First plane

[fred]

I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

[[email protected]]

fred > wrote:
> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.

> If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
> joint ownerships/partnerships),
> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
> Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

> I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
> with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
> performance aircraft.
> High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
> Cost could be an issue.

> What I seek is a table laying out performance and
> payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

> Thanks in advance.

Well, there is this:

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5-180compare.html

One little problem is that even within a given model the numbers
can vary, i.e. a C172 with 145 HP, 160 HP, and 180 HP.

Oh, and don't forget climb performance if you are in a hot/high region.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Flying your own airplane CAN be cheaper than renting, but only if you fly
quite a bit -- at least 150, and more likely 200, hrs per year. Very few
private pilots have the need for that much transportation. If you will be
flying a more typical 50-75 hrs/yr, if cost is a factor and you don't like
renting (and who does?) then the best options for you are joining a club or
co-owning an airplane with one or more partners.

What kind of plane? As a new pilot, you are probably looking at a basic 4
place fixed gear, fixed pitch prop model. If you feel you need more
performance than the ubiquitous Cessna 172 the next step up is something
like a Piper Cherokee 180/Archer. Of course, the newer 172s also have 180
hp engines like the Archer and have comparable performance.

Here is a link to a site that provides performance specs for a number of
popular models:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/specs/index.html

-Elliott Drucker

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, there is this:
>
> http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5-180compare.html

Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
times.

For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.

These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

fred > wrote:
: I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
: People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
: look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
: renting.

It can be. If you are handy and find a mechanic who'll let you do a lot of your own maintenance, that helps.
Having a partner or two definately helps.

: If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
: joint ownerships/partnerships),
: I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
: Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

If you need a plane that can actually *haul* four real adults on a trip with luggage and enough fuel to go 500
miles, you're talking about a pretty high-performance single. If you're looking at something with 4 seats that can
occasionally haul 4 people short distantances without luggage, then you options are much more varied.

: I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
: with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
: performance aircraft.
: High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
: Cost could be an issue.

The airframe determines the speed you go. The engine power determines how much it will haul. If you want to go
much faster than a 172, you'll pretty much need to go retract or burn a LOT more fuel.

: What I seek is a table laying out performance and
: payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

: So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

A Cherokee 140 and a Cessna 150.

: Thanks in advance.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> fred > wrote:
>
> : So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> A Cherokee 140 and a Cessna 150.
>
Evidently you haven't priced/checked those cars lately :~)

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> fred > wrote:
>
> : So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> A Cherokee 140 and a Cessna 150.
>
Evidently you haven't priced/checked those cars lately :~)

[Kevin Clarke]

Lots of good info can be found at http://www.pilotfriend.com.

More than just airplane info, all kinds of things, from jokes to weather.

To see the info on planes click on the general aviation aircraft
database link.

KC

fred wrote:
> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.
>
> If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
> joint ownerships/partnerships),
> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
> Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.
>
> I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
> with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
> performance aircraft.
> High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
> Cost could be an issue.
>
> What I seek is a table laying out performance and
> payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.
>
> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
> inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
> 1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
> dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
> times.
>
> For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
> capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
> fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
> The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
> even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
> the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.
>
> These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
> plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
> is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
> avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.

Same thing happens with Bonanzas. They started out with 185 HP and
ended with 300 HP, fixed pitch to constant speed. Interior went from
four to six seats. Different size ruddervators and different angle of
the vee. Speed went from a 175 mph cruise to over a 200 mph
cruise(mine...he, he).

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:


> Jay Honeck wrote:


> >
> > Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
> > inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
> > 1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
> > dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
> > times.
> >
> > For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
> > capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
> > fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
> > The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
> > even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
> > the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.
> >
> > These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
> > plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
> > is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
> > avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.

> Same thing happens with Bonanzas. They started out with 185 HP and
> ended with 300 HP, fixed pitch to constant speed. Interior went from
> four to six seats. Different size ruddervators and different angle of
> the vee. Speed went from a 175 mph cruise to over a 200 mph
> cruise(mine...he, he).

Yeah, that's the problem with trying to do any sort of generic comparison.

The characteristics of just about every airplane that has been in
production for more than a few years has changed over the years and
the latest model can be vastly different than the first model.

Even older airplanes are this way, e.g. the Tri-Pacer started out at
135 HP and ended up with 160 HP when production ended.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> Even older airplanes are this way, e.g. the Tri-Pacer started out at
> 135 HP and ended up with 160 HP when production ended.




Yeah, but you still got a Tri Pacer.

[[email protected]]

: capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
: fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.

I didn't know there were *any* 235/236 Cherokees that had a fixed-pitch prop.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Honeck]

> I didn't know there were *any* 235/236 Cherokees that had a fixed-pitch prop.

Yeah, early 235s were all delivered with fixed pitch props. Then the
variable pitch became an option, and eventually standard -- but I don't
know what years this happened.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan[_1_]]

Fred,

Where do you live?

--Dan

fred wrote:
> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.
>
> If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
> joint ownerships/partnerships),
> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
> Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.
>
> I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
> with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
> performance aircraft.
> High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
> Cost could be an issue.
>
> What I seek is a table laying out performance and
> payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.
>
> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> Thanks in advance.

[zatatime]

On 3 Dec 2006 05:39:29 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
>plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
>is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
>avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.


The above statement (as well as most of your post) while well
intended, is untrue.

Yes there are differences between the models, but not as you describe.

Without going into alot of detail here are the basics:

PA-28-235A - stock fixed pitch, 84 gal of fuel, and NO BAGGAGE
compartment. Years built (64 / 65)

PA-28-235B - stock constant speed, has baggage compartment, 84 gal of
fuel, will haul anything you put in it with ease. No third rear
window.

PA-28-235C - stock constant speed, has baggage compartment, 84 gal of
fuel, will haul anything you put in it with ease. Has third rear
window because the fuselage was "stretched" for this model.

The Pathfinder was only built for 1 or 2 model years and I believe it
fits into the 235C category although it could have been the first
model to have the taper wing. Fuel capacity was not decreased until
the 235 became a 236 called the Dakota.

