If you had to start all over again!

mrjones30

mrjones30

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
105
Location
Tampa Bay Area
Display Name
Display name:
Freedom is Flying
For all of the experienced Pilots out there,

If you had to learn all over again and get your PPL what kind of plane would you train in? Would it be a low wing plane or high wing? Once learned what would be your intermediate plane?


Thank you,
 
I would start in a Lake Amphib and move right into a Beech 18 on floats. I wouldn't waste time learning to fly a 150 or other light wing load plane.
 
mrjones30 said:
For all of the experienced Pilots out there,

If you had to learn all over again and get your PPL what kind of plane would you train in? Would it be a low wing plane or high wing? Once learned what would be your intermediate plane?


Thank you,
Click to expand...
Training? The key would be a tailwheel - avoid having to unlearn if you make the transition later on. Where the wings are is irrelevent.
 
tonycondon said:
whichever one was the cheapest
Click to expand...

Fly RC is the cheapest. ;)



Honestly, I would not change a thing. I started out flying 2 cycle ultralights, then graduated up the line to RV's. Took my PPL in a 172 took 40 hours. Flown tgs, uls, LSA, certified, experimetals, too many to count. The experience of flying many different planes makes you a better pilot, especially the ultralights.
 
Last edited:
I learned in a Tomahawk.

I would take the same route. Tomahawk, Archer II, Cessna 172, Cessna 182,

I got my IR in the 172 with gauges and a GPS.

The only thing I would do different is take my IR with PIC first instead of last.

Terry :D
 
I would've spent a lot more time up front trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my flying and if I could afford it. There are a lot of days I wonder if just rolling along in a Husky or Cub on bush wheels from fishing hole to fishing hole wouldn't make me as happy or happier than any other kind of flying. Point I'm making is that if you don't have a specific mission; then spending so much time and money trying to get every rating and flying more complicated aircraft can easily lead to expenses that just make you want to give it up. I'd sure like to have a $500 annual, burn 6-8 GPH, and not even think about just flying around to enjoy the scenery.
 
High wing or low wing wouldn't matter at all to me. I would want to learn in a good trainer type taildragger.

I would start as I did 20 years ago in a Champ. The problem then was that my instructor didn't have insurance for me to solo in it.

I would solo in the Champ and do as much training as possible in it, then go to a taildragger with an electrical system and enough panel to do my check ride. After that you're ready for a checkout in almost any non complex single engine small plane.

My $0.02,
 
Alexb2000 said:
I would've spent a lot more time up front trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my flying and if I could afford it. There are a lot of days I wonder if just rolling along in a Husky or Cub on bush wheels from fishing hole to fishing hole wouldn't make me as happy or happier than any other kind of flying. Point I'm making is that if you don't have a specific mission; then spending so much time and money trying to get every rating and flying more complicated aircraft can easily lead to expenses that just make you want to give it up. I'd sure like to have a $500 annual, burn 6-8 GPH, and not even think about just flying around to enjoy the scenery.
Click to expand...

Alex,

You just described my flying. I fly a Cessna140 with a custom built IFR panel. 5.6 GPH and a cheap annual. I've flown it 25 hours since a few days before Christmas. Very fun and affordable flying, plus it's totally usable for my advanced training.
 
Wouldn't change a thing. I'd still buy an airplane, and my top pick would be a 150. I flew mine everywhere, and would still have it had the Free Bird not come along.
 
If I really was able to exercise my initial flight training goals, I would have trained in a T-38. My since corrected vision placed a limitation on that.

I'd still do initial PPL training in a 172 if I had it to do over again. But regardless I wouldn't fly too many different airplanes during primary training, since the focus should be on learning basic flight skills, planning and procedures.
 
Let's see, my dad learned in a 182, I learned in the same 182, my son is learning in a 182. I pick 182's!:D Simple enough to learn in, fast enough to go somewhere and hauls enough to not have to go alone. ;)
 
N747JB said:
Let's see, my dad learned in a 182, I learned in the same 182, my son is learning in a 182. I pick 182's!:D Simple enough to learn in, fast enough to go somewhere and hauls enough to not have to go alone. ;)
Click to expand...

Hard to beat a 182 as a choice in the 'buy your last plane first' category. Between a 182 and a Bonanza, you can effectively and economically fill 95% of GA missions.
 
I would have lied and cheated and stole and screamed and kicked and hit and ran away from home to stay in NY with relatives for the year and gone to school there while finishing up flight training there. That instructor was incredibly good. Instead I ended up going home for school and not getting the same level of instruction. Plus the family Cherokee was a far better airplane than the death trap 152's anyway.

Then instead of buying an idiotic car, I would have bought the airplane that I found 2 months after I forked out all my money for a stupid useless car for pretty much the same price.

