What would you do?

[MAKG1]

Holy crap ! It's a 206 not a Caravan !!! You have maybe two extra knobs to mess with. What's the big deal ???

The controls are the same as a 182.

The concern I have would be they are less forgiving in the flare, and seem to transition from flying level to falling out of the sky rather quickly at very slow speeds. That might be an issue for student landings.

 

[ahypnoz]

Let me ask one question, which plane would you be safer in?


I believe it is the plane that you practice in and passed your check ride in rather than the other plane. If you passed your check ride in the 206 you will be a safer pilot in the 206 then even in the 172, because you trained for that plane.

There is really no right or wrong answer in my opinion, because their are good pilots that have taken both paths. If you really do not know what you will be flying, fly the 172, it is safe, cheaper and tried and true.

In my opinion, if you know what plane you will be flying after you get your ticket, one should practice in that plane that s/he will be flying in.
It is cheaper and safer in the long run.

When I was getting my pp by happen chance, I met an old salty pilot at the fbo and we started talking. He told me in not so many words that I should "seriously" consider being taught in the plane that I am planning on flying. If I am planning on flying a retractable gear plane, then I should learn in a retractable gear plane. Same thing with the constant speed propeller.

I am glad that I listened to him. It was really easy to learn because it was just one more thing to remember in the check list. You will not be spending your time and money in a plane that you will not be flying.

You will still need about 25 hours in make and type to be considered really safe, so get that time with instruction with a Cfi in your right seat. Especially if that is the main plane that you are planning on flying. Your CFI will answer every question and ask questions that you did not even think about asking.

I think it is safer to practice stalls and maneuvers in plane that you will be flying because you will know that plane's particular characteristics and if you happen to have a stall, you will be safer having it in the plane


You will be a much safer pilot in the make and model you get your ticket in.

On a personal note, I think it is better in the long run, to learn in a retractable gear plane, especially, if you ever plan on flying a retractable gear plane in the future. You will have the great (good) habit of always checking to make sure the gear is down, even when distracted. Because that is how you were initially taught. It is the rule of primacy, you do what ever you were taught first, good or bad.

I would like to see the data on gear up landings and my guess is that there would be significant more gear up landings in pilots that were taught in fixed gear planes first.

 

[labbadabba]

The controls are the same as a 182.

The concern I have would be they are less forgiving in the flare, and seem to transition from flying level to falling out of the sky rather quickly at very slow speeds. That might be an issue for student landings.

To me, this is all the more reason to train in the 206. If you're a low time pilot after you have your PPL transitioning from a C172 to a C206 you'd be in for a nasty surprise. Where if you did all you're initial training in a C206 it would feel 'normal.'

Also, (unrelated to MAKG1) we're forgetting that complex aircraft have flaps and cowl flaps which of course the C206 has but just thought I'd add that it's more than just retractable gear and constant speed prop....

 

[mtuomi]

To me, this is all the more reason to train in the 206. If you're a low time pilot after you have your PPL transitioning from a C172 to a C206 you'd be in for a nasty surprise. Where if you did all you're initial training in a C206 it would feel 'normal.'

Also, (unrelated to MAKG1) we're forgetting that complex aircraft have flaps and cowl flaps which of course the C206 has but just thought I'd add that it's more than just retractable gear and constant speed prop....

Nothing in the regs about cowl flaps. Saratoga, and Arrow for example, are complex, but no cowl flaps.

 

[Timbeck2]

<--- bought his own plane to train in.

Flip side to the rent to learn logic - one doesn't fly their own plane like they would a rental. It makes for smoother landings and trying harder when one knows they have to pay to fix the damage caused by bad landings.

 

[labbadabba]

Nothing in the regs about cowl flaps. Saratoga, and Arrow for example, are complex, but no cowl flaps.

Huh. Oops. A 'Toga doesn't have cowl flaps? I thought I saw them on a Lance and I for sure saw them on a Seneca (which has a smaller motor...)

 

[mtuomi]

Huh. Oops. A 'Toga doesn't have cowl flaps? I thought I saw them on a Lance and I for sure saw them on a Seneca (which has a smaller motor...)

Nope, not on the older ones (never flown the new ones). I think they can be retrofitted with aftermarket cowling mods. Same with Arrows.

 

[mscard88]

Huh. Oops. A 'Toga doesn't have cowl flaps? I thought I saw them on a Lance and I for sure saw them on a Seneca (which has a smaller motor...)

I flew a couple Lances for an FBO (135 & flight school use), and neither had cowl flaps. They were probably mid-70s models I think.

 

[Dana]

And nobody is recommending the 150 or 162? I've always believed that while the 150 is easier to fly than the 172, it's more difficult to fly well... which makes you a better pilot.

 

[mscard88]

And nobody is recommending the 150 or 162? I've always believed that while the 150 is easier to fly than the 172, it's more difficult to fly well... which makes you a better pilot.

I'm starting a new student in his C150, probably tomorrow. If I can get into the thing.

 

[mondtster]

I've always thought that I would like to train someone, say a family member, ab initio, I would like to do it in a Bonanza -- as that airplane is easy to fly and without vice.

I've done it, and the guy did really well with it. All his flying was in the Bonanza so he never knew what it was like to fly slower, less complicated machines, which may have helped. This guy ran equipment and worked with his hands for a living, which I think helped him pick things up faster too.

So, I don't think a 206 would be unreasonable for an average or above average student to finish a rating in.


One reason I haven't seen mentioned to NOT train in your own airplane is maintenance issues. If the airplane breaks or needs an annual in the middle of training you're down until it gets fixed. Depending on the problem that could be months of time that the plane is down. It is much easier and faster to just toss the keys to the rental plane back on the desk and have the maintenance staff fix the plane and get it back online asap instead of screwing around trying to decide how to fix a problem on your own.

 

[TheTraveler]

And nobody is recommending the 150 or 162? I've always believed that while the 150 is easier to fly than the 172, it's more difficult to fly well... which makes you a better pilot.

When I first started out, I was at LZU and went back and forth between the 150 and the 172. Even in the first two hours of training, the difference was absolutely recognizable for me, and I'm not just talking about the space inside the plane. I'm not a large guy by any means, so I'm comfy in a 150. But the speed, power, handling were all different, but in a weird way.

It was simple in that the controls were nearly identical, so all the controls were familiar. Simple in that they both are high wing Cessna's so to an extent a lot of things were not identical, but extremely similar and not unfamiliar.

The major difference for me was noticeable first in takeoff and climb. After the 172, it felt like I was going nowhere fast in the 150. The stability was different for me in that the wind gusts may bump the 172 a bit, but it would rock the 150. The largest difference I think was in stall/recovery and slow flight practice. We'd take off from LZU and head north a bit for a practice area. I remember specifically when the 150 stalled at slow and dirty, it went over hard, and it was a little scary the first time I actually did it.

I would have no problem finishing up in a 150, but it's a large step down from what I'd be flying regular so there isn't really a lot of point to do that right now I don't think. If conditions were different, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I don't think I'd ever get into a 150 as a regular, full-time aircraft after I got my ticket. I'd need a little more power and stability.

 

[denverpilot]

And nobody is recommending the 150 or 162? I've always believed that while the 150 is easier to fly than the 172, it's more difficult to fly well... which makes you a better pilot.

I don't recall the 150 being all that different to fly than the 172, other than it would spin better. Those two types just aren't that different, really, other than I don't fit in a 150 anymore. Haha.