If you don't mind the wings on the bottom, the 235 is a great 4 place
plus bags plane.

HTH.
z

[[email protected]]

: Yeah, early 235s were all delivered with fixed pitch props. Then the
: variable pitch became an option, and eventually standard -- but I don't
: know what years this happened.
: --

Yeah... With that much power behind a fixed-pitch prop, it'd be ugly to try to
get it optimal. Either you can get climb, or appropriate cruise, but not both.

It still seems like 235hp is overkill for the PA28 airframe. What sort of TAS
and fuel burn do you get in yours, Jay?

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Chad Speer]

On Dec 4, 9:04 am, wrote:

*****
It still seems like 235hp is overkill for the PA28 airframe. What sort
of TAS and fuel burn do you get in yours, Jay?
*****


I fly an Archer and a Dakota of similar vintage (1980/1979). The
Archer is 127 KTAS on 9.5 gph. The Dakota is 147 KTAS on about 13 gph.
The Dakota fuel burn is +/- 1 gph - I haven't spent much time in it
recently.


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC

[Steve Schneider]

I've got quite a few hours (including a winter coast-to-coast trip) in a
pair of '74 Pathfinders from a former partnership. I found the '74
Pathfinder to be a great "4-adults plus baggage and fuel to go
somewhere" airplane. The original founders of that partnership did a
lot of research before choosing the '74 as the best combination of
features and value. When I sold my share (I still miss those planes) I
built a web site to advertise my share that included a pair of
spreadsheets that I had been using for planning W&B. You're welcome to
plug in your own figures to see what the plane is capable of carrying.
(I still maintain those pages for other former partners to occasionally
sell their shares.)

http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm


Steve


Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Well, there is this:
>>
>>http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5-180compare.html
>
>
> Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
> inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
> 1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
> dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
> times.
>
> For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
> capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
> fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
> The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
> even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
> the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.
>
> These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
> plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
> is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
> avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[PPSEL-student]

I see no body suggested the C182. Now like Jay's pathfinder the 182 is a
true 4 adults plus baggage airplane. Fly's very similar to a 172 although a
little heavier feel to the controls than a 172 and there is LOT"S of them
out there for sale right now. I used to love flying my fathers 182, was a
dream to fly and I could take my freinds up for a weekend trip to anywhere
(almost)


"fred" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.
>
> If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
> joint ownerships/partnerships),
> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
> Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.
>
> I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
> with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
> performance aircraft.
> High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
> Cost could be an issue.
>
> What I seek is a table laying out performance and
> payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.
>
> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PPSEL-student ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:02 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: First plane
> Subject: Re: First plane
>
> I see no body suggested the C182. Now like Jay's pathfinder the 182 is
a
> true 4 adults plus baggage airplane. Fly's very similar to a 172
although
> a
> little heavier feel to the controls than a 172 and there is LOT"S of
them
> out there for sale right now. I used to love flying my fathers 182,
was a
> dream to fly and I could take my freinds up for a weekend trip to
anywhere
> (almost)
>
>

The 182T that I fly on a weekly basis will no more haul 4 adults plus
baggage plus meaningful (4+ hours) fuel than the 172S we just traded out
with another squadron.

We only have about 60 extra pounds of radio and equipment so that can't
be the differentiator. Seriously, a 240 pilot and a 180 front passenger
plus a couple of 165 passengers in the back (pretty light for American
adults), 80 pounds of baggage and full fuel has you 173 pounds over max
takeoff weight.

You'd have to back the fuel down to about 350 pounds to stay within max
takeoff weight and then burn it down to 200 pounds to be at max landing
weight.

A 182 is a wonderful bird especially when properly equipped, and it is
one of the better four-seat load haulers. On the other hand however, if
you are planning on hauling four of us well-over-160-pound adults you're
going to limit your range to a little over 2 hours with no reserve.

I've come to believe that the best 4 place cross country aircraft all
start out with 6 seats installed. Take those last two seats out and
you've got a real nice bird.

[[email protected]]

: http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm

Sounds kinda cool, but requires Internet Exploiter. Unable.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

wrote:

> : http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm
>
> Sounds kinda cool, but requires Internet Exploiter. Unable.

Works with Netscape.

[[email protected]]

: > : http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm
: >
: > Sounds kinda cool, but requires Internet Exploiter. Unable.

: Works with Netscape.

The message I got was something along the lines of Internet Exploiter and
MSOffice 2003 extension or something. Must only require the latter. I have neither
on my firefox under linux. I don't care all that much, but I just figured I'd point
out that it's not Internet friendly... only Microsoft-Internet friendly.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steve Schneider]

wrote:
> : > : http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm
> : >
> : > Sounds kinda cool, but requires Internet Exploiter. Unable.
>
> : Works with Netscape.
>
> The message I got was something along the lines of Internet
Exploiter and
> MSOffice 2003 extension or something. Must only require the latter.
I have neither
> on my firefox under linux. I don't care all that much, but I just
figured I'd point
> out that it's not Internet friendly... only Microsoft-Internet friendly.
>
> -Cory


That's Bill Gates for you. :-) The pages were built (quite some time
ago) with MS FrontPage which embedded the Excel spreadsheets as a
modified web form of some sort that requires 'Office Web Components'
on the client computer. The idea is that you can plug numbers into the
spreadsheet interactively in the browser rather than having to download
a copy of the .xls file and opening it with Excel (which a suprising
number of people do not have on their computers).

I'll add the actual .xls files tonight when I get home, which you might
be able to use with OpenOffice on linux.

Jim Carter suggested elsewhere in the thread about using a 6 seat plane
with 2 seats removed/empty. Just so happens I have the Excel file -- not
the embedded Web Component version -- for our Lance available online.
This is the Turbo T tail with 6 seats in the club seating layout. So if
you want some real world 6 seat W&B figures to play with, go to the
following link and click on the 'N3000A weight and balance spreadsheet'.

http://www.4-fs.com/lance

I've got one of these for a Cherokee 180 I used to own as well. May have
one for a Cherokee 140 from a ways back. I'll see if I can find those
too and get them online for anyone interseted in playing with the
numbers for those aircraft.

