Back in the saddle!

Who took the video?

I just met a CFI / hired a CFI on Sunday and mentioned my 40 hours to solo seemed very long. He said he tells students now that they should expect 20 - 30 until solo. So according to him, you're right on target. But those numbers are a source of much argument within the pilot community, so I should just drop the subject.
 
DaleB said:
24.3TT, 0.4 PIC.
Click to expand...


Awesome, congratulations. I solo'd at about the same time, too...maybe 28 hours if I remember correctly. I'm in the upper 50's now and on track to finish (assuming no new hiccups on my part) my PP in the mid- to upper-60's, depending on how long it takes me to get back on track (was out of the country for 2 months so haven't flown in a while).
 
LJ: It looked pretty good to me. CFI had no complaints. On that one I got a little low on final and had q fair amount of throttle added toward the end, but pulled power to idle just past the fence. I didn't get quite as much flare as I wanted, but still got the mains down first. The next two were progressively better.

Kimberly: My CFI (Tyler) shot the video with my camcorder. Had I thought about it, I'd have thrown the tripod in the truck. I'm thinking I may look for a way to mount it in the plane later on when I get checked out in the 172. I would LOVE to be able to review a whole flight after landing and look for places where I could improve. There's no external mic input, which kind of sucks because I'd love to get the intercom audio.

I think the number of hours to solo depends a lot on the student and a lot more on the CFI. I went into this probably knowing more about aerodynamics and airplane systems than a lot of new student pilots, and the basic maneuvers were pretty easy for me to learn. But what I found very interesting (and truthfully a little frustrating, as as shown by some of my earlier posts) is that while one instructor said my landings were fine and I was ready to solo at around 13 hours -- had the flight school stayed in business another couple of days -- the next one took another 10 hours to sign me off. So I think what instructors think is "ready to solo" is extremely variable.
 
DaleB said:
24.3TT, 0.4 PIC.

Click to expand...


Waaayyy too flat, right about where you are at 1:38 you should be putting in 2 flicks or cranks of nose up trim. You were nowhere near a stalled attitude at T/D, I doubt the stall came on at all except for that brief sink about 1:36. You can also half the length of your pattern legs, you should always be able to look down at 45* to the runway in the pattern.
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
LJ: It looked pretty good to me. CFI had no complaints. On that one I got a little low on final and had q fair amount of throttle added toward the end, but pulled power to idle just past the fence. I didn't get quite as much flare as I wanted, but still got the mains down first. The next two were progressively better.

Kimberly: My CFI (Tyler) shot the video with my camcorder. Had I thought about it, I'd have thrown the tripod in the truck. I'm thinking I may look for a way to mount it in the plane later on when I get checked out in the 172. I would LOVE to be able to review a whole flight after landing and look for places where I could improve. There's no external mic input, which kind of sucks because I'd love to get the intercom audio.

I think the number of hours to solo depends a lot on the student and a lot more on the CFI. I went into this probably knowing more about aerodynamics and airplane systems than a lot of new student pilots, and the basic maneuvers were pretty easy for me to learn. But what I found very interesting (and truthfully a little frustrating, as as shown by some of my earlier posts) is that while one instructor said my landings were fine and I was ready to solo at around 13 hours -- had the flight school stayed in business another couple of days -- the next one took another 10 hours to sign me off. So I think what instructors think is "ready to solo" is extremely variable.
Click to expand...

You can get audio for less than 15 bucks (plus the cost of a voice recorder which has a mic jack). All you have to do then is combine the video with audio, so make sure they start recording at roughly the same moment.

You can buy an in cockpit suction mount like I did for less than 40 bucks here for your camcorder:

http://www.gforcemount.com/GF170.htm
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
You can buy an in cockpit suction mount like I did for less than 40 bucks here for your camcorder:

http://www.gforcemount.com/GF170.htm
Click to expand...
How's that work for you? I have a suction mount for my cell phone and tried that in the Cherokee. The mount would hold the phone nicely with the camera lens uncovered and facing forward. Unfortunately, it stuck on there for about as long as it took me to run through the engine start checklist and start to taxi... then PLOP! fell off. I tossed it in the back and haven't messed with it again. If that one actually works and stays stuck I may get one.
 
DaleB said:
How's that work for you? I have a suction mount for my cell phone and tried that in the Cherokee. The mount would hold the phone nicely with the camera lens uncovered and facing forward. Unfortunately, it stuck on there for about as long as it took me to run through the engine start checklist and start to taxi... then PLOP! fell off. I tossed it in the back and haven't messed with it again. If that one actually works and stays stuck I may get one.
Click to expand...

