Jump to content

Training: J160 or Cessna 172


ckaine

Recommended Posts

The weight shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

However, the instructor has said that he would rather not do the Nav's in the J160.

 

Said it's quite a handful as the Jab doesn't fly as well 'hands off' as the 172.

 

Your thoughts??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Martin

Hi Chris

 

What a dellemma he is in I must admit I had not flown for almost 10 years and decided to get back into it so I went the way of a skyfox first very easy to fly then a PA28 then C152 to renew my BFR GA then J230 and finally the J160 which I must say was a little quirky to get used to the landings my suggestion for what its worth is go the Skyfox first if it is available if not then the J230 if available then the GA option I think he will be a better pilot for it I think the GA types are made to be easy to fly and I guess make us a little lazy as my instructor RAA put it

 

cheers and good luck

 

there seems to be a great deal of good information here

 

peter martin:thumb_up:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just noticed Merv's L O N G post 011_clap.gif.c796ec930025ef6b94efb6b089d30b16.gif . 2 thoughts:

 

- PPL (& RRA cert. for that matter) are a standard, not a box ticking / hrs building exercise. So how does the same person get to the same standard, ie PPL, in less hrs via RAA?

 

- I think CTA training should be added to the budget as part of the RAA Cert or to PPL conversion because that would be a normal part of PPL training. RAA CTA sylabus requires 3 flights.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dingduck.. From what i can gather this guy is wanting a PPl.. so obviously a standard will need to be reached. The differance is how much $$$ will that standard cost to be obtained.. The CTA flights needed for PPL could be done in the ultralight to hey??

 

Ps, my face is turning blue waiting for the RAA cta endo...

 

cheers

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

From the comments made on various posts about the difficulty of flying some RAA aircraft, I get the feeling the total costs are going to be much closer because of the high dual hours, and more solo practice in RAA

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

I think your Father is right.

 

I believe he will get thru faster on the 172 than learn to land the trickier Jab which can add hours and dollars to the programme for the average pilot in my opinion.

 

Why not learn in a 150 to make it cheaper again?

 

He can convert to the Jab later with landing experience under his belt and without having to go for a PPL!

 

I have seen Jab students take 30 hours to go solo, the average seems to be about 20.

 

He also may consider learning in Gazelle or similar which is easier to land and fly go solo, then convert to Jab later

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't flown a Jab so I can't comment on their handling characteristics.

 

I have a fair bit of time in various C172 models (the older ones are a bit different from the newer ones) and can say they are a stable flying platform (so perhaps reasonable for navs) but they are cumbersome things. Sometimes they are a bit too stable. You are very forgiving in slow flight, which makes landing in some ways easier, but could also mean people who have just trained in 172s could be in trouble in other types. They are not very forgiving in a crosswind though. They don't give very exciting moments in the stall, so again it could lead to complacency in other types.

 

I do think initially it would be good to fly in something a little less stable to encourage better handling skills. (However it may be less frustrating to fly in something stable.) I think that's why traditional GA schools tend to use basic trainers like the C152, Tomahawk, Airtourer, Citabria etc up to GFPT, then on to something like a 172 for navs. But there is more room in a 172 for taller, bigger people. Plus the trainers are cheaper to hire.

 

As for RA-Aus or GA to start, the RA-Aus would definitely be cheaper. One thing to consider is if the school follows a similar syllabus for both types of training. Make sure the GA theory tests are done (BAK, PPL theory) along the way.

 

Another thing is that it isn't hard and fast. If he doesn't like the Jab, he could always decide to change to the 172!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heaps of good advice given already. I started out with a PPL, training in C152, DA20 and C172. A couple of years later, I joined RAA and did my transition training in a J160. I reckon I learnt to fly then!

 

For ease of learning, the C172 is an easy winner. It's easier to land, it's way more forgiving during training, and it handles the bumps of the hot days a lot better. If you want to train as quickly as possible, and money is no object, go down that path. But, if you want to save a few $$$, go RAA through to Pilot Certificate level at the very least (GA "GFPT" equivalent). If at a flying school that offers RAA and GA, then their training program should make the transition to PPL extremely easy.

 

No matter what you choose, enjoy your flying :-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of new posts have dropped lately from the very same day as when the Chat Room started i_dunno

 

However, the quality of posts have increased and the number of users logging in every day has also increased by 15%. We are also seeing some of the old members coming back as well so I guess the hard line management is working for the benefit of the majority irrespective of the detractors :big_grin:

 

PS Shags, where's your avatar mate?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...