Steve

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

wrote:
> : > : http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm
> : >
> : > Sounds kinda cool, but requires Internet Exploiter. Unable.
>
> : Works with Netscape.
>
> The message I got was something along the lines of Internet Exploiter and
> MSOffice 2003 extension or something. Must only require the latter. I have neither
> on my firefox under linux. I don't care all that much, but I just figured I'd point
> out that it's not Internet friendly... only Microsoft-Internet friendly.

I concur. With Mozilla 1.7.12 Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US;
rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050928, I get:

"To use this Web page interactively, you must have Microsoft® Internet
Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 2 (SP2) or later and the Microsoft Office
2003 Web Components. Click here to install the Office 2003 Web
Components. See the Microsoft Office Web site for more information."

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:000101c71874$3f10d850$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>
>
<snip>>
>
> The 182T that I fly on a weekly basis will no more haul 4 adults plus
> baggage plus meaningful (4+ hours) fuel than the 172S we just traded out
> with another squadron.
>
<snip>
> I've come to believe that the best 4 place cross country aircraft all
> start out with 6 seats installed. Take those last two seats out and
> you've got a real nice bird.
>
>

So you would suggest the 185 instead?

--
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.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe [mailto:The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com]
> Posted At: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 4:09 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: First plane
> Subject: Re: First plane
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> news:000101c71874$3f10d850$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
> >
> >
> <snip>>
> >
> > The 182T that I fly on a weekly basis will no more haul 4 adults
plus
> > baggage plus meaningful (4+ hours) fuel than the 172S we just traded
out
> > with another squadron.
> >
> <snip>
> > I've come to believe that the best 4 place cross country aircraft
all
> > start out with 6 seats installed. Take those last two seats out and
> > you've got a real nice bird.
> >
> >
>
> So you would suggest the 185 instead?
>
> --
> 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.

Isn't the gross weight and useful load about the same on the 182 and
185? It has been 30 years since I was in one and then it was on floats
at Kenmore in Seattle, so I honestly don't remember. I would however be
a little concerned about putting a brand new pilot directly into a 185
without first getting quite a bit of experience in a T-craft or Cub or
even a 170.

A 205 or 206 makes a real nice 4 place cross country bird, but man it is
expensive for just a hop over for coffee.

[[email protected]]

: > The message I got was something along the lines of Internet Exploiter and
: > MSOffice 2003 extension or something. Must only require the latter. I have neither
: > on my firefox under linux. I don't care all that much, but I just figured I'd point
: > out that it's not Internet friendly... only Microsoft-Internet friendly.

: I concur. With Mozilla 1.7.12 Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US;
: rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050928, I get:

: "To use this Web page interactively, you must have Microsoft?? Internet
: Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 2 (SP2) or later and the Microsoft Office
: 2003 Web Components. Click here to install the Office 2003 Web
: Components. See the Microsoft Office Web site for more information."

Once upon a time (circa 1999), I ran Internet Explorer on SunOS on a Sun Ultra 2 at the University if Illinois.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>>
>> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
>> news:000101c71874$3f10d850$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
> Isn't the gross weight and useful load about the same on the 182 and
> 185? It has been 30 years since I was in one and then it was on floats
> at Kenmore in Seattle, so I honestly don't remember. I would however be
> a little concerned about putting a brand new pilot directly into a 185
> without first getting quite a bit of experience in a T-craft or Cub or
> even a 170.


Cessna 182R Gross.......3100
Cessna A185F Gross.....3350



KG

[Mike Spera]

> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.
>
Here is another viewpoint. Disclaimer: The below assumes you don't have
an endless supply of cash to shell out.

First off, you are a student. Most cannot handle the added distraction
of being a new owner while trying to learn how to fly AND taking ground
school (aside from your day job/school/family). Also, you admitted
yourself you are not sure of what to buy. Get your license and fly a
while in other types of birds. Get a feel for where you want to GO first.

Buying an airplane without losing your shirt (and possibly your life)
takes a bit of experience that you likely don't have. What's the hurry?

Why beat up your bird learning how to land? Beat up the school's plane,
then buy your own.

"Cheaper in the long run" can be elusive. You need to fly a certain
number of hours for the math to work out. Properly cared for airplanes
cost money. Many owners simply run planes out and don't properly
maintain or upgrade them. They live on a shoestring budget and roll the
dice that nothing catastrophic will happen. Some win and some lose. The
winners spout off about how "they did it". The losers say nothing and
quietly lick their wounds. I have said it before. There is plenty of
flying junk out there for sale. You likely cannot tell the difference.
This group tells many tales about deals gone bad.

What if you don't stick it out? The drop out rate for student pilots is
not small. If you quit while owning, you have to sell the beast and that
may take a while (unless you can accept a significant financial loss).

Yes, renting has many drawbacks. Dirty, beat up planes that are
unavailable when the weather is nice. But, they are usually maintained
to some minimum level of safety and they have one great advantage that
you might need right now. If anything goes wrong, you simply hand the
keys to the FBO and say "next". And, like I said, you really don't need
a premium airplane and the distractions of ownership at this point in
your flying.

Opinions vary. Good Luck.
Mike

[zatatime]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:08:41 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>So you would suggest the 185 instead?

If you're going above a 182 the 205 or 206 would be your best bet in
the Cessna line. I'd make sure you had a bunch of dual in it though
as it is a much heavier airplane than what you are probably normally
used to.

HTH.
z

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:000e01c718c9$4885a640$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>
><...>
> Isn't the gross weight and useful load about the same on the 182 and
> 185? It has been 30 years since I was in one and then it was on floats
> at Kenmore in Seattle, so I honestly don't remember. I would however be
> a little concerned about putting a brand new pilot directly into a 185
> without first getting quite a bit of experience in a T-craft or Cub or
> even a 170.
>

Depends on the model, but from what I can find on the web - 185: gross
3200, empty 1520 with 260 ponies. "Similar" 182: 2650 gross 1650 empty 230
hp.

