Hello again. I met with my flight instructor today just to get some information. Now it's time to schedule a flight. The ideal plane for me would be the 09 DA40 with the G1000, but it is $35 more per hour more than either the 03 DA40 or 07 172. Therefore, I am flying the two latter planes and deciding which will be better for me. There are both the same price per hour.

2003 Diamond DA40 with: IFR/VFR Garmin 530W WAAS-certified GPS/NAV/COMGarmin 430 GPS/NAV/COMBendix/King KCS 55A Slaved HSIBendix/King KAP 140 Dual-Axis AutopilotGarmin GTX 327 Digital TransponderGarmin GMA 340 Audio PanelXM Weather Datalink (AKA: NOT GLASS)

2007 Cessna 172 with: IFR/VFR
Garmin 1000 Integrated Avionics System
Bendix King KAP 140 Dual-Axis Autopilot
XM Weather Datalink (AKA: Glass)

The reason for the choice here is the famous high vs. low wing debate. Also, the diamond tops out 10 knots faster. Any suggestions or opinions as to which I should go with? Again, I will be flying both to decide eventually. Is glass going to be more prevalent down the road and more expensive to transition then, rather than start with it now?

On Sep 4, 8:53*pm, gpick > wrote:
> Hello again. I met with my flight instructor today just to get some
> information. Now it's time to schedule a flight. The ideal plane for me
> would be the 09 DA40 with the G1000, but it is $35 more per hour more
> than either the 03 DA40 or 07 172. Therefore, I am flying the two latter
> planes and deciding which will be better for me. There are both the same
> price per hour.
>
> 2003 Diamond DA40 with: IFR/VFR Garmin 530W WAAS-certified
> GPS/NAV/COMGarmin 430 GPS/NAV/COMBendix/King KCS 55A Slaved
> HSIBendix/King KAP 140 Dual-Axis AutopilotGarmin GTX 327 Digital
> TransponderGarmin GMA 340 Audio PanelXM Weather Datalink (AKA: NOT
> GLASS)
>
> 2007 Cessna 172 with: IFR/VFR
> Garmin 1000 Integrated Avionics System
> Bendix King KAP 140 Dual-Axis Autopilot
> XM Weather Datalink (AKA: Glass)
>
> The reason for the choice here is the famous high vs. low wing debate.
> Also, the diamond tops out 10 knots faster. Any suggestions or opinions
> as to which I should go with? Again, I will be flying both to decide
> eventually. Is glass going to be more prevalent down the road and more
> expensive to transition then, rather than start with it now?
>
> --
> gpick

My observation is most general aviation careers, with the exception of
instructing and A&E, involve low winged airplanes. Never the less,
transitions from one to the other is simply not a big deal, so choose
what you like for primary training. Ground effect is more pronounced
in low wing.

You'll probably have to learn to fly behind conventional as well as
glass instrumentation, start with the less costly. The money ($35 an
hour?) you'll save before you move to glass will be more than the cost
of learning glass later when you move on to your instrument rating.
Keep things simple during primary training.

On Sep 4, 8:53*pm, gpick > wrote:
> Hello again. I met with my flight instructor today just to get some
> information. Now it's time to schedule a flight. The ideal plane for me
> would be the 09 DA40 with the G1000, but it is $35 more per hour more
> than either the 03 DA40 or 07 172. Therefore, I am flying the two latter
> planes and deciding which will be better for me. There are both the same
> price per hour.
>
> 2003 Diamond DA40 with: IFR/VFR Garmin 530W WAAS-certified
> GPS/NAV/COMGarmin 430 GPS/NAV/COMBendix/King KCS 55A Slaved
> HSIBendix/King KAP 140 Dual-Axis AutopilotGarmin GTX 327 Digital
> TransponderGarmin GMA 340 Audio PanelXM Weather Datalink (AKA: NOT
> GLASS)
>
> 2007 Cessna 172 with: IFR/VFR
> Garmin 1000 Integrated Avionics System
> Bendix King KAP 140 Dual-Axis Autopilot
> XM Weather Datalink (AKA: Glass)
>
> The reason for the choice here is the famous high vs. low wing debate.
> Also, the diamond tops out 10 knots faster. Any suggestions or opinions
> as to which I should go with? Again, I will be flying both to decide
> eventually. Is glass going to be more prevalent down the road and more
> expensive to transition then, rather than start with it now?
>
> --
> gpick

