Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

In article ,
Jose wrote:

The original comment was that things happen faster due to higher
airspeeds in all phases of flight. My point was that all one has to do
is pull the throttle back and fly slower.

Well, yes and no. By doing so one flies slower, but now in the 182 one
is flying significantly closer to stall, and in the 152 one is flying
right in the sweet zone. Learning to fly, one should learn all the
flight regimes, and become used to cruise in cruise, and approach in
approach.

Jose, I don't think you understand that a newer 182 at aft cg max gross
weight has a stall speed of 48 knots. At reduced weight it can drop to
38-42 knots. The 152 stall is down around 35-42 knots.

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like?

A friend of mine once taught a primary student in an Apache (twin
engine complex). Took the guy 50 hours to solo.

If some-one is learning to fly a complex aircraft that is the basis of
his knowledge.
He doesn't 'know' how difficult it is as he has no other experience.

The biggest question in that scenario is how was the student able to
aquire the required solo time since most insurance co's will not
ensure student pilots in a twin.

-robert

Everything that I know, or even think I might know, or this subject is third
hand--and anecdotal as well.

With that caveat in mind, some people do start in twins and insurance may
not be a serious issue for a prospective pilot owns the aircraft and also
regards hull coverage as trivial. That probably means someone with a lot
more financial clout that the typical person who learns in a Cirus; but that
would also put him at a level where he might self-insure against small (to
him) losses, and have umbrella coverage as just one of his means of covering
larger losses.

Those who have been contributing to this thread, including me, are at a
level where we must qualify and insure each of our activities; but, in the
overall population, that is NOT universal.

As to the matter of financial risk to the instructor and his supervisory
employer, if any; I know too little to even speculate.

Peter

Jose, I don't think you understand that a newer 182 at aft cg max gross
weight has a stall speed of 48 knots. At reduced weight it can drop to
38-42 knots. The 152 stall is down around 35-42 knots.

Perhaps I don't, since I've never flown a "newer" 182. How do the
controls feel (compared to regular cruise) when slowed down like that?
How quickly does it slow down if you get in trouble?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I have had several students who owned there own A36 Bonanza.
The had lots of money and very little free time. It was my
opinion that their lack of steady lesson time was more
important than the differences in the airplanes. It might
add several hours to solo, but the practical test for the
private would still come at about the same average as
anybody else who only was able to fly an hour a week.


This is outside my personal experience, but anecdotal evidence suggests that
most students who are not sent by an employer are learning because they
simply want to fly. Thus, for most students, the initial ownership will not
be high performance or complex, and neither will their first move-up
aircraft. Therefore, it would make little sense to learn and then move
down.

In other words, by way of agreement, if a candidate already owns an
aircraft, then that aircraft probably makes sense as his trainer.

I believe cost is one of the main reasons people choose to learn in
low-end aircraft. If a Mooney rented for the same price as a 150, I am
sure most students will pick the Mooney over the 150. Compared to
amount of workload needed for learning the basic stick and rudder
skills, the gear and prop are only minor distractions. FWIW, I first
learned to fly in a Katana, which had a constant speed prop. It is not
complex by any means, but operating the blue knob was far simpler than
learning takeoffs and landings.


On Mar 23, 12:36 pm, "Kingfish" wrote:
Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
in 172s and PA28s)
I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

It is all relative, the mind will adjust in a few minutes to
a faster airplane.


"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| The original comment was that things happen faster due to
higher
| airspeeds in all phases of flight. My point was that all
one has to do
| is pull the throttle back and fly slower.
|
| Well, yes and no. By doing so one flies slower, but now
in the 182 one
| is flying significantly closer to stall, and in the 152
one is flying
| right in the sweet zone. Learning to fly, one should
learn all the
| flight regimes, and become used to cruise in cruise, and
approach in
| approach.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2007-03-23 09:36:05 -0700, "Kingfish" said:

Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
in 172s and PA28s)
I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
finger exactly on why.

As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-03-23 16:01:24 -0700, "Danny Deger" said:


"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
in 172s and PA28s)
I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.


In Air Force Pilot Training the students take a few rides in a Cessna, then
jump right into a T-37 jet. The jet is easier in one respect -- only
throttles to control the engine, but the higher speed makes you have to
think fast.

Danny Deger

The T-37 IS a Cessna. :-) I took my very first flying lesson in one.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Jose, I don't think you understand that a newer 182 at aft cg max gross
weight has a stall speed of 48 knots. At reduced weight it can drop to
38-42 knots. The 152 stall is down around 35-42 knots.

Perhaps I don't, since I've never flown a "newer" 182. How do the
controls feel (compared to regular cruise) when slowed down like that?
How quickly does it slow down if you get in trouble?

Probabaly the biggest difference is that the 182, with rudder trim can
be flown almost entirely by trim. It's very stable. The downspring in
the elevator makes fore and aft pushes and pulls noticeable, but this is
by design. Prop in flat pitch slows down quickly.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
It is all relative, the mind will adjust in a few minutes to
a faster airplane.



To a point, yes , most will. Whether it takes "minutes" is questionable.

Some can never make the adjustment to even 152/172 speeds.

Matt B.