Learn in 172 or DA40

L

LoveFlyin

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
8
Display Name
Display name:
Love Flyin
Hey Guys,

I am brand new here and fairly new to flying but I am so addicted and can't wait to get my license. I have about 12 hours so far that I started on my private pilot's license couple years ago.

Now I'm looking to essentially just start all over with a new instructor and get my license. The question is is there any reason for safety that I wouldn't want to learn in the DA 40. I plan to rent the da40 once I finish my license. I'm not concerned about the cost difference. My only concern is if it is too squirrelly of a plane to be a newbie pilot in.

For instance if it's too easy to get into a stall or too hard to get out of one excetera.

Thanks for feedback you have. Going to start training out of Palomar, ca.
 
No. The main reason is cost. The DA40 is not necessary, but it won't hurt.

I don't recommend learning with glass (even in a 172) due to distraction and excess complexity, but it's different if you know that's what you're going to fly. It will take you longer to train, but probably not longer than training and transitioning combined.
 
LoveFlyin said:
My only concern is if it is too squirrelly of a plane to be a newbie pilot in.
Click to expand...

Nope. I've owned, rented, and instructed in a variety of high and low wing airplanes. The DA40 is actually my favorite, and if we get the 3rd class medical resolved, it will be the one plane that I return to flying in.

Great visibility, handling, landing characteristics, comfortable, etc. Nothing wrong with learning on what you intend to rent/buy.
 
Since cost is not an issue, the DA40 is fine. Its a great plane to train in and to fly later. But just a word of experience.

My wife trained in 152/172. When she got her ppl I bought her a nice 172 for $66k. We later upgraded to a Bonanza for ~$90k.

My best friend trained in a DA40 and when he got his ppl, he bought a DA40 for ~$260k. His DA40 cruises around 130-140-kts. My Bonanza cruises at 165kts and had a higher useful load (still not enough, but substantially higher than the Da40 but less than my 172 (with a 180 hp engine).

Again, if money is not an object, and if you like the looks of the Diamond then go for it. But I do advise you to think through what is important to you and try to think what your mission will be in 5 years from now.
 
Pick the cheapest one.

172, DA, both trainer trikes.

"Saftey" wise, same thing.
 
Fly both to sharpen up your skills and then pick the most likely one you will fly the most to practice in..IMHO
 
All great advice. Thanks.

I like the visability in the da40 and I flew the g1000 in a 172 the other day and loved it.

Is it bad to train on the g1000 vs the old steam gauges
 
I'd stick to the most simple, eyes outside, plane you can find.

Both those aircraft are poor trainers IMO, ideally you'd want a champ, citabria, cub, glider, or the like for your VFR PPL.
 
I don't think it really matters what you train in, but I certainly would get some experience flying different planes for a while afterwards before buying anything.

PS. I love the DA40. I'd take one hands down over a 172. They are both in the same class.
 
I know my flight school highly recommends training with steam first then moving to glass.
 
I trained in a da20 and a few flights in da40. They are both good planes but the da40 was all glass, constant speed prop, auto pilot, and handling was slightly different. So comparing a 172 with a fixed pitch prop, high wing vs low wing, sinks faster than the glider with a motor strapped to it, and probably not the latest avionics is hard to do. The 172 is simpler. The da40 is something you might want to fly after training. They are two different planes with two different setups and handle differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Learn in the 172 and wire transfer the cost difference to me in the initial training costs.

(Not speaking to the quality of either plane as a trainer, just that if the money doesn't matter to you, it would make a difference in my bank account)
 
I trained in a 172 and Piper then finished my complex in an Arrow and HP in a 182. Recommend the 172 since they are widely available for rentals at less cost than a DA40. But if you are hellbent on buying a DA40 then train in one. For the money, I would rather have a Bonanza or 182 if I were to buy a plane today for pleasure flying.
 
Don't get stuck on glass as being "better." It isn't for VFR.

What you get is the same information, presented in a much more complex way.

I don't fly glass unless I have to. I'm fully qualified and proficient, but having two computer screens and 300 lb of dead weight is not relevant to my personal mission. I fly 40 year old 172s or 182s when it's on my dime, using whatever equipment is installed in the airplane. For VFR, one radio, transponder, and nothing else beyond the six pack is enough. I'll fly a GPS if it's there, as that doesn't make much difference to the cost and a small one is not all that heavy. But it's not a requirement.

Now, when I'm on a search, the airplane has a G1000 and I fly it. It is serious overkill for that mission, but someone higher up the food chain than me made that decision. And we have trouble fitting a crew of three in a 182 without overloading it.

