Better IFR Trainer: 172 or Arrow

E

eventualpilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
105
Location
US
Display Name
Display name:
eventualpilot
I'm about to begin my IFR training and trying to decide what aircraft to use. I'm considering either a Cessna 172SP or Piper Arrow.

Beyond the basic six-pack, the 172SP has a KLN 94 and KAP 140 autopilot. The Piper Arrow has Garmin 430, no autopilot, and is $10/hr more expensive.

As I'm also considering commerical training at some point after instrument training it was recommended that I use the Arrow.
 
fwiw - I find the cherokee to be more stable than the 172.

(note that I did all but 10 hours of my primary training with the 172 and switched to a cherokee 140 for instrument training)

Which aircraft are you more comfortable with? Do you prefer the 172 or the cherokee line? In other words, go with the one you like...
 
choose the one with avionics that you'll be most using later.....IMHO the Arrow is probably the most desirable.

Either aircraft is fine...but, the major differences will be with how you set up your radios and fly.
 
The buttonology and concepts of the 430 exist in a LOT of garmin avionics, including the G1000 series. I'd learn on the Garmin if I was likely to fly modern GA stuff.
 
Go with the one with the autopilot. I'm sure the real men will be bashing me on how they did it with no autopilot and it made them the real man they are today, but you will have a much better experience having it. The KAP140 can do quite a bit.
 
For just 10 bucks, arrow all day.

For one Garmin is really the gold standard for GPS.

Two, the Arrow is a fun plane, complex and well rounded, especially if it's a turbo T tail.
 
Neither is better unless you plan to be flying one or the other once you get the rating, in which case you're better off training in the one you'll fly later. Otherwise, take the one you are more comfortable flying now.
 
Theboys said:
When I took the test the examiner never let me use autopilot anyway after about 5 minutes
Click to expand...
That is no longer appropriate given the current guidance in the IR PTS, but some examiners may still do it anyway. Most will allow its use during most of the flight, and require its use on at least one approach while denying its use on at least one approach. See the IR PTS discussion on Single Pilot IFR for more.
 
Ron Levy said:
That is no longer appropriate given the current guidance in the IR PTS, but some examiners may still do it anyway. Most will allow its use during most of the flight, and require its use on at least one approach while denying its use on at least one approach. See the IR PTS discussion on Single Pilot IFR for more.
Click to expand...

Sure, shoot one approach, to a missed with the autopilot, if you're going to screw up using the autopilot it's there, maybe at one point at a good altitude cut the power and see if the student kills the AP.
 
James331 said:
Sure, shoot one approach, to a missed with the autopilot, if you're going to screw up using the autopilot it's there, maybe at one point at a good altitude cut the power and see if the student kills the AP.
Click to expand...
That's not consistent with the guidance to which I referred, either. A lot more there than I care to cut and paste, but anyone working on the rating should have a copy of that PTS.
 
....

To the OP, go with the arrow and be sure you can complete the ride with or without the A/P.


Ron Levy said:
That's not consistent with the guidance to which I referred, either. A lot more there than I care to cut and paste, but anyone working on the rating should have a copy of that PTS.
Click to expand...

The applicant is expected to utilize an autopilot and/or flight
management system (FMS), if properly installed, during the instrument
practical test to assist in the management of the aircraft. The examiner
is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are
installed and operative during the oral and flight portions of the practical
test. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the use of the
autopilot and/or FMS during one of the nonprecision approaches. The
applicant is expected to demonstrate satisfactory automation
management skills.


So yeah, like I said he shoots a approach with it, a good DPE would have him shoot a approach to a missed and also toss in somewhere a situation where the applicant should loose the AP
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
....

To the OP, go with the arrow and be sure you can complete the ride with or without the A/P.




The applicant is expected to utilize an autopilot and/or flight
management system (FMS), if properly installed, during the instrument
practical test to assist in the management of the aircraft. The examiner
is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are
installed and operative during the oral and flight portions of the practical
test. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the use of the
autopilot and/or FMS during one of the nonprecision approaches. The
applicant is expected to demonstrate satisfactory automation
management skills.


So yeah, like I said he shoots a approach with it, a good DPE would have him shoot a approach to a missed and also toss in somewhere a situation where the applicant should loose the AP
Click to expand...
That is only a small fraction excerpted from a couple of pages of guidance. Read it all for yourself rather than relying one person's incomplete précis.
 
Ron Levy said:
That is only a small fraction excerpted from a couple of pages of guidance. Read it all for yourself rather than relying one person's incomplete précis.
Click to expand...

So what else, some suggestions or "be familiar with" which you obviously are if you can shoot a approach to a missed with it.

Only mandatory type maneuver in there is one of the two non-precision approaches.

