I've flown both, as a student and as an instructor. I prefer the Cessna, if for no other reason than the cooling through the plane when holding short of the runway on a hot summer day is FAR superior . OK, there are other reasons, but that's the one I'm gonna share, for now.

BTW, I know there are other trainers out there, but the poll is very narrow for a reason; these are the two most popular.

or the poll is very narrow because you took offense to someone who tried to say your competitor uses a better plane. this just looks like a pissing match to me.

Man, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about a preference for aircraft, whatever the reason might be. The statement was made that the Katana is a superior training aircraft. I didn't take offense at all, I just expressed my doubts about that statement. Rather than hijack a thread that is more about different schools than particular aircraft, I wanted to open up the discussion about the merits of both, and hopefully get some insight from people who know more about the Diamond product than I do. I'm just looking at this as an interesting opportunity. Maybe someone out there actually has some stats. Aren't you interested?

But think whatever ya want...

Cessna is like a fat friend
Shade in the summer
Shelter in the winter

I have also flown both as student/instructor, I did my PPL in a DA20 many moons ago. I think the learning curve is greater in the diamonds but once you get it you are ahead of the game. I found it easy and boring stepping into the 172 everybody I have seen going the other way have a harder time converting.

I would think about it like learning to drive a car, you can learn on a standard or automatic, you will learn to drive but have a harder time switching over if you learn on the automatic first.

Heck lets stop using tri-cycle gears all together and only teach on taildraggers, I know Cat would agree.

Lurch

2R wrote:Cessna is like a fat friend
Shade in the summer
Shelter in the winter

...and hard to drag uphill!

I think the learning curve is greater in the diamonds but once you get it you are ahead of the game.

What made it harder, and then how did it put you ahead?

[quote="Airtids]

I think the learning curve is greater in the diamonds but once you get it you are ahead of the game.

What made it harder, and then how did it put you ahead?[/quote]

It has to do with a constant speed prop versus fixed pitch, and how much more slippery the diamonds are, you need better A/S control, the cessna's are flying shoeboxes, you want to slow down pull the power and she'll slow down.

Now don't get me wrong they are both easy to fly but the diamond is slightly harder

Lurch

I think both can be good. It depends how old and depleted the machine is. Cessna is common, but I found they all had gimpy problems one way or that other. The Diamonds I found didn't have freaky rolling tendancies, I think its good to have both at a school and let the student make the preference on how they feel. If I where to rent a C1 or a 152, I would go C1 all the way, even over a 172.

That's just me.

Wolfie

PS. I would take a tail dragger first.

Lurch wrote:you want to slow down pull the power and she'll slow down.

I always was taught you pull the power and you descend...

Lurch wrote:It has to do with a constant speed prop versus fixed pitch, and how much more slippery the Diamonds are, you need better A/S control, the cessna's are flying shoeboxes, you want to slow down pull the power and she'll slow down.

Excellent, thanks. I too remember the Katana being difficult to slow down. By the time I got into one, I'd already had a bit of time in a Pa28R (?) so the prop was pretty straightforward for me ("prop up, power down"), and I was back into something where the gear was welded down!
Keep it coming!

B-rad wrote:

Lurch wrote:you want to slow down pull the power and she'll slow down.

I always was taught you pull the power and you descend...

Attitude + Power = Performance

Lesson Plan #1 and 2 your instructor must have been sick that day

SkyWolfe wrote:I think both can be good. It depends how old and depleted the machine is. Cessna is common, but I found they all had gimpy problems one way or that other. The Diamonds I found didn't have freaky rolling tendancies, I think its good to have both at a school and let the student make the preference on how they feel. If I where to rent a C1 or a 152, I would go C1 all the way, even over a 172.

That's just me.

Wolfie

PS. I would take a tail dragger first.

It's always better when your butt is dragging

The diamonds are a lot more fun to spin as well

The Diamond is a much better aircraft, even the new 172s are just recycled from so many decades ago. I'd take a C1 anyday ovr a 172

Lurch wrote:

B-rad wrote:

Lurch wrote:you want to slow down pull the power and she'll slow down.

I always was taught you pull the power and you descend...

Attitude + Power = Performance
Lesson Plan #1 and 2 your instructor must have been sick that day

OK ok ya attitude and power, riight. And you know, now that you mention it, that was a substitute instructor that day. You can get away with anything with a sub.

I'll give you no fewer than 5 reasons why a C172 wipes its ass with Katanas and C1s.

