Which plane should I learn in?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which plane should I learn in?
Im going to do my PPL in January and I'm not sure which plane to train in. I want to learn in a 4 seater and the school I'm going to has the Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28-161 Cherokee Warrior II. Is one of these better than the other or are they both as good as one another? Thanks in advance for your help!!
James
James
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both are fine. There's an endless flamewar between high-wing and low-wing fans, but there's nothing wrong with either aeroplane. Only real consideration would be what you are going to fly afterwards (edit: D'oh! Read the bl**dy location, Evo... 
) and if a more 'interesting' two-seater is available - converting to a PA-28/C172 is not hard, and you don't really need 4 seats while you are training. Learning on something that requires a bit more in the way of stick and rudder skills will do you good in the long run.
) and if a more 'interesting' two-seater is available - converting to a PA-28/C172 is not hard, and you don't really need 4 seats while you are training. Learning on something that requires a bit more in the way of stick and rudder skills will do you good in the long run.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah you got me! Im going to the US to do it. Its not that much more to do it in a 4-seater and a friend told me that it will always be easier to fly the first plane you learn in. I will want to be hiring 4 seaters in the UK and I know that when I do come back to the UK I will have enough trouble as it is adjusting to UK flying (radio and more congested airspace etc) so I thought if I start with a 4 seater it would be easier.
If I did it in a 2 seater the 152 is my only option in the US.
Thanks
James
If I did it in a 2 seater the 152 is my only option in the US.
Thanks
James
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, didn't need to edit then - posted something assuming you were in the UK and then saw you were in Osaka... 
Do you know where you'll be flying in the UK and what's available? Obviously getting used to the UK will be easier if you aren't learning to fly a new type as well. Never flown a 152 so I can't really comment, but i doubt it is very different to the 172 - may as well go for the 4-seater. Why not try both the PA-28 and 172 and see which you prefer? Most of us are used to one type before we try the other, and end up as die-hard high-wingers or low-wingers
Do you know where you'll be flying in the UK and what's available? Obviously getting used to the UK will be easier if you aren't learning to fly a new type as well. Never flown a 152 so I can't really comment, but i doubt it is very different to the 172 - may as well go for the 4-seater. Why not try both the PA-28 and 172 and see which you prefer? Most of us are used to one type before we try the other, and end up as die-hard high-wingers or low-wingers
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoi,
I think it is more important to focus on a good school than on what aeroplane you are going to fly.
It may depend a little bit on whether there are any monetary or weight constraints to take into account.
If you are heavy you would be better to do it in a four seater, if money is tight in a two seater and if you can not make up your mind have an hour in each and see what you like best yourself.
High or low wing is very much a matter of taste.
FD
I think it is more important to focus on a good school than on what aeroplane you are going to fly.
It may depend a little bit on whether there are any monetary or weight constraints to take into account.
If you are heavy you would be better to do it in a four seater, if money is tight in a two seater and if you can not make up your mind have an hour in each and see what you like best yourself.
High or low wing is very much a matter of taste.
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im in Osaka working (English Teacher) but leaving soon to go home. After Xmas going to Florida. I am from Manchester so will probably join Lancs Aero Club at Barton. They have 172s and PA-28s.
When I come back will I need a lot of time with an instructor to get used to flying in the UK? What exactly is different and how?
Thanks
James
When I come back will I need a lot of time with an instructor to get used to flying in the UK? What exactly is different and how?
Thanks
James
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with FD that the school, and the instructor, is far more important than the aircraft.
That aside, have a go at both, and see which you like the most. They are so similar in every way that counts that it's impossible to recommend one over the other. I've flown both. I'd say the advantage of the C172 is that it has doors on both sides which makes getting in and out easier, compared to the PA28 which only has a door on the passenger side. The C172 also has windows which can be opened during flight, which is nice in the hot weather that we always have in the UK.
I don't know if all C172s can be spun, but the ones I fly can, which might be a factor if you're into that type of thing.
The PA28, on the other hand, is nicer looking aircraft IMHO, which is very important!
The -161 can't be spun, although the -140 can. Personally, I prefer the low wing - much better visibility in turns. But as Evo says, this is a personal preference, and plenty of people prefer high wings (and if I'm taking someone sightseeing I prefer a high wing so my pax can see the ground better).
There might be other factors to take into account. For example, the club I rent from has some old PA28s - well looked after, but some of the avionics are a little tired, or missing altogether. The C172s at this particular club are brand new, kitted out with all the latest gear. The C172s cost more, because they are newer - but all this brand new kit is completely unnecessary for a new PPL (but very nice if you're planning on flying in IMC later on). It might be worth checking with Lancs whether there's any reasons such as this why you might prefer to hire one type of aircraft over the other.
Good luck!
