Which plane to learn in?

My flying school has just put a Jabiru LSA55 on line, along with the Foxbat A22LS that I have been training in. The Jab will be available for private hire once I have my licence. I enjoy flying the Foxbat, but I suspect I will end up flying the Jab once I have my licence.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether I should stick with the Foxbat, train on both, or train on the Jab, since I will probably end up flying that anyway?

If you have made up your mind to fly only the Jab in future, I would continue my training on that one, however if sometime in the future you still wanted to fly the Foxbat, then you could easily convert. I personally don't think it is a good idea to mix your training on two different types.

Just my personal opinion,

Alan.

Very different aircraft. Early in your training I would not mix two aircraft so different. You are just making it that much harder for yourself. In the long term, the more different aeroplanes you fly the better your breadth of experience, and the easier you find it to adapt to a wider variety of Aircraft. Nev

My best advice is to find another school that will teach to fly a taildragger. a Drifter is all u need to learn the basic skills. Most students prefer to learn in a tricycle but this is a mistake.

The skills that will keep u alive are being taught less and less because everyone wants to fly the flash plastic, which is not designed for training.

I see it everyday, students being taught to fly GA style, huge circuits well outside glide angle to the strip, using power all the way around, rarely a glide approach or an emergency.

What you learn now will stay with you for life and will determine whether or not you will be a PILOT.

Bingo smokeybear, bingo. So far I've been learning with a huge array or intermingled approached - flaps, flapless, glide approach (idle power) and deliberate missed approaches to learn the procedure. Emergency landings etc are a very good thing to learn.

I have heard the Jabirus are a brilliant craft but not for beginners - I have actually heard of instructors dismissing them outright due to what they call 'dangerous ground handling' characteristics with regard to student pilots.

Given the choice a taildragger such as the foxbat would be good, and one extra endorsement in your logbook. You'll appreciate it later on when looking for a craft that you're able to fly something other than a tricycle undercarriage!

- boingk

I learnt on a Foxbat, it has a nose wheel, and converted to a Drifter after getting my ticket. The Foxbat is a loverly a/c to fly and will cruise at 90kts no trouble but land at 35kts. Great for short field training and very forgiving but I'm a confirmed Drifter person now and think that's probably the way to go if you can.

As for training I never did a circuit beyond glide distance and only a couple of power on approaches to see what they were like as I had a proper RAA type instructor and not some GA reffo.

cheers John

The lsa55 is an out dated aeroplane. Jabiru have produced much better aircraft since this model. Of all the jabirus it is the worst handling when at low speed. The rudder is very small and becOmes almost useless in the flare.

The foxbat is a much better aeroplane ( than the lsa55) and I would stick with that for the time being.

Are you solo yet?

Haven't gone solo yet, and the school no longer has the Foxbat, so the LSA55 is all I can fly at the moment. I have my first lesson on the Jab tomorrow (Wx permitting). Apparently it does need to land at a much faster speed than the Foxbat (65kts I think), just to maintain some rudder authority.

Smokeybear, I've already done some glide approaches (from downwind, base, and final), and I have every confidence that my instructor is teaching a good range of pilot skills. He has over 8000 hours up, and spent years flying for MAF in PNG. I haven't heard a person yet question his professionalism and competence as a pilot.

Oh ok. So your sorta stuck with the jab then.(A little confuseing as your thread is called which aeroplane to learn in, but apparently you have no choice..:) Don't be apprehensive, it's just another aeroplane. There's no magical differences between any types, they all have their own characteristics which you will learn and probably enjoy;)

Like you said the biggest difference will be the approach speed.

Don't listen to those who bag your instructors methods, they all have different ways if achieving the same thing ( hopefully) although I'm not a fan of being taught one type of approach and 'shown' another. To be competent we should be confident and able to perform Any type of approach the cconditions and aircraft type call for.(not just glide approaches smokey)

Your instructor puts out good pilots. ;)

Enjoy

So...there must be a story to the dissapearance of the red foxy? I thought it was partially provided by Coffs Christian community school and Mike was training in that? I guess the only advantage...if one at all...is that the flying club has a 160 or 170......

