The Easiest Aircraft to learn to fly?

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Going from ab initio on jabirus, I started flying the tecnam eaglet, it flys beautifully and practically lands itself.

I did mention the tecnam, very well balanced machine :)

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have flown most versions of the Tecnam's and I agree that they are easy to fly but the Gazzelle nearly flies itself.

 

 

[facthunter]

The highwing tecnam has a few features to watch. Full flap is high drag and the flap speed is too close to the min speed clean. Crosswind taxiing is not easy either. The gazelle having a higher wing loading makes it handle gusts and crosswinds easier. I have noted those who agree with the gazelle choice. Makes me glad I felt the same way.

 

There is a thing to watch with it. Don't let it spiral and if you are doing spiral instruction get the turn off quickly ( by levelling the wings with aileron) Spiral instruction should be approached with caution in most aircraft that aren't stressed for aerobatics. To teach steep turns without doing it would be negligent. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yep, that VNE comes up quickly hey.:)

 

 

[chrisag]

Gold Coast see post #115

For those wanting a bit more info regarding the Just Highlander, I may be able to add a little. I've done about 70 hrs in one and love it. A real solid aircraft, fun to fly, heaps of room but not as fast as I was expecting, probably due to the under camber wing. A doclile tail drager and much better with the nose wheel removed. It seemed a bit nose heavy on the ground with the nose wheel. All that said, I still love the Skyfox more in some ways, lighter on the controls and perhaps a bit better coordinated. Horses for courses though. Have landed the Highlander in a 20 knt cross wind without any probs. The feet were busy but quite do able. I've also done about 60 hrs in a Kitfox 4. Now thats another story. All similar aircraft with the Kitfox about a good 10 knts faster and on only 80 hp. But not the room....All great tail draggers.....JC.

 

 

[farri]

I`ve kept out of this one so far but I need a break from the job I`m doing at the moment, so here goes.

 

I know the question is about ' the easiest aircraft to learn to fly in.'... My question is: Easiest for who?

 

To me, hard and easy are simply terms that mean absolutely nothing if they are not measured against something else. Anyone learning to fly should see the tasks at hand as being the requirement to reach the objective, which is, ' to learn to fly the aircraft.'

 

Easy and hard needs to be taken out of the equation. The mindset should be," I need to learn the tasks required to fly this aircraft."

 

Having tried a particular aircraft and finding the required skills to be too challenging, go and find an aircraft that meets your level of determination and skill.

 

Frank

 

 

[facthunter]

Easiest for the instructor, for one Farri. You can let the student go into territory where no man should and the old Gazelle will let you pull a rabbit out of a hat when called for .

 

The other thing I noticed over time is how much trouble some had getting on top of their next plane. This made me aware of how easy and forgiving it is. Whether that makes a good trainer is another matter. Personally I would prefer a plane just a bit more challenging. I think a Jabiru makes a better pilot , that adapts to others better afterwards, but that wasn't the question. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Likewise anyone who learnt stalls in a Tomahawk is probably going to handle a messy stall better than someone who learnt in Warriors. A little bit of trickiness is probably a good thing for a trainer. But not too much of a good thing....

 

 

[farri]

Easiest for the instructor, for one Farri.Nev

Gees Nev, You`ve missed my point, comppplllleeeetelyyyy. .... I`ve done enough different things in my life to have learnt that no matter how skillful you are,when compared, some things are easier ( there`s that horrible word ) than others. Of that I have no doubt.

 

I`m talking about a philosophy, a state of mind. A way to approach a learning task. Any task.

 

Frank.

 

Ps. I knew I should have left it alone. I solemnly swear I won`t say anymore on the subject.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

For those wanting a bit more info regarding the Just Highlander, I may be able to add a little. I've done about 70 hrs in one and love it. A real solid aircraft, fun to fly, heaps of room but not as fast as I was expecting, probably due to the under camber wing. A doclile tail drager and much better with the nose wheel removed. It seemed a bit nose heavy on the ground with the nose wheel. All that said, I still love the Skyfox more in some ways, lighter on the controls and perhaps a bit better coordinated. Horses for courses though. Have landed the Highlander in a 20 knt cross wind without any probs. The feet were busy but quite do able. I've also done about 60 hrs in a Kitfox 4. Now thats another story. All similar aircraft with the Kitfox about a good 10 knts faster and on only 80 hp. But not the room....All great tail draggers.....JC.

Hi Chris

 

Where did you fly the Highlander?

 

Maj

 

I take it the photographers are up at Shute Harbour at the moment.....How old is the aircraft?

 

Mark

 

 

[facthunter]

Franco. I thought I was the crazy philosopher. Don't let me put you off as it is certainly not my intention. Can you remember a plane that you have sent someone off in and the wind changes a bit and you worry if he/she will notice it because the plane is just a bit more difficult in a crosswind or whatever . Whereas the Gazelle, if the inexperienced pilot doesn't do it too well, they still get away with it. Nev

 

 

[chrisag]

Hi ChrisWhere did you fly the Highlander?

 

Maj

 

I take it the photographers are up at Shute Harbour at the moment.....How old is the aircraft?

 

Mark

Had the luck to fly the above aircraft when it was in Victoria. From memory it has about 250+ hrs on it. Was imported last year from Colorado. So we don't get too much thread drift,to learn to fly in a Highlander should not be too much of a problem, just may take a bit longer to master the ground handling, not that it is an issue. Probably easier than a Skyfox in ground handling....JC.

 

 

[metalman]

Had the luck to fly the above aircraft when it was in Victoria. From memory it has about 250+ hrs on it. Was imported last year from Colorado. So we don't get too much thread drift,to learn to fly in a Highlander should not be too much of a problem, just may take a bit longer to master the ground handling, not that it is an issue. Probably easier than a Skyfox in ground handling....JC.