Move up to the 185E: 3300 gross, 1550 empty with 300 up front. 182Q II 3100,
1775, 230

Looks to be about a 500 pound useful advantage.

> A 205 or 206 makes a real nice 4 place cross country bird, but man it is
> expensive for just a hop over for coffee.
>
And you are worried about putting someone in a 185? :-)

I will admit, you do have to unlearn all the bad habits you develop if you
start out in a nosedragger. I watched my dad (after owning Navion's)
struggle with that in a C-120 that I thought was the easiest thing to fly
ever invented.

--
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.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Spera ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:44 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: First plane
> Subject: Re: First plane
>
>
....
> First off, you are a student. Most cannot handle the added distraction
> of being a new owner while trying to learn how to fly AND taking
ground
> school (aside from your day job/school/family). Also, you admitted
> yourself you are not sure of what to buy. Get your license and fly a
> while in other types of birds. Get a feel for where you want to GO
first.
>


Mike makes some very good points. I wouldn't really consider buying
until after you've got your license, have joined a club or two and have
flown several different models. I lusted after the Cardinal RG until I
actually flew one. Man was I disappointed in the interior head room. I
could not get the seat low enough to keep from constantly rubbing (not
occasionally bumping) my head on the overhead.

I was absolutely sure that was the bird for me, so I was crushed when I
actually discovered they are not for real tall people.

Get some experience and then buy if you can justify the hours. You might
even find a partnership works well for your missions.

[Dave Doe]

In article om>,
says...
> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.
>
> If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
> joint ownerships/partnerships),
> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
> Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.
>
> I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
> with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
> performance aircraft.
> High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
> Cost could be an issue.
>
> What I seek is a table laying out performance and
> payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.
>
> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Traveller, Traumahawk, C152, even a 150 - how many seats do you want? :)

--
Duncan

[Blanche]

Cory:

there's an option to download the spreadsheet at the bottom. I don't
use IE either, and refuse to get the plugin.

[5pguy]

Fred - you may want to consider a C172 w/180 hp. The extra hp will get
you no more then 5 knots, but what a lift you'll get. Climbs with
gross weight (2550 lb) easily 1000 fpm.
I have LRT, which allows me at about 65% bhp to cruise for 5 hours.
Don't know if your
bladder will hold up, but it's very close to you specs.

My payload is 735 lb. That's not a bad payload figure. With the same
hp in a Piper, you will not get close to this figure or the 1000 fpm
either. I burn about 9.5, but use 10 gph. Now if go to a C182, you
will get close to the same payload, but burn rate is much more and the
cost to maintain is great.

I love my hybrid





fred wrote:
> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
> People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
> look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
> renting.
>
> If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
> joint ownerships/partnerships),
> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
> Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.
>
> I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
> with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
> performance aircraft.
> High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
> Cost could be an issue.
>
> What I seek is a table laying out performance and
> payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.
>
> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?
>
> Thanks in advance.

[Dave Butler]

5pguy wrote:
> Fred - you may want to consider a C172 w/180 hp. The extra hp will get
> you no more then 5 knots, but what a lift you'll get. Climbs with
> gross weight (2550 lb) easily 1000 fpm.
> I have LRT, which allows me at about 65% bhp to cruise for 5 hours.
> Don't know if your
> bladder will hold up, but it's very close to you specs.
>
> My payload is 735 lb. That's not a bad payload figure. With the same
> hp in a Piper, you will not get close to this figure or the 1000 fpm
> either. I burn about 9.5, but use 10 gph. Now if go to a C182, you
> will get close to the same payload, but burn rate is much more and the
> cost to maintain is great.

</pedantry on>

You must mean your "payload with full fuel" is 735 lbs. Otherwise with 5
hours of fuel at 10 gal/hr that's 600 lbs and leaves only 135 lbs. for
passengers or freight.

"Payload" is usually used to mean the total weight of fuel, passengers,
and freight, so that you can adjust the amount of fuel carried to fit
the mission. Payload is a better measure of an aircraft's capability
than "payload with full fuel".

</pedantry off>

DB

[Tim]

Mike Spera wrote:
>

>
> First off, you are a student. Most cannot handle the added distraction
> of being a new owner while trying to learn how to fly AND taking ground
> school (aside from your day job/school/family).

I call BS on that. I bought a grumman cheetah while learning to fly.
It was a great learning experience. Where do you get the data for "most
cannot handle the added distraction?"

>Also, you admitted
> yourself you are not sure of what to buy. Get your license and fly a
> while in other types of birds. Get a feel for where you want to GO first.

I agree with this.

>
> Buying an airplane without losing your shirt (and possibly your life)
> takes a bit of experience that you likely don't have. What's the hurry?

The only way to get that experience and knowledge is to go through the
process of looking and buying. Renting for years does not make anyone
more qualified to purchase an airplane compared to a newbie looking to
buy.

>
> Why beat up your bird learning how to land? Beat up the school's plane,
> then buy your own.

Perhaps - but with good instruction and the fact that you have better
understanding of the plane makes it a wash.

>
> "Cheaper in the long run" can be elusive. You need to fly a certain
> number of hours for the math to work out. Properly cared for airplanes
> cost money. Many owners simply run planes out and don't properly
> maintain or upgrade them. They live on a shoestring budget and roll the
> dice that nothing catastrophic will happen. Some win and some lose. The
> winners spout off about how "they did it". The losers say nothing and
> quietly lick their wounds. I have said it before. There is plenty of
> flying junk out there for sale. You likely cannot tell the difference.
> This group tells many tales about deals gone bad.
>
> What if you don't stick it out? The drop out rate for student pilots is
> not small. If you quit while owning, you have to sell the beast and that
> may take a while (unless you can accept a significant financial loss).
>
> Yes, renting has many drawbacks. Dirty, beat up planes that are
> unavailable when the weather is nice. But, they are usually maintained
> to some minimum level of safety and they have one great advantage that
> you might need right now. If anything goes wrong, you simply hand the
> keys to the FBO and say "next". And, like I said, you really don't need
> a premium airplane and the distractions of ownership at this point in
> your flying.
>
> Opinions vary. Good Luck.
> Mike

All the rest I pretty much agree. It is not something to undertake
lightly. Best wishes to the OP.

