Change training aircraft? C172* vs. PA28-*

[Metavalent]

Hi,

I am just finishing solo phase and have a long journey ahead. My
training waypoints are (god willing!) Private, IFR, and perhaps
Commercial and even CFI if I can keep building the skills and financing
the habit long enough to get on the other side of the checkbook. :)

Bottom line for now is that I am fast realizing the costs of getting
started and I wonder if it might be more efficient to switch from the
C172SP, which I love, but it is a little price; to a PA28-161 or 181.
The wet rates are generally quite a bit lower, at least at my home base,
and a couple of CFI's have mentioned that you can get more bang for your
buck in these airplanes.

For example, I've read:
---
What is your favorite aircraft to instruct in?
Reliable, and forgiving aircraft. Basic trainers are: C-152, C172,
PA28-161, PA28-181. Remember the best combination for learning: Newer
aircraft and more experienced instructor. Older aircraft and newer
instructors are both riskier, in general.

What are your aircraft recommendations for a new student?
My own perspective: C-152 -- money saver(if your weigh less than
160lbs); PA28-161 or 181 -- least hours to get your Private Pilot
Certificate; C-172SP -- pricey, but new and nicely equipped; SR22 --
more expensive, but you get cutting edge technology and performance.
---

I have always had a fascination for low-wing airplanes, but what is the
consensus about a student switching during the post-solo, pre-cross
country stage of training? It is certainly wisest to solo in the plane
that one learns to fly sufficiently well to pass the solo phase checks;
however, I want to maximize the number of hours I am able to fly while
keeping costs reasonable, moving forward. Will I truly get more mileage
for my training dollar by changing now?

It would also be nice to learn the contemporary avionics at the same
time, which is one huge advantage of the 172SP's I have been flying.
The questions are, can these objectives be better (more cost
effectively) achieved in a 161 or 181? What are your thoughts on
cross-training or changing airplanes after solo but prior to that first
private certificate? Of course, if changing now would diminish the
development of the most proficient skills, it would not be worth any
cost savings, but I thought I would ask what others think before moving
forward from here.

Thank you in advance for any advice that you might have time to share.

[Blanche Cohen]

Learn the latest & greatest avionics after you've learned to fly.

One big advantage of the low wing is being able to see the runway
during the turns in the pattern.

Just about everything else is a religious discussion.

[[email protected]]

On 21 Feb 2005 07:15:48 GMT, (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

>Learn the latest & greatest avionics after you've learned to fly.
>
>One big advantage of the low wing is being able to see the runway
>during the turns in the pattern.
>
>Just about everything else is a religious discussion.

I trained on C150/152 then checked out in a C172 (not the latest :-) )
and found it required more force to hold up the nose on landing.
I now add 'slight' nose up trim just before the flare if I'm renting a
C172.

Mostly I fly a PA28 and find the low wing gives slight cushioning so
it can help make the landing softer. The nose is lower so just pitch
the to the end of the runway but make sure you don't land on the nose
wheel....!

It's the old argument again but my wife prefers the low wing. You keep
dry with the high wing but it's easier to climb into the low wing.
With the C172 you need to lift the wing slightly, before turning, to
check it's clear. With the low wing you're slightly blind to aircraft
under the wing.

I'd go for the cheapest.

David

[Blueskies]

"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message ...
> Learn the latest & greatest avionics after you've learned to fly.
>
> One big advantage of the low wing is being able to see the runway
> during the turns in the pattern.
>
> Just about everything else is a religious discussion.
>

One big advantage of the high wing is being able to see folks on long final during turns in the pattern...no religion
here ;-)

[OtisWinslow]

Just learn to fly and get your PPL. Fly what's cheap. You can
learn the fancy stuff as you work on your IR.


