Different Aircraft - Effect on Training?

[YQLRookie]

Hello all, quick question. Does the type of aircraft operated by a FTU unit have an effect on the quality, or overall experience in your flight training? For example, a school I have been looking at (Excel Flight Training) only operates PA28 Warriors, Cherokees, and Archers, and for a twin has one PA23 Aztec. It seems that most schools mainly operate fleets of Cessna 152s and 172s, with the Pipers being less common trainers. Are the PA28 aircraft not as good of trainers? Or does the aircraft type not really matter, and I'm just over thinking all of this? Thanks for your help in advance.

[Duffman]

Some will disagree with me on this i'm sure but I say it doesn't matter. The Cessnas are technically simpler. You don't have to worry about switching between tanks like you do in the pipers. Just go with whatever school has the instructor that you think will work best for you.

[akoch]

Low time PPL opinion here. From my perspective I don't think it matters which airplane you use for the initial training. Practically anyone will allow you to learn equally well.
The other question is how fun and pleasant it is to learn in one vs another. It seems more personal. In my case it made a lot of a difference, basically between not wanting to do it again and loving it.

[moocow]

I did my PPL on Cherokee but I have some experience in Warrior and C172. The key difference between Cherokee and Warrior is that Warriors can't spin. Other than that and different reference speeds, the operation is very similar. When comparing the Cherokee to C152 is that Cherokee is a lot faster. One time in the circuit, I was asked by ATC to do a crosswind midfield to get ahead of a C152 that was also doing touch & go in front of me. Compare the Cherokee to C172, the Cherokee is a lot more responsive but C172 got less scary spin characteristic, IMO. For C172, you also have to be mindful of the electric flaps if it's equipped with one. Since I came from Cherokee, I expected the flaps to be instantly set so my first time in a C172 almost ended in a pant soiling experience.

Oh one more thing, tank switching in Piper have ended in accidents before because someone didn't bother checking the switch position and actually turn the switch to off instead. Happened to my old FTU.

I guess you try FAM flights in different aircraft and to scope out instructors. If you end up switching school later on and they refuse to give you your PTR, tell them to either turn it over or report them to TC. Don't put any deposit into any account.

** I only have 130 hours total.

[omgwereallgoingtodie]

I'm learning in a C172 because that's what I'm most likely to fly after I've got my ppl.
I'd reckon that's a major thing to factor in.
Other than that I suspect that the quality of the instructor is more important than the type of plane.

[Colonel Sanders]

doesn't matter

+1

It will reduce your time to solo if you get rid of the variables
and stick with one aircraft type and one instructor. But at
some point (eg post PPL), you should make an effort to get
checked out on every different aircraft that you can possibly
get your hands on. High wing, low wing, cessna, piper, Lycoming,
Continental, carbureted, fuel injected, fixed pitch prop,
constant speed prop, nosewheel, tailwheel, fixed gear,
retractable gear. The list never ends.

Flying different aircraft will make you a much better pilot
because of the different visuals, different control responses,
different systems, and the different instructors you will
encounter, all of which will teach you something different
and add to your bag of knowledge and skills, which is all
that a pilot really is - not a collection of licences and
ratings on a piece of paper.

Transitioning to new (to you) aircraft types easily is a
skill highly prized amongst pilots, but oddly rarely discussed.
It's something I do a lot of.

[ZBBYLW]

If you're in Vancouver go to CFC or Pro IFR and do your PPL in their Citabria. If you're in Winnipeg you could do it at Harv's Air as well. You will be a substantially better pilot if you even get 50 hours on a tailwheel aircraft. Good luck!

[Colonel Sanders]

IMHO you don't need 50 hrs tailwheel time, although
it would be nice.

In a perfect world, everyone would do their first 10 hrs
(to solo) on tailwheel, but that simply isn't possible any
more, for a variety of reasons.

I might suggest 5 hrs of dual in a taildragger - probably
tube & fabric, but hey metal works too - on a dry paved
runway, which will build lots of character. Master raising
the tail on takeoff, then the 3-pt landing, then the one-wheel
wing-low wheel landing. Here's how it can be done:

[Colonel Sanders]

A pilot who has done a few hours of tailwheel will find
that his crosswind landings improve immensely - also
in nosewheel airplanes.

