Training only/predominantly in a Cessna 152

[esp803]

Quite the debate over the single Cessna's.

I stand by my original statement, go for the cheaper option.

As for how they all fly, I've done a 150,152,172,180,182,185,205,206,207,208, and from what I can tell, they all handle pretty much the same. In Fact I know of at least one company that throws 200hr pilots left seat into a Caravan for their first commercial flying gig. I think it's brilliant. Put the new guy in a More robust, more stable, better performing aircraft. Provided you're not taking it into the 1200-1500 ft strips, a new pilot flying a Caravan is infinitely safer than a new pilot flying a 207. I don't think anyone should jump in an airplane that they've never flown and take customers on their trips... however it shouldn't take you more than a couple circuits to convert from one to the other (a few hours for the tailwheel or Caravan).

E

[Rookie50]

I think the answer is, it depends on many factors.

When I moved from the 172 RG to my 182 RG, not only was it my first real type transition -- though I have a touch of 206 and 205 time -- I was extremely rusty having not flown much in the recent past. Accident waiting to happen. So a good checkout made sense, was required by insurance. I didn't mind, and it blended into some good recurrency training time.

Of course, for those with multiples of my total time and different types, may not matter. But I'm low time.


Now if someone wanted me to fly a 206 tommorrow, I'm probably fine with a self checkout and careful review of the POH, To me it's just not as big a jump, though I'd still take the checkout.

[jump154]

Fly the 152. It's cheaper, more fun and spins far better than the 172. I did all my PPL on a 152, then transitioned to a 172 when I had a licence and wanted to take people up with me. Only reason to train in a 172 is if you are too heavy for you and your instructor to put meaningful fuel in. I was limited to 3/4 tanks 2 up, which was OK for most stuff. Only a couple of times had to fly a couple to circuits to burn off fuel before my instructor could get in!

Looking at one school round here, $35/hr cost differential - every 4th hour is free!

[LousyFisherman]

^ +1

And it's not more fun, it's way more fun! The 172 flies like a bus in comparison.
And having flown one, you could jump into the other. I would recommend a checkout, but ....
A 172XP needs a checkout though unless you have CS prop experience.
The 180/182/185 are quite a bit more of an airplane. CS prop, lots more power.

IMHO
LF

[jump154]

Also, don't get caught paying more to learn something, or learn in something you "MAY" be flying in. Learn in the most effective manner, both practically and cost, in the appropriate machine for what you are learning at that time and then train in what you will be flying once you actually know what you will be flying.

[PilotDAR]

I've done a 150,152,172,180,182,185,205,206,207,208, and from what I can tell, they all handle pretty much the same.

That's because they are all designed to meet the same certification standard (albeit of differing vintage). Looking back at all those “simpler” types from being capable in a 206 and 208 is fine, but it’s a much different viewpoint than looking forward from just training in a 152 or 172. I remember going “back” to a 150 after a few years flying Aztecs, 310s and Cheyenne – what a difference that was! I was trying to fly it by “numbers” (and the plane was laughing at me!).

All these types are certified to the same standards of handling and minimum performance, and fly similarly to each other, but not the same. In the front of every Cessna flight manual (which I know new pilots read diligently) it says that the information in the flight manual is not a substitute for training – that can be taken to mean competent type training.

We, in the latter half of the first century of aviation, owe a lot to the pilots and designers of the first half of that century, for their efforts to define standards for civil aircraft to follow. Now, it is plausible for a pilot to read the flight manual, and check themselves out in a modern certified GA aircraft of a class familiar to them, I’ve certainly done it. But doing so works a lot better if that pilot is building upon considerable existing skill to carefully grow more. Such is not the case for a student pilot choosing between a 152 and a 172 for initial training.

Having also checked myself out in less common types, whose design was not based upon compliance with "Part 23", I can point out that their control and handling can be different, and require really good skill and discipline to safely fly - particularly if not being mentored. Two examples which come to mind for me are the Tiger Moth and SM1019, both aircraft with systems or handling characteristics outside the norm. Certainly manageable, but with either type training, or lots of skill.