"Metavalent" > wrote in message
.verio.net...
> Hi,
>
> I am just finishing solo phase and have a long journey ahead. My training
> waypoints are (god willing!) Private, IFR, and perhaps Commercial and even
> CFI if I can keep building the skills and financing the habit long enough
> to get on the other side of the checkbook. :)
>
> Bottom line for now is that I am fast realizing the costs of getting
> started and I wonder if it might be more efficient to switch from the
> C172SP, which I love, but it is a little price; to a PA28-161 or 181. The
> wet rates are generally quite a bit lower, at least at my home base, and a
> couple of CFI's have mentioned that you can get more bang for your buck in
> these airplanes.
>
> For example, I've read:
> ---
> What is your favorite aircraft to instruct in?
> Reliable, and forgiving aircraft. Basic trainers are: C-152, C172,
> PA28-161, PA28-181. Remember the best combination for learning: Newer
> aircraft and more experienced instructor. Older aircraft and newer
> instructors are both riskier, in general.
>
> What are your aircraft recommendations for a new student?
> My own perspective: C-152 -- money saver(if your weigh less than 160lbs);
> PA28-161 or 181 -- least hours to get your Private Pilot Certificate;
> C-172SP -- pricey, but new and nicely equipped; SR22 --
> more expensive, but you get cutting edge technology and performance.
> ---
>
> I have always had a fascination for low-wing airplanes, but what is the
> consensus about a student switching during the post-solo, pre-cross
> country stage of training? It is certainly wisest to solo in the plane
> that one learns to fly sufficiently well to pass the solo phase checks;
> however, I want to maximize the number of hours I am able to fly while
> keeping costs reasonable, moving forward. Will I truly get more mileage
> for my training dollar by changing now?
>
> It would also be nice to learn the contemporary avionics at the same time,
> which is one huge advantage of the 172SP's I have been flying. The
> questions are, can these objectives be better (more cost effectively)
> achieved in a 161 or 181? What are your thoughts on cross-training or
> changing airplanes after solo but prior to that first private certificate?
> Of course, if changing now would diminish the development of the most
> proficient skills, it would not be worth any cost savings, but I thought I
> would ask what others think before moving forward from here.
>
> Thank you in advance for any advice that you might have time to share.
>

[Steve.T]

Do yourself a favor and finish your Private in the plane you soloed in.
Remember, your solo sign-off is a type rating! That means you will have
to be signed off for solo for each type of aircraft you will fly. C150
and C152 require a sign-off for each.

Once you have your PP certificate, then you can get checked out and fly
any other single engine aircraft.

Meanwhile, if you change over to a Piper Cherokee, you will have to
deal with fuel management, IN FLIGHT. You have to turn on/off a fuel
pump in the pattern, switching of tanks (can't select both, only left
or right or off). And you will have to re-learn to taxi and what the
sight picture is for landing.

Switching between a C150 and a C152 is pretty easy and I did that
during my training (and had to get a sign-off for both aircraft for
solo). I much preferred the C152 and took the check ride in it.

BTW - I own a PA28-180 today. When I bought it, I had about 200 hours
in Cessna hi-wings. Transition to the low wing Piper, in my opinion,
would have cost me another 5 hours minimum (for solo). Today I have
over 130 hours in the PA28, done in 18 months (the first 100 were done
in 7 months, but here in OH with all the nice winter weather and the
annual from hell...).

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[[email protected]]

I did 99% of my private training in C172Ns ( with 1 flight in an SP
when all the N models were in the shop ). Even a change between old and
new cessnas had a huge difference on feel. Besides different numbers,
the new 172s feel more slippery and float a bit more, control feels are
lighter and have different systems and definitely new avionics. In my
opinion, you got plenty of other stuff to worry about during private
training than learning a new aircraft. As for avionics, learn to fly
the plane, learning to fiddle with the GPS can be saved for later. For
saving money though, if you're still at that early of a stage, if you
don't mind spending a lesson or 2 just to acustom yourself to a new
plane, it probably will save you dough in the long run.
These days, I fly our club's 78 archer II almost exclusively and I love
it. I got my archer II checkout a few months after I got my private.
Price wise, it's between the old 172s and the new 172s. It's faster
which is a plus for cross countries, in fact you get more dollars to
the mile than an old cessna at my club's rates. After flying low wings,
you'll never wanna fly a high wing again. Also, I much prefer the
mechanical over electric flaps. At my club at least, the pipers are in
way better shape and available more often than the old cessnas because
less student pilots fly them. As for training ( compared to old 172s at
least ), the archer is a tad less forgiving ( but still not hard ). The
flaps are way less dramatic than cessna barn doors. You need to watch
the airspeed a bit more. They float more in the flare. The controls are
a bit lighter. Piper I think calls it a "personal" aircraft not a
trainer. Also, I beat up the 172s pretty bad during training with some
really really bad landings and it took it just fine, I wouldn't be as
confident that a piper would take a student pilot's landing on a bad
day.