Again, just like the Grumman thread, you talk about stuff without backing it up with any substance.
 
I would choose the arrow, but I am partial to them.

Besides that, I would go with the arrow because of the 430. The KLN 94 is still a capable gps, but the Garmin line is the gold standard, so you are more likely to use that when you utilize your ticket.

I have a wing leveler in my arrow. Most arrows do. I didn't use it in my training because my CFI wanted me to hand fly. Since I owned the plane, I was already familiar with its use. On the check ride, the examiner made sure I knew how to use it but asked me hand fly the approaches.
 
James331 said:
So what else, some suggestions or "be familiar with" which you obviously are if you can shoot a approach to a missed with it.

Only mandatory type maneuver in there is one of the two non-precision approaches.

Again, just like the Grumman thread, you talk about stuff without backing it up with any substance.
Click to expand...
Anyone who reads the IR PTS in its entirety will see the substance. Clearly that's not you. But since you either don't have a copy or haven't updated yours in over ten years, here's the link. Please check pages 7 (Special Emphasis Areas) and the section on Single-Pilot Resource Management on pages 13-17, especially the section on Automation Management, in addition to that one paragraph from pages 8-9 which you quoted above.
 
I have used both,got the rating in the 172 since I owned one,then purchased an arrow. The arrow is more comfortable,a little heavier,more stable,and fun to fly. Go with the airplane you intend to fly actual.
 
If I remember correctly, the KLN 94 will not have percision approaches in the database.
For example you could fly the ILS Rwy 25L at Las Vegas MCarran, NV. But not the ILS Rwy 1L. For the 25L you can load LAS VORTAC in the KLN for distance with the VOR tuned to the ILS. But for 1L, the distance is on the LOC frequency, not the VORTAC, so no data in the KLN navigator.

The VGT ILS 12L cannot be flown with the KLN 94.

The Garmin 430 is more capable.
So it depends what approaches you will need.
Personally for the small difference in cost, I would fly the Arrow, more complex, retract under the hood experience. Fly by the numbers.
 
IMHO, If you're going on to commercial you should spend the extra $500 (10/hr) and build the complex time.

There are some nice Arrow rentals at Bedford (but they're not turbo)
 
The non complex 172 will keep your workload lower if you haven't earned complex time before. You will be busy enough with all that IFR-stuff during your training. Of course the arrow is more fun.
 
I used the arrow for most all of my instrument, commercial, and CFI/CFII. It's a great airplane and for only $10 more you will get a lot of valuable retractable gear experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ron Levy said:
Neither is better unless you plan to be flying one or the other once you get the rating, in which case you're better off training in the one you'll fly later. Otherwise, take the one you are more comfortable flying now.
Click to expand...

But, the KLN 94 is junk. He'll learn something with the Garmin that he can use later on.
 
aterpster said:
But, the KLN 94 is junk. He'll learn something with the Garmin that he can use later on.
Click to expand...


The KLN-94 is not 'junk'. It's a perfectly useable TSO-129 IFR approved GPS. It's easier to use than a 430. Put in your flight plan. When you are approaching your destination hit the 'proc' button, select your approach, follow the needle and the little airplane, land. If you can't understand the 94 then perhaps you should should stick with J-3s and Rand McNally.

Our club has a 94 in one plane, a 430W, in another, and next month will have 650 in our third plane.

What I suggest to new members is that they study the actual TSO-129/146 documents (most of our members are in technical jobs of one kind or another, so they are capable of understanding a technical specification).

Once you understand the fundamental software architecture that every brand of IFR GPS must have then transitioning between brands will be easier.
 
JimNtexas said:
The KLN-94 is not 'junk'. It's a perfectly useable TSO-129 IFR approved GPS. It's easier to use than a 430. Put in your flight plan. When you are approaching your destination hit the 'proc' button, select your approach, follow the needle and the little airplane, land. If you can't understand the 94 then perhaps you should should stick with J-3s and Rand McNally.

Our club has a 94 in one plane, a 430W, in another, and next month will have 650 in our third plane.

What I suggest to new members is that they study the actual TSO-129/146 documents (most of our members are in technical jobs of one kind or another, so they are capable of understanding a technical specification).

Once you understand the fundamental software architecture that every brand of IFR GPS must have then transitioning between brands will be easier.
Click to expand...


That said getting the buttonolgy down on a garmin and learning some of the little garmin tidbits is much more valuable, Garmin is the gold standard in GPS.
 
JimNtexas said:
The KLN-94 is not 'junk'. It's a perfectly useable TSO-129 IFR approved GPS. It's easier to use than a 430. Put in your flight plan. When you are approaching your destination hit the 'proc' button, select your approach, follow the needle and the little airplane, land. If you can't understand the 94 then perhaps you should should stick with J-3s and Rand McNally.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm aside training on a non-WAAS box today is not what I would do if I were still instructing.
 
aterpster said:
Sarcasm aside training on a non-WAAS box today is not what I would do if I were still instructing.
Click to expand...

