Powerin Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I was lucky enough to have a choice between two different types to train in. I chose the one that was easiest to fly (or more accurately, flew as a well designed aircraft should ), even though it was more expensive. I wanted to discover how the controls worked and learn to fly in various conditions first before I started dealing with the idiosyncrasies of aircraft design. I'm happy with the choice so far. It will be interesting to fly different types in the future (taildraggers are definitely on the list), but honestly I love flying an aircraft that flies as an extension of myself. As an aside, flying with my instructor in his Rv-7A....that is really an aircraft where you just have to think what you want to do and it does it. Exhilarating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 You might have read it wrong, I was with an instructor... Hmmm, wonder if he miss read the weather conditions then. I've flown in some pretty bumpy stuff but have never felt that the plane couldn't handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadInTheClouds Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Hmmm, wonder if he miss read the weather conditions then. I've flown in some pretty bumpy stuff but have never felt that the plane couldn't handle it. Don't think so, kind of hard to misread an ATIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galpin Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 I was lucky enough to have a choice between two different types to train in. I chose the one that was easiest to fly (or more accurately, flew as a well designed aircraft should ), even though it was more expensive. I wanted to discover how the controls worked and learn to fly in various conditions first before I started dealing with the idiosyncrasies of aircraft design. I'm happy with the choice so far.It will be interesting to fly different types in the future (taildraggers are definitely on the list), but honestly I love flying an aircraft that flies as an extension of myself. As an aside, flying with my instructor in his Rv-7A....that is really an aircraft where you just have to think what you want to do and it does it. Exhilarating! You should come and fly my Lightning. There's an invitation for you. When you come, bring your Top Gun music with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 I have never heard anyone like the LSA 55 Met an instructor at Narromine on the trip to Temora training using an LSA Jab... He felt they were the best of the bunch. For the $$$ they probably are... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Met an instructor at Narromine on the trip to Temora training using an LSA Jab... He felt they were the best of the bunch. For the $$$ they probably are... I think you've hit the nail on the head there Winsor. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 If you want your students to rack up a lot of extra hours, I can see the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Doesn't work like that FT. If they don't like them , they don't fly them. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 You know the 80/20 rule: 80% are "above average" and the other 20% are "just average". What sort of audit does the RAA put flying schools through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 FT, why don't you contact "Whistleblowers Australia" for the best way to reveal to the world full details of the "Great Jabiru Scan Scam" that you think is being perpetrated. So far you have only managed, what would appear to be, rumour and innuendo. Unfortunately I can't use these to build a business case for or against Jabiru at any commercial level. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Doesn't work like that FT. If they don't like them , they don't fly them. Nev This has been a concern I have long held. I have always been of the belief that you should NOT do ab-initio training in a twitchy aircraft if you don't want to put the 'average' student off flying. Why would you attempt to train someone in an aircarft that has unfriendly tendencies. Yeah yeah I know we were all trained in twitchy tail draggers in the old days ... well, it aint the old days ... that's why tricycle undercarriage became so popular and more people learned to fly. The Foxbat is a fantastic docile predictable aircarft with full control at the stall, a great ab-initio trainer as long as you teach them to keep the flimsy nose wheel off the ground. I fell in love with the Foxbat when I first flew one. The C150/152 is another example of a docile predictable trainer with NO nasty surprises. These types make great ab-initio trainers. Good docile trainers raise the students confidence, twitchy nasty ones do the exact opposite and may put a student off flying for good, but that depends on how much of a challenge a student likes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 FT, why don't you contact "Whistleblowers Australia" for the best way to reveal to the world full details of the "Great Jabiru Scan" that you think is being perpetrated. So far you have only managed, what would appear to be, rumour and innuendo. Unfortunately I can't use these to build a business case for or against Jabiru at any commercial level. col, we are a nation of miners and farmers the whole world admires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Good docile trainers raise the students