My opinion on planes:
old 172s: very forgiving, good for training, reasonably priced
152s: never flown em ( I'm too fat at 200 lbs :-( )
new 172s: spend the extra money (probably less for an old one) flying
an archer instead
old archers: good for cross country but old 172s are preferable for
training

hope ( but not sure :-) ) that helps, good luck
Omri

Metavalent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am just finishing solo phase and have a long journey ahead. My
> training waypoints are (god willing!) Private, IFR, and perhaps
> Commercial and even CFI if I can keep building the skills and
financing
> the habit long enough to get on the other side of the checkbook. :)
>
> Bottom line for now is that I am fast realizing the costs of getting
> started and I wonder if it might be more efficient to switch from the

> C172SP, which I love, but it is a little price; to a PA28-161 or 181.

> The wet rates are generally quite a bit lower, at least at my home
base,
> and a couple of CFI's have mentioned that you can get more bang for
your
> buck in these airplanes.
>
> For example, I've read:
> ---
> What is your favorite aircraft to instruct in?
> Reliable, and forgiving aircraft. Basic trainers are: C-152, C172,
> PA28-161, PA28-181. Remember the best combination for learning: Newer

> aircraft and more experienced instructor. Older aircraft and newer
> instructors are both riskier, in general.
>
> What are your aircraft recommendations for a new student?
> My own perspective: C-152 -- money saver(if your weigh less than
> 160lbs); PA28-161 or 181 -- least hours to get your Private Pilot
> Certificate; C-172SP -- pricey, but new and nicely equipped; SR22 --
> more expensive, but you get cutting edge technology and performance.
> ---
>
> I have always had a fascination for low-wing airplanes, but what is
the
> consensus about a student switching during the post-solo, pre-cross
> country stage of training? It is certainly wisest to solo in the
plane
> that one learns to fly sufficiently well to pass the solo phase
checks;
> however, I want to maximize the number of hours I am able to fly
while
> keeping costs reasonable, moving forward. Will I truly get more
mileage
> for my training dollar by changing now?
>
> It would also be nice to learn the contemporary avionics at the same
> time, which is one huge advantage of the 172SP's I have been flying.
> The questions are, can these objectives be better (more cost
> effectively) achieved in a 161 or 181? What are your thoughts on
> cross-training or changing airplanes after solo but prior to that
first
> private certificate? Of course, if changing now would diminish the
> development of the most proficient skills, it would not be worth any
> cost savings, but I thought I would ask what others think before
moving
> forward from here.
>
> Thank you in advance for any advice that you might have time to
share.

[[email protected]]

I did 99% of my private training in C172Ns ( with 1 flight in an SP
when all the N models were in the shop ). Even a change between old and
new cessnas had a huge difference on feel. Besides different numbers,
the new 172s feel more slippery and float a bit more, control feels are
lighter and have different systems and definitely new avionics. In my
opinion, you got plenty of other stuff to worry about during private
training than learning a new aircraft. As for avionics, learn to fly
the plane, learning to fiddle with the GPS can be saved for later. For
saving money though, if you're still at that early of a stage, if you
don't mind spending a lesson or 2 just to acustom yourself to a new
plane, it probably will save you dough in the long run.
These days, I fly our club's 78 archer II almost exclusively and I love
it. I got my archer II checkout a few months after I got my private.
Price wise, it's between the old 172s and the new 172s. It's faster
which is a plus for cross countries, in fact you get more dollars to
the mile than an old cessna at my club's rates. After flying low wings,
you'll never wanna fly a high wing again. Also, I much prefer the
mechanical over electric flaps. At my club at least, the pipers are in
way better shape and available more often than the old cessnas because
less student pilots fly them. As for training ( compared to old 172s at
least ), the archer is a tad less forgiving ( but still not hard ). The
flaps are way less dramatic than cessna barn doors. You need to watch
the airspeed a bit more. They float more in the flare. The controls are
a bit lighter. Piper I think calls it a "personal" aircraft not a
trainer. Also, I beat up the 172s pretty bad during training with some
really really bad landings and it took it just fine, I wouldn't be as
confident that a piper would take a student pilot's landing on a bad
day.