Transition into either high or low wing from the other should be a
minimum time checkout. Familiarization with glass is the future for
pilots either flying professionally or for pleasure.
Dudley Henriques

"gpick" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hello again. I met with my flight instructor today just to get some
> information.
> The reason for the choice here is the famous high vs. low wing debate.
> Also, the diamond tops out 10 knots faster. Any suggestions or opinions
> as to which I should go with? Again, I will be flying both to decide
> eventually. Is glass going to be more prevalent down the road and more
> expensive to transition then, rather than start with it now?

Since you haven't told us anything about yourself, and especially what type of
flying you plan to do in the future, how can we possibly give you a meaningful
answer?

If you think you may want to own an airplane but have a limited budget, then the
plane you buy will be unlikely to have a glass panel. Therefore, you may want
to train with "steam gauge" instruments..

If you are seeking the "fast track" to the front seat of an airliner, perhaps
you want to start with glass; but perhaps not, because you may find yourself
instructing in simple aircraft along the way.

There really is no 100% right answer. I see a day when pilots who have never
flown a "steam gauge" panel will be seen in the same light as those who have
never flown a tailwheel.

Vaughn

Fly what ever you find most comfortable. The differences between are pretty
minor in the grand scheme of things.

I would point out that all three of the aircraft you mention have the
tailwheel on the wrong end. But, with any luck, you will overcome that
handicap some day.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

My observation is most general aviation careers, with the exception of
instructing and A&E, involve low winged airplanes. Never the less,
transitions from one to the other is simply not a big deal, so choose
what you like for primary training. Ground effect is more pronounced
in low wing.

You'll probably have to learn to fly behind conventional as well as
glass instrumentation, start with the less costly. The money ($35 an
hour?) you'll save before you move to glass will be more than the cost
of learning glass later when you move on to your instrument rating.
Keep things simple during primary training.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear, but the DA40 with the glass was the aircraft that was $35 more per hour. The 172 with the glass is actually $5
cheaper than the DA40 without glass. That's why I think it would be more expensive later if I didn't do the $5 cheaper glass setup.

My observation is most general aviation careers, with the exception of
instructing and A&E, involve low winged airplanes. Never the less,
transitions from one to the other is simply not a big deal, so choose
what you like for primary training. Ground effect is more pronounced
in low wing.

You'll probably have to learn to fly behind conventional as well as
glass instrumentation, start with the less costly. The money ($35 an
hour?) you'll save before you move to glass will be more than the cost
of learning glass later when you move on to your instrument rating.
Keep things simple during primary training.

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear, but the DA40 with the glass was the aircraft that was $35 more per hour. The 172 with the glass is actually $5
cheaper than the DA40 without glass. That's why I think it would be more expensive later if I didn't do the $5 cheaper glass setup.[/QUOTE]

;739837']"gpick" wrote in message
...

Hello again. I met with my flight instructor today just to get some
information.
The reason for the choice here is the famous high vs. low wing debate.
Also, the diamond tops out 10 knots faster. Any suggestions or opinions
as to which I should go with? Again, I will be flying both to decide
eventually. Is glass going to be more prevalent down the road and more
expensive to transition then, rather than start with it now?

Since you haven't told us anything about yourself, and especially what type of
flying you plan to do in the future, how can we possibly give you a meaningful
answer?

If you think you may want to own an airplane but have a limited budget, then the
plane you buy will be unlikely to have a glass panel. Therefore, you may want
to train with "steam gauge" instruments..

If you are seeking the "fast track" to the front seat of an airliner, perhaps
you want to start with glass; but perhaps not, because you may find yourself
instructing in simple aircraft along the way.

There really is no 100% right answer. I see a day when pilots who have never
flown a "steam gauge" panel will be seen in the same light as those who have
never flown a tailwheel.