Andy

So...there must be a story to the dissapearance of the red foxy? I thought it was partially provided by Coffs Christian community school and Mike was training in that? I guess the only advantage...if one at all...is that the flying club has a 160 or 170......Andy

I had my first lesson this morning in the LSA55, and it was certainly different to the Foxbat. The build quality is awful, the layout is not particularly intuitive, and it is very small. But, it was not too bad to fly, although it was nowhere near as responsive as the Foxbat. You get very little feel through the controls.

Yeah, Bottom line is as Nev said, 55 is the equivalent of an old holden and its being compared against a new car on the lot today. The only relationship between them is that the modern car wouldnt exist but for the evolution through the 55......

That said, if you can learn to drive the old holden you wont have any issues with modern beasts.

In my 230, there are some rough edges, there is no way it could be compared in build quality to some of the european aircraft.....but then it costs 50% of the costs.

Ive happily driven it around fair chunks of Australia and I can live with the rough edges...... I have not driven a 55, where I didn my 3 axis conversion from Trikes they had just got rid of the 55 and upgraded to a 160...which in time was replaced by a 170 which is much more friendly for training in SA where the summer time can be bloody hot!! the extra wing area gives a more responsive climb... I seem to recall that a number of the times I saw the 55 (rego 3031) it was upside down after an OMG moment at Gawler.....where the runway is longer and wider than in 99% of cases around Australia where RAA aircraft are based so I think they can bite if you relax your concentration.... which is probably true of all aircraft but perhaps to a lesser extent...

Andy

The monstrous runway at Coffs sure does provide a margin for error!

The LSA 55 is a real "stick and rudder" aircraft, and you will learn to use the rudder for just about everything. After flying it, any other Jabiru will feel a great deal better co-ordinated, and any other aircraft will just feel like more of a good thing. But the little LSA 55 is a tough little bird, just about "un-killable" and it has trained generations of Jabiru pilots who subsequently went on to bigger and better things - and were better pilots for the time they spent in the little Jab.

My best advice is to find another school that will teach to fly a taildragger. a Drifter is all u need to learn the basic skills. Most students prefer to learn in a tricycle but this is a mistake.The skills that will keep u alive are being taught less and less because everyone wants to fly the flash plastic, which is not designed for training.

I see it everyday, students being taught to fly GA style, huge circuits well outside glide angle to the strip, using power all the way around, rarely a glide approach or an emergency.

 

What you learn now will stay with you for life and will determine whether or not you will be a PILOT.

As for the flash plastic aircraft teaching pilots less, in a lot of instances they take more skill to fly and handle. The end results of whether or not you will be a pilot in my opinion are a direct result of the students aptitude, school environment and instructors care during the flight training and NOTHING to do with what aircraft you're piloting. I was put through emergency ALL THE TIME in my GA training, do not think that is something that only to RAA schools beat into their students.

End result in my opinion is go with what you enjoy flying the most and prefer to be flying. The less nervous you are during training the more you will be able take in.

My best advice is to find another school that will teach to fly a taildragger. a Drifter is all u need to learn the basic skills. Most students prefer to learn in a tricycle but this is a mistake.The skills that will keep u alive are being taught less and less because everyone wants to fly the flash plastic, which is not designed for training.

I see it everyday, students being taught to fly GA style, huge circuits well outside glide angle to the strip, using power all the way around, rarely a glide approach or an emergency.

 

What you learn now will stay with you for life and will determine whether or not you will be a PILOT.

Glide approaches are not everything. Most stall/spin events are from a turnback, or close tight turn onto final. If you don't use power on your approach in very gusty conditions, you are not going to have as much control and abiltiy to touch down on a precise point on the runway. You need to be able to use both techniques. Nev

Powered approaches are dead easy which is why people do them (bit like nose wheel aircraft). But I think this is a case where easiest is not best. Every time these topics come up it almost turns into a slanging match which is something that does not interest me. If people want take the risk of not being competent in this area then that is their problem.

