buying new low wing
buying new low wing
Is the 180 or 250 better for a noob?
Re: buying new low wing
180eandar wrote:Is the 180 or 250 better for a noob?
- DHenriques_
- A2A Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5711
- Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 08:31
- Location: East Coast United States
Re: buying new low wing
If you can be a bit more specific on your concerns I'll be glad to try and help with an answer.eandar wrote:Is the 180 or 250 better for a noob?
Real or sim? If real, can you be specific?
Dudley Henriques
Re: buying new low wing
In either case: 180DHenriquesA2A wrote:If you can be a bit more specific on your concerns I'll be glad to try and help with an answer.eandar wrote:Is the 180 or 250 better for a noob?
Real or sim? If real, can you be specific?
Dudley Henriques
- DHenriques_
- A2A Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5711
- Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 08:31
- Location: East Coast United States
Re: buying new low wing
Well then, since this is under such good control, I'll go do some yard work.mallcott wrote:In either case: 180DHenriquesA2A wrote:If you can be a bit more specific on your concerns I'll be glad to try and help with an answer.eandar wrote:Is the 180 or 250 better for a noob?
Real or sim? If real, can you be specific?
Dudley Henriques
DH
Re: buying new low wing
The 180 is simpler to fly. The 250 is a complex aircraft.
That said, it is not hard to fly.
You learn to work the RPMs for the prop and landing gear.
That said, it is not hard to fly.
You learn to work the RPMs for the prop and landing gear.
"Spring Chicken to Shite Hawk in one easy lesson...taka taka taka taka..."
Re: buying new low wing
I don't know how many gear up landings have been performed in the 250, but I know the answer for the 180.DHenriquesA2A wrote: Well then, since this is under such good control, I'll go do some yard work.
DH
None.
- DHenriques_
- A2A Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5711
- Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 08:31
- Location: East Coast United States
Re: buying new low wing
That's fine but has absolutely nothing to do with training. It is perfectly possible to start a student in a complex aircraft and complete the training straight into certification in that aircraft. I've done it many times as an instructor.mallcott wrote:I don't know how many gear up landings have been performed in the 250, but I know the answer for the 180.DHenriquesA2A wrote: Well then, since this is under such good control, I'll go do some yard work.
DH
None.
If a student chooses a 180 the student learns to fly in a 180. If a student chooses a 250 the instructor teaches in a 250.
Most pilots will choose a non-complex airplane for training due to the cost factor and the fact that most flight schools maintain lower cost aircraft for this reason. But it would be wrong to assume that a retractable landing gear and a constant speed prop should be considered as a hindrance to proper training.
Bottom line; the student chooses the aircraft and the instructor teaches in that aircraft. Either way, training can commence safely.
As to the poster's initial question, what is pertinent is what I asked him. Is his question for the sim or for the real world.
If for the real world my answer above should be sufficient .
Dudley Henriques
Re: buying new low wing
If that is the case, then why does theDHenriquesA2A wrote:That's fine but has absolutely nothing to do with training. It is perfectly possible to start a student in a complex aircraft and complete the training straight into certification in that aircraft. I've done it many times as an instructor.mallcott wrote:I don't know how many gear up landings have been performed in the 250, but I know the answer for the 180.DHenriquesA2A wrote: Well then, since this is under such good control, I'll go do some yard work.
DH
None.
If a student chooses a 180 the student learns to fly in a 180. If a student chooses a 250 the instructor teaches in a 250.
Most pilots will choose a non-complex airplane for training due to the cost factor and the fact that most flight schools maintain lower cost aircraft for this reason. But it would be wrong to assume that a retractable landing gear and a constant speed prop should be considered as a hindrance to proper training.
Bottom line; the student chooses the aircraft and the instructor teaches in that aircraft. Either way, training can commence safely.
As to the poster's initial question, what is pertinent is what I asked him. Is his question for the sim or for the real world.
If for the real world my answer above should be sufficient .
Dudley Henriques
FAA Light Sport Aircraft requirements have the following limitations?
Light Sport Aircraft:
Light sport aircraft are defined as simple, low-performance, low-energy aircraft that are limited to-
1,320 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
1,430 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft intended for operation on water.