Vaughn

Sorry Vaughn, I recently posted on this site and assumed it would be the same people answering most likely. I am 16 and just started flight training. I have not yet chosen which aircraft I'm going to stick with. I fly in the 172 on wednesday and the da40 on friday. I hope to have a career in aviation rather than just a hobby which is why I am considering the 172 at all. For the glass panel.

Even if I do learn on the G1000, will it help me in the future? Will the panels not just be outdated and I'll have to learn a completely new setup down the road anyway? Or will it perhaps give me at least a basic knowledge on glass panels in general?

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote

> I would point out that all three of the aircraft you mention have the
> tailwheel on the wrong end. But, with any luck, you will overcome that
> handicap some day.
>
> --
> Geoff

Right! Here's the low wing I transitioned to from the high wing Piper J3.
Tail draggers rule. <grin>

<http://www.warbirdalley.com/bt13.htm>

"sambodidley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote
>
>> I would point out that all three of the aircraft you mention have the
>> tailwheel on the wrong end. But, with any luck, you will overcome that
>> handicap some day.
>>
>> --
>> Geoff
>
> Right! Here's the low wing I transitioned to from the high wing Piper
> J3. Tail draggers rule. <grin>
>
> <http://www.warbirdalley.com/bt13.htm>

Now THAT's a transition.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote

I would point out that all three of the aircraft you mention have the
tailwheel on the wrong end. But, with any luck, you will overcome that
handicap some day.

--
Geoff

Right! Here's the low wing I transitioned to from the high wing Piper J3.
Tail draggers rule. grin

http://www.warbirdalley.com/bt13.htm

Sorry about the tail wheel. I'm one of those new age kinda guys. But I do hope to fly some aerobatics one of these days. So I guess I'll have to learn at one point or another. haha

"gpick" > wrote in message
...
>
> sambodidley;739850 Wrote:
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote
>> -
>> I would point out that all three of the aircraft you mention have the
>> tailwheel on the wrong end. But, with any luck, you will overcome that
>>
>> handicap some day.
>>
>> --
>> Geoff-
>>
>> Right! Here's the low wing I transitioned to from the high wing Piper
>> J3.
>> Tail draggers rule. grin
>>
>> http://www.warbirdalley.com/bt13.htm
>
> Sorry about the tail wheel. I'm one of those new age kinda guys. But I
> do hope to fly some aerobatics one of these days. So I guess I'll have
> to learn at one point or another. haha
>
>
>
>
> --
> gpick

Didn't mean to hilack your thread. I haven't flown lot the newer aircraft
so I guess we are even on that.<grin>

On Sep 4, 8:53*pm, gpick > wrote:
> Hello again. I met with my flight instructor today just to get some
> information. Now it's time to schedule a flight. The ideal plane for me
> would be the 09 DA40 with the G1000, but it is $35 more per hour more
> than either the 03 DA40 or 07 172. Therefore, I am flying the two latter
> planes and deciding which will be better for me. There are both the same
> price per hour.
>
> 2003 Diamond DA40 with: IFR/VFR Garmin 530W WAAS-certified
> GPS/NAV/COMGarmin 430 GPS/NAV/COMBendix/King KCS 55A Slaved
> HSIBendix/King KAP 140 Dual-Axis AutopilotGarmin GTX 327 Digital
> TransponderGarmin GMA 340 Audio PanelXM Weather Datalink (AKA: NOT
> GLASS)
>
> 2007 Cessna 172 with: IFR/VFR
> Garmin 1000 Integrated Avionics System
> Bendix King KAP 140 Dual-Axis Autopilot
> XM Weather Datalink (AKA: Glass)
>
> The reason for the choice here is the famous high vs. low wing debate.
> Also, the diamond tops out 10 knots faster. Any suggestions or opinions
> as to which I should go with? Again, I will be flying both to decide
> eventually. Is glass going to be more prevalent down the road and more
> expensive to transition then, rather than start with it now?
>
> --
> gpick

You should be knowledgeable about both glass and
conventional instruments, however I wouldn't make either
the deciding factor in which plane to rent. Rent the plane
you can afford and learn about instrumentation from
multiple sources...many of which are free.

---
Mark