confidence, twitchy nasty ones do the exact opposite and may put a student off flying for good, but that depends on how much of a challenge a student likes. I started my flying training in a Jab170... it almost put me off... and believe me I was as keen as mustard and certainly not unfamiliar with recreational flying. I would love to fly one again now that I have a bit more time under my belt... but I don't think I would have continued if my school hadn't have swapped the Jab for a Texan and then a Sav... My sphincter still puckers at the thought of those first seven wasted hours... Just saying... but then again... it is horses for courses (or something)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naremman Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Doesn't work like that FT. If they don't like them , they don't fly them. Nev Good point Nev. Narrogin Flying Club purchased both a C 172M and PA28-151 new in the mid 1970s. They then acquired a second, and then third Warrior when people walked past the Skyhawk. Similar engine, close in terms of capability, but the punters picked the Piper. Now I have no desire to buy into what was the better plane as I have enjoyed flying both, but once the tapered wing went onto the Cherokee range it certainly became a more appealing option. At the risk of being pilliored, I don't mind a small element of instability in a trainer. I learned on the early models of C150/172, and whislt not as easy to fly as the later models, appreciated the training I received in them. Navs were in a C172M which was a lot better proposition for cruising than the earlier models, and night training was mainly the Warrior. Purchase of the Airtourer occurred when I was completing my Navs, and I gained my aerobatic endorsement in it, which gave me a pretty broad exposure to a number of aircraft in the early stages of my flying journey. Without doubt the Airtourer is my first choice of aircraft, but will quickly acknowlege that it is not everbodys' cup of tea. I am always interested in seeing the GA pilots introduced to the Airtourer, and how they react to the control responsiveness. The initial response is not always favourable. My late first wife learned to fly on the Airtourer, and parallelled two students learning on NFCs Warrior. The Instructors comment was :"longer to solo, quicker to complete the licence, and I know who will be the better pilot" in reference to the Airtourer. The Instructor had 3500 Instructional hours and we had a hard job getting him out of the old Victa!! Stefan, bless him, was one of the pilots Australia decided could be part of an export program in 1989, scored a job with Singapore Airlines and has not returned. Every aircraft will have an owner that loves it. Just because you love it is no guarantee that the masses will too. It must be a vexed issue for a flying school operator making a choice of aircraft that appeal as a trainer, turn out a good pilot and still have a bank manager on polite speaking turns. Sadly history is littered with too many examples where this trifecta has not been achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naremman Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The C150/152 is another example of a docile predictable trainer with NO nasty surprises. These types make great ab-initio trainers. You must not have flown the C150 I did part of my training on David. This bird had a known history of unpredictable wing drops, even from a conventional power off stall, and despite the best efforts of the LAMEs to check out the rigging and iron them out, they persisted. I think the Instructors gained some perverse pleasure observing the look of panic on their students face on the first occurrence. As more confidence was gained in stalling we used to try and predict the wing drop, something the Cessna was unwilling to go along with. Progression to Incipient spins occurred with nothing untoward. I was then sent up solo to do some upper air work, and come back over the airfield, do some stalls in all configurations and then a couple of Incipients to finish off with. All went well up to the first Incipient. Things happened pretty quickly, and the next thing dust, loose small peices of paper and seat belt ends were going North past my nose!!. There was no sky to be seen and all I had was a windscreen full of brown Narrogin farming country, slowly rotating. Order was restored to the airframe, but not my pulse. Terra firma looked an appealing option. I don't know who was the more startled, me or the Instructor on the ground watching it all unfold, and probably dwelling on some of the possible consequences. In a sad postscript this C150 was bingled, stock mustering with fatal consequences. I have pondered whether its wayward nature was a contributing factor or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It would have had some problem to behave like that ( the 150).NO plane can be guaranteed completely docile and predictable though. The Gazelle is the most forgiving plane I have ever flown, but transitioning from it (For students) could be a bit of a shock, and you could fly one and not be much of a pilot really. I was lucky, I flew a Chipmunk initially and that was designed to be a trainer. Schools couldn't afford a plane like that today. I'm not anti Jabiru in the training environment. It's tough simple and repairable. It is enough of an aeroplane to train pilots on too. The LSA 55 is it's ancestor. