Best training airplane?
 

Here is a question for all you people out there in the flying community, especially flight instructors.

What is your choice for the best training airplane you have taught / learned on?

For me it is the Fleet Canuck a tube and fabric tail wheel airplane that was designed and built in Canada.

It has the best combination of control balance, response and all around flying characteristics of any airplane I have used for teaching basic flying skills at the PPL and CPL level on.

What is yours?.

I learned in a PA12. It is a great airplane for the private rating.

Rans S6. Tolerates beginner's errors very much but does not let its pilot get lazy.

dHC 1 Chipmunk. Won't bite unless really provoked, but very difficult to fly well, and immensely rewarding to fly well! Will not mask a pilot's mistakes, but unlikely to kill him for them!

Bulldog.....

Best Training Aeroplane
 

Hi Chuck,

For my money, the best basic training aeroplane is another Canadian design namely the De Havilland Chipmunk.

The RAF used it as their basic trainer for donkey's years; that must say something.

Regards,

BP.

PA 28, works like any other sensible aeroplane so suitably representative.

I think the airplane you learn on is ultimately irrelevant. By far the greatest determinate of flight training success is the quality of your instructor.

A good instructor will teach you to be a good pilot on any airplane. I have personally taught the PPL on the 7 AC Champ, C 120, C 150, C 172, Pa 28 series PA 38 and the Nanchang CJ6A. I personally don't think there was any significant difference on how the student turned out that was related to the airplane.

Luscombe is a great airplane. With proper training, it is not a problem.
But otherwise can bite. Pleasure to fly, though. Lost to Cessna as a trainer due to narrow undercarriage.

Suitable training aircraft
 

Without a doubt, the trusty Rollason Condor.

Tailwheel, very pleasant controls, and will spin convincingly.

All of the Condors I learned to fly in had the placard "All aircraft bite fools"
A truer word was never spoken.
This was in 1972/3 !!

This is an interesting discussion.

So far most of the airplanes tend to be tail wheel airplanes which makes sense as learning to fly on a tail wheel airplane "" DOES '' make for a better hands and feet pilot compared to learning on a nose wheel airplane.

I never got the chance to fly the Chipmunk but that is the one machine I would like to fly just because of what everyone says about it.

I am getting to the age now where I like to just sit and remember all the neat things my over sixty years in aviation has allowed me to experience.

My last day flying in the air show business was probably one of the most exciting for me because when they parked me in the parking place for the next two days of flying I fuc.in near died from excitement because right in front of me was a Grumman Tiger Cat painted dark blue....

....of all the airplanes on earth that is my very favorite one and I spent the next two days with the guy who was flying it.

And being parked right behind him I got to taxi out behind him and hold right beside the runway while he did his display.....it was awesome, simply awesome the power that machine has.

That was my last day in the airshow flying business and couldn't have been better.

Wow.....that was in October 2005 almost ten years ago...yup I'm getting old. :O:O:O

It depends on what you want to achieve.

If you want to produce the best pilots/eliminate the less able, then something demanding, with lots of adverse yaw will defeat the less able, and make the Instructor work harder with the ones who make it.

If you want to be able to teach almost anyone who walks in off the street to fly, You need something more benign, and forgiving of hamfistedness. (Is that even a word?) These aircraft can, however lead to sloppy instruction.

I agree with both BPF and Johnm. A good Instructor is far more important than an ideal aircraft, although some aircraft are so benign that some things are impossible to demonstrate in a meaningful way, and learning in something broadly representative of the types of aircraft you are likely to fly in the future is probably best.


TTH. I too flew Condors in Yorkshire in the 70s. Was G-AYFD one of them?


MJ:ok:

Ps. Chuck, Get to fly a Chipmunk soon. It has the sweetest, best balanced handling of anything I've ever flown. Now, if only it had another 50hp and a CSU.........;)

First entry in logbook is Rollason Condor, trial lesson. Then PA 28 followed by C172 but without a doubt my favourite the Beagle Pup.

Grob 115.......

Ikarus C42 :D

Worse, they can lead to disillusion. I did my PPL on the dreadfully-handling C150 and seriously considered jacking it in as the aeroplane was so unresponsive and rubbery to fly; like having sex wearing a leather condom.

