Tecnam P2010. Modern take on the Cessna style, extra doors, handles nice.
Bear in mind that all certified planes have met the design requirement of “must not require unusual pilot skill and attention” for all of the handling and maneuvers described in the flight manual. I agree that some types are a little more docile than others, and taildraggers require additional skills. Complex airplanes of course demand more understanding, though often diligent use of the flight manual and checklists can get you through fine, just allow yourself the time.
I see pilots challenged by planes more because the flying that they do is more the family outing, $100 lunch run, that practicing airwork, circuits and different takeoff and landing techniques. During the airwork, all of the maneuvers in the normal procedures of the flight manual should be flown. Included in this hopefully, will be large displacements of the flight controls within limitations and in the correct phases of flight, to refresh the pilot on what control is available. You’d be surprised at how much control you can put in (full rudder in a sideslip, for example) and still have entirely controlled flight.
As for the affect of the third wheel for steering, be it the nose or tailwheel. you’d be surprised how little it does (or should be doing) at runway speeds. It’s the rudder doing the work at speed. Evidence of this are the types which do not have any nosewheel steering (Grummans, Lake Amphibian, and any amphib floatplane), once you’re lined up with the brakes for steering, it’ll be the rudder, and maybe a touch of brake to redirect, but no “steering” in that sense. I agree that if you plant a steering nosewheel firmly onto the runway, the nosewheel may take you for a ride. Counteract this risk by keeping the nose very light through the landing, ending with the controls held firmly full nose up as the nose settles on. Then, you’ll have to steer with the wheel, but you’ll be going much more slowly.
My first left seat landing in a Twin Otter was this. The nosewheel steering is hydraulic, and what you steer is what you get (no castoring). As the right seat does not have a tiller, you can’t practice from that side. My first landing, which sadly was in a big crosswind, after a stressful ILS approach in a sandstorm in Khartoum, was that, I held the nose as light as I could, while I kept it straight with the rudder. I can’t say that my steering with the nosewheel was pride worthy, but I kept it somewhere around the centerline. Fly the plane from the time you enter the runway, till the time you leave the runway. Keep as much weight on the wings, rather than the wheels while in the runway. The planes will show themselves to be easier to fly, and surprisingly similar to each other!
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Bear in mind that all certified planes have met the design requirement of “must not require unusual pilot skill and attention” for all of the handling and maneuvers described in the flight manual. I agree that some types are a little more docile than others, and taildraggers require additional skills
Certification does not in practice require that to be the case, otherwise many nice types would never have been certified. In practice its only true in the context of the average skill level of a pilot that is likely to be attracted to the individual certified type in question. A certified Pitts, a Luscombe 8 and a Cessna 195 for example all require unusual pilot skill and attention in the context of an e.g. 100 hr C172 pilot, and there are many other examples. Many certified types do not even have a useful flight manual (Maule) or any flight manual.
Picking the right type as per this thread is a very valid consideration for a pilot with less than a perfectly tuned up skill set. Most pilots can learn to fly any certified type, given opportunity, but the question was which types are better for those who have not advanced to that level and have little opportunity to do so.
Was the Cessna 195 certified when Part 23 specifically §23.2135 was in force? What aboit the Luscombe?
For me,no doubt,the best airplane is you don’t fly enough is the Rallye,it excuse nearly every mistake and behind that the Cessna 172.
T28 wrote:
Was the Cessna 195 certified when Part 23 specifically §23.2135 was in force? What about the Luscombe?
Both of those were CAR certified, as is for example the Mooney M20 through something like the E-model and the 2020 Maule Maule TCDS. Conversely the Pitts series, which is probably the best example of what I’m describing in terms of a certified type demanding unusual pilot skill and attention, was certified under Part 23 as per the Pitts TCDS
I don’t think certification on any particular regulatory basis has a bearing on whether a low currency 100 hr C172 pilot could fly the certified plane by jumping in, paying attention and being methodical. That is anyway the wrong message IMHO. These are all certified aircraft and are widely available for selection by prospective buyers to be operated today in FAA standard category. Most buyers would not even know the certification basis for a particular certified type, only that it is FAA certified.
Silvaire wrote:
A certified Pitts, a Luscombe 8 and a Cessna 195 for example all require unusual pilot skill and attention in the context of an e.g. 100 hr C172 pilot, and there are many other examples. Many certified types do not even have a useful flight manual (Maule) or any flight manual.
Very true. As I said, taildraggers tend to have been certified to a higher “pilot skill” bar. Perhaps this is because back in the day, the base pilot experience (including the FAA test pilots) was more taildragger oriented. Though some taildraggers (Cessna 180) are pretty benign, the should not be considered “simple” planes for a non taildragger pilot.
Whether CAR 3 or Part 23, there is not a vast difference in the requirements for handling and ease of flight, as the low experience pilot would see them. The differences in the standards tend more toward systems and construction. Pilots need not worry about needing a Part 23 airplane so that it is easier to fly than a CAR 3 cert basis plane. A takeaway message is that if the type in not certified, it may have differences that the pilot should be aware of, indeed, sometimes that’s the point of it being non certified. There are some non certified types which are delightfully simple to fly too, it’s just that uncertified is less regulated, so more onus on the pilot to know for them self.
I’m surprised no-one has mentioned the C150 and 152.
I agree that the airfield is very important. A low currency pilot will need a standard approach – NOT “Keep it tight, vacate at end, cleared land”, and a near vne dive to touch down 200m from the end of a 1700m runway.
At busy times they will have to orbit for a.long time.
Since the thread title doesn’t include “cheap” let me say the TB20 is dead easy to fly, too. I reckon that to crash a TB20 you need to disconnect the autopilot and fall asleep. I’ve had mine for 18 years, went straight to it from a PA28, the conversion was a few hours (mostly a joke actually) and it has never done anything which remotely surprised me.
I had forgotten the Rallye. It can be flown by anybody.