My opinion on planes:
old 172s: very forgiving, good for training, reasonably priced
152s: never flown em ( I'm too fat at 200 lbs :-( )
new 172s: spend the extra money (probably less for an old one) flying
an archer instead
old archers: good for cross country but old 172s are preferable for
training

hope ( but not sure :-) ) that helps, good luck
Omri

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
wrote:

> I trained on C150/152 then checked out in a C172 (not the latest :-) )
> and found it required more force to hold up the nose on landing.
> I now add 'slight' nose up trim just before the flare if I'm renting a
> C172.

The effect is even more pronounced on a 182, but I came to the
conclusion that trimming nose high is a Really Bad Idea because if you
have to go around you have to push the over pretty hard in order to
avoid a power on stall. If you forget, you're dead. Better to get a
set of weights and do curls so that you have the strength to pull the
yoke back hard enough to flare. IMHO.

As for the original question, again IMO, you'll get done faster if you
stick with what you started with. Other than that it doesn't really
matter, and if you're headed for more advanced training you'll want to
fly both types sooner or later anyway.

rg

[BTIZ]

> One big advantage of the low wing is being able to see the runway
> during the turns in the pattern.

One "Dis" advantage.. is its harder to check final for that guy doing a long
straight in approach, while turning .. the up wing is in the way..

both have pros and cons.. and both have taught many a pilot to fly safely..

BT

[BTIZ]

"Steve.T" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Do yourself a favor and finish your Private in the plane you soloed in.
> Remember, your solo sign-off is a type rating! That means you will have
> to be signed off for solo for each type of aircraft you will fly. C150
> and C152 require a sign-off for each.
>

Single Engine Land below 12,500 lbs MaxGW do not require "type ratings".

Only insurance companies require " insurance signoffs" to fly different
models of aircraft...
Not the FARs... (at least in US) .. most sign offs for small fixed gear
trainers can be completed within one hour by a competent pilot and CFI.
Transition checkouts to "complex" or "high performance" SEL aircraft will
require additional training.

BT

[nrp]

Either way (hi or low wing) be sure you get experience with aft CG.
The 172 elevator forces really go down with aft CG. Actually 172s
handle better with rearward CG, and the worst handling is full fuel and
two in front only. I suspect Cherokees would be the same way.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Metavalent" > wrote in message
.verio.net...

> What are your aircraft recommendations for a new student?
> My own perspective: C-152 -- money saver(if your weigh less than
> 160lbs); PA28-161 or 181 -- least hours to get your Private Pilot
> Certificate; C-172SP -- pricey, but new and nicely equipped; SR22 --
> more expensive, but you get cutting edge technology and performance.

I trained in Warriors and switched to a 172N after getting my license. I
found the Warrior easier overall, particularly in crosswinds. The Warrior is
less sensitive in pitch and has less adverse yaw, so it doesn't force you to
learn to use the rudder as much. However, both are fairly tame and the
performance envelope is similar enough that switching wont be too
challenging.

If you switch, you may spend 5 or more hours re-developing your feel for the
plane. Figure that as a cost versus sticking with the 172SP.

Personally, if I ran the world, I would strip every piece of avionics out of
primary trainers except for a transponder and com radio. Airspeed,
altimeter, and tachometer are the only instruments you need to be learning
about at this stage.

-cwk.