I had to film the film with some film (hence poor quality) but here are my videos with it (yes, I was a student, and yes, they held on from pre-engine start until end of flight):

http://youtu.be/AYrE7V8RFEk

http://youtu.be/8td9cWjDAeM

http://youtu.be/UnyylQSZ4tY
 
Cool. Wait - what? WTF, airplanes can turn to the right? Oh, wait -- yeah, I remember now. Too many touch & gos, I guess I forgot. :mad2:
 
OK, looks like I will be flying a 172 for a while. I now have a key ring with keys to a gate, 3 hangars, a 172, 182 (currently abbreviated, sitting in the maintenance hangar awaiting its new engine) and an Arrow. As part of my new member orientation I got to park and clean the bugs off of the 172 after the outgoing member (whose membership I bought) took his last flight before moving out of state.

Then I opened the baggage door and saw (I swear to God this is true) a roll of duct tape and a roll of baling wire. Awesome. My kind of airplane. :)
 
DaleB said:
Cool. Wait - what? WTF, airplanes can turn to the right? Oh, wait -- yeah, I remember now. Too many touch & gos, I guess I forgot. :mad2:
Click to expand...

You need one of those magic airports that says "RP" on the chart. ;)
 
Hey Dale-

I can see Kimberly's embedded youtube and I'm (get this...)

AT WORK!
 
Jaybird180 said:
Hey Dale-

I can see Kimberly's embedded youtube and I'm (get this...)

AT WORK!
Click to expand...
And you still can't see mine? Weird. Same URL format and everything. Oh well. I gave up long ago trying to explain why stuff doesn't work right in other peoples' browsers. :dunno:
 
IDK, I didn't go back and check. I think they changed something on the network because I can also go to youtube and watch videos now
hahahahahaha
 
I took my first flight in the 172 this afternoon. Winds were about 40 degrees off the runway and 9 gusting to 18 kt. Not the best day for wind. Still, we did a couple of trips around the pattern, and I managed not to break anything on touch & gos. Then we went out to the practice area and did stalls, slow flight and steep turns. The first power-on stall I did, I had the right rudder pretty much pegged and the stall almost broke into a spin. Scared the crap out of me. The rest were much better. My regular guy is still out of town, so I flew with a club member who does a lot of instructing.

My impression of the 172 compared to a Cherokee:

  • More responsive to controls, everything feels more authoritative and takes lighter control inputs.
  • Needs a lot more rudder.
  • Better ground visibility, not so good side vis and it's weird not seeing the runway while making turns in the pattern.
  • Less stable, especially with crosswind gusts.
  • MUCH MUCH better cockpit ventilation. Wow.
  • Slower approach speed.
  • No float to speak of... ground effect was negligible compared to the Piper.
  • Glides considerably better. I was shortening my downwind/base turn in the Piper so I wouldn't have to add power on final. Had to lengthen it in the Cessna.
  • Ground handling... gimme a break. No, BRAKE! As in, the damn thing seems to interpret rudder pedal input while taxiing as a gentle suggestion. Got to get used to differential braking for steering.
1.1 hours of dual, we're going up again early Monday morning for some practice in calm conditions. I've got to get this instructor to sign me off before I can solo in the 172, so I'll probably take a Cherokee out before then to get in some nav and maneuvering practice.
 
You get used to the ground handling. You just do everything in advance - you really don't need to use the brakes much.
 
DaleB said:
  • Ground handling... gimme a break. No, BRAKE! As in, the damn thing seems to interpret rudder pedal input while taxiing as a gentle suggestion. Got to get used to differential braking for steering.
Click to expand...

The nosegear is attached to the rudder pedals via bungee cords and a gadget called a "Whiffle Tree". (You can google it.)

That might explain what you're feeling differently.

Push soon enough ahead of time that the bungee has time to stretch and then pull... and if you do it at really low speed, it'll take a while for the bungee to pull the nose gear to one side or the other.

You get used to it. Imagine if you were steering your car with a steering wheel that had bungee cords between you and the steer tires, and it'll make sense.

Sometimes to get an immediate reaction you push further than you want, let it pull the nose gear to one side and then release some pressure on the bungee by coming back up with that pedal.
 
Gotcha. But after taxiing a Cherokee regularly for the past few months, it's a bit of a rude shock to try to get the 172 to go where you want it. I'm sure I'll get the technique.
 
Wow. What a week. I've flown the 172 a couple more times; twice today in fact. I've done ground reference maneuvers. I've done normal, crosswind, short field, and soft field takeoffs and landings, including no-flap crosswind landings. I've done stalls... departure and approach, straight ahead, turning left, turning right. I can taxi the thing now. I've done the emergency procedure -- does every CFI always pull the power off in a climbing right hand turn? And after my meager experience in the 172, I can finally compare it to the Cherokees I've flown (there were 5 of them, ranging from 140 to 160 HP).