[Paul kgyy]

There isn't any real airplane equivalent to the Corolla or Civic.
Those machines provide high quality for reasonable price.

172s and Cherokees are the closest to mass produced airplanes, but they
are more like Fords and Chevys - they're noisy, they corrode and leak,
and cost a lot to maintain, particularly if you live in an urban area.

As others have said, you need to fly at least 100 hrs a year to break
even, and that's a lot of flying.

Having said that, there is nothing like owning a well maintained
airplane. I started looking for one of my own when every airplane I
rented seemed to have something on the squawk list.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "fred" == fred > writes:

fred> I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL. People tell me that
fred> if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously look into
fred> purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
fred> renting.

Yes, but after your initial training.

fred> I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of
fred> luggage. Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to
fred> about 500 miles.

Keep in mind that most aircraft can't realistically fill the seats
they have: you'll be overweight typically. Especially as Americans
have supersized themselves since these aircraft were designed and
built. So if you want to fly 4 adults, even without luggage, they
better be slim and trim OR you will need a 6-seater OR you will need a
real hauler airplane, like the C-182.

Also, it might be slower, door-to-door timing, to fly to places
instead of driving, less than 300-400 miles away, depending on a
number of factors.

fred> What I seek is a table laying out performance and payload
fred> characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

There are some books out there that offer this information, though not
as handy as a single table.

fred> So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or
fred> Honda Civic?

Well, that's the problem. There are no Toyotas or Hondas in the used
airplane market, only 25-50 year old Fords, Chevys, and Buicks. And a
few of us on these groups remember how much maintenance the old cars
required.

You're doing the right thing. Continue to take your flight training
and also continue to investigate a plane that fills your needs. I
don't know how much money you're willing to spend, but you'll probably
find that the initial cost, in the long run, isn't the big factor,
though it naturally seems so. Instead, it's the operating and annual
fixed costs, which you won't recoup, that you should be watching.

Others will know the different planes and performance better than I,
but it sounds like you might want to look at a C-182, or equivalent in
the low wing aircraft.
--
"If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if
you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a
lifetime."

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:36 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: First plane
> Subject: Re: First plane
>
....
>
> I call BS on that. I bought a grumman cheetah while learning to fly.
> It was a great learning experience. Where do you get the data for
"most
> cannot handle the added distraction?"
>

I would not recommend that a student of mine be trying to learn to fly
our trainers while at the same time looking for a different aircraft of
their own. First, they should be concentrating on the make and model
they will be flying for their tests. They should know the systems cold
and become intimately familiar with that aircraft. Then by the time they
get their license (usually only a couple of months) they understand what
they should expect to learn as they move to other makes or models.
Trying to do that all at once leaves gaps. I sure wouldn't want a
student to be learning in a PA-28 or a C-152 and be looking at or trying
to buy a Grumman. I've taught in all of them and they are different
birds. Let's learn one thing at a time, and learn it very well.

....
>
> The only way to get that experience and knowledge is to go through the
> process of looking and buying. Renting for years does not make anyone
> more qualified to purchase an airplane compared to a newbie looking to
> buy.
>

I disagree again; renting can expose a pilot to various makes and models
if he or she is willing to be a little adventurous. I'm really glad that
I had a chance to rent a Cardinal-RG before I put a lot of effort or
expense into researching them for purchase. I'm also happy that I had
the chance to fly a 172RG into Gunnison IFR before I started lusting
after them. Renting is a great way to discover which make or model you
absolutely do not want.

The only disadvantage to renting is that you get to fly lots of models
you will never own and that is disappointing.

BTW, I didn't think much of the Grumman line back when we were flying
the AA1As and AA5s, but over the years I've come to believe a Cheetah or
Tiger might just be the solution to my needs now.

[Tim]

Jim Carter wrote:

>
>>I call BS on that. I bought a grumman cheetah while learning to fly.
>>It was a great learning experience. Where do you get the data for
>
> "most
>
>>cannot handle the added distraction?"
>>
> I would not recommend that a student of mine be trying to learn to fly
> our trainers while at the same time looking for a different aircraft of
> their own. First, they should be concentrating on the make and model
> they will be flying for their tests. They should know the systems cold
> and become intimately familiar with that aircraft. Then by the time they
> get their license (usually only a couple of months) they understand what
> they should expect to learn as they move to other makes or models.
> Trying to do that all at once leaves gaps. I sure wouldn't want a
> student to be learning in a PA-28 or a C-152 and be looking at or trying
> to buy a Grumman. I've taught in all of them and they are different
> birds. Let's learn one thing at a time, and learn it very well.
>

90 HP to 180 HP single engine fixed gear planes are all about the same.
I am not sure why this is a problem. (excepting tail draggers) It is
pretty simple - teach the speed to fly at the different phases of flight
and all is straightforward. Teaching a specific aircraft is problematic.

Again, what is it about your experience with students that leads you to
believe they cannot handle "the distraction" of owning an airplane?

<snip>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Apparently your position is that if one can handle the workload than all
should. I and others have suggested that most (not all) students would
be better served if they concentrated on the particular topic at hand,
which is learning to fly.

I stand by that position. Learning to fly is a complex and very
expensive endeavor. In the interest of both the learning curve and the
pocket book, students would be well served to focus on the learning
rather than the buying.

Besides, if the student is still learning to fly, how in the world does
he or she have the experience to know which make or model is right for
him or her? Sure they can post "what do I buy" questions on newsgroups,
but that too adds to the distraction of learning.

It is too bad that neither of us can substantiate our position with
data. It would be interesting to see the numbers on student pilots that
buy before getting licensed and how long they are happy with their
decision versus pilots that have rented for a while before they buy and
their happiness duration.