WAAS doesn't really matter for training, aside from approach availability.

If you can shoot a old RNAV and a ILS, you can shoot a LPV
 
Singlepilot said:
I used the arrow for most all of my instrument, commercial, and CFI/CFII. It's a great airplane and for only $10 more you will get a lot of valuable retractable gear experience.
Click to expand...
Retractable gear experience has value only if one plans on flying retractable gear airplanes later on. Many people have no such intention.
 
aterpster said:
But, the KLN 94 is junk. He'll learn something with the Garmin that he can use later on.
Click to expand...
Junk? Hardly. I've trained several people on them, and it's a perfectly good unit as long as you don't need/want WAAS and the other things that come with WAAS. Further, it's half the price of a WAAS GPS -- and that's not figuring when it comes already in the plane, i.e., if the plane already has a 94, is it really worth it to the buyer to spend $10K or more to replace it with a WAAS GPS? Like retractable gear time, that's a question the answer to which varies with the individual concerned.
 
aterpster said:
Sarcasm aside training on a non-WAAS box today is not what I would do if I were still instructing.
Click to expand...
You don't have much choice about that when your IR trainee's plane has one in it. If you're in the IR training business, you learn them all, including the King 89/94, Apollo/UPSAT GX-series, Garmin 155/300, etc. But it's been a very long time since I've seen a Northstar. :wink2:
 
There's a reason the Arrow doesn't have an autopilot- it doesn't need one. Not as much as the 172.
Avionics aside, your first objective is to gain command authority over basic pitch, roll, & yaw:)
That's learning to handfly on instruments, and the Arrow is better for that.
If it's possible, I would do both for the experience, then do the ride in the one you are most comfortable.
 
I did my private pilot training in a 152 and was checked out in a 172 shortly after getting my certificate. 95% of my total time is in Cessnas. I did get checked out in Warrior and found it to be a stable aircraft, but have not flown it enough to be comfortable with it.

I plan to pursue a commercial certificate after the instrument, so I guess the more complex time, the better. Also the flight school requires 10 hours dual to rent the Arrow solo, so I’d have that taken care of as well.


nosehair said:
There's a reason the Arrow doesn't have an autopilot- it doesn't need one. Not as much as the 172.
Avionics aside, your first objective is to gain command authority over basic pitch, roll, & yaw:)
That's learning to handfly on instruments, and the Arrow is better for that.
If it's possible, I would do both for the experience, then do the ride in the one you are most comfortable.
Click to expand...

If I chose the Arrow, I would still get instruction/experience flying approachess in the 172 with the autopilot, as well finding another aircraft with an HSI, and eventually a G1000.
 
eventualpilot said:
I plan to pursue a commercial certificate after the instrument, so I guess the more complex time, the better. Also the flight school requires 10 hours dual to rent the Arrow solo, so I’d have that taken care of as well.
Click to expand...
Since you plan both to get your commercial and to fly the Arrow on your own later on, I think doing the IR training in the Arrow makes more sense than getting more 172 time.

If I chose the Arrow, I would still get instruction/experience flying approachess in the 172 with the autopilot, as well finding another aircraft with an HSI, and eventually a G1000.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but complete your IR training in one plane and wait until you've got the IR before you start working on expanding your instrument skills in other planes. Trying to do your IR training in two different planes at once is only going to make the IR training more difficult.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's fine, but complete your IR training in one plane and wait until you've got the IR before you start working on expanding your instrument skills in other planes. Trying to do your IR training in two different planes at once is only going to make the IR training more difficult.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. During my IR training I flew three different planes before settling into the C-172N that I took the ride in. The Arrow is /U. The 182 is /A and the 172 is /G. The time in the Arrow convinced me that I want DME (or GPS, but the 172 has both). The 182 adds complexity (prop and cowl flaps), but nothing you can't overcome. The 430W in the 172N helps with approaches. But, Ron is right. Stick with one until after the ride. It does help.
 
BTW, with only Cessna experience, expect an extra 3-5 hours in the Arrow for basic air and pattern work as well as emergency procedures to get comfortable in the plane before you start serious IR training. You don't want to be trying to learn a new plane at the same time you're training to learn instrument flying.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, with only Cessna experience, expect an extra 3-5 hours in the Arrow for basic air and pattern work as well as emergency procedures to get comfortable in the plane before you start serious IR training. You don't want to be trying to learn a new plane at the same time you're training to learn instrument flying.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
I wouldn't go that far. While the differences are small there still needs to be a few hours of transition time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top