There are other reasons people do them teck. Often they are safer. I don't like slanting over which type of approach we should be taught either, how about this, learn to approach. We don't teach any particular type of approach but rather teach to approach. Power and flap as required to maintain speed and approach angle. In light aircraft you can't be locked into one type of approach, condotions often call for different configurations. All too often I've done checkrides with people and we get onto final and they realize they are well low or high. I ask why did you put all the flap out, or why did you crack idle on base? And invariably the answer comes back " cause that's what I was taught" .

When asked what type of approaches we teach, I answer " good ones". Likewise when asked what speed the aeroplane stalls at, I answer " what ever speed you want it too"...

There are other reasons people do them teck. Often they are safer. I don't like slanting over which type of approach we should be taught either, how about this, learn to approach. We don't teach any particular type of approach but rather teach to approach. Power and flap as required to maintain speed and approach angle. In light aircraft you can't be locked into one type of approach, condotions often call for different configurations. All too often I've done checkrides with people and we get onto final and they realize they are well low or high. I ask why did you put all the flap out, or why did you crack idle on base? And invariably the answer comes back " cause that's what I was taught" .When asked what type of approaches we teach, I answer " good ones". Likewise when asked what speed the aeroplane stalls at, I answer " what ever speed you want it too"...

When I was in the states doing a check ride as it was the first time I had flown over there I was making an approach which was a little to high, so I took the power off and added another notch of flaps to correct it. The instructor said to me "Excellent glad to see you can do that, not many pilots can pick what a high approach looks like". She was serious and I found the comment extremely worrying!

Well said and put perfectly motzartmerv.

No single approach technique is suitable for all situations.

There is no need for there to be a slanging match at all.

We must be taught glide approaches because that is what we do on engine failures. But ... what approach techniques are you taught when you are doing an approach into an outfield in a precautionary landing situation due either loss of daylight, illness, aircraft or passenger problems, due stress of weather, low on fuel etc? I hope NOT a glide approach, because it is doubtful you will have much of a strip to land on unless you are in the wheat belt somewhere. This is when it is critical that you are familiar with the 'short field' powered approach technique, to land in the shortest possible distance. To be able to put the aircraft where you want it, not let the aircraft take you where the aircraft will end up.

What approach technique are you taught to use when you are caught in turbulent conditions due an un-forecast weather change and maybe a SigMet warning and need to land in gusting cross wind situations, these can all vary with aircraft type and weight. Techniques are slightly different in 95-10 types sometimes where gusting conditions can exceed controllability of some types.

What are you taught to do if you find yourself high on final, or low on final, as Andy said 'we teach them all these techniques'.

In many ways it is what you are taught to do and practice when things go wrong that can have a significant outcome on your survival.

Glide approach, powered approach, short field approach, flapless approach, side slip approach, we should be taught and practice them all, anything less is ultimately inadequate training.

Well I can't argue with " good ones" they will always be best. When you see accidents happening where aircraft are crashed with fatal results like the apparent death of a pilot in water because he hit to hard and losing power at 2000ft and hitting trees trying to get back to the home airfield you have wonder are enough people doing the "good ones"? I know pilots who say ultralights are not suited to glide approaches so they don't do them. People have lined up to do BFRs with me but cancel when they find out I want to see a glide approach. One time I nearly got caught out by a guy who thought his Jabiru would glide much further than it really could and kept with it until we were all but on the deck and the throttle was in between my legs of all places, won't get caught with that one again, I hope.

...... I know pilots who say ultralights are not suited to glide approaches so they don't do them. People have lined up to do BFRs with me but cancel when they find out I want to see a glide approach. ....

You really have to worry about some pilots who worry about being chipped on a technique in a BFR. A BFR has to be the best opportunity to brush up on poor techniques developed in the preceding 2 years. It is better to stuff up in a BFR and have some valuable instruction aboard than to stuff up solo or worse with some innocent passenger.

You would really not want to go flying with a guy who avoided a particular instructor because he was going to require a glide approach in a BFR!

Teck,You really have to worry about some pilots who worry about being chipped on a technique in a BFR. A BFR has to be the best opportunity to brush up on poor techniques developed in the preceding 2 years. It is better to stuff up in a BFR and have some valuable instruction aboard than to stuff up solo or worse with some innocent passenger.

You would really not want to go flying with a guy who avoided a particular instructor because he was going to require a glide approach in a BFR!

Wtf????