk I'd sit on an instructor's lap. (I'm male with 15 stone minimum achieved weight.)(Wouldn't want to squash female instructor.)

Let me put it to you this way Maoraigh ... Mrs SkyToddler was originally my PPL student (in a C152), we started dating before her first solo, and we were married by the time she finished her PPL :ok:

Would never have happened in a Piper Cub!

I find it quite narrow. I'm a little *ahem* wide...


There's a danger I've never thought of...

So what's the consensus on the best training helicopter?

Learned to fly on the Chipmunk in the dim and distant past and eventually accrued about 400 hours on them.

While I agree about its handling, it has one major disadvantage as a primary trainer which no-one seems to have mentioned - the instructor cannot see what the student is looking at.
As a greenhorn, I initially tried to fly by concentrating on the instruments - which can be quite uncomfortable for an experienced pilot. None of my early instructors picked it up and just assumed I was not a natural. It was only when it came to instrument training that my misdirected efforts paid off. The only other area of the syllabus where I did well was aerobatics - where it was necessary to look out the window!

The AT6/Harvard had the same problem - but by then I had discovered that looking at the horizon worked :)

Out of four types I tried, I preferred the SW 300 by a wide margin. It's small and reasonably economical, but feels big to fly.

I've a few hours in a grob 115b (160bhp) and its ok, pretty benign to fly, no real vices

It if its spotless clean its quite quick, but in the summer with a few in dead flies, it seems to lose about 10-15kt!

couldn't say if its better than 152/172/pa etc as don't really have any hours on those and imagine the 115hp version will be underpowered. but think the B would make a very good learner.

I have only flown a Grob 115 once. It was the 115 HP one. The place in Florida that had them had two of that config and one 160 hp one, which was in the shop. Seemed like a nice airplane. The one in the shop shedded its tail after it was back online, two people died, and they went back to cessna. I would disagree the higher HP airplane is the better trainer, just as a generality. A low powered trainer demands more finesse from the student and this is important.

For helicopters, I learned in an underpowered Enstrom F28A and liked it very much. Great for full autos, low powered, manual throttle. I flew a few CB300's, very nice machine, but over on rotorheads it sounds like folks are having problems getting parts. That is a shame.

From NTSB ATL96FA123

Good old Cessna C152 and then onto the C172.

Had a few lessons in a lovely immaculate Grumman AA5, at the age of 15 but the hours couldn't into the logbook. The Grumman owner organised his old instructor to take me for a lesson or two outside of his airline job.

But it would have been nice to learn in a Cub in a paddock out in the boondocks.

I know guy another that learnt to fly in his PA-34 Seneca, he employed a full time pilot, but wanted to achieve going solo in his own plane.

scotbill,

There is one significant exception. Many a Chipmunk student has been caught out slyly adjusting the altimeter - "Bloggs, have you set QNH?" - not aware that the wily QFI in the back could see a reflection of his hand in the canopy! :E

Ask me how I know!