Everything went potty after that and got wishy washy instead of ending up with a super cub with floats and tundra tires and skis in Alaska.
 
mrjones30 said:
Geoffrey,

So you would say that the maneuverability of say a Piper is the same as a Cessna?
Click to expand...

The only difference between learning in a PA28 vs a 172 is that the 172 might teach you better rudder usage. Still, the difference is not that significant.
 
If I had the money, I would follow the path my grandfather took:

Cub
PT-13 Stearman
AT-6
B-25
 
I would have joined CAP in high school and then completed the glider training in College, rather than just going to the airport all the time and bumming a ride when I could.

I would have trained in a TW off a grass field.
 
free-flight gas-powered model airplanes for basic aerodynamics
Schweitzer 2-33 through solo, spins and basic soaring
Aeronca Champ (no electric or gps) through solo cross country
Luscombe through intermediate tailwheel
Citabria through basic aerobatics and upset training
Bonanza through instrument rating and faster cross country

I had the pleasure of doing almost that, but not in that order. The glider came after the private pilot certificate. I had a lot of PA28 time too, but I would do it as above if I started over. I will say that few things focus the mind on situational awareness and the clock like flying cross country behind 13 gallons of gas in a Champ on a moderately windy day. Great fun.

Scott
 
mrjones30 said:
Geoffrey,

So you would say that the maneuverability of say a Piper is the same as a Cessna?
Click to expand...

Been a l o n g time since I flew any Pipers. But I would say the maneuverability depends a lot on the specific model (of either brand).

Either brand will work to learn to fly. Transitioning from one to the other is no big deal (at least in my experience). IIRC, as a student I got signed off to solo in a Cherokee 140 in about an hour and a half (I had been flying a Cessna 120). Having to deal with flaps was a PITA, but a lot of Cessna's have the same problem.

And, neither brand (based on what I recall) maneuvers like a Pitts.

On the other hand, nothing I've flown in by either brand has anywhere near the adverse yaw of my little LSA taildragger - you use your feet, or you do NOT turn.:rofl:
 
Last edited:
Simple version I went C-150, C-172, PA-28, H-300, R-22, 2-33...
Doing it over I'd go glider then cub, skip the 'heavy iron' and the helicopters, still have fun.
 
I higher performance plane, like a P-51, Corsair or maybe a second generation jet like an F-100. Something that would put me in a better position to fly "big iron" sooner.
 
No changes here. Started in a beater C-150, and would do it again.

No regrets here. The question assumes that there would be?
 
Ron Levy said:
The big issue is not the type of plane, but the quality of the training.
Click to expand...

Agree that quality of instruction is important. But the right airplane helps reinforce excellent instruction. For example, a Stearman or a Champ simply makes uncoordinated flight so obvious as to almost demand it...so a student learns good stick and rudder skills. Airplanes that are fast and streamlined reinforce proper descent planning, just as an airplane that carries little fuel improves fuel awareness. Aerobatic airplanes teach a student about momentum and g loading and vertical penitration and inverted flight and spins. The right instructor is essential, but the right airplane will really teach you. That's why I have so little regard for airplanes designed to be too easy - the poor instructor has to make it hard enough to overcome the pedestrian trainer's design, lest the poor student becomes a really mediocre pilot.

In order to get my C-150(2) students to actually use the rudder I had them do touch & goes without letting the nose wheel touch the runway and dutch roll like crazy (especially in slow flight) and had to give them enough simulated engine failures so thay would stay close enough to the runway. And cover half the intruments so they would just look OUTSIDE. I could train a good pilot in a Cessna, but it's a lot more work than in a Citabria. As an instrument platform, 172s and Warriors are just fine but something a little speedier would develop better skills. Gave a guy an intrument rating in a V35B, and that airplane, if you just lowered the nose a little at cruise power - would zip right up in to the yellow arc. Made my student a very attentive instrument pilot.
 
Cub
185
Beaver
Otter
Goose

All floats of course (Grumman is by default)
 
Geico266 said:
Fly RC is the cheapest. ;)



Honestly, I would not change a thing. I started out flying 2 cycle ultralights, then graduated up the line to RV's. Took my PPL in a 172 took 40 hours. Flown tgs, uls, LSA, certified, experimetals, too many to count. The experience of flying many different planes makes you a better pilot, especially the ultralights.
Click to expand...


And that is exactly how I started, flying RC Gliders.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Only thing I would have done different is started 20 years ago. Might be a bizjet driver by now (airline life doesn't appeal to me, but might be fun too) Now all I really want to do is be a part time CFI, which might make me a desirable CFI as evidenced by another thread here of the poor guy who had 7 CFI's in 13 hours. I don't have any big dreams of big shiny silver tubes.

As for the type of planes, I flew 3 different ones during training, A 172, and Archer, and an ancient 140. Guess which one I fly most now that I have my ticket? The 140. I just love it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top