C172 vs PA for Training Purposes.

ahh... the age old high wing vs. low wing question

you'll get as many varied opinions as there are airplanes and pilots
both are well suited for training
both have their idiosyncrasies

B

"Sushidot" <sushidot@> wrote in message
news:53fc23b4-f328-43ee-b1e6-220a0ff7f4d9@1g2000prg..com...
> Hello-
>
> Just wanted an opinion on the piper archer versus the Cessna 172 for
> training purposes. Is the piper a more stable aircraft...less prone
> to retriming, control inputs, etc? I talked to a student at my flight
> school who flew both and made the comment that the PA was more of a
> stable aircraft...i just wanted to check with the group and find out
> if anyone could relate to his comment and perhaps explain?
>
> Thanks
> SD

On Apr 28, 2:09 pm, Sushidot <sushi...@> wrote:
> Hello-
>
> Just wanted an opinion on the piper archer versus the Cessna 172 for
> training purposes.  Is the piper a more stable aircraft...less prone
> to retriming, control inputs, etc?  I talked to a student at my flight
> school who flew both and made the comment that the PA was more of a
> stable aircraft...i just wanted to check with the group and find out
> if anyone could relate to his comment and perhaps explain?
>
> Thanks
> SD

dont know about the Archer, but I did my primary training in a 150 ,
then changed to a Piper Warrior for the Nav training, and then once I
had my PPL I went to a different airfield and started flying the
172. in both cases the transition was almost a non event. The
biggest difference I found was the tendency of the warrior to want to
float forever, which I think might be related to ground effect on the
low wing? but I soon overcome that little problem by knocking a bit
off the approach speed. There is hardly any performance difference
between the Warrior and 172 in cruise , range and useful load. The
Archer has the extra 20 horses but I doubt that would make that much
difference, but prolly more expensive i would imagine.
Terry
PPL Downunder

On Apr 29, 2:13 am, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > The
> >biggest difference I found was the tendency of the warrior to want to
> >float forever, which I think might be related to ground effect on the
> >low wing?
>
>    I hear this a lot.
>
> >  but I soon overcome that little problem by knocking a bit
> >off the approach speed.  
>
>   Bingo! In any plane, excessive airspeed will cause float.  If you
> experience a lot of float, you're simply going too fast.

agreed. its one of my gripes about flight school, they rote learn you
to fly x speed on base and y on final. in my case I was told it had to
be 65 kts on final plus or minus nothing. worked half ok with an
instuctor on board, then you try to fly solo, Im not a big guy. Its
just too fast. Having said that I do believe the ground effect plays a
role as well.

On Apr 28, 3:46 pm, terry <tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

> agreed. its one of my gripes about flight school, they rote learn you
> to fly x speed on base and y on final. in my case I was told it had to
> be 65 kts on final plus or minus nothing. worked half ok with an
> instuctor on board, then you try to fly solo, Im not a big guy. Its
> just too fast. Having said that I do believe the ground effect plays a
> role as well.

That's only part of the problem. The speeds are OK, but most
instructors, and therefore most new PPLs, wait until they're two feet
off the runway before there's any pitch change. If you read the
manuals, you'll find that the standard procedure is to get the power
off and the nose up some at between 30 and 15 feet altitude so that
the thing starts to lose airspeed. As it sinks you raise the nose some
more. If it's done right you get to the surface with no surplus speed,
so there's no bounce and porpoise, no ballooning, no wheelbarrowing,
no endless rolling. Those four things break so many airplanes it's not
funny, and I don't know why current instructors can't teach proper
landing technique unless it's because they're terrified of a stall on
short final. They don't like that stall warning chirping a little
while still airborne. Going to die, they think. So they teach other
ways to break the airplane, like landing way too fast. Why don't they
take the thing up to altitude, apply flaps, get the 65 kt power-off
glide going, and start raising the nose and see just how long it takes
to actually stall? Oh, wait, we can't do stalls, either. Just approach-
to-a-stall so we don't die that way.
They should stick to golfing.

Dan

On Apr 29, 9:00 am, gatt <ad...@godhateskansas.com> wrote:
> st...@here.com wrote:
> > The Cherokee could be put into a full stall and you could still make
> > turns using the ailerons.
>
> Curious: would it be the -aileron- (ie, only the downward one, by
> deflection?)
>
> -c

It wouldn't be in a full stall if the ailerons were still effective.
Those rectangular wings stall at the roots first and work outward, but
the nose will drop some while doing so, reducing AOA, and the stall
might not reach the tips. The 172 will do the same thing, which makes
it hard to spin. The Warrior will do a gentle porpoising thing that it
calls a "stall" but it never really gets there. If the wing gets fully
stalled on an airplane there's not doubt that it has quit flying. You
cannot hold the nose up at all.

Dan

I learned to fly on 172s and then transitioned to an Archer, so I am
biased, but at the end of the day I like them both. But my question
is, when you speak of the Cherokee, you refer to Warriors
exclusively? I know some people who swear by the Tomahawk as an ab
intio trainer. While I personally have never flown in one, I hear
good things about them.

Euan Kilgour wrote:
> I learned to fly on 172s and then transitioned to an Archer, so I am
> biased, but at the end of the day I like them both. But my question
> is, when you speak of the Cherokee, you refer to Warriors
> exclusively? I know some people who swear by the Tomahawk as an ab
> intio trainer. While I personally have never flown in one, I hear
> good things about them.


Not me... I refer to every nonretractable Piper that shares that basic airframe
as a Cherokee... all of the PA-28s and PA-32s. I may also interchangably refer
to the AC by its model name, ie, Warrior, Archer, Dakota, Cherokee Six.

For whatever reason, I'm always more specific with the retracts.

Now, which do I like flying more? Equivalent model for equivalent model, I
don't really have a preference until you get into their higher performance
aircraft. I like a C-210 for speed and range but like the PA-32 series for the
comfort and load carrying capacity.

As for the Tomahawk, put one in a spin then turn around for a second and glance
at the tail. It'll scare the mess out of you.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.