A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (V H ) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
A single, reciprocating engine.
A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
Maximum airspeed of 120 knots.
Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (V S1 ) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
I don't teach pilots but I do teach motorcyclists. In both licensing regimes the ab initio student is limited by statute on what they may use (in aviation case by a license extension, in motorcycles buy government proscribed limitation in most civilised countries). While I'm sure you have trained ab initio pilots on complex aircraft, just as I have trained beginner motorcyclists on 200hp sportbikes, in neither case is it a GOOD Idea. Which is also the answer to the initial question.
As I'm sure you have, I've watched a student land a complex single gear up while suffering from information overload. There was nothing wrong with the plane.
I've also watch a student motorcyclist impale himself on railings because he failed to close the throttle fully on a 130 hp motorcycle. That ended even less well.
So let's widen the scope of the discussion: Given the exigencies of wartime and the reduced flying hours for thousands of trainee pilots, why did all the major Air Forces of the world, including yours and mine, INSIST on basic training starting in a fixed prop, fixed gear aircraft? Surely, if what you say is true, they'd have gone straight into Harvard/Texans?
Again, it makes no difference if we are talking Real World or sim world, answer remains the same.
180.
- DHenriques_
- A2A Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5711
- Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 08:31
- Location: East Coast United States
Re: buying new low wing
Dudley Henriquesmallcott wrote:
I don't know how many gear up landings have been performed in the 250, but I know the answer for the 180.
None.
That's fine but has absolutely nothing to do with training. It is perfectly possible to start a student in a complex aircraft and complete the training straight into certification in that aircraft. I've done it many times as an instructor.
If a student chooses a 180 the student learns to fly in a 180. If a student chooses a 250 the instructor teaches in a 250.
Most pilots will choose a non-complex airplane for training due to the cost factor and the fact that most flight schools maintain lower cost aircraft for this reason. But it would be wrong to assume that a retractable landing gear and a constant speed prop should be considered as a hindrance to proper training.
Bottom line; the student chooses the aircraft and the instructor teaches in that aircraft. Either way, training can commence safely.
As to the poster's initial question, what is pertinent is what I asked him. Is his question for the sim or for the real world.
If for the real world my answer above should be sufficient .
Dudley Henriques
mallcott wrote: If that is the case, then why does the
FAA Light Sport Aircraft requirements have the following limitations?
Light Sport Aircraft:
Light sport aircraft are defined as simple, low-performance, low-energy aircraft that are limited to-
1,320 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
1,430 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft intended for operation on water.
A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (V H ) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
A single, reciprocating engine.
A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
Maximum airspeed of 120 knots.
Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (V S1 ) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
I don't teach pilots but I do teach motorcyclists. In both licensing regimes the ab initio student is limited by statute on what they may use (in aviation case by a license extension, in motorcycles buy government proscribed limitation in most civilised countries). While I'm sure you have trained ab initio pilots on complex aircraft, just as I have trained beginner motorcyclists on 200hp sportbikes, in neither case is it a GOOD Idea. Which is also the answer to the initial question.
As I'm sure you have, I've watched a student land a complex single gear up while suffering from information overload. There was nothing wrong with the plane.
I've also watch a student motorcyclist impale himself on railings because he failed to close the throttle fully on a 130 hp motorcycle. That ended even less well.
So let's widen the scope of the discussion: Given the exigencies of wartime and the reduced flying hours for thousands of trainee pilots, why did all the major Air Forces of the world, including yours and mine, INSIST on basic training starting in a fixed prop, fixed gear aircraft? Surely, if what you say is true, they'd have gone straight into Harvard/Texans?
Again, it makes no difference if we are talking Real World or sim world, answer remains the same.
180.
Light sport aircraft have their own set of rules and regulations. We're talking aircraft outside the light sport airplane category.
Let me put it this way. If you buy a Piper Arrow and come to me to obtain your pilot's license, there is nothing in the regulations that will prevent you from learning to fly and taking your flight test in that airplane.
Modern military thinking here in the states on primary training is to get the student into the new T6B ASAP which is not only complex but turboprop to boot.
Motorcycles I'm sure might be a different story. I'll check with the FAA and let you know LOL
Dudley Henriques
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests