Your airplanes are crap/great!

[robertsailor1]

It's kind of a budget thing. If you have "too much money" then spend it on a brand new training aircraft with a fancy glass panel. Its important that you don't bullshit yourself into thinking that some how you've made a wise choice and you'll be a better pilot because of your decision, cause you likely won't.
There are a couple of truths..first is that no matter the aircraft if you have a great instructor and you have the necessary personal skill sets you'll likely become an aviator under his/her tutor age.
Second if you have a ho hum instructor(lots out there) and an easy aircraft to fly you'll likely end up as a ho hum pilot.
If the training aircraft demands a lot from the pilot ( not easy to fly) then sometimes even ho hum instructors turn out semi decent pilots.
The concept that you get what you pay for doesn't always work with aircraft depending on its use. Great instructors often demand a premium and are worth every nickle.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm not a "real aviator" nor do I have any desire to be one

I don't know why, but I find this statement to be upsetting. I'm not sure
what you mean by a "real aviator" but keep in mind that when you're PIC
in the air, it is only your professional skill and judgement that keeps you
and your passengers alive. That's a big responsibility.

Flying isn't like tennis or golf. If you don't take it seriously, you can die. This
has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with attitude.

You may never be an airline pilot - I fervently hope I never will be - but that
doesn't mean you can't be a very competent, professional pilot with consummate
attention to detail and a OCD thirst to learn everything about aviation.

I probably didn't explain the above very well, and I understand English
isn't your first language, which doesn't help, either. English is a horrible
language, and those of us who have it as our first language can barely
master it, because it's such an illogical, irregular monstrosity.

[akoch]

" I'm not sure what you mean by a "real aviator" "

A "real aviator" is somebody considering that the WW2 airplanes (or earlier) are the pinnacle of the evolution, preferable the open cockpit, no gauges to look at because the airplane needs to be flown by feel and preferably snaps right into a flat spin if you don't use enough rudder rolling in a shallow turn. This is the same guy who does not accept any use of GPS technology and insists on using the dead reckoning, well actually flying by feel of the earth magnetic lines not relying on the maps and other things that add expense to the art of flying. You see a lot of these around the hangars, as well as other very different kinds of pilots. Being from the outside of the industry I am finding the aviation community to be rather colorful.

Sorry for the typos and mistakes, yes English is not my first (or even second language)

Now, there is a difference to be noted between trying to explain why newbees don't tend to be impressed with the older "perfectly good airplanes" and somebody becoming (or not) a proficient pilot because he chose a newer aeroplane (while on the same breath it is noted that it does not matter which aeroplane you use to learn, an instructor makes a lot more of a difference). Heck, I have not cracked 200h hours yet, and happy to learn from and fly with a more experienced pilot. If it is not somebody like me expressing the still fresh impressions on getting into flying, who are you going to get the feedback from?

[JDW]

I did about half my license on a katana and the other half on 150/172s, now ive never flown behind any glass but I do have a pretty good comparison of new vs. old (mostly 60s model cessnas).
To start out, they are all airplanes and fly accordingly, yes both have their quirks but I'd be lying if I was to say I really preferred one type over the other. With the diamonds, I really enjoyed, the glass canopy's unrestricted view, its constant speed prop and its comparatively spritely performance (1500ft a minute climb, 125kts) but thats really where that ended. Avionics were basically a draw, both types equipped about the same (of course every cessna was very different than the last). I also very much enjoyed all my cessna time, and it was neat to tackle the slightly different flying characteristics, flying larger heavier machines than I was used to. Both types behaved a little differently on takeoff and landings but once in the air there wasnt much of a difference.
The only striking difference I found between the many planes I flew was actually between the 172's I flew at cykz and the 172's i fly now at cypk. Both are of roughly the same vintage, however the care and maintenance couldnt be more different and THAT more than anything had the largest effect on my experience. At cykz the cessnas were all very ratty. What do I mean? An abundance of duct tape holding most of the interior together, headphone jacks that required voodoo to consistently work (oh and you had to buy your own push to talk), far more dings and dents and snags of everything non-essential from cracked and broken vents, to most planes having a burnt out light in front and even the avionics were kept in a worse state. The planes always felt as though they were just being kept on the edge of serviceable and It was those factors that turned me off of them. Flash forward to cypk and cobalt aviation, where I fly now and their 1960's cessnas are kept in great maintenance, clean and sound. To me, there is no difference in their quality and that of the katanas I used to fly. No, there is nothing new and shiny about them, but what a difference great maintenance and caring owners make. On the same page, I would bet that if that cykz outfit were to operate katanas, they would probably allow them to lapse into similar condition as their cessnas. Airplanes are airplanes, I couldnt agree more that with piston single trainers, newer can only be so different, but imho proper maintenance and care go a lot further than type

[akoch]

Flash forward to cypk and cobalt aviation

Hey, say hi to R.Y. from me

[iflyforpie]

A "real aviator" is somebody considering that the WW2 airplanes (or earlier) are the pinnacle of the evolution, preferable the open cockpit, no gauges to look at because the airplane needs to be flown by feel and preferably snaps right into a flat spin if you don't use enough rudder rolling in a shallow turn. This is the same guy who does not accept any use of GPS technology and insists on using the dead reckoning, well actually flying by feel of the earth magnetic lines not relying on the maps and other things that add expense to the art of flying. You see a lot of these around the hangars, as well as other very different kinds of pilots. Being from the outside of the industry I am finding the aviation community to be rather colorful.