FFF
--------------
That aside, have a go at both, and see which you like the most. They are so similar in every way that counts that it's impossible to recommend one over the other. I've flown both. I'd say the advantage of the C172 is that it has doors on both sides which makes getting in and out easier, compared to the PA28 which only has a door on the passenger side. The C172 also has windows which can be opened during flight, which is nice in the hot weather that we always have in the UK.
I don't know if all C172s can be spun, but the ones I fly can, which might be a factor if you're into that type of thing.The PA28, on the other hand, is nicer looking aircraft IMHO, which is very important!
The -161 can't be spun, although the -140 can. Personally, I prefer the low wing - much better visibility in turns. But as Evo says, this is a personal preference, and plenty of people prefer high wings (and if I'm taking someone sightseeing I prefer a high wing so my pax can see the ground better).There might be other factors to take into account. For example, the club I rent from has some old PA28s - well looked after, but some of the avionics are a little tired, or missing altogether. The C172s at this particular club are brand new, kitted out with all the latest gear. The C172s cost more, because they are newer - but all this brand new kit is completely unnecessary for a new PPL (but very nice if you're planning on flying in IMC later on). It might be worth checking with Lancs whether there's any reasons such as this why you might prefer to hire one type of aircraft over the other.
Good luck!
FFF
--------------
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bmb7jiw,
As FFF says there's very little to choose between them. I did my training on a mixture of 152, PA28 and 172. Some people prefer to stick with one type, but I actually found it more interesting and educational to swap to and fro. It was helpful from a practical standpoint too since I never had to cancel a lesson because of lack of availability of one particular type.
As FFF says there's very little to choose between them. I did my training on a mixture of 152, PA28 and 172. Some people prefer to stick with one type, but I actually found it more interesting and educational to swap to and fro. It was helpful from a practical standpoint too since I never had to cancel a lesson because of lack of availability of one particular type.
As others have said, very little to choose - I've flown PA28's (from -140 up to Archer) and C172's (including the new, fuel-injected SP).
The only bit of real feedback I would give, based on personal experience, is that you may learn how to land better in a 172:
- full flap landings require accurate control of speed and power settings
- more reactive to x-wind, due to high-wing config
- "greasers" easier to achieve in PA28 due to "ground-effect" (but too fast on a warm day and you will "float" forever)
- take-off's a different ball-game though. 172's seem to reach the correct speed and fly-off, whereas PA28's (especially the heavier Archer) need quite a marked haul back to rotate.
The only bit of real feedback I would give, based on personal experience, is that you may learn how to land better in a 172:
- full flap landings require accurate control of speed and power settings
- more reactive to x-wind, due to high-wing config
- "greasers" easier to achieve in PA28 due to "ground-effect" (but too fast on a warm day and you will "float" forever)
- take-off's a different ball-game though. 172's seem to reach the correct speed and fly-off, whereas PA28's (especially the heavier Archer) need quite a marked haul back to rotate.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learnt in a Robin and then bought a Cessna 152! I now switch backwards on forwards between my 152, Duchess Twin and a Senneca Twin without problems.
I think the Cessna is a wonderful aeroplane to fly which takes mastery to fly well. I think they are a great trainer and a good choice to learn in.
I don't think it is difficult to transition to any aircraft type if you have correct instruction. I have always sought out good instructors who have made the move seem easy. I now fly nearly 20 different types including microlights.
I would not have chosen to learn in a 4 seater as there was only me and an Instructor in there, why pay more. Now I often fly with 5 passengers and choose the aircraft that suits the job.
Choose a good school and a good Instructor, try a couple of different types and get on with it!
I think the Cessna is a wonderful aeroplane to fly which takes mastery to fly well. I think they are a great trainer and a good choice to learn in.
I don't think it is difficult to transition to any aircraft type if you have correct instruction. I have always sought out good instructors who have made the move seem easy. I now fly nearly 20 different types including microlights.
I would not have chosen to learn in a 4 seater as there was only me and an Instructor in there, why pay more. Now I often fly with 5 passengers and choose the aircraft that suits the job.
Choose a good school and a good Instructor, try a couple of different types and get on with it!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learn't in and fly now the PA38 - i like it but havent flown any other a/c so cant really say which is the best to learn in - people do say its a good a/c to start out in though
Spike
Spike
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: surrey
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learnt to fly in a Harrier GR5! I was developing the simulator at the time (late 80s). I spent many night shifts teaching myself with a bit of help from a pilot colleague. After a few weeks I could fly a fairly stable approach with only 1 in 10 landings resulting in a fireball. 
I don't suppose the CAA would accept those odds, but I was impressed. It had a practical purpose as I had to test the bombing system by flyng sorties over the North Sea, destroying any ships I came across (mostly fishing boats and ferrys, but you never know where the enemy could be hiding 
).
