tmo wrote:
[this] would kind of be the point of such an exercise
Indeed.
There are a few questions the student should ask him/herself before doing this, but none of them have anything to do with the training itself.
If the answer to any of these three is not a clear “absolutely!”, I would recommend to find a school which is happy to train you for your PPL on a school-operated Arrow, and only buy at the point when you are sure about all three.
Cobalt wrote:
so some post-PPL stuff will creep in.
Which, to me, would kind of be the point of such an exercise – same logic as training for the IR in one’s own plane.
Bringing this back to topic, a bit late to the thread…
I actually had a student who bought an Arrow (T-tail IV, but not turbo) after his first solo in a PA28. Did the conversion training & solo on that one, too, and he finished the PPL on it. Other than the obvious time needed (a bit below 5 hours, IIRC) to do the VP and rectractable bits, he did nicely. While he was at the more talented end of the ability spectrum, can’t see why others shouldn’t do it, if they can afford it. As an instructor, I share the slight worry about the turbo in a s*tty fixed wastegate set-up, though.
There are a few non-obvious gotchas for the school / instructor to keep in mind.
so some post-PPL stuff will creep in.
Silvaire wrote:
A Chipmunk was designed as a basic trainer, and I believe its a pretty good plane for the job. The reason to learn to fly in a Chipmunk might be because you bought a purpose designed primary trainer and would like to use it for that purpose Obviously 145 HP on a good day is not going to break the bank in fuel consumption.
Yes, it was designed as trainer but still 145HP on tarmac will still give a lot of headache vs 65HP/95HP on grass for a cadet 
Ibra wrote:
I don’t think kind of aircraft/training military has is anywhere relevant to the initial question, you will come across pilots who learned on Texans or Chipmunks, for most of them it did probably took ages to solo?
A Chipmunk was designed as a basic trainer, and I believe its a pretty good plane for the job. The reason to learn to fly in a Chipmunk might be because you bought a purpose designed primary trainer and would like to use it for that purpose Obviously 145 HP on a good day is not going to break the bank in fuel consumption.
A T-6 (meaning an SNJ, Harvard, Texan etc) would be a completely different experience: more than four times as much power and designed to transition existing pilots from tailwheel basic trainers into WWII fighters. I’m sure its possible to learn to fly in a T-6 but it would be much more challenging than (for example) a Marchetti SF-260 – a current military primary trainer that is well aligned to the initial question.
In relation to the initial question, if I wanted to own and fly an SF-260 (which happens to be the case, perhaps 10 years from now 
) I would learn to fly in something that burns a fraction of the fuel, has a fraction of the wing loading and will teach me to use the rudder and fly the wing. Then I would get some hours in at least one other intermediate type in order to learn that (in the words of an instructor friend to me, in this circumstance years ago) “the throttle is a control”… then I would finally transition into the SF-260. That progression has been proven unnecessary by the Italian Air Force if the objective is to fly only high wing loading, powerful planes… but it would be (is) my choice, because doing so is an educational luxury that I think and hope builds good skills and broad understanding.
You could just ask them to taxi Chipmunk in a windy days you would have got your anwser? (I am describing my first Chipmunk flight with no tailwheel experience !)
I don’t think kind of aircraft/training military has is anywhere relevant to the intial question, you will come across pilots who learned on Texans or Chipmunks, for most of them it did probably took ages to solo? that does not make any financial sense compared to civvy operating models in C172/PA28?
In the other hand you will come across someone who failed to make it on jets after 200h and will end up flying real missions on AB205 helicopters after a quick 10h conversion by one of his colleagues who failed on jets the year before ;)
While it is doable, I don’t see much the point if one wants to “learn to fly for fun”, but I will understand if someone doing his PPL/IR in a TB20, DA40, SR22, PA46…in one go and then stick to it for touring ;)
Last weekend I just come across someone who bought a Harvard and planning to do his PPL on it, that will not end very cheap or easy but has a long standing charm ;)
Long story short I got friendly with a couple of German Air Force F4 Phantom pilots. They had brought their machines from Germany. I had my Chipmunk. They wanted a flight. I obliged and it was one of the most hair raising escapades of my life. They flew the Chipmunk like an F4. I was truly afraid and I eventually took control off the first guy. He also could not land it. We tried a number of times but kept flaring way to high. Told me he had initially trained on 152’s. The military must have beat it out of him.
The problem with the F16 is it goes many many times faster than a 172 up, down and forward.
Peter wrote:
you could do ab initio in an F16
An F-16 is a very bad example since it is very easy to fly. The F-35 is even easier. They are war machines after all, made for dropping bombs and missiles accurately and shooting down enemy planes. They are designed for that purpose, and idiosyncrasies of aerodynamics and stability are handled by computers. The pilot can focus on winning the war, not fighting the aircraft.
The Norwegian Air Force use Saab Safari. It’s a simple aircraft, although a bit more complex than a C-172 and much more maneuverable. The purpose is twofold: To teach pilots the basics of flying and to weed out those not fit for duty (or simply to pick the best). The national Flight Academy use C-182. One of the instructors there is also an instructor at my club, and he always talks warm about the 182, similar to a Safari in complexity.
I think you can learn in anything, it’s mostly a matter of cost. With a simple aircraft you will however focus on the basics of flying – stick and rudder type of flying. Learning in a glider is probably the best way of doing that IMO. A C-172 is too easy to fly, it’s too stable, too slow reacting, too well behaved to really learn stick and rudder type of flying IMO. A typical military trainer SEP is much better in that respect, or a Cub (also easy to fly, but much more maneuverable and the tail wheel requires proper landing technique). A microlight is also much less stable and more twitchy than a C-172.
But I mean, if flying a C-172 kind of plane is all you are going to do, why learn to fly anything else? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
boscomantico wrote:
I suggest you checkread all of that…
Which part?