I also take issue with your position that 90 to 180 HP fixed gear
aircraft are all about the same. There is a tremendous difference in the
handling of a Cessna 177, an American Yankee AA1A, a Piper Cherokee 140,
and a Beech Skipper. Flaps on the Yankee were ornaments and the
non-steerable nosegear was a challenge for most at first. The elevator
ran out of effectiveness on the C177 before the slotted elevator came
along. The Cherokee was interesting in July and August in Texas and
Oklahoma and came down pretty fast until that low wing hit ground
effect.

The point is that each aircraft model has its own peculiarities as well
as systems and speeds. Learning one set before taking the PP check ride
is usually enough for most students with limited time and money.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:51 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: First plane
> Subject: Re: First plane
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
> >
> >>I call BS on that. I bought a grumman cheetah while learning to
fly.
> >>It was a great learning experience. Where do you get the data for
> >
> > "most
> >
> >>cannot handle the added distraction?"
> >>
> > I would not recommend that a student of mine be trying to learn to
fly
> > our trainers while at the same time looking for a different aircraft
of
> > their own. First, they should be concentrating on the make and model
> > they will be flying for their tests. They should know the systems
cold
> > and become intimately familiar with that aircraft. Then by the time
they
> > get their license (usually only a couple of months) they understand
what
> > they should expect to learn as they move to other makes or models.
> > Trying to do that all at once leaves gaps. I sure wouldn't want a
> > student to be learning in a PA-28 or a C-152 and be looking at or
trying
> > to buy a Grumman. I've taught in all of them and they are different
> > birds. Let's learn one thing at a time, and learn it very well.
> >
>
> 90 HP to 180 HP single engine fixed gear planes are all about the
same.
> I am not sure why this is a problem. (excepting tail draggers) It
is
> pretty simple - teach the speed to fly at the different phases of
flight
> and all is straightforward. Teaching a specific aircraft is
problematic.
>
> Again, what is it about your experience with students that leads you
to
> believe they cannot handle "the distraction" of owning an airplane?
>
> <snip>

[Tim]

Jim Carter wrote:
<opinions snipped>

> I also take issue with your position that 90 to 180 HP fixed gear
> aircraft are all about the same. There is a tremendous difference in the
> handling of a Cessna 177, an American Yankee AA1A, a Piper Cherokee 140,
> and a Beech Skipper. Flaps on the Yankee were ornaments and the
> non-steerable nosegear was a challenge for most at first. The elevator
> ran out of effectiveness on the C177 before the slotted elevator came
> along. The Cherokee was interesting in July and August in Texas and
> Oklahoma and came down pretty fast until that low wing hit ground
> effect.
>

Flaps on the yankee are not ornaments. They may not be lift devices,
but they sure as heck are glide path/speed affecting. The differences
you cite are all minor - if the instructor teaches how to fly any person
who is supposed to be able to master flying should be able to handle
different planes.

I heard the same garbage from supposed experts when i was learning to
fly - they said I should not do glider lessons and power plane lessons
at the same time. That is horse****. It was all great experience and
each contributed to the other.

> The point is that each aircraft model has its own peculiarities as well
> as systems and speeds. Learning one set before taking the PP check ride
> is usually enough for most students with limited time and money.
>

So you advocate memorizing everything rather than using checklists?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Tim,
Why do you insist on arguing absolutes when everyone else is
discussing generalities? No one here other than you is taking the
position that our opinions apply to everyone. Everyone here other than
you has suggested that for most of the students we've experienced,
focusing on the task at hand is a good idea. You on the other hand want
to argue that because ignoring that advice worked for you then everyone
should ignore it.

There are exceptions to every rule, apparently you are the
exception. That doesn't make you wrong or anyone else wrong. It just
makes you different than everyone else, and isn't that a good thing?

As a general rule that applies to most all students except you,
it is not a good idea to get distracted with other unnecessary tasks
while learning a complex new task. Several instructors and respected
contributors on this forum have agreed with this recommendation. Can you
cite personal experience with a wide variety of students that refutes
this advice and can you justify the position that what works for you
must work for everyone?

Again, regarding your comment about checklists, you have taken
the position that a pilot either has to memorize everything or use
checklists. Isn't any complex task a combination of both? It is a well
recognized fact that memorization improves the chances of proper
reactions. It is also well recognized that checklists improve safety.
Those two actions are not mutually exclusive.

It has been many years since I taught in the AA-1 Yankee so I
may have been mistaken about the flaps being ornaments. In any event I
got out my old Owner's Manual for the bird and researched the
information on flaps. Turns out I wasn't wrong after all. Page 5-6,
Figure 12 shows there is a 2 MPH difference in stall speed in level
flight and a 3 MPH difference in stall speed in a 60 degree bank. These
flaps are very small on this aircraft, produce minimal lift, and produce
almost negligible drag. Also on the same page the short field landing
speed is listed as 72 MPH flaps down and on page 3-5 under Normal
Approach and Landing the recommended speed is 75 MPH with flaps as
desired. This is from the 1973 manual by the way.

Again, it is my opinion that flaps on the Yankee were ornamental
to a certain extent. They did however prove useful in teaching students
procedures and systems. We have no argument about pilots being able to
master different planes, just the timing of those events.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim ]
> Posted At: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:48 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: First plane
> Subject: Re: First plane
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
> <opinions snipped>
>
> > I also take issue with your position that 90 to 180 HP fixed gear
> > aircraft are all about the same. There is a tremendous difference in
the
> > handling of a Cessna 177, an American Yankee AA1A, a Piper Cherokee
140,
> > and a Beech Skipper. Flaps on the Yankee were ornaments and the
> > non-steerable nosegear was a challenge for most at first. The
elevator
> > ran out of effectiveness on the C177 before the slotted elevator
came
> > along. The Cherokee was interesting in July and August in Texas and
> > Oklahoma and came down pretty fast until that low wing hit ground
> > effect.
> >
>
> Flaps on the yankee are not ornaments. They may not be lift devices,
> but they sure as heck are glide path/speed affecting. The differences
> you cite are all minor - if the instructor teaches how to fly any
person
> who is supposed to be able to master flying should be able to handle
> different planes.
>
> I heard the same garbage from supposed experts when i was learning to
> fly - they said I should not do glider lessons and power plane lessons
> at the same time. That is horse****. It was all great experience and
> each contributed to the other.
>
> > The point is that each aircraft model has its own peculiarities as
well
> > as systems and speeds. Learning one set before taking the PP check
ride
> > is usually enough for most students with limited time and money.
> >
>
> So you advocate memorizing everything rather than using checklists?