Bit more thread drift, what part of the country are you in mate,cheers Matty

 

 

[David Isaac]

These Highlanders are a bit a stand out aren't they. I would love to have a crack at one, especially that auto slatted super STOL one.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

And here is yet another Kitfox/Skyfox clone, a Planes of Ohio Highlander that I am currently working on ............Maj...

Finally kicked out the Highlander today after refitting the gearbox and prop. Probabily the same one flown in Vic by Chrisag in post # 137.

 

Impressions.??.....Well only did one or two late circuits with a bit of handling and flap work in the circut.

 

Had a Slepcev Storch owner on board also, and I fly a Lightwing so made for some interesting comparisons. Bit like a Skyfox or Gazelle on steroids but wider in the cabin, quite manoeuvrable in the air and handled all flap stages well with little trimming required. Pretty active on the ailerons but not as snappy as the Skyfox or Gazelle. Gets off the ground well but viz over the nose is really lacking with tail down, however for taxing you can pop open the side windows (upper half of the door) and stick your head out for a better look !.... Seats appear set low for big yanks and need to be several inches higher for short Aussies. Vis in the air is real good with the full view side doors, and with second stage of flaps and the VGs I had her nice and stable at indicated 40 kts on final with a touch of power to keep her happy. Seemed to be quite happy and stable at 40 two- up thank you, and I'm sure the Highlander would also be quite happy at 35 kts with a bit of practise.

 

Need to do more landings in her, but generally appears to be pretty well behaved and capable, with good manners...and not that hard to land......................Maj.....

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Thanks Maj, Highlander would be at the top of the list if I was flush with the dinero's...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

G'day, Magneto, the one in your avatar is of course the next model the 'smack down' ...different wing with movable slats. They are doing their best to beat the old Storch no doubt !.........Yes wouldn't mind trying a Smackdown myself...........Cheers Maj.....

 

 

[facthunter]

Think you are into sado masochism ..Maj .... Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Think you are into sado masochism ..Maj .... Nev

One must move with the times Nev, and be open and willing to learn knew skills !!.........

 

 

[HansK]

I don't think that you should make a "thing" of "easy to fly" aircraft. Not one of the recreational aircraft is particularly more difficult to fly than another. The tail draggers are pertinently more difficult to take-off and land than the others, AND THAT'S WHY I recommend that you start your training on a tail-wheel. If you can fly a tail-dragger, you won't have a problem flying anything else, ever. Even recreational flying requires a lot of skill and you will be "more skilled" than the pilot that has been trained on a Bantam that doesn,t even require a IAS indicator on approach. I had experienced co-pilots in the right hand seat and they only use their feet for taxing and breaking. A friend of mine is on crutches for more than a year now because his feet was inactive during a stall. Pilots that haven't flown tail-wheels, (or choppers) has got no nerve connection between their brains and feet while flying, over and out.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Learn to fly gliders...THAT teaches you how to use your feet...otherwise you dont stay up very long

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...I recommend that you start your training on a tail-wheel. If you can fly a tail-dragger, you won't have a problem flying anything else...

That's the advice I followed, Hans. I asked who was the best taildragger instructor, and ended up with Tony Hayes. He used Thrusters because they were the hardest to handle on the ground, thus the best to learn on. I hated them and can't say I ever mastered their beastly ground handling!

 

 

[DWF]

I don't think that you should make a "thing" of "easy to fly" aircraft. Not one of the recreational aircraft is particularly more difficult to fly than another. The tail draggers are pertinently more difficult to take-off and land than the others, AND THAT'S WHY I recommend that you start your training on a tail-wheel. If you can fly a tail-dragger, you won't have a problem flying anything else, ever. Even recreational flying requires a lot of skill and you will be "more skilled" than the pilot that has been trained on a Bantam that doesn,t even require a IAS indicator on approach. I had experienced co-pilots in the right hand seat and they only use their feet for taxing and breaking. A friend of mine is on crutches for more than a year now because his feet was inactive during a stall. Pilots that haven't flown tail-wheels, (or choppers) has got no nerve connection between their brains and feet while flying, over and out.

As a general rule I DO NOT recommend learning to fly on a tail-dragger.

 

 

 

I have >1800 hours on tail-draggers and fly a C170 (amongst other types) and still enjoy the challenge and satisfaction of making a good 3 pointer or wheeler landing.

 

I also agree that tailwheel training makes better pilots and demonstrates that the rudder pedals are not just footrests.

 

Not using the rudder pedals properly is a common fault in students and needs to be given some attention early to make sure bad habits do not set in.

 

 

 

However, I think that, as many (most?) of our learner pilots are of the more mature variety; taking learning to fly in easy steps is the best way to go.

 

The extra challenge presented by learning to fly in a tailwheel aircraft can discourage students making the experience less enjoyable and possibly putting them off altogether.

 

Once they have mastered tricycle U/C aircraft then move on to tailwheels.

 

 

 

If, however, the student understands and is prepared to accept the extra challenge (and probably longer training time) then go for it!

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[djpacro]

Agreed DWF, however in my opinion, something like a Savage Cub is easier than a Jabiru.

 

 

[facthunter]

Learning to fly in tailwheel planes is fine, if you have a lot of spare planes. There weren't any tricycle planes exc. Chrislea ACE( and you wouldn't be seen dead in that). when I started, so tailwheel it had to be, but what's wrong with a DHC-1 Chipmunk? So I just put up with it. Didn't realise how lucky I was at the time.

 

If you had a fleet of Skyfox's you would get through them rather fast, unless you selected your pilots fairly carefully, yet the Gazelle is a pussycat. Nev.