Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Airplane characteristics for the usual low currency low time GA pilots

Not sure if we discuss the right dimensions.

Flying by itself (even with retractable, constant speed prop, etc.) is quite simple and for people who at least had some time of regular flying (like most pilots in their early years) at some point in their life is something they don’t forget (like riding bicycles).

Currency, recent experience, etc. kicks in especially when something unexpected happens. Therefore I would argue that a good glide performance (at low speed), simple electrical systems, simple avionics (sixpack !) are more important than “easy” flight characteristics.

Germany

As a low time hrs pilot myself (less than 150hrs TT) I find that I always have “butterflies” if I’ve not flown for around a month. However, following this years Covid restrictions I was pleased that after a 4 month break I was able bash out a few CCTs, stalls, PFL etc with an instructor and not make too many mistakes…..all in a PA28 so I guess that is another vote for the simple aircraft for low currency.

United Kingdom

I would say the Cessna. Never flew a Piper.

Robins comes second. They are the workhorse of the french pilot population. It is a Cessna + a fuel pump in terms of simplicity, flare is easier but more prone to runway excursion. Dozens of robins break their landing gear every year.

LFOU, France

Jash2009 wrote:

…..all in a PA28 so I guess that is another vote for the simple aircraft for low currency.

I too like the very benign handling of the PA-28 in slow flight and stall. Out of the aircraft I have flown yet, the PA-28 has the “nicest” stall characteristics, it doesn’t tend to drop a wing.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

also ultralights like Eurostar.. very nice to fly and with 10-20 hours the inability to fly legal IFR or possible international restrictions dont apply..

EETU, Estonia

ivark wrote:

also ultralights like Eurostar..

Maybe applicable to Eurostar only? most Ultralights/Microlights will need “current and experienced pilots”, the PA28/C172 are way more forgiving (stable & robust) than the typical microlights, when I got “low on budget” I did to move to ULs/Micros, overall half flying budget and twice more hours, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for someone with “low on time” to go that way…

The other reason being if you only have “Saturday Nov 14 from 2pm to 5pm” to fly in the next 3 months, you will not be able to fly microlights anyway as it will be 15G25kts, but one will be tempted they have 8h and 20 circuits in last 28 days in their own Pipistrel

If you are really short on time an aircraft like Mooney_Driver M20C does allow better utilisation in the limited slots when weather is marginal but it still complex aircraft and require some currency hours, if you live in Southern Italy, Spain, France yes a Ultralight/Microlight will do for someone with limited time

I personally flown a rental DA40 consistently as “weather backup” over the last 3 years with few hours on the type (20h/year?), I don’t dare flying Mooney M20J, tailwheels, microlights or gliders in those conditions (always booked it as backup or pick it when other have cancelled and literally never cancelled a local flight on it in the last 3 years, that includes low ceiling and visibility days, +40kts winds and heavy showers), I had a similar experience with Archer/C172 previously, you just jump in and fly, in Microlights/Gliders/Complex, I had to cancel my flights more than I wish…

Last Edited by Ibra at 17 Nov 10:58
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Indeed, Eurostar can be flown in 15G25 .. I’m actually a big fan of PA28- thats what I have, but Eurostar had good vibes :) So far the pilots who have extremely low currency (and whom I have mett personally ) have limited connection to reality. They appear twice a year, ask to fly a few circuits to get rid of some rust,and then want to rent my plane to fly into some 600m island strip with their family.. Its completely doable in Cherokee 140, but definitely not when you have trouble making a decent circuit in nice weather on 1600m runway. I also have a friend with low TMG hours who’s most important decision factor between UL and LAPL is the fact that for UL you have to fly 10 or 15 hours with instructor vs 3 for LAPL(TMG)→ LAPL(A). (and again,then I can take your plane and visit those island)..

EETU, Estonia

Mooney_Driver wrote:

What do you guys come up with?

I didn’t come up with it; Cessna came up with it when they added “Land-o-matic” gear to the C170 and called it the Cessna 172.

It’s ideal for low hours pilots: the handling is entirely benign, it’s not so fast you can end up too far behind it, strong landing gear, low landing speed, and you can get a short field landing out of it without needing particularly refined technique, and a fuel selector you just leave on “Both” all the time with no electric fuel pump.

The Piper Cherokee is a close second, but second because the fuel management still trips people up from time to time.

Last Edited by alioth at 17 Nov 13:53
Andreas IOM

The Piper Cherokee is a close second

The PA28 family has a quirk which results in more runway excursions than the Cessna. On take off the Cessna nose strut extends and disconnects the nose-wheel from the rudder allowing the nose wheel to be aligned with the slipstream. Cessna patented this and did not licence this to Piper.

As a consequence the nose dragger Cessna will have better positive directional stability when landing in a crab. The PA28 is less forgiving of landing without the aircraft aligned with the runway as the nose wheel is not aligned with the runway and the aircraft will naturally want to head off into wind at touchdown, assuming a crab into wind.

Arguably, this encourages better training in using the combination crab and side slip method of dealing with crosswinds. However PA28 are more prone to runway excursions as a result.

Piper introduced bungees on the Seneca nose wheel steering allowing a crab method with minimal side slip to be employed as a crosswind technique, in this way protecting the propeller from a potential strike using a side slip.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

The easiest thing I fly is an Ikarus c42 microlight, definitely easier than a Cessna 172. Cessna is easy but does have a power/pitch coupling that has caught out a few pilots who are new to her, for example getting a bit low and slow, power burst, and nose rears up.

My favourite aircraft to fly and land is the RV10. Its more complex, but the handling is sweet. Very easy to grease on.

EGKL, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top