Having said that, I sort of do not agree with

Also, don't get caught paying more to learn something, or learn in something you "MAY" be flying in. Learn in the most effective manner, both practically and cost, in the appropriate machine for what you are learning at that time and then train in what you will be flying once you actually know what you will be flying.

I agree to learn in the most effective manner, practical and cost the 152 will be fine, but seek out opportunities to learn and understand different types much later in your training or post PPL. Any potential employer will be more impressed with a breadth of experience – including exposure to different types, than someone with 350 hours in the circuit in a 152. My suggestions for “findable” types to become familiar with post PPL include: Cub/Champ/Citabria, any of the Cherokee series, Tomahawk, any of the Cessna 177 series, a Diamond or Cirrus, and a retractable (Arrow, 172/177/182RG). Then twins if you want to progress from there...

I know that with awesome training, fighter pilots went to war in Spitfires with 200 hours total time, but these days, if a 200 hour pilot is "on the job" in a Caravan, I'd be very surprised, and probably stunned by the insurance premium covering it!

[trey kule]

The objective of the PPL/cpl is to instill a solid base of flight skills with some experience.

The 150/152 will do that just fine.

A 172 will better prepare you...hogwash.

No one can argue that flying different types is valuable

I would take anyone telling you that all Cessna singles fly the same with a grain of salt. My experience over the last 50 years is that most of those that make such claims are just not good enough pilots to recognize the differences.

Learn the basic flying skills. Learn them well. Study hard to understand all the things that you will need to know to get you through your carreer. Everybit as important. Save yourself some money, and enjoy the process.

Do that, and transitions will be a piece of cake.

[lhalliday]

I did most of my PPL training in Cherokees, but ended up with about 10 hours of 152 time by the time I was done. Fun little plane, and a good training plane. Easy to fly, hard to fly well. Time in a 152 is time well spent.

When I did a checkride in a 172 all but a couple of maneuvers were to flight test standard. The big thing that took getting used to was the much better glide: my first approach was ridiculously high. Gave me my first experience with slips in a 172.

I found a 182 a handful. Significantly bigger, faster, heavier. My first 182 takeoff was at 8500 feet density altitude. This didn't help...

...laura

[5x5]

I agree basically with Trey Cool.

One of the big issues with the 152 is that it is restricted by capacity. These days with many bigger instructors and bigger students, the weight limit is reached quite easily so fuel becomes an issue. It can be difficult to take full fuel, hence range becomes a limiting factor. Assuming it isn't, the 152 is a much more fun aircraft to fly in my opinion. It is more responsive than the 172 and just "feels" nicer. (I realize that's a highly technical description.) Save your money and fly the 152 - you won't regret it.

As for the "jump right into any high-wing Cessna and go" comments; it's possible that experienced posters are forgetting exactly what it was like way back when they were freshly minted PPL and CPL pilots. There is so much left to learn and internalize through experience (arriving at an unfamiliar airport, navigating unfamiliar airspace, potentially more complicated flight planning, etc) that adding in an unfamiliar faster/heavier/more complex aircraft can easily overload an inexperienced pilot. In the wrong combination of circumstances you can really be asking for trouble.

[lhalliday]

One of the big issues with the 152 is that it is restricted by capacity. These days with many bigger instructors and bigger students, the weight limit is reached quite easily so fuel becomes an issue. It can be difficult to take full fuel, hence range becomes a limiting factor...

This is very much an issue for all dual flights. It showed up in other ways, like the perception of lousy climb performance because we were always taking off at maximum gross weight. When one local airport stopped selling 100LL we couldn't do dual flights there with an acceptable (or legal) fuel reserve.

I've looked covetously at planes like Piper Cubs, but they just don't have enough payload to be useful. And I'm not that heavy, either.

...laura