Which aircraft is better to learn with?

J

jacey

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
2
Location
Charlotte, NC
Display Name
Display name:
Jacey
I know that a lot of pilots initially learned to fly on C-150-152's. I am wondering if learning on a C 172 is expecting too much from a brand new aviator, with no experience? I would like all of your honest opinions. Thanks:dunno:
 
Same same as far as the flying goes,the reason most people use a 150/152 is because it's cheaper. It's no more difficult to learn in a 172, and I'd give even odds that you'd learn just as well in a Bonanza; the extra systems time to learn is nicely offset by the reduction in time to get landings down.

There are few aircraft that are actually difficult to fly.
 
Henning said:
There are few aircraft that are actually difficult to fly.
Click to expand...

Correct, most planes work the same. Push the black knob in and the houses get smaller, pull the black knob out and the houses get big again.
 
Jacey, I got your PM, but you're not accepting them for some reason.

The answer is, you don't need any prerequisite aeronautical knowledge. The system works best when you do your reading and studying concurrently with flying. If you read all the material before you start, 2/3rds of it won't make complete sense as you don't have the physical experience to understand what they're talking about.

Just go to the airport and and start flying.
 
The best training airplane is the one you can afford.
 
For me a C152 was much more challenging than a C172. In that I'm not a small guy, and my CFI was a heavy guy. The damn thing wouldn't climb and it like being inside a telephone booth with an inflated weather balloon.

As stated, an airplane is an airplane. And Henning is right, you -could- start out in a Bonanza if you wanted to. Back when JAL had their training facility at the Napa County airport, they did exactly that. Shipped geeky assed Japanese dudes with no flight experience whatsoever by the busload to California, and stuck them their fleet of A36's. They stayed there through their multi commercial.
 
I trained in a 172. I've never flown a 150/152, but I hear people complain about usable load with 2 guys in the front. The 150/152 should be a good bit cheaper to use for training though.
 
Its whatever you prefer. The 150/2 will probably be cheaper than a 172. The 150/2 is slower and can carry less weight than the 172. You'll do fine in either one. There a primary students at the school I'm at that start in an SR-22. Its all about preference
 
jacey said:
I know that a lot of pilots initially learned to fly on C-150-152's. I am wondering if learning on a C 172 is expecting too much from a brand new aviator, with no experience? I would like all of your honest opinions. Thanks:dunno:
Click to expand...

172 is probably easier to fly if we're measuring with a microscope.

It's heavier and will handle a cross wind better, doesn't stall as aggressivly as a 150. It also has more HP which can bail you out. i.e. a go around in a 150 with full flaps isnt something I'd want to be doing.

Though a Bonanza is by far the easiest plane to land (and look good doing it) that I've flown. :D
 
Never been in a 150/152. I trained in a 172. It is a very gentle airplane not difficult to stay ahead of it.
 
It's actually easier in a 152. You'll learn more about operating it at the max of its envelope. If you do learn in a 172, do at least one lesson with some ballast (human or otherwise) to bring the plane up to the gross weight. A 152 at gross out performs a 172 at gross.
 
Pretty much any airplane with one prop makes a decent learning platform. Even if it has a constant speed prop, retractible gear, cowl flaps, etc.

The other variable is cost. I doubt you'll do much training in a PC-12 or a Mustang, for that reason. 172s are more expensive than 150/152s, but not by a lot. And if you and your instructor are both medium to large, it may be your only option. I could just barely fly a 152 with a 120 lb instructor….and I'm not THAT big.
 
Having a good instructor is far more important that whether you learn in a 150/152 or 172. There may be good reasons why a 172 is preferable (like the weight of the trainee or instructor or both, high elevation training base, etc), but the 172 is just as simple to operate as the 150/152 (other than having Left and Right options on the fuel selector in addition to the BOTH position normally used all the time anyway). For those reasons, I wouldn't say that having a new trainee learn in a 172 as opposed to a 150/152 is "expecting too much". If fact, I would say it's not expecting anything different at all, either more or less.
 
Hi Jacey. Welcome to the Blue Board! :).

More people train in a C-172 these days, primarily due (I think) to the increased weight and size of the "average" American over the past few decades. It does cost more in a C-172 though, so keep that in mind. I have flown both of them quite a bit, and no, it is not expecting too much for a new aviator to be in a C-172. The C-172 is heavier on the controls, but still not exceedingly heavy. A C-150 and C-172 (as others have said) fly almost identically. On most C-172's, the glare shield is higher, which sometimes makes it a little more difficult for students of shorter stature to see over it. If your funds are tight, try to use the C-150 if it works for you and your instructor, size-wise. You can save some money. Transitioning later (if you want) to a C-172 is a non-event.
 
I researched this same question and after speaking with some instructors and pilots, I decided to train on the C172. Although the 150/2 is cheaper, the 172 will be more useful at higher weights, and the horsepower will be important so your en route time to a neighboring airport isn't so long. I'm happy with my decision since 172s are a little bit more comfortable for those $100 hamburger flights!
 
flyingron said:
It's actually easier in a 152. You'll learn more about operating it at the max of its envelope. If you do learn in a 172, do at least one lesson with some ballast (human or otherwise) to bring the plane up to the gross weight. A 152 at gross out performs a 172 at gross.
Click to expand...

I miss having a 150. If it would fit in a small T hangar with beside a 172/182/177, I'd want another one.
 
This fellow doesn't do too bad operating at the max. Try Mississippi delta crop duster video. Stearman might be a good choice!
 