[Tim]

I will bow out of the conversation. I figured since I actually had
first-hand experience with what the OP was asking that my comments would
be relevant. I know of no owner who bought while or prior to being a
student who has commented on it being a negative. (and I am familiar
with a dozen or so people)

Perhaps we are a different lot. I just can't agree with the advice
given here.

regards,
tim

Jim Carter wrote:
> Tim,
> Why do you insist on arguing absolutes when everyone else is
> discussing generalities? No one here other than you is taking the
> position that our opinions apply to everyone. Everyone here other than
> you has suggested that for most of the students we've experienced,
> focusing on the task at hand is a good idea. You on the other hand want
> to argue that because ignoring that advice worked for you then everyone
> should ignore it.
>
> There are exceptions to every rule, apparently you are the
> exception. That doesn't make you wrong or anyone else wrong. It just
> makes you different than everyone else, and isn't that a good thing?
>
> As a general rule that applies to most all students except you,
> it is not a good idea to get distracted with other unnecessary tasks
> while learning a complex new task. Several instructors and respected
> contributors on this forum have agreed with this recommendation. Can you
> cite personal experience with a wide variety of students that refutes
> this advice and can you justify the position that what works for you
> must work for everyone?
>
> Again, regarding your comment about checklists, you have taken
> the position that a pilot either has to memorize everything or use
> checklists. Isn't any complex task a combination of both? It is a well
> recognized fact that memorization improves the chances of proper
> reactions. It is also well recognized that checklists improve safety.
> Those two actions are not mutually exclusive.
>
> It has been many years since I taught in the AA-1 Yankee so I
> may have been mistaken about the flaps being ornaments. In any event I
> got out my old Owner's Manual for the bird and researched the
> information on flaps. Turns out I wasn't wrong after all. Page 5-6,
> Figure 12 shows there is a 2 MPH difference in stall speed in level
> flight and a 3 MPH difference in stall speed in a 60 degree bank. These
> flaps are very small on this aircraft, produce minimal lift, and produce
> almost negligible drag. Also on the same page the short field landing
> speed is listed as 72 MPH flaps down and on page 3-5 under Normal
> Approach and Landing the recommended speed is 75 MPH with flaps as
> desired. This is from the 1973 manual by the way.
>
> Again, it is my opinion that flaps on the Yankee were ornamental
> to a certain extent. They did however prove useful in teaching students
> procedures and systems. We have no argument about pilots being able to
> master different planes, just the timing of those events.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tim ]
>>Posted At: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:48 AM
>>Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
>>Conversation: First plane
>>Subject: Re: First plane
>>
>>Jim Carter wrote:
>><opinions snipped>
>>
>>>I also take issue with your position that 90 to 180 HP fixed gear
>>>aircraft are all about the same. There is a tremendous difference in
>
> the
>
>>>handling of a Cessna 177, an American Yankee AA1A, a Piper Cherokee
>
> 140,
>
>>>and a Beech Skipper. Flaps on the Yankee were ornaments and the
>>>non-steerable nosegear was a challenge for most at first. The
>
> elevator
>
>>>ran out of effectiveness on the C177 before the slotted elevator
>
> came
>
>>>along. The Cherokee was interesting in July and August in Texas and
>>>Oklahoma and came down pretty fast until that low wing hit ground
>>>effect.
>>>
>>
>>Flaps on the yankee are not ornaments. They may not be lift devices,
>>but they sure as heck are glide path/speed affecting. The differences
>>you cite are all minor - if the instructor teaches how to fly any
>
> person
>
>>who is supposed to be able to master flying should be able to handle
>>different planes.
>>
>>I heard the same garbage from supposed experts when i was learning to
>>fly - they said I should not do glider lessons and power plane lessons
>>at the same time. That is horse****. It was all great experience and
>>each contributed to the other.
>>
>>
>>>The point is that each aircraft model has its own peculiarities as
>
> well
>
>>>as systems and speeds. Learning one set before taking the PP check
>
> ride
>
>>>is usually enough for most students with limited time and money.
>>>
>>
>>So you advocate memorizing everything rather than using checklists?
>
>

[Jon Woellhaf]

Tim wrote
> ... I know of no owner who bought while or prior to being a student who
> has commented on it being a negative.

Tim, add me to the list of positives. I bought my Cessna 182Q when I was a
student and found it worked out very well.

Jon

[Chad Speer]

I suppose I'm reviving a dead string on an active thread, but I think
most here would agree that "payload" refers to the weight available for
passengers and baggage with full fuel. "Useful load" is, as you
describe, "the total weight of fuel, passengers, and freight." The
only difference being that "useful load" only includes usable fuel,
because unusable fuel is included in the empty weight.


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC



On Dec 19 2006, 8:11 am, Dave Butler > wrote:
*****
"Payload" is usually used to mean the total weight of fuel, passengers,
and freight, so that you can adjust the amount of fuel carried to fit
the mission. Payload is a better measure of an aircraft's capability
than "payload with full fuel".

</pedantry off>

DB
*****

[Dave Butler]

Chad Speer wrote:
> I suppose I'm reviving a dead string on an active thread, but I think
> most here would agree that "payload" refers to the weight available for
> passengers and baggage with full fuel. "Useful load" is, as you
> describe, "the total weight of fuel, passengers, and freight." The
> only difference being that "useful load" only includes usable fuel,
> because unusable fuel is included in the empty weight.

I'd argue though, that "payload" refers to the weight of passengers and
baggage <period>. I've removed the word "available" and the reference to
fuel. Nevertheless your criticism of what I wrote previously is valid.
Thanks.

[Blanche]

coming into the discussion rather late, but let me add a few data points.
As Tim and Mike and others discuss, there are advantages to renting
various aircraft before buying. On the other hand, far too many schools
have just one model aircraft, so the student must either go to another
school or wait until passing checkride to rent something else.