Note that G1000 is getting a little long in the tooth now. It's been around for almost 10 years. So don't think it's "state of the art." Not anymore. Its interface is pretty bad (not as bad as the older Apollo GPSs, but still just shy of terrible), and if it were my choice, I'd rather spend my time learning how to fly the airplane than that stupid computer screen.

The truth is, the 1976 182P I fly on my own dime works better than the 2008 182T G1000 I fly for CAP. The reason: it's a LOT lighter, yet has nearly the same engine (except it's carbureted). I can fit four adults in it. Three is a challenge on that 2008.
 
Last edited:
I think I like Anderson's advice the best. What's your wire transfer number? lol

It's REALLY cool how active and HELPFUL everyone is here! Thanks for all the tips.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to buy a plane. I just want to a fun plane to rent and fly with my wife.

I much prefer the view from the DA40, and would prefer to rent that once I have my ppl. So my thoughts are that I would prefer to get all of my experience on that same plane I plan to fly so that all my instructor hours are there training me how to fly that airplane.
 
LoveFlyin said:
I think I like Anderson's advice the best. What's your wire transfer number? lol

It's REALLY cool how active and HELPFUL everyone is here! Thanks for all the tips.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to buy a plane. I just want to a fun plane to rent and fly with my wife.

I much prefer the view from the DA40, and would prefer to rent that once I have my ppl. So my thoughts are that I would prefer to get all of my experience on that same plane I plan to fly so that all my instructor hours are there training me how to fly that airplane.
Click to expand...

Again, I know nothing about the DA40. But I learned in 1 plane that is a bit more basic and then when I was done transitioned to another plane when I passed my check ride. Honestly you need to learn the stick and rudder skills one way or another. I would do some back of the napkin math and figure out if the rental rate difference justifies learning in the cheaper plane.

(Rental DA40 * 60 hours) vs (Rental B * 60 plus 5 hours in the DA40 for transition training) if there is a significant enough of a price difference then go with the cheaper plane. If not then go with what ever plane you like better (while basking in my envy).
 
Glass panels are not necessarily more difficult than steam gauges. The same six pack can be found on the PFD of a G1000, Dynon Skyview or Garmin G3x. The engine and terrain information is also quickly referenced and offers a simple and quick way to assess engine and terrain dangers.

The G1000 is a little more clumsy than the experimental Dynon and Garmin G3x touchscreen systems because all functions are behind buttons and in nested menus and require more button and knob pushing to enter data.

So don't be intimidated by glass versus steam gauges. If you learn the steams first you will later be able to learn the glass. If you learn on glass, the steams require less re-learning curve - the hardest part is deciphering the altimeter - in a glass system all readouts are digital..
 
Last edited:
LoxaBagels said:
Glass panels are not necessarily more difficult than steam gauges. The same six pack can be found on the PFD of a G1000, Dynon Skyview or Garmin G3x. The engine and terrain information is also quickly referenced and offers a simple and quick way to assess engine and terrain dangers.

The G1000 is a little more clumsy than the experimental Dynon and Garmin G3x touchscreen systems because all functions are behind buttons and in nested menus and require more button and knob pushing to enter data.

So don't be intimidated by glass versus steam gauges. If you learn the steams first you will later be able to learn the glass. If you learn on glass, the steams require less re-learning curve - the hardest part is deciphering the altimeter - in a glass system all readouts are digital..
Click to expand...

First post.....

Welcome to POA.....

:cheers::cheers:
 
Anderson,

It's not the price so much. Yes it will be slighly more when you factor all that in.

That small difference doesn't carry 1/100th of the weight of.... Is that DA40 significantly less stable to where a new pilot shouldn't learn in it.

I have 12 hours so far towards my PPL from 8 years ago (but I plan to start from zero this time around). I have flown a R44 Heli for 2 hours. I fly both remote controlled planes and helicoptors. so have I have "some" knowledge of flight.

So my real question is (18 comments later)... is it safer to learn to fly in a 172 than a DA40?

For instance too squirley?

To easy to stall?

Hard to recover from stall?

Etc..


One benefit of learning in DA40 is that I'll have 50 hours of training in the exact plane that I want to ensure my wife's safety in.

Vs. only a couple hours of transition and learning the DA's flight characteristics.


Loxabagels.. good input on the Glass. I flew the 172 with glass and didn't feel overwhelmed. I'm a techy and used to looking at screens all day.

Cheers
 
First my personal preference is to learn in the least expensive safe plane possible. Both are safe planes IMHO. Have a blast learning to fly.
 