[Blanche Cohen]

BTIZ > wrote:
>"Steve.T" > wrote in message
>> Do yourself a favor and finish your Private in the plane you soloed in.
>> Remember, your solo sign-off is a type rating! That means you will have
>> to be signed off for solo for each type of aircraft you will fly. C150
>> and C152 require a sign-off for each.
>
>Single Engine Land below 12,500 lbs MaxGW do not require "type ratings".
>
>Only insurance companies require " insurance signoffs" to fly different
>models of aircraft...
>Not the FARs... (at least in US) .. most sign offs for small fixed gear
>trainers can be completed within one hour by a competent pilot and CFI.
>Transition checkouts to "complex" or "high performance" SEL aircraft will
>require additional training.

I think what Steve was referring to is student pilot limitations. I solo'd
in a C172 and did both my x-countries in the C172. I bought the PA28
before I completed training. That meant the CFI had to approve
me for solo in the PA28. A couple hours more training then
he signed me off. In the back of my logbook there's a section on
Endorsements. The first solo endorsement reads

"...is competent to make safe solo flights in a Cessna 172 only with
prior knowledge and consent..."

The second endorsement reads

"...is competent to make safe solo flights in a PA28A and C172 in
winds less than 15 kts..."

The second one was when I was allowed to go other places, too.

Yes, fuel management is different. On the other hand, if electricity
fails, the manual flaps still work just fine.

As I said, for most differences, it's really just a religious
(or political) issue.

[BTIZ]

Ok... that makes more sense... but it is not a "type rating"....

We do the same here with our students.. most make their first solo in the
SGS 2-33A, two seats..
then we cut them loose solo in the SGS 1-26D, single seat.. cockpit check
and a sign off..

standard wording about an instructor on the field with knowledge of the
students intent

BT

"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ > wrote:
>>"Steve.T" > wrote in message
>>> Do yourself a favor and finish your Private in the plane you soloed in.
>>> Remember, your solo sign-off is a type rating! That means you will have
>>> to be signed off for solo for each type of aircraft you will fly. C150
>>> and C152 require a sign-off for each.
>>
>>Single Engine Land below 12,500 lbs MaxGW do not require "type ratings".
>>
>>Only insurance companies require " insurance signoffs" to fly different
>>models of aircraft...
>>Not the FARs... (at least in US) .. most sign offs for small fixed gear
>>trainers can be completed within one hour by a competent pilot and CFI.
>>Transition checkouts to "complex" or "high performance" SEL aircraft will
>>require additional training.
>
> I think what Steve was referring to is student pilot limitations. I solo'd
> in a C172 and did both my x-countries in the C172. I bought the PA28
> before I completed training. That meant the CFI had to approve
> me for solo in the PA28. A couple hours more training then
> he signed me off. In the back of my logbook there's a section on
> Endorsements. The first solo endorsement reads
>
> "...is competent to make safe solo flights in a Cessna 172 only with
> prior knowledge and consent..."
>
> The second endorsement reads
>
> "...is competent to make safe solo flights in a PA28A and C172 in
> winds less than 15 kts..."
>
> The second one was when I was allowed to go other places, too.
>
> Yes, fuel management is different. On the other hand, if electricity
> fails, the manual flaps still work just fine.
>
> As I said, for most differences, it's really just a religious
> (or political) issue.
>

[BTIZ]

well.. at least leave them a wet compass for the cross country work.. LOL
of course they will really learn compass lead/lag problems

(BTW, I think it is one of the required instruments..)

BT

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Metavalent" > wrote in message
> .verio.net...
>
>> What are your aircraft recommendations for a new student?
>> My own perspective: C-152 -- money saver(if your weigh less than
>> 160lbs); PA28-161 or 181 -- least hours to get your Private Pilot
>> Certificate; C-172SP -- pricey, but new and nicely equipped; SR22 --
>> more expensive, but you get cutting edge technology and performance.
>
> I trained in Warriors and switched to a 172N after getting my license. I
> found the Warrior easier overall, particularly in crosswinds. The Warrior
> is
> less sensitive in pitch and has less adverse yaw, so it doesn't force you
> to
> learn to use the rudder as much. However, both are fairly tame and the
> performance envelope is similar enough that switching wont be too
> challenging.
>
> If you switch, you may spend 5 or more hours re-developing your feel for
> the
> plane. Figure that as a cost versus sticking with the 172SP.
>
> Personally, if I ran the world, I would strip every piece of avionics out
> of
> primary trainers except for a transponder and com radio. Airspeed,
> altimeter, and tachometer are the only instruments you need to be learning
> about at this stage.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[Metavalent]