1. Comfort, the C1 give few options to sit comfortably when you aren't the one holding the controls. I'm pretty sure that they upholstered the front of the fuel tank to make the seat back. After 45 minutes in a C1 I wanted out.

2. Cost of acquisition, you can get a low to mid time 172SP these days for the same price as a C1. And we all know the 172 offers more options as far as payload and passengers goes. I know the C1 is probably the most efficient airplane out there when looking at direct operating costs by the mile but every place that operates them needs to charge almost as much or more than a 172 per hour to make them pay.

3. Commonality with the real world. How many Part 7 C1, DA40 or DA42's exist? I can already tell you the number of C172's in that category out number the total of each of those a/c multiplied by each other.

4. Safety. An old CFI of mine makes a simple argument for high wing vs. low wing. Draw a line between the top of the cowl and the top of the vertical stab. If your forehead is above the line chances of having a bad outcome to a landing incident where the aircraft flips onto its back improves. Add the previous comment about the fuel tank location and I think my point can be made. There is no other GA airplane fleet that has logged more hours than the C172 fleet, there are pretty much no more surprises left. I can't wait to see the first 20,000 hour C1 and what kind of shape it will be in.

5. Bias. Cause I said so.

4. Safety. An old CFI of mine makes a simple argument for high wing vs. low wing. Draw a line between the top of the cowl and the top of the vertical stab. If your forehead is above the line chances of having a bad outcome to a landing incident where the aircraft flips onto its back improves.

That's not an argument, that is a statement. I suppose it has something to do with line of sight?

A guy I know makes this argument. If your d*ck is the smaller then the control stick in the C1, you have a higher chance of a stall spin accident.

I don't have a lot of time in either, about 400 hrs C1 and 200 hrs 172/150/152 all a few years ago now. Each has their pros and cons. One thing about the C1 is that due to the glide ratio being so good, you have to stay way ahead of the aircraft for touchdown point in a forced.

But you were talking Katana's I guess eh?

BTD

Lurch wrote: The diamonds are a lot more fun to spin as well

+1!

I'll bite. I've got a few hundred hours on each of the C1, C152 and C172. I've only flown the A1 Katana for about 5 hours. My only impression of it is it's quite underpowered at 80 hp or so.

They all have their pros and cons. I like the C1 best simply for the visibility out of the cockpit, but that's just my personal bias. I don't like the C152 at all for the same reasons: visibility out of the cockpit is poor in my opinion. Students can't see forward very well at all, and the high wing impairs your ability to see in almost every direction but straight down.

I have had students transition from the C172 to the C1, and the only difference I could detect was that they seemed to be able to learn to land the C1 more easily. I don't have any stats on it, but my theory is simply that they can see over the nose better and therefore can get the landing visual picture more easily.

As far as overall preference for training aircraft, here are my thoughts:

C172: stable, heavier controls than either the C1 or C152. More comfortable because the seats are adjustable. A bit more space in the cabin. Much better cabin ventilation on the ground than the C1. High wing always in the way. Doesn't want to go into, or stay in a spin.

C152: hard to get into and out of. A bit lighter and twitchier on the controls than the C172. Nose up attitude in the climb and in the flare makes it harder to see. High wing always in the way. Not much power, so hot days mean you have to think more about what you're doing at smaller airports. Spins more easily than the C172.

C1: great visibility except straight down. Very hot on the ground in the summer, very little ventilation. Seats are uncomfortable for me after 45 minutes or so. Light, responsive controls. More difficult for speed management on approach if the student isn't great at attitude flying. More difficult for students on takeoff due to the horizontal stab suddenly becoming effective. Easy to spin and keep in a spin.

As for which is the better aircraft for a flight school to own, the C172 burns more fuel per hour than the others. However, the C1 has a major disadvantage and that's the engine. I haven't seen anyone else complain about this, but the Continental in the C1 seems to give students fits trying to start it. Sure, if you follow the checklist start sequence it will fire up every time, but students never seem to do that. The result is a lot of dead batteries, and more seriously a lot of wrecked engines. Why? Because the starter gear is in the wet part of the engine. Students will crank and let go of the key, and proceed to go right back to start before the prop has stopped turning. The result is a lot of metal in the oil. Throw that engine away and write a cheque for $20K or more to replace it. There's absolutely nothing to stop you from doing this.