Any schmuck can look at the PFD. That's easy.

It's becoming proficient on the glass that's the problem.

That doesn't mean you learn direct-To and you're done. It means you know how to calculate the density altitude when your examiner asks. It means you can verify the GPS signal (both of them) and calculate RAIM. It means you can locate and load frequencies. Specifically on the G1000/GFC700, it means you can program a descent and actually have the autopilot follow it (you WILL fail the first time you try that). It means you know the difference between FLCH and VS and when to use one vs. the other. It means a number of expanded checklists, especially engine start and run-up. It means knowing what the autopilot is going to do if you engage it and put it in nav mode while flying away from your flight plan. There is a different answer for a VOR CDI vs. GPS CDI.

None of this comes up in a simpler aircraft.

And none of it is relevant for learning to fly. But it's total fair game on a check ride.
 
Last edited:
I learned in a 172 and flew a DA40 once. Out here in the desert, the DA40 is quite hot in the bubble canopy. Either way, I would try to learn on steam gauges.
 
If you plan to rent the DA40 after getting your license, and the difference in cost is of little importance, then learn in the DA40. The only think you might consider is that 172s are generally more available as rentals if you plan to travel, but a transition should be no problem. Same thing applies to glass. If you're going to rent/fly a glass plane, might as well learn on one.
 
I learned fly in a steam gauge 172 and then did the transition to a G1000 DA-40.

As for the flight characteristics they are similar - they are both super-stable, forgiving aircraft, real easy to fly and land. Statistically, the DA-40 is probably the safer aircraft, and if you fly the Plus One plane at CRQ you'll get a newer, really well maintained aircraft.

MAKG makes a good point (as always) - training to proficiency is way easier in the steam gauge 172 given the complexity and bells and whistles of the G1000 avionics suite. You can learn a lot on the G1000 simulator software (it will run you $25 plus S&H), and Plus One in addition has a G1000 simulator down at MYF that you can rent for cheap. But the examiner expects you to be proficient with everything in the plane, and everything is fair game on your checkride.
 
LoveFlyin said:
Hey Guys,

I am brand new here and fairly new to flying but I am so addicted and can't wait to get my license. I have about 12 hours so far that I started on my private pilot's license couple years ago.

Now I'm looking to essentially just start all over with a new instructor and get my license. The question is is there any reason for safety that I wouldn't want to learn in the DA 40. I plan to rent the da40 once I finish my license. I'm not concerned about the cost difference. My only concern is if it is too squirrelly of a plane to be a newbie pilot in.

For instance if it's too easy to get into a stall or too hard to get out of one excetera.

Thanks for feedback you have. Going to start training out of Palomar, ca.
Click to expand...

If you are going to continue in the DA-40, start in the DA-40. Somewhere along the line take a couple of hours and get checked out in the 172 so it is available to you as well. Both are safe and simple planes to fly.
 
Which ever plane is the more comfortable,for your lessons.you can always transition to another aircraft after you get your ticket.
 
James331 said:
I'd stick to the most simple, eyes outside, plane you can find.

Both those aircraft are poor trainers IMO, ideally you'd want a champ, citabria, cub, glider, or the like for your VFR PPL.
Click to expand...

He's required to have 3 hours of hood time which I suppose he could do in an airplane with bare bones instruments, but it seems pointless. Not to mention the night XC dual...

Frankly I think those suggestions are poor for primary training, an aircraft at least equipped with a 6 pack is desirable for the PTS tasks that need to be practiced.

As far as the OPs question, if you definitely plan on renting the DA40 regularly after you get your certificate, then it's a no brainer - train in that. Once you've got your license, you'll be nice and comfortable in the airplane. No point in training in a 172 then immediately transitioning to the DA40 post checkride.
 
Last edited:
fiveoboy01 said:
He's required to have 3 hours of hood time which I suppose he could do in an airplane with bare bones instruments, but it seems pointless. Not to mention the night XC dual...

Frankly I think those suggestions are poor for primary training, an aircraft at least equipped with a 6 pack is desirable for the PTS tasks that need to be practiced.

As far as the OPs question, if you definitely plan on renting the DA40 regularly after you get your certificate, then it's a no brainer - train in that. Once you've got your license, you'll be nice and comfortable in the airplane. No point in training in a 172 then immediately transitioning to the DA40 post checkride.
Click to expand...

For VFR ops you don't need a full six pack, quite a few of the types I've listed have enough for unusual attitudes, they all WILL make a far better pilot.