  • I once thought a Cherokee gets bounced around in a gusting crosswind approach on a warm day. Meh. No so much. This makes it look tame. And yet, somehow I can still lower a wing and keep it on centerline with the rudder.
  • The PA-28s seem to more or less lumber off the ground. The 172 jumps off and climbs like a kite.
  • The 172 makes you fly more. You have to actually use the rudder pedals. Especially the one on the right. Sometimes I think it's bent. That ball just keeps sliding over to the right.
  • The above applies especially to stalls. Good Lord, the first time I stalled this silly thing like I would have done a Cherokee it tried hard to roll into a spin. Learned REAL quick to keep right rudder in and counter with left aileron to hold course.
  • While it makes you work a little more, it also feels more like an airplane. Just seems more responsive, a little lighter and quicker.
  • Cruise speed is a good 10 MPH faster at the same RPM.
  • Ground effect? What ground effect? Landing well seems to take less effort... less finesse.
  • It looks like you could actually fit a human over the age of ten in the rear seat.
  • It's marginally less hassle to get in and out of.
  • Hey, what's the big secret? Why do I only get to see the ass end of the engine during preflight?
  • And where'd the runway go? Oh, there it is. I got used to being able to see the thing while flying the pattern. Oh, well... that's why I have a windshield and a DG.
Maybe it's the new instructor (number, what, five now?). He's a club member, professional jet charter pilot. Even doing stuff I have already learned, I'm always learning something new. After a few hours with this guy, I feel a lot more confident in what I'm doing. I don't hate the Pipers now, but I can honestly say I like flying the 172 better.

Tomorrow we'll knock out the dual X/C and night requirements at the same time. One leg before sunset, get some chow, take off an hour after sunset and do the rest. Then all that's left is hood time, the rest of my solo hours and the solo X/C. After being stuck in touch-and-go purgatory I feel like I'm on the home stretch.
 
DaleB said:
Then all that's left is hood time, the rest of my solo hours and the solo X/C. After being stuck in touch-and-go purgatory I feel like I'm on the home stretch.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm.... you sure that is all that is left, Dale? I think there might be one big item or two..........

:wink2:
 
We had a combination night and X/C flight scheduled for tonight. MLE to MKC to DSM and back to MLE. 263 miles and 3 hours of it at night, 10 full-stop laps around the pattern after dark, but the weather had other ideas. We made the no-go decision at the FBO half an hour before or scheduled launch. Good thing, too. By the look of the radar images right now, we probably could have done all of it except getting home.

We'll try again Friday with a different route...

KMLE to KTOP (Topeka, KS) during daylight and using pilotage. Stop and have dinner.
KTOP to KLWC (Lawrence, KS) using GPS, night flight. Do a few night landings at LWC.
KLWC to KMKC (KC downtown) using GPS, a few more landings. Stay under the MCI B airspace.
KMKC to the ANX VOR, then use VOR to follow V13 to KLWD (Lamini, IA). Couple more landings.
KLWD to KDSM (Des Moines) via V13.
KDSM to KMLE using pilotage.

That gets the X/C, night, and night landings done along with a nice mix of pilotage, VOR, GPS and two more states. :)
 
Another Cessna convert. :)

All sounds about normal. When you get up to the 182, you have a new wheel to play with. Rudder trim! ;)

You'll also find if you transition back to something else that your right foot has learned to push along with the throttle up at takeoff. :)

The Robertson STOL addendum to my POH says "full right rudder trim for Robertson takeoff procedure". It's too much at my home altitude but near sea level where you're producing something near the full 230 HP of the O-470, I bet you need it if you have leg strength issues.
 
denverpilot said:
Another Cessna convert. :)

All sounds about normal. When you get up to the 182, you have a new wheel to play with. Rudder trim! ;)

You'll also find if you transition back to something else that your right foot has learned to push along with the throttle up at takeoff. :)

The Robertson STOL addendum to my POH says "full right rudder trim for Robertson takeoff procedure". It's too much at my home altitude but near sea level where you're producing something near the full 230 HP of the O-470, I bet you need it if you have leg strength issues.
Click to expand...
You forgot cowl flaps and the blue knob. I like blue knobs. I think every airplane should have one.
 
denverpilot said:
Mine's black. Like the throttle. I'm going to die. ;)
Click to expand...
I always thought that was funny. I don't look at operational handles or switches, I identify them all by feel as there is an industry wide commonality among them. Even my light switches and such I identify by count on the row. That's why I never mistook Bonanza switches even in the piano key arrangement, the flaps feel like a a horizontal flap shape and the gear switch has a vertical round feel even on the piano key switch.
 
This morning we met at the hangar at 6:30. I got there a little after 6 and did the preflight, had the chocks out and was watching a light rain turn to drizzle and back to light rain. With ceilings at 11000, though, a little rain wasn't going to be a problem.