Wow! Awesome responses. Thanks so much. I do have to say that my CFI
has done a great job in making this the case. Even with the fancy
electronics at hand, he smacked me down if I even THOUGHT about going
for the flashy gadgets. He's very much of the school described below
and I'm grateful for it!

> well.. at least leave them a wet compass for the cross country work.. LOL
> of course they will really learn compass lead/lag problems
>
> (BTW, I think it is one of the required instruments..)
>
> BT
>
>>Personally, if I ran the world, I would strip every piece of avionics out
>>of
>>primary trainers except for a transponder and com radio. Airspeed,
>>altimeter, and tachometer are the only instruments you need to be learning
>>about at this stage.
>>
>>-cwk.
>>
>>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Metavalent" > wrote

Are you posting in plain text? Check your settings. It is the norm to use
plain text instead of html on the newsgroups.

Thanks
--
Jim in NC

[Steve.T]

Actually, if you look at requirements for a student pilot, they must be
signed off for each type of aircraft they will fly solo. Kind of a Type
Rating if you think about it. And while a student, I think a CFI can't
sign you off until you can prove you can do slow flight, stall recovery
and controlled landings in that particular type of plane.

When I first soloed, I did it in a C152. Because we had done training
in the C150 at that point, all I had to do for my instructor was make
two landings w/o him having to say or do anything - he then signed me
off for the C150.

After my PP, I was checked out in a C172 w/in 2 hours total time. All I
had to do was prove that I could land the plane, and do slow flight.
All the insurance company wanted was a CFI to say I could handle the
plane.

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Metavalent]

Using Thunderbird and HTML always turned off! I hate html in email, much
less usenet! Anathema! However, looks like if I hit reply to a message
composed in HTML, thunderbird assumes the recipient prefers that? Will
keep an eye on it, for sure.

Morgans wrote:
> "Metavalent" > wrote
>
> Are you posting in plain text? Check your settings. It is the norm to use
> plain text instead of html on the newsgroups.
>
> Thanks

[Morgans]

"Metavalent" > wrote

> Using Thunderbird and HTML always turned off!

Hmm. I am also in plain text, but for some reason, your font is about half
the size of everyone else's messages. Anyone have any explanations?
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Hmm. I am also in plain text, but for some reason, your font is about half
> the size of everyone else's messages. Anyone have any explanations?

I'm not seeing that phenomenum.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.

[Rolf Blom]

On 2005-02-22 04:32, Morgans wrote:
> "Metavalent" > wrote
>
>
>>Using Thunderbird and HTML always turned off!
>
>
> Hmm. I am also in plain text, but for some reason, your font is about half
> the size of everyone else's messages. Anyone have any explanations?

There is a MIME setting for controlling the character display in
thunderbird. Something similar should be in outlook as well.

TB:
preferences->mail&newsgroups->message display
languages: default 'character encoding' section
tick the box to 'apply default to all messages'

/Rolf

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> You keep dry with the high wing but it's easier to climb
> into the low wing.

Huh? Having flown many missions for Angel Flight in both a C172 and a
Bonanza, I can say that many patients preferred the method for climbing
into a high wing rather than that of a low wing.

There were a few patients I couldn't take because they could not climb onto
the wing to enter the Bonanza.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Robert M. Gary]

The PA28 is just an all around better airplane than the C172. It's more
stable, it stalls and handles more smoothly. It lands nicer, it has a
higher useful load, it has a longer range, it has bigger back seats
(-181 vs 172), it is faster, etc. The PA28 is just a joy to teach in.
If you ever have to fuel it yourself, you'll fall in love with the
PA28, no ladder required. So, unless its raining, the PA28 is the best
plane all around. :)

-Robert, CFI