Better IFR Trainer: 172 or Arrow

jordane93 said:
I think that would just delay his training. Start in the same airplane and finish in the same plane would be ideal IMO
Click to expand...

It actually wouldn't. The 172 is a less stable platform. Develop the skill sets then transition. Its done all the time. Its the same as incorporating a sim in the training then using the airplane.
 
Clark1961 said:
Transition to the Piper won't take any extra time since you will go through basic maneuvers in either aircraft during training. CFIIs like Ron add unnecessarily add time to benefit themselves.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty cheap shot and incorrect.

I flew both C172s and PA28s during and after my primary training and still needed a little time transitioning to the Arrow as would any of us non sky god types.
 
LearDriver said:
It actually wouldn't. The 172 is a less stable platform. Develop the skill sets then transition. Its done all the time. Its the same as incorporating a sim in the training then using the airplane.
Click to expand...
Assuming it has the same avionics it will be easier but if one has a 430 and the other one doesn't, he would need to figure out all the buttonology as well.
 
Cessna 2 doors, Piper one door.....

That's all I have to say about that!
 
Clark1961 said:
Transition to the Piper won't take any extra time since you will go through basic maneuvers in either aircraft during training. CFIIs like Ron add unnecessarily add time to benefit themselves.
Click to expand...
The maneuvers and knowledge training I discussed which are necessary to learning the plane are not part of instrument training. If we CFI-IA's did that routinely, we'd be unnecessarily adding to the training and increasing cost and time to the client. So, if you want to learn a new type as well as doing your instrument training in that new type, it's going to take longer and cost more than if you already know and are proficient in the airplane in which the training will be done.

BTW, I've had some experience in this situation, several times during the nine years I've been specializing in giving intensive instrument training. Someone who doesn't know the plane at all generally takes 1-2 days longer than the standard 10-day course.
 
LearDriver said:
It actually wouldn't. The 172 is a less stable platform.
Click to expand...
Than an Arrow? No significant difference in stability between any of the 4-seat Piper/Cessna singles in my experience.

Develop the skill sets then transition. Its done all the time.
Click to expand...
Rarely, in my nine years specializing in training people for their instrument rating.

Its the same as incorporating a sim in the training then using the airplane.
Click to expand...
No, it's not, and I use a sim for our instrument training course. The sim is used to teach procedures, not flight skills. In addition, the procedures change significantly for a complex plane compared to a simple fixed-gear plane, so we'd have to go back to the sim and develop those altered procedures -- which adds time and cost to the program.

All things considered, the fastest, cheapest way to do instrument training is to use a plane you already know well and in which you are already proficient. BTDT the other way, and it's always an uphill battle for the trainee.
 
The Arrow is faster. You will have better IFR skills dealing with a faster plane and the need to stay ahead of the plane.
 
LearDriver said:
The 172 is a less stable platform.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The Arrow handles turbulence better, but its stabilator "hunts" more, and requires more retrimming in level flight. And if the Arrow's fuel tanks are a little out of balance you'll be holding aileron pressure.

That said, I like the Arrow's panel better for IFR, especially with a hood as opposed to actual -- less need for head-turning.
 
Last edited:
wishboneash said:
The Arrow is faster. You will have better IFR skills dealing with a faster plane and the need to stay ahead of the plane.
Click to expand...

I was going to argue the opposite. The 172 is slower and may work better with a student. I really had to throttle my mooney back a good bit to keep things reasonable for me. Personal choice I guess.
 
wishboneash said:
The Arrow is faster. You will have better IFR skills dealing with a faster plane and the need to stay ahead of the plane.
Click to expand...


I agree. If the student plans to fly a higher performance airplane in the future then the Arrow is clearly the better choice.

At least from the point of view of developing piloting skill.

An Arrow isn't an SR-71, but it does demand more 'staying ahead of the airplane" from a pilot than a C-172.
 
rbridges said:
I was going to argue the opposite. The 172 is slower and may work better with a student. I really had to throttle my mooney back a good bit to keep things reasonable for me. Personal choice I guess.
Click to expand...

If the goal is to just get the IFR rating, then the least complex slowest plane will do. Most people eventually aspire to fly faster more complex aircraft. I got my rating in an Archer which is similar complexity to the C172, except I found it to be a more stable platform (and frankly, the low-wing appealed to me!). Now in my Mooney (a 201), things happen much faster than possibly the Arrow and getting the gear down and slowing down requires some planning. I might have taken longer to get my rating in the complex, but it would have served me better long term.
 
JimNtexas said:
I agree. If the student plans to fly a higher performance airplane in the future then the Arrow is clearly the better choice.

At least from the point of view of developing piloting skill.

An Arrow isn't an SR-71, but it does demand more 'staying ahead of the airplane" from a pilot than a C-172.
Click to expand...

.... +1 ....
 
Arrow especially if you plan to do your commercial rating later as you will be more comfortable with retracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top