We did a few laps around the pattern without any problems. On one approach I was over the numbers, just starting to flare when Kai said, "Cow on the runway!" I knew full well the runway was clear -- after all, I was looking right at it. Full throttle, carb heat, flaps up 10, went around. On the next lap we did a touch & go, and about 20 feet up he pulls the throttle. "You just lost your engine, now what?" Well, duh. Nose down, hold off a tad, set it down smoothly. I guess he'd had enough, he sent me up to do a few laps solo. On the third lap I noticed a definite shift in the wind, but AWOS still said calm. Baloney. Fourth lap and I was seeing some low scud moving in quickly from the west, vis was dropping fast so I called it a morning. Of course it cleared up nicely while we were doing the paperwork.

Tonight we're meeting at 6 to start the X/C and night training, then I'll be racking up solo hours as often as I can.
 
Well, tonight we knocked out several dual requirements. Between weather concerns and time constraints, we abbreviated the flight plan but still got everything accomplished (except VOR nav, but that's kind of a no brainer).

We filed a VFR flight plan for KMLE -> KMKC via KTOP and KLWC.
I flew KMLE to KTOP at 3500, VFR pilotage using just the sectional and eyeballs. Good experience. We were never more than a couple of miles from the line on the chart, despite losing the little sticky note arrow with the heading. Lesson learned: No more stickies. We asked for flight following, which worked for a few miles. When it was time to hand us off to Center, the dropped us saying they wouldn't be able to see us at that altitude. Really? 3500MSL over northern KS? Oh well.

Landed Topeka after the tower closed. It was after sunset but not yet "officially" loggable as night, so we just did a T&G. Set the GPS for LWC.

At LWC I did a stop & go. Landing TOP with the lights on was a snap, no problem. Doing it on a DARK runway, even with lights on, different story. Landing lights suck. I could do better with a Mag-Lite out the window, I think. And only the CDIs are backlit in thie plane. Kind of tough to land when you can't see the ASI. Lesson: Always have a red LED head lamp. And if I buy a plane, it's got to have or will get decent panel lighting.

At MKC we stopped, closed the flight plan, topped off with expensive Signature avgas and took a crew car to get some dinner. Decided to GPS back to MLE before the weather there deteriorated. I needed 10 night landings, I now had 2. We took off and got cleared direct through the MCI Class B, so up to 4500 and follow the magenta line. About halfway back we realized I'd filed a VFR flight plan but never opened it.

Back to MLE, eight laps around the pattern, 8 full-stop landings. At 1 AM... I'm sure the neighbors just LOVE us to death.

Oh, and I got the solo endorsement for the 172, so all I need now is the written, some more hood time and some solo time. Woo hoo.
 
Fly with the CFI with the ASI covered. It will improve your confidence in your feel of the airplane.
 
Toward the end I was getting better at recognizing when I was starting to get a little slow. I had a red LED head lamp on but only glanced over to confirm what I already pretty much new. Stlll, it would be a lot nicer to be able to SEE THE PANEL. I've gotten used to being able to detect something out of place without even looking, just catching it in my peripheral vision.

They sure do like testing those runway jacks at night, though. Somenow they managed to crank the runway at Lawrence up a good foot and a half when I wasn't watching.
 
I did a bunch of pattern work this morning -- got out there before 7 when it was still nice and calm. I'm really liking the 172, far more than I thought I would. The thing climbs like a kite. Landings are easier, since the ground effect "cushion" is minimal. I find it a lot easier to round out and flare, and if I happen to get it a little early or something and start to float, just a touch of throttle gets it right back where I want it. Even a "muffed" landing is within a reasonable distance of my touchdown target, and is pretty nice.

This morning there was a guy in a Cherokee doing T&Gs as I was doing my full-stop rounds. We stayed in sync, because the 172 seems to be a little quicker as well. Anyway, I got to see several of his landings up close -- I was on the taxiway abeam his touchdown point as he came in. His landings were just like mine were, not enough flare. :) I'm thinking, yeah, that's easy to do. I may rent a Cherokee one of these days just to see if landing the Cessna will have improved my ability to land the Piper well.
 
Try a Beech product, any of them. The Sierra may be slow but it has a door on each side, a roomy cabin and trailing link landing gear; cheaper than a 112 Commander I thnk as well. Don't get in a Bo though... You won't get out.
 
I was looking at Sundowners, more in my price range. The Sierra would be a nice step up though. A Bo would just be too much airplane for our needs, I think, in addition to costing way more than I'd be willing to spend.

Right now with access to the club planes, I'm holding off on the purchase debate. So far there has only been one instance where I wanted the 172 and someone else had it reserved. We'll see how that goes for a while. The club doesn't have a rule banning use on unpaved runways, so maybe next year we can make the trip to Gaston's.
 
Nope, Bo meets almost ever SEL mission. You slow it down to Arrow speeds/loads and it uses less fuel. Will do 160 on 12.7. Tough enough that it's the preferred bush plane in the Australian Outback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top