Thanks for clearing that up. Although I've been told variously that real pilots fly planes with no engines, fly planes with no propellers, fly planes with the little wheel at the back, or fly planes with water tight contraptions underneath.

Of course, if any of the above pilots was introduced to an aircraft with moving wings and tried to fly it, you'd see a balled up pile of metal before the second hand made it all the way around.

[akoch]

I've been told variously that real pilots fly planes with no engines, fly planes with no propellers, fly planes with the little wheel at the back, or fly planes with water tight contraptions underneath.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I've been told variously that real pilots fly planes with no engines, fly planes with no propellers, fly planes with the little wheel at the back, or fly planes with water tight contraptions underneath.

Only 2 of the 4 choices provided can be used as a "real pilot" discriminator

[172pilot]

I like the newer cessna 172 lineup due to the reliable radios, much better seats, and fuel injection. There is no difference in how a 172N or 172R or SP flies, at least to me, and i have flown many older Cessnas which are great, but i do enjoy the creature comforts on the newer models. I think it's no different than people preferring a flat panel tv to a tube tv, or having a newer Civic versus a well maintained 1995 Civic, new furniture vs old. Either way, the same outcome is achieved, it's just personal preference. But yes, G1000 for training is probably forcing a student to stare at a screen versus outside and create bad habits. To each their own, and i have seen schools attract students due to newer airplanes. The one owner I knew said the newer cessna 172 was cheaper to maintain, vs the old models, due to less electrical problems etc.

[Shiny Side Up]

But yes, G1000 for training is probably forcing a student to stare at a screen versus outside and create bad habits.

Off a bit from the original topic, which seems to have run its course anyways, there's a misconception often here that advanced instrument displays force the user to look at them. Quite the opposite is true, rather that people have an innate desire to take guidance from them. With the proliferation of high quality video displays in almost everything we have these days, people have gladly enslaved themselves to them at an almost alarming rate. If there is a little screen to watch, some one will have their eyes glued to it. For me its given me a very luddite outlook when it comes to such technology, if only because a majority of people I now can't seem to use the technology responsibly. I've seen more people lost using GPSs than is comforting. I've seen way too many pilots put themselves into spiral dives while playing with some gizmo in the cockpit and their eyes stay inside for way too long. Worst of all I've seen students who can't determine how far away from the runway downwind should be without one, or when they should turn base.

[akoch]

I also agree that it is not the shiny screen per se that makes sometimes people keep their eyes inside. Chasing the speed/altitude/radio frequencies etc does. Only training (ideally early on) can change the pattern. Ask me how do I know
Technology can assist, true. But only to a certain point.

[Expat]

That is the problem we'll be facing soon! This can be compared to kids walking around the streets, while texting, and listening to MP3, and not paying attention to the outside world.
TCAS and CAS are great, but nothing will beat listening to the radio, and remembering where other planes are.
I am sure real pilots there know what I mean, but with my cheap headsets, I could sense the change in engine noise, and new instantly if I was going up or down. And my eyeballs looking outside always told me if I was turning, or drifting...
Cheers

[crazycanuck]

I'd just be happy if the flight school renting at $145 per hour would just clean the bugs off the windshield and leading edges once in awhile.

[into the blue]

I'd just be happy if the flight school renting at $145 per hour would just clean the bugs off the windshield and leading edges once in awhile.

Sorry, but it's your job.

[crazycanuck]

I'd just be happy if the flight school renting at $145 per hour would just clean the bugs off the windshield and leading edges once in awhile.

Sorry, but it's your job.

Yeah, that is basically why I quit flight school and decided to get a budget to buy my own trainer aircraft and hire my own instructor. My attempt to negotiate a large flight school this summer made it evident that my needs as a student are not the priority. I don’t let myself to be jerked around in my business so why would I tolerate it when I am the customer? One thing is certain that my own plane is going to be kept spotless inside and out and it will be ready to go when I want to go.

[Beefitarian]

I'm insane because I keep thinking your description would be a good way to run a school. Obviously the only way to run a school is price based like walmart.

[Beefitarian]

Sorry, by that I meant, "Spotless planes ready to go and not jerk the customers around."

[crazycanuck]

I remember one of the planes I rented this summer had a busted arm rest that was flopping all around. Another one had so much static in the intercom that I could barely hear the instructor. Another had so many bugs on the windshield that it actually made it difficult to see. I don’t know the typical cost structure for a flight school or how it needs to be run to make money. The liability insurance costs alone must be outrageous. I guess all that is invest financially and otherwise I just expected flight training to be a little more refined. I guess in the end they have the right to run it the way they want and we have the right to vote with our feet.

[Beefitarian]

If they can operate for $2 less per hour they'll be the busiest school in town.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If they can operate for $2 less per hour they'll be the busiest school in town.

How true. What virtually nobody realizes is that the hourly price of the aircraft has the least effect on the total cost of your license.

[akoch]

If they can operate for $2 less per hour they'll be the busiest school in town.

How true. What virtually nobody realizes is that the hourly price of the aircraft has the least effect on the total cost of your license.

But it also must be noted that the total cost of the license is often worries a student the least.

[iflyforpie]

If they can operate for $2 less per hour they'll be the busiest school in town.

How true. What virtually nobody realizes is that the hourly price of the aircraft has the least effect on the total cost of your license.

It is the conspicuous costs that we worry the most about.

Like, gas goes up 20c a litre, so lets go sell that SUV that you've just finished paying off to buy an econobox, finance it at 5-10%, lose $5 a day in depreciation costs, all so you can get 25MPG trying to make a 100HP engine perform like the 300HP one in your old vehicle that managed 20MPG if you drove it nice.....