If I could teach the newbies one thing from this
thread, it would be:

STICK PROGRESSIVELY FULL OVER DURING CROSSWIND LANDING ROLLOUT

Not just to keep the upwind wing down! There is another
very important reason for it, which is as applicable in the
C421's and Beech 18's and L39's that I fly, as it is to little
trainers.

If you don't know what it is, ask your instructor. If he
doesn't know what it is, have him email me.

[gaamin]

Edit

[Beefitarian]

Less lift on the up wind wing to prevent it from tipping the plane?

[Colonel Sanders]

Less lift on the up wind wing to prevent it from tipping the plane?

No. It's good to keep the upwind wing down with up aileron,
but that's not it.

Drag on the downwind side to help staying straight?

Give the man a cigar. Full stick over creates maximum adverse
yaw on the downwind wing, to help oppose the natural weathervaning
tendency of the aircraft, as it slows down and the rudder loses
effectiveness.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

as it slows down and the rudder loses
effectiveness.

It is nice to see someone describe it as effectiveness instead of " authority "

[Colonel Sanders]

Food for thought: how many pounds of force that a
rudder can generate perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the aircraft, is a function of the square of the
airspeed.

That is, you halve your airspeed, the rudder will only
provide one quarter of the force. That's not good,
if you're trying to stay straight in a crosswind.

People like to really lean on the brake on the downwind
main, but remember that the aileron is a long way out from
the fuselage, as compared to the main gear spacing and
torque is calculated as length of the arm times the force,
so with that long wing, the adverse yaw of the downgoing
aileron on the downwind wing can really help you avoid
weathervaning during the rollout of a crosswind landing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Just as a matter of interest colonel aircraft can have truly impressive differences as to rudder effectiveness between types.

The most noticeable I can remember was comparing the DC3 to the Super DC3 ( C117 ).

The DC3 rudder effectiveness was amazing....the Super DC3 was abysmal in comparison.

[Beefitarian]

That seems odd. I'm guessing they changed the rudder to reduce drag or something?

[Colonel Sanders]

Rudder (and vertical fin) changes are often required
for powerplant changes, for Vmc, etc:

Look at the small vertical fin and large rudder on the original DC-3:



And the completely different tail on the Super DC-3.
The vertical fin is MUCH larger:

[cgzro]

Or floats .. gotta add more vertical fin area usually below the fuse to make up for big floats.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yes the fin and rudder on the Super 3 was very different and looks to be more effective rudder wise, however the travel of the rudder did not give the effectiveness that the DC3 had and it was quite noticeable in high cross winds on the landing.

[Colonel Sanders]

Gotta get my DC-3 type rating!

I have a plan ...

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The DC3 is one of the nicest flying airplanes ever built.

We used to fly them off roads and beaches just like a big super cub, and of course for thousands of hours on wheel skis in the far north.

It was no where as unorthodox as the flying in the ice pilots though.

There are quite a few DC3 pilots on this forum.

[Beefitarian]

I want one too but I don't have a plan.

[Colonel Sanders]

My father (whom rather unwillingly flew DC-3, er C-47,
for 44 hrs in the RCAF) says it flies very nicely.

I want to find out for myself.

After that, I want a type rating in the Curtiss Commando.
Don't have a plan for that yet, though!

[YQLRookie]

Alright, thanks everyone for the quick comments! Very helpful, it certainly makes working on my licensing locally seem like a decent option on the Pipers, also works out to be a bit cheaper (maybe put towards tailwheel time!) Speaking of tailwheel, do any schools in Alberta offer a tailwheel conversion course? I would love to have a go at it, seems like a good time and if it sharpens me as a pilot, how can I say no?

[Masters Off]

Perhaps a stop by the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum could cure your fix? I believe it's the second oldest DC-3 still flying.
I know they'll give you a stab at a bunch of their fleet for the right zmount of time/effort.