The other complaint about the C1 is I've seen a few steps break off while people are getting into or out of the aircraft. Not a good thing when you've got one leg inside and one outside the aircraft. Ouch.

Both have their pro's and con's and I would say they weigh out pretty equal.

I based my decision solely on training towards a profession. Train in what you will be using. How many operators are using Katana's with exception to FTU's?

It's not the aircraft as much as it is the instructor that makes the difference between good training and bad.

All aircraft are compromises...

I am happy that I can see the traffic in the Glen Valley these days, there's nothing worse than doing turns in that busy area in an aeroplane you can't see out of!

The Katana's 80hp while not ideal for climb, does produce a fast cruise. I have no complaints about it and I am looking for two more of these aircraft.

The forty new Katanas being built now will no doubt have the 100hp 912 S engine.
We are looking at doing the conversion from 80hp 912 F to 100hp 912 S, and even from IO-240 to 912 S!
With 100hp and a constant speed prop, both A1 and C1 airframes should perform really well.
Our C1 is very good for long cross country flights it is faster and a lot more economical than a Cessna 172 and I have had no complaints about its comfort. Perhaps a small Thai cushion makes a difference?

We are all different, we all have different tastes and that's one reason why some people buy sports cars and some people buy family cars.
For Katana - Miata, for Cessna 152 - Ford Escort, for Cessna 172 - Dodge Caravan they all handle like their equivalent vehicles.
I have driven Ford Transit vans in England... Very like Cessna 172s.

The best trainer I ever flew was the Rollason Druine D62B Condor. It was the only trainer that did everything by the book, and yet handled like a Spitfire (aeroplane).
A stall was a stall, a spin with rudder added at point of stall was a spin, no power required, no flick entry, just correct.
Landings were easy but had to be done correctly.
I owned and operated three Condors at one time.

Now we have two Katanas, one C1, one DA40-180 with the G1000, and a SportStar.
We are looking to lease more Katanas, another C1, and a DA42 with the Thielert engines.

MichaelP wrote: The forty new Katanas being built now will no doubt have the 100hp 912 S engine.
We are looking at doing the conversion from 80hp 912 F to 100hp 912 S, and even from IO-240 to 912 S!
With 100hp and a constant speed prop, both A1 and C1 airframes should perform really well.
Our C1 is very good for long cross country flights it is faster and a lot more economical than a Cessna 172 and I have had no complaints about its comfort. Perhaps a small Thai cushion makes a difference?

IPFA has an A1 with the 912S conversion and my god that thing is quick... it's noooo problem to see 130 KIAS at lower than cruise power.

Lurch wrote:The diamonds are a lot more fun to spin as well

That's for sure!

Airtids wrote:I've flown both, as a student and as an instructor. I prefer the Cessna, if for no other reason than the cooling through the plane when holding short of the runway on a hot summer day is FAR superior .

You got that right. I took a C172RG from YQR to YUL and back last August and boy was I glad I could open my window and stick my arm out!

I'm actually surprised that the Diamond products are ahead of the Cessna products in the poll. I figured the pure volume of Cessna drivers and all the old farts on here from before the days of fiber class and carbon fiber would swing the results in favour of the tin cans

I flew a plastic aeroplane in 1975... It was light years ahead of the Cessna then and would still be a viable product today.
It had a 16g wing.

Learned in a Katana, and flown cessna's....I wouldn't do it different. The katana is a fun, easy to fly and very forgiving aircraft. Yeah it gets hot in the summer no big deal. I always found them comfortable enough, then again I have a curved spine so that might help. Safety wise, no question you are safer in a katana than in a cessna. 4 point harness, extremely strong airframe and a fixed seat. That being said nothing wrong with training in a 150 or 172 either, both are very good trainers and have proven themselves over the years. This is kinda like the pratt vs. Garett (sp?) argument though, the one you used first is the one you will be partial to.

I always thought the diamonds were hangar queens.

I flew a DA40 through the rocks once, it was bumpy as hell and it was a windless day no clouds, & early morning. That glider wing picks up all the thermals.

For folks who want to be float drivers.

I did most of my training in the 172, with a portion in the Katana. I got my first job flying a 182 on floats. While the Katana isn't a bad trainer I would suggest that anyone working towards flying floats stick with the cessna. Not a big jump from the 172 to the 182 or 185... but from a Katana?

The constant speed prop in any small SE is not rocket science. We do seaplane endorsements for guys with no CS experience and its never an issue when it comes time for them to solo.


PW