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 This has been a concern I have long held.I have always been of the belief that you should NOT do ab-initio training in a twitchy aircraft if you don't want to put the 'average' student off flying. Why would you attempt to train someone in an aircarft that has unfriendly tendencies. Yeah yeah I know we were all trained in twitchy tail draggers in the old days ... well, it aint the old days ... that's why tricycle undercarriage became so popular and more people learned to fly. When I was young, younger than today....I took up archery. Like planes, bows come in all sorts of configurations and varied strengths. I 'trained' with a 2 piece steel bow that had a real twang and vibrated like hell when released. For composition work, I used a composite wood and f/glass reflex bow that released sooo smoothly I won a cup or 2. Had I used that bow all the time, I would have been just an average archer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I am not saying that you should not learn in twitchy aircraft ... what I am suggesting is that your ab-initio (first lessons) should be in a stable aircraft to gain confidence and then graduate to the more twitchy models. I had a smile when I read your post on that twitchy 150 Naremman, I could imagine your terror when the spin developed unexpected like that. I flew many C150s in my time and the ones I flew were all docile, yours must have been a mongrel one. You can induce a wing drop deliberately if you want to but the typical clean stall was docile. I did lots of spins in C150s, and if you didn't do it right they would not spin, just go into a spiral. They were strong old girls, you could slam them on or hold them off with the stall warning screaming dragging the tail ring on the bitumen if you weren't careful. I also flew the Victa 115 as a student and I too liked them, pretty hot over the fence compared to the 150 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 A good instructor will instil confidence in the student no matter how tough the aircraft is. Easier aircraft are just easier on the instructor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 BS Tomo, if you want to learn to shear sheep quickly and professionally, you pick a sheep to learn on. A greasy pig will kick and squeal and be much harder to handle, and very exciting, but at the end of your time you'll just be alert to the habits of a greasy pig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 BIG subject...... I wouldn't like the job of getting an ab-initio solo on a P-51. You'd lose a lot of planes, students and instructors, but you would get some through ( at a cost) A good instructor has the job of steering the student through the course dictated by the system, so must cover the plane used and it's characteristics, whatever ot is. A training aircraft should be tough ( most aren't, today) behave like a real aeroplane and be serviceable and cheap to purchase and repair. I don't believe anLSA 55 is "twitchy". It is a bit quick and has limited control authority at lower speeds. It doesn't lend itself to ham fisted control and you don't put weight on the nosewheel. This is a little bit in conflict with the need to NOT get slow on the approach, hence some fairly precise flying is required at times. This also applies to a lot of other aircraft so the skill is not wasted .The throttle position is "something else". Thankfully it's not done like that any more. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Nev, what are the major differences between an LSA55 and a J120? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 BS Tomo, if you want to learn to shear sheep quickly and professionally, you pick a sheep to learn on.A greasy pig will kick and squeal and be much harder to handle, and very exciting, but at the end of your time you'll just be alert to the habits of a greasy pig. Might be BS Turbo, but I think it has quite a lot of truth to it... think about it, an instructor teaching ab-initio in a Tomahawk has a lot less work on his hands to ensure the student 'feels' good that he is doing a lot of the flying, i.e. confidence. To the instructor in a drifter or similar, where the instructor has to do a lot of the work at first and ease it on slowly otherwise the student will give up feeling useless. There's a fine line. A bad instructor will throw to much to the student to quick and they will give up, I've seen it, I've helped people through it by taking them for a fly and introducing them to another instructor or whatever. It's the instructors job to ensure the student keeps that confidence level at just the right level, not the aeroplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DJH Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I learnt to fly in an LSA 55 a few years ago. I enjoy flying the type and have never suffered the problems others seem to have with it. The instructors got my feet working on the rudder pedals early in the piece, the 55 will certainly let you know when it needs leading. I really like the LSA 55, they're a terrific gadget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 RKW, I don't know. I haven't flown the 120. . there was some 'playing' with the rudder, which addressed some of the lack of effectiveness ot it. The main thing is not to cross control this sort of plane. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now