Planes don't matter that much, as others have already said. The C-152 is an excellent trainer--actually a nice flying aircraft--and is inexpensive to operate. I got some training in a C-172, C-15x Aerobat, Citabria, Aeronca Champ, and a Cherokee 140, in addition to the C-152. They more or less fly the same. (The Citabria could do some cool extra stuff, though.) The C-152 was fine, and I did the majority of training in it.. I have only flown Grummans since, and they are pretty much the same, too. Fly by the POH, and all is well. Where folks get into trouble is not knowing the proper numbers for a particular aircraft. You can't land a Traveler the same speed as a Cessna, but if you fly the numbers, they do much the same thing. There may be some value in flying some different aircraft as you get along in training. Plus it's fun to transfer skills to a new situation.
 
jacey said:
I know that a lot of pilots initially learned to fly on C-150-152's. I am wondering if learning on a C 172 is expecting too much from a brand new aviator, with no experience? I would like all of your honest opinions. Thanks:dunno:
Click to expand...

Local flight school uses C-172 L and N models. No problems for teaching or for the student.

C-150/152 are anemic in summers due to high density altitude.
 
jacey said:
I know that a lot of pilots initially learned to fly on C-150-152's. I am wondering if learning on a C 172 is expecting too much from a brand new aviator, with no experience? I would like all of your honest opinions. Thanks:dunno:
Click to expand...

I learned in two 172's, because that's w hat the flight school had. No problem. Go for it!!
 
In defense of the 152 with what C'Ron says. I learned in a 152 at BJC (NE suburb of Denver). My instructor wasn't a lightweight either (though I was lighter in those days). This led the tower to inquire on my first solo if it didn't fly a lot better without the fat guy in the right seat.

Of course, this led to an odd omission in my training. Shortly after getting my certificate, I moved back to an airport that had a field elevation of 50' and stepped up to a Cherokee 180. About ten minutes into the flight the instructor inquired if I ever intended to power back. "Now that's an interesting concept," I said. In Denver, the black knob goes to the panel when you commence the takeoff roll and stays there until you are abeam the numbers on downwind.
 
My school has a nice fleet with multiple 172s and 152s and they are both great trainers and I'm sure you'd be fine in either. That said, the 152 does require more rudder use and is a bit less stable in turbulence and tends to drop a wing more aggressively in a stall (if your uncoordinated). The 172 is more stable and certainly not asking too much of a new student and is also a great airplane. I would say fly both if you can and go from there.

Good luck!

***I train in the 152 so it's possible I'm biased but I do have time in both***
 
In my opinion, and experience it's much more difficult to make a big wing, low power aircraft such as a Cessna hit the spot in the sky or the ground that you intend then when driving something with more power and performance. I kind of dread BFR time when I have to use a big wallowing wounded cow 172 to prove to some CFI kid I haven't forgotten how to aviate. And some may suggest I have, at least that type of plane. Thinking back to the first time I got instruction in an Arrow, in my young mind, gear up and we were headed to the flight levels! Some time later I went in partners on old 69 Aztec.. thought I'd gone to heaven compared to the 152 ballast stone that got sold to help pay for my share. Yea like most other pilots the first 5 or 6 pages of my logbook are all 152, 172 and pa28-140 entries under equipment. But if one could turn back time and do it again (and could afford it) I'd surely love to use something with more power and performance. Why not learn to learn to fly in something more similar to you will end up flying? -end of rant-
 
N321SR said:
In my opinion, and experience it's much more difficult to make a big wing, low power aircraft such as a Cessna hit the spot in the sky or the ground that you intend then when driving something with more power and performance. I kind of dread BFR time when I have to use a big wallowing wounded cow 172 to prove to some CFI kid I haven't forgotten how to aviate. And some may suggest I have, at least that type of plane. Thinking back to the first time I got instruction in an Arrow, in my young mind, gear up and we were headed to the flight levels! Some time later I went in partners on old 69 Aztec.. thought I'd gone to heaven compared to the 152 ballast stone that got sold to help pay for my share. Yea like most other pilots the first 5 or 6 pages of my logbook are all 152, 172 and pa28-140 entries under equipment. But if one could turn back time and do it again (and could afford it) I'd surely love to use something with more power and performance. Why not learn to learn to fly in something more similar to you will end up flying? -end of rant-
Click to expand...


:yes::yes:

after 5 years of not touching a 172 and several hundred of hours flying an sr22t and other airplanes I had a tough time flying the Cessna. I was basically learning to land again. That bad it was.
 
If you are a bigger person the 150/152 will be a tight fit. I'd go for the 172 or Piper Archer as they are more comfortable.
 
Most students find the Pipers to be a bit easier to land and control on the ground. I learned in a raggedy old 172 and it got the job done. I think you'll be fine with any of the entry level aircraft.
 
Doesnt really matter a whole lot, mostly depends on your size. I was also in your same situation. I am a pretty small guy you could say. 6' 0" about 140 lbs (17 yrs) so i can fit into a 152 fine, however it can be tight, especially with an instructor. I would suggest you sit in both with an instructor and see what you think. Both will do the same thing and thats teach you to fly, but the cost is the biggest thing when looking at the two and the 152 will almost if not always be cheaper than the 172 per hour. But again, both do the same thing, so sit in both and see which one you like better! Good luck!
 
Doesn't matter which for training, both are good platforms, and strive to get lessons in both, so you learn how to fly with different numbers, instruments, sight pictures, speeds, sounds, etc. Makes you progress toward being more comfortable.

And, in all honesty, when by yourself, the 150 is a fun plane for making airplane noises in the sky. Get signed off in both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top