One to think and argue about 
Let’s say you get the usual dreamer’s question about someone who has been flying for a while wanting to buy a “easy” to use and fly airplane.
Seeing that many of us GA pilots are busy worker bees and are in relationships e.t.c. which all cost time, many of us do not get a great lot of currency. So I personally have been musing back and forth about what kind of airplanes with what characteristics are the right ones to choose for people who do their 30-50 hours per year and have sometimes a lot of time in between flights.
For me, I can come up with a couple of criteria in no particular order of significance.
- SEP. Twins will require a lot more currency to be safe to fly.
- Fuel systems: Preferrably a simple and easy fuel system with maximum 3 settings, Left/Right/OFF or maybe the BOTH which Cessna has in some planes. Seeing that even people who own and fly much more manage to sometimes go wrong on fuel systems with up to 8 tanks of which one filling the next in a specific order, I’d think that one should be important.
- Fixed gear /Prop, even though I think complex airplanes should be manageable as long as the systems are not too difficult to master.
What do you guys come up with?
I find it worthy to think about why we need to consider aircraft with benign characteristics because a job and family is sufficient that there’s not enough time to fly even one hour a week. Why not get a life and fly a Baron with 16 tanks?
Sounds more like a slave life to me – busy bee is only similar in the slave context, because bees actually can fly, so they got that going ;)
Snoopy wrote:
because a job and family is sufficient that there’s not enough time to fly even one hour a week.
Well, for people in fixed jobs with fixed time tables and a family that is pretty much what it is. I am one of them too, even though my hours are more flexible.
The operative word here is currency however. We all know that many club pilots barely manage 12 hours in 2 years. For people who consider purchase, I’d say 30 to 50 hours a year may be on the side these people do when they ask for advice on purchase. That was my starting point for this discussion.
Fuel systems could fill another thread I guess, most complex ones there are the result of the original airplane having way too few capacity and therefore tinkering with aux, tips, baggage e.t.c. tanks lead to something which quite often get even people who “know” the system in trouble. Some planes have systems more complex than a 747-200 had and that one had a flight enigneer. I for starters don’t like complex fuel systems and would not want to have one. Actually, all Mooneys are simple left/right/off planes, even those with Monroy tanks.
OK, if we just stick with airplanes and leave the extraneous factors aside, there is really only one: Cessna 172. As simple as you can get, fuel on crossfeed with gravitation flow, fixed gear and fixed prop. Add to that super-benign characteristics and you have an airplane that simply cannot be beaten for simplicity and easy of operation, yet can go anywhere and do pretty much anything.
As part of the thread’s “target group” of low hours pilots, I found the Aquila A210 to be the easiest to fly, followed by the C172 and PA28.
The Aquila is a newer design and has better ergonomics than either of the “classics”. It has a constant speed prop, but I never found it too difficult to operate. The centre stick affords more precision in control than a yoke.
Operating costs are low, with 20 L Mogas/h giving you the same speed as a C172 gets with 40 L Avgas. Obviously, the downside being you only have two seats instead of four, but still a decent useful load for 750 kg MTOW.
172driver wrote:
OK, if we just stick with airplanes and leave the extraneous factors aside, there is really only one: Cessna 172. As simple as you can get, fuel on crossfeed with gravitation flow, fixed gear and fixed prop. Add to that super-benign characteristics and you have an airplane that simply cannot be beaten for simplicity and easy of operation, yet can go anywhere and do pretty much anything.
True.
In the UK the default club aircraft has tended to be of the PA28 family, while in France it might be a Robin.
Not sure why the C172 was not the default club aircraft in the UK, in some countries Pepsi is more popular than Coca-Cola. I would suggest the PA28 has been able to accept more nose-wheel on tarmac action than the Cessna, and Piper spare parts are cheaper.
The DA40, Warrior/Archer, Skyhawk and the Robin are all solid aircraft which can take you all over Europe with an excellent safety record.
DA40 diesel version would be my 1st call (upgrade to diesel DA42 if looking for low currency twin ), it’s easier to land and fly than M20C, sadly junky fuel system, nothing complex: just one fuel thank that you need to fill using the other tank, unless you are an idealist who likes 50%-50% splits all time it’s no different from driving your car to the fuel pump every 2h30min !
Then Archer & Robin are next on the list, and finally Warrior & Skyhawk, as Rob said depending if you like Pepsi vs CocaCola? everything will be slow, less efficient and less stable than your vintage Mooney but you will get used to it…
MedEwok wrote about the Aquila:
Operating costs are low, with 20 L Mogas/h giving you the same speed as a C172 gets with 40 L Avgas.
An O-320 powered C172 (which means most of them) burns about 31 liters per hour, and can be readily approved by STC for unleaded premium auto fuel as well as AVGAS.
My nomination assuming the plane should have useful performance would be an RV-9A, which typically uses the same fairly economical engine as a C172, but with two seats, and has notably docile handling well suited to a low to moderate currency pilot. It is not certified so better suited to being owner flown, but regardless of low annual hours flown (or not) that is my only interest in aviation. So that’s not an issue for me. Here are the RV-9 specs and performance:
Mooney_Driver wrote:
people who do their 30-50 hours per year and have sometimes a lot of time in between flights
I would say that is the 10% of people who fly a lot. Low currency is less than 10 h per year, or even less than 5 h per year. We must not get obsessed with currency. It doesn’t really mean all that much. One person can have low currency, let’s say 5 h per year, but do a lot of simming and preparation, planning. His brain is constantly wired to flying. He has no problems flying at all. Another one can have 50+ h per year, but gets all upset if he hasn’t flown for a month. How well you handle less than crystal clear tasks also play a part. This has more to do with getting all stressed out if the task isn’t crystal clear. Their ability is severely deteriorated by their own stress. Age play a part. The ability to handle fuzzy tasks and complex tasks deteriorate with age. Highly structured people have larger problems with “currency” than less structured people. All in all it’s a personal thing, and the hours per year is only one factor of many.
Another thing I see is that it’s usually not the strict aircraft part that is a problem for low hour pilots, it’s SA, radio, forgetting to stay at the alt and so on. This, I guess, is due to saturation. The flying environment seems to me to be a larger factor than the aircraft itself. A low time pilot would be better off flying at a simple airfield out in G with little traffic, than at a controlled airfield with traffic and procedures.
A simple aircraft is better. A C-172 is perfect.