Then I flew the Chipmunk. Oh! This was flight as it should be! And a few other aeroplanes with adverse yaw etc but really nice to fly kept me in the fold. That led to decades of aviation fun I'd have missed if I'd never flown anything nice in those early months.

Condors
 

MJ
Yes, I remember G-AYFD, G-AVZE and G-AWEI all at Sherburn in the early '70's (perhaps also G-AWSO and G-AVOH ?? - I'd have to dig out my first log book to check)
My first solo was on 'EI and it's still around despite all the "wear and tear" of being a club trainer and another life with Mike Peare's Condor Club.

They don't make trainers like that any more, more's the pity !

TTH

Sorry, I rambled on a bit in my last post, without answering the OPs question.

I think you would go a long way before you found a better all-rounder than the Slingsby T67c for basic training.


MJ:ok:

Ps. TTH, I think the T67 is the modern day Condor, and may be a distant relative through it's French ancestry.

I agree, the Firefly is a great machine, but it drinks fuel and is a bit noisy - great fun, just don't have the bad habit of picking up the wing with rudder in the stall.
The PA38 is a sweetie but can be unforgiving - the PA28 has blind spots when teaching nav.
The Bulldog is strange for students to fly left handed, but lovely to play with.

I think, for me anyway, a nice new C172 is the best. Great for trial lessons with Granny in the back, stable yet sporty and loves a field beat-up!
I had a share in a PA28-235 in '95 but was sold on the injected 172.

To instruct - I think that the AA5 is a firm favourite with me for handling, ergonomics and teaching of systems management at about the right level.

When I was a newish student I think that the aeroplane I most enjoyed learning in was the CFM Shadow. As an engineer I think it has a great deal lacking about it - but as a student, it was a superb learning environment.

G

Just another personal observation regarding ab-initio flight training.

A lot of people claim it is more intimidating for a student to teach them on a tail wheel airplane than on a nose wheel airplane.

However from my experience in learning and teaching there is no real difference time wise between students learning on tail wheel airplanes versus nose wheel...they just have better airplane handling skills when they finish than those who learned on nose wheels.

When I learned we only had tail wheel trainers, the nose wheel machines did not appear on the scene until the late fifties.

Also we used two stage amber when teaching instrument flight.....no one ever heard of wearing a hood.

Wearing a hood to simulate IMC is like someone else said here a few posts ago it is like wearing a leather condom to have sex.

Cessna 152
 

I will take a guess that more than 50 % of the worlds current pilots have flown the C152 at some time during training.

When it comes to basic flying training and economics it's hard to beat the C152.

Chuck

There are some who like the leather thing !

The problem with older designs like the 150/152 is the internal space. Humans are getting bigger with every generation. I am wide across the shoulders and found it difficult to fly with an instructor of average dimensions.

Citabria 7ECA

Which is why most flying schools use them. It's possible to turn those of mediocre skill and aptitude into qualified PPLs in a short time using them! If I ran a flying school I'd most likely do the same, or the competition would put me out of business with cheaper PPL courses and higher pass rates!

However, in my book that does NOT make them a good basic trainer. Probably the reverse!

Robin HR 200.


After this aircraft, a Piper Warrior / Cessna 172 were like flying buses!

I agree.

Not so fast...

If a candidate learns to fly in a demanding, yet forgiving aircraft does this not provide an environment for better learning? Better learning results in a better pilot, so the objective was met? The tool did the job?

My other airplane is not at all nice in the air, and worse on the runway. It is a constant effort to keep it straight and level, and co-ordinated. A total attention demander to prevent groundlooping. I could think it is not a "good" aircraft because of this, but if you can fly it well, you can probably fly most planes well, because they are more stable, and much more nicely harmonized.

For myself, I find that when I master the less pleasant plane, the more pleasant planes come naturally. Does that not make the less pleasant plane a better trainer?

The best aeroplane to learn in? - A glider of course! :ok:

I converted to power by way of Tigermoth and Supercub, with some of the nav in a C150. I'd say the DH82 was a terrible trainer as I couldn't really hear the instructor. So a lot of the learning was in the briefing and de-briefing. That said, I enjoyed it and solo'd pretty quick - so it wasn't too bad. I'm another who loved the odd flight I had in a Chipmunk, but I've never flown one in the 26 years since I passed my PPL, so hardly and informed opinion.