From what I've seen training guys 0 time in everything from 7ECAs to G1000 ships, the more basic tailwheel the better, every time.
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. Of course a stripped taildragger will(might) give you better stick and rudder skills but isn't equipped for a lot of the things required during primary training.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
He's required to have 3 hours of hood time which I suppose he could do in an airplane with bare bones instruments, but it seems pointless. Not to mention the night XC dual...

Frankly I think those suggestions are poor for primary training, an aircraft at least equipped with a 6 pack is desirable for the PTS tasks that need to be practiced.

As far as the OPs question, if you definitely plan on renting the DA40 regularly after you get your certificate, then it's a no brainer - train in that. Once you've got your license, you'll be nice and comfortable in the airplane. No point in training in a 172 then immediately transitioning to the DA40 post checkride.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I think 331s suggestions , using a taildragger , is the correct approach. If you can fly say a champ or a 7eca well, spins, unusual attitudes , etc. Your going to be a better pilot . Learning to fly WELL comes first. Navigation and radio should follow. Too many recent ppls are really not well trained as the CFI is oftentimes young and strictly a time builder.
 
You can't learn to fly well in a 172? Spins and unusual attitudes can't be practiced? Slips? Short approaches?

I don't buy the argument. Primary training isn't ALL about airmanship.

With regards to "not well trained", I agree with this, now that I'm at 150 or so hours and several lessons into instrument training.... Looking back, it's not a lie that primary training gave me just enough skillset to not kill myself.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
You can't learn to fly well in a 172? Spins and unusual attitudes can't be practiced? Slips? Short approaches?

I don't buy the argument. Primary training isn't ALL about airmanship.

With regards to "not well trained", I agree with this, now that I'm at 150 or so hours and several lessons into instrument training.... Looking back, it's not a lie that primary training gave me just enough skillset to not kill myself.
Click to expand...

If you don't buy it then you probably have no taildragger time. If you can fly a champ say, or a 7eca well , a 172 is child's play and a mooney or a bonanza transition is pretty Simple.
 
Last edited:
Sadly the state of GA is such that not every market has available in it a simple tailwheel trainer. I agree that primary to solo would optimally be done in a Citabria so spins and basic aerobatics can be introduced and taught in the very primacy of training. After solo transition into a cross country machine. There is absolutely no requirement that you do all your training in one aircraft, bore s there any overwhelming evidence it will even cost you extra time. Where I trained we flew whatever and for the most part took our rides at 40 hours.

However the markets don't particularly support this ability. If you are lucky enough to have this rental availability, great, if not you either buy one, or rent what is available.
 
As an active instructor I would say train for your tickets on a 172. The 172 teaches a different discipline. It's characteristics for flying, believe it or not are tougher to master ie. Stalls! So I would say in the end it would make you more competent in certain situations. I have a friend that wanted to get into flying and said that he would only do it in a Cirrus because of the chute. Same principle, train in a plane that can help you master flyings most difficult challenges because you never know when you will have to use those skills. After that training period, you choose whatever plane you like and it will be easier to fly. But don't pay attention to the people saying to stay away from glass. That's just not true today because everything is moving to glass cockpits and most likely from what you say, is what you will end up flying. I wish we had glass 25 years ago when I started flying. It might seem like a busier setup but it makes you a better pilot in the end. It sharpens your senses and your mind. So in my opinion a 172 with a glass cockpit is a great way to start and many flight schools have them. And cost wise it will put you somewhere in between a standard 172 and the DA40. Good luck!
 
I'm pretty sure that by many measures the DA-40 is the safest four place light single engine airplane, period.
 
I haven't flown a DA40, so I cant comment on it's flight characteristics, but since I know the particular plane you're looking at flying, and park my own plane right next to it I can comment a little on it and offer my 2 cents.

I've looked over that plane a lot and met the owner a few times, it's a really nice plane. However because of this it's also used by club members a lot. Because of this you may find that it's difficult to schedule for all of your flights, both during and after training. Since it's the only DA40 in the fleet if it's out on a day you planned to do a training flight, then your training gets to wait. On the flip side the club has several cherokees and 172s, so if you're doing your training in either of them you always have backups. This can be a big deal for training, as not having access to a plane will slow things down a lot. It can also be a real bummer when you have a trip planned and the plane isn't available.

I did all of my PPL training in one plane, but immediately after it seemed like I was flying everything in the club, simply because of availability. Thankfully I was checked out in the 172, and PA-28 so I had a lot of planes to pick from. The DA-40 is much more limited in selection, one at CRQ and I think 2 at MYF.
 
Last I heard, our 2 MYF DA-40's will be sold and taken out of the club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top