While a student, I had the opportunity to fly C152, C172 and Cherokees
(both 160 & 180 hp). Perhaps it's a gender thing, or just issues with
aging, but I really never enjoyed the Cessna. Let us NOT get into the
high-wing/low-wing argument (again) but for me, the advantage of not
having to climb on the roof to check fuel and being able to see the
airport when turning in the pattern were critical.

As for dealing with both learning and owning, I really don't see much
conflict. I solo'd in the C172, did the XCs in the C172 but bought the
cherokee before the checkride -- and took the checkride in it. In
all fairness, I had been looking for an aircraft for about a year
(when you're working full-time, traveling extensively and dealing with
2 major family emergencies, flying gets in the way sometimes).
I was not happy with the rental aircraft. Why? Because far too many
people treat rental aircraft the same way people treat rent cars.

Is owning practical for everyone? No, not really. We've had the discussions
here repeatedly as to the pros & cons. But I don't believe the
argument "too much to learn and own at the same time" is valid. As
a student I was dealing with 4 unknowns:

my schedule
instructor's schedule
aircraft schedule
weather

Owning an aircraft means item 3 is no longer an issue (unless it's down
for annual or repairs). And out here in the west, if the weather is
questionable, it doesn't matter who owns the aircraft, the beginning
student is probably not going to be flying.

Owning an aircraft meant I learned more about the systems of the
aircraft and much better than if I was renting and only needed to know
enough to pass the exams.

Is it expensive? Sure. On the other hand, have you seen the price tag
for a day lift ticket out in the Rockies these days? There's a reason
so many people buy the early season pass specials -- and the ski areas
are beginning to regret it, too. $82 at Vail per day. Yet the early
season pass is under $400. Ski 5 days and you're now skiing for
free. I gave up skiing when I started flying lessons. I can only have
one exhorbitant hobby. Besides, the traffic from Denver to Vail (or
Copper or A-Basin or Keystone or Mary Jane) has become impossible
and far too aggravating. From my front door, I can get to 12K faster
in the cherokee than I can on my skis. (2 hours door to ski lift at
Copper assuming traffic moves at a reasonable rate, 1 hour door to
12K in the cherokee and traffic isn't an issue).

The one strong suggestion to the OP is to NOT rush into a purchase.
There will always be another aircraft that suits your needs.

[Mike Spera]

I have to agree with Blanche, even though she appears to counter my
advice. I said that for most folks, trying to own a first airplane while
learning to fly one may be a bit too much. She aptly pointed out one
exception - when you have the excess cash. In that case, owning becomes
a LOT easier. Whenever something is amiss with the plane, you simply
flip the keys to the local FBO (or independent wrench) and say "fix 'er
up". Not a lot of overhead in that.

In my case, we were REALLY cash squeezed (new house with double the
mortgage, modest income, both of us training at the same time, double
the fuel, niggling repairs - that damned A/C system). With both of us
going up 3 times a week, the instruction and fuel bill racked up an
impressive total rather quickly. Dealing with the plane repairs was
pretty distracting.

If we had the dough, I would have never given it a second thought.

I also strongly agree with her advice that most owner wannabees ignore
- PATIENCE. As I have said many times, there is a lot of flying junk out
there. You DON'T want one of those as a first airplane.

Good Luck,
Mike

Blanche wrote:

> coming into the discussion rather late, but let me add a few data points.
> As Tim and Mike and others discuss, there are advantages to renting
> various aircraft before buying. On the other hand, far too many schools
> have just one model aircraft, so the student must either go to another
> school or wait until passing checkride to rent something else.
>
> While a student, I had the opportunity to fly C152, C172 and Cherokees
> (both 160 & 180 hp). Perhaps it's a gender thing, or just issues with
> aging, but I really never enjoyed the Cessna. Let us NOT get into the
> high-wing/low-wing argument (again) but for me, the advantage of not
> having to climb on the roof to check fuel and being able to see the
> airport when turning in the pattern were critical.
>
> As for dealing with both learning and owning, I really don't see much
> conflict. I solo'd in the C172, did the XCs in the C172 but bought the
> cherokee before the checkride -- and took the checkride in it. In
> all fairness, I had been looking for an aircraft for about a year
> (when you're working full-time, traveling extensively and dealing with
> 2 major family emergencies, flying gets in the way sometimes).
> I was not happy with the rental aircraft. Why? Because far too many
> people treat rental aircraft the same way people treat rent cars.
>
> Is owning practical for everyone? No, not really. We've had the discussions
> here repeatedly as to the pros & cons. But I don't believe the
> argument "too much to learn and own at the same time" is valid. As
> a student I was dealing with 4 unknowns:
>
> my schedule
> instructor's schedule
> aircraft schedule
> weather
>
> Owning an aircraft means item 3 is no longer an issue (unless it's down
> for annual or repairs). And out here in the west, if the weather is
> questionable, it doesn't matter who owns the aircraft, the beginning
> student is probably not going to be flying.
>
> Owning an aircraft meant I learned more about the systems of the
> aircraft and much better than if I was renting and only needed to know
> enough to pass the exams.
>
> Is it expensive? Sure. On the other hand, have you seen the price tag
> for a day lift ticket out in the Rockies these days? There's a reason
> so many people buy the early season pass specials -- and the ski areas
> are beginning to regret it, too. $82 at Vail per day. Yet the early
> season pass is under $400. Ski 5 days and you're now skiing for
> free. I gave up skiing when I started flying lessons. I can only have
> one exhorbitant hobby. Besides, the traffic from Denver to Vail (or
> Copper or A-Basin or Keystone or Mary Jane) has become impossible
> and far too aggravating. From my front door, I can get to 12K faster
> in the cherokee than I can on my skis. (2 hours door to ski lift at
> Copper assuming traffic moves at a reasonable rate, 1 hour door to
> 12K in the cherokee and traffic isn't an issue).
>
> The one strong suggestion to the OP is to NOT rush into a purchase.
> There will always be another aircraft that suits your needs.
>