Having come from flying gliders and the taildraggers, I can't imagine how learning on a nosewheel aeroplane could have been any easier? You learn to fly what you learn to fly in. At that point you have no preconceived ideas that one type is any more difficult than another? As someone else said ... Your instructor is the most influential ingredient in the learning process.

SS

But the C150 / 152 is not a demanding aeroplane. For a start, it doesn't demand you co-ordinate rudder and ailerons and doesn't reward you with crisp roll/turn performance if you do (it doesn't care if you do or don't!), it doesn't display classic stall characteristics (masking them with lots of washout and limited elevator authority) and it certainly doesn't demand you land it properly! (Land-o-Matic undercarriage was Cessna's claim!).

Most rewarding things in life are also demanding. The C150 / 152 is neither.

SSD, I agree with your observation. Though I stand by the theme of what I wrote, your point is quite valid.

If you take that premise to the logical conclusion than everyone should do their PPL on a 2 seat Pitts. Of course if that were to happen I bet only about 5 % would finish, but yes they would have pretty awesome hands and feet. Unfortunately GA as we know it wouldn't last very long under that model.

I think one has to be careful to not slide into the hero pilot hubris of "I must be a better pilot than you because I learned on a ( insert airplane type here)".

Precise aircraft control is a choice. You can fly a C 172 very accurately or let it fly you. Yes it is true that the margin for error is higher in the C 172 than some other types but that doesn't mean you should not make the effort to fly it well.

This point directly relates to my early comment about the importance of good instruction. A good instructor in a C172 will instill the desire and ability to fly the airplane properly and that skill will transfer to any other aircraft they fly

Finally there often seems to be an under current of "real" pilots fly taildraggers when ever this topic comes up. The hands and feet skills are important but so is the knowledge and judgement and pilot decision making skills which are airplane independent.

I know a guy can grease the more demanding taildraggers on in a gusting cross wind every time, however he is pretty much universally considered as a accident in waiting, time and place to be determined, due to his massive ego and constant gratuitous risk taking.

The best aeroplane for flight training is the one that gets the most new pilots in the air and through to a completed pilot certificate.

GA needs more people to take up flying!

:ok::D

I entirely agree that good instruction is the key to a good pilot, but the question was about airplane type, not instructor type... ;)

Sia Marchetti SF260 flew one twice and loved it

Pace

Best training airplane ? For purely selfish reasons it would be the C 172. It seems to be one of the few GA trainers that has a comfortable seating position and enough shoulder room for me, plus you can open the window on the ground during hot days and stand under the wing when it is raining to "supervise" the students walk around. :ok:

BPF

Well the Grumman Tiger should suit you ;) loved the aeroplane and you could roll the canopy back on hot days even in flight for a bit of fresh air extravaganza :ok:

Pace

I had a Grumman Cheetah in my school and just loved it, beautiful flying machine.

Step Turn, when I was in the training business I also had Cessna 150's because they were good cheap and reliable.

I got to thinking about it and converted a Cessna Aerobat to a Texas Tail Dragger which made it a far better trainer in my opinion, not only could I teach basic flying on it I could teach basic aerobatics legally with it.

I sold it to a good friend who still has it parked beside his Husky Amphib in his hangar in Pitt Meadows....he loves the thing and fly's it regularly.

You don't have to convince me as one of the airplanes I own is a Grumman AA1B. It is a great flying airplane roomy, excellent visibility and with delightfully light and effective controls but I can see why it did not succeed as a flying school aircraft. It is just not built tough enough to survive ab initio students.

one thing that i have noticed in this thread is that most of the aircraft mentioned are older aircraft, most of them are from the '70s no one has mentioned any new aircraft, nothing from diamond or pipistral..

Learning to fly in something that is older than you or even your parents will not get new people in to the field as much as we would like.

A good sable platform to learn is more important at the start than a aircraft with "interesting" handling characteristics, you don’t learn to drive a car in a 1970's Stag so why should you learn to fly in a 1970's aircraft.

fats