When I moved 'on' to a real C-152 (also a single engine plane) several years later, I immediately felt at home in the cramped cockpit, recognised most of the instruments and knew what to expect from the primary effects of controls. It was a bit tardy though. And I still haven't found the thrust vectoring lever.
When I progressed to a 4 seater Archer, I found the extra 20 Knots in the circuit a bit of a handful at first. You have to think ahead a bit quicker to get everthing done. I am not sure if this would be an impediment to initial training. On the one hand, you are busy enough in the early days so more speed would make things worse. On the other hand, if it's all new anyway, there is nothing to compare it to and you would just learn to do it.
TallGuy.
p.s. I learnt to fly IFR the same way, this time in an MD82 simulator that was finished except for the visual system so all flying was done looking at a white sheet.
I was developing the simulator at the time (late 80s). I spent many night shifts teaching myself with a bit of help from a pilot colleague. After a few weeks I could fly a fairly stable approach with only 1 in 10 landings resulting in a fireball. I don't suppose the CAA would accept those odds, but I was impressed. It had a practical purpose as I had to test the bombing system by flyng sorties over the North Sea, destroying any ships I came across (mostly fishing boats and ferrys, but you never know where the enemy could be hiding ).When I moved 'on' to a real C-152 (also a single engine plane) several years later, I immediately felt at home in the cramped cockpit, recognised most of the instruments and knew what to expect from the primary effects of controls. It was a bit tardy though. And I still haven't found the thrust vectoring lever.
When I progressed to a 4 seater Archer, I found the extra 20 Knots in the circuit a bit of a handful at first. You have to think ahead a bit quicker to get everthing done. I am not sure if this would be an impediment to initial training. On the one hand, you are busy enough in the early days so more speed would make things worse. On the other hand, if it's all new anyway, there is nothing to compare it to and you would just learn to do it.
TallGuy.
p.s. I learnt to fly IFR the same way, this time in an MD82 simulator that was finished except for the visual system so all flying was done looking at a white sheet.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tall Man,
Surely not the same Harrier Flight Sim that I learnt to fly in at RAF Wittering back in 1986? Taxpayers money always well spent.
It was the best toy on camp, only equalled by the Wittering bowl!
Surely not the same Harrier Flight Sim that I learnt to fly in at RAF Wittering back in 1986? Taxpayers money always well spent.
It was the best toy on camp, only equalled by the Wittering bowl!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimpmunk
I don't have a preference between the two planes that you've identified, but the real answer to the question posed in your subject line is: DHC-1.
Spam cans are all very well, but they are not the preferred training mount if you have a choice.
Spam cans are all very well, but they are not the preferred training mount if you have a choice.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: surrey
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x
That would be the one! It certainly was a good toy. I remember firing up the engine one night without a helmet on. Was deaf for 24 hours! (huge speaker system hidden behind the seat). That 360 degree visual system was unbeaten for quite a few years. I liked the way the straps pulled you hard into the seat to simulate G forces.
TG.
That would be the one! It certainly was a good toy. I remember firing up the engine one night without a helmet on. Was deaf for 24 hours! (huge speaker system hidden behind the seat). That 360 degree visual system was unbeaten for quite a few years. I liked the way the straps pulled you hard into the seat to simulate G forces.
TG.
- just goes to show what odd people there are around
Northern Monkey
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Newcastle, England
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Was learning to fly in a c-150 at sherburn, but after doing 9 hours in it, and talking to th CFI there, ive decided to start flying the cap 10b that they have there insted.
Im not sure if its the most sensible decission ever, but im looking forward to flying for the first time on monday. Ill tell you how i did on monday night.
What does everyone think of my choice? good, bad, indifferent
NB
Im not sure if its the most sensible decission ever, but im looking forward to flying for the first time on monday. Ill tell you how i did on monday night.
What does everyone think of my choice? good, bad, indifferent
NB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my PPL on a 150 and a 172 and now fly mainly low wing aircraft. However, I think the Cessna 2/4 seaters are a bit like the VW Beetle...if you learnt on one it has a special place etc etc.
If cost is an issue, simply go with the cheapest, if it isn't...can I have a loan?
Wherever you end up flying, you'll need to do a check ride at the very least before you can hire and will want to do a few hours under the guidance of an instructor to get up to speed with UK airspace and these could easily be familiarisation time on a new type.
My opinion is that speding the extra to take to empty seats flying for 45hrs PPL training is probably not necessary.
If cost is an issue, simply go with the cheapest, if it isn't...can I have a loan?
Wherever you end up flying, you'll need to do a check ride at the very least before you can hire and will want to do a few hours under the guidance of an instructor to get up to speed with UK airspace and these could easily be familiarisation time on a new type.
My opinion is that speding the extra to take to empty seats flying for 45hrs PPL training is probably not necessary.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive decided to start flying the cap 10b that they have there insted ... What does everyone think of my choice? good, bad, indifferent