Intro flight lesson Q’s.
 

I am about to sign up for an intro flight lesson. My question for those in the know.. The place I am going to has a Super Decathlon in their fleet, it costs a bit more money but seems like it would be a lot more fun than a Cessna 172. I know there are a lot of pilots on the board so what say you.

Fly the Super Decathlon.

Go for the tail dragger, you will never go back, your skills will be so much better.

Up until the 50s and 60s, everybody learned in tail draggers. If you have the funds, go for it. As cgarr said your skills will be better (keep them feet moving!).

:D I did that when I jumped in a 172 once, said "damn, this thing turns":D

If your $ can swing it, go with the taildragger. Sort of like learning on a manual transmission....Once that is mastered, a tricycle is nothing....

I personally would opt for the cheaper 172 (150 would be even better) to start with...... there will be plenty of sensory overload during your initial training as it is.

no question.. go with the 172..

As someone who knows nothing about aviation, but might be interested in getting a pilot's license some day, can someone summarize the differences between the two airplanes? Which one is the "taildragger"?

A taildragger or conventional gear plane has a tailwheel and sits in a nose up attitude on the ground. This makes visibility a little more difficult while on the ground, it also makes ground handling a little more difficult. A tricycle gear plane has a nosewheel and eliminates the bad parts of a taildragger but sacrifices the ability to be used on unimproved surfaces like bush planes use. There are more advantages and disadvantages than these but they are sometimes opinions.

I'm also going to suggest that you start in the 172, for the same reason that you would probably not suggest a student driver to learn in Porsche, even if it was just a 356. I realize that some people will thrive under the additional pressure, and the "more capable" airplane MAY enhance their experience. I still believe that logging some time in a more straight forward plane will be beneficial.

Leigon, I am attaching a picture of a super decathlon (aerobatic pic), a cessna 172 (*boring* tricycle gear), and a cessna 120 (*boring* tail dragger). I think the difference between tail dragger and trike will be obvious. What may not be obvious is that the tail dragger can be more difficult to handle on the ground, and you lose some visibility directly in front of the plane when it is down.

Tim, I have most of my time in a 150, and I have been told it might actually be a little harder to fly than a 172. I'm told the larger plane's mass helps stabalize the flight some, and that the 150 is more hands on. I've never flown a 172 so I can't comment.

As a fellow student pilot I will say that I have some very limited time in a Mooney M20 C, and I really do appreciate the 150 basics. As a reasonably skilled car and motorcycle operator, I was a little surprised to see how easily a novice pilot can begin to feel overwhelmed. I would suggest not trying to run before you can walk, as you may manage to beat all the fun out of it..... Then again, the first guy who did it, had never done it before!



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1270663597.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1270663606.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1270663617.jpg

The Super Decathalon is the taildragger.

Cessna 172 is tricycle.

My opinion is to get the basics down in the 172, then move to a taildragger as soon as you're ready for some extra work.

Most importantly, eat a big breakfast before you go.
You will need plenty of energy, so go with a high protein meal like eggs, bacon, hashbrowns, and sausage.

***

Flaps on a 120?

Thats interesting and the debate I had when teaching my Son to drive. He learned in my 69 912, 5 speed carbbed engine, it was a struggle and he wanted to give up but we kept at it and he got good, now drives autox's etc then got his VW GTI which was a piece a cake. BTW I learned in a 1939 J4 Cub at age 16, then flew 140's and Luscombes, the Luscombe was the most fun but hardest plane to fly, "on the ground"

The difference in the two aircraft is that a tail wheel aircraft has the center of gravity behind the main landing gear and nose wheel aircraft is ahead of the main lading gear, big difference is in ground maneuvering, lack of attention on the ground results most likely in a ground loop. CG location is also important on landing in a crosswind. If you let the tail get too far off center and the wind catches you that is also a ground loop but much uglier at slightly higher speed.

Also google p factor, asymmetrical thrust and get you mind around that as well.

It's been said many times, the only time you can relax in a tail wheel aircraft is when the aircraft is shutdown and in the hangar. Anything prior to that, you best pay attention.

On the fun quotient, I'd go with tail wheel but ease of learning, the C172.

Regardless, have fun!

I have a friend who taught his oldest to fly in his PA12 and is teaching his youngest in his recently restored 170, but that is what he OWNS. If he was paying for rental, he would no doubt select the cheapest tricycle gear to start lessons in. If the end goal is to obtain your pilot license in the quickest/least expensive way then go with the cheapest, simplest airplane you can find. Learning to fly a tail dragger/twin/high performance/floatplane etc can be done at any time later.

I had about 200 hrs in C150, C172 and a Grumman Yankee when I bought my Piper Pacer (taildragger) and the insurance company made me get 5 hrs in the plane with an instructor. My logbook showed the five hours, but I was "reasonably" comfortable after about 2 hours of takeoffs/landings.

Cgarr, You are spot on with that... I only used that analogy as one that I figured most people would relate to. I learned how to drive in a car with a 5 speed, because that's all my parents had. I feel like I actually would teach a child (IF I ever have them) in a porsche... but there is still a cutoff at some point. It's just I'm not sure exactly where it is. Probably any base model naturally aspirated car would suffice if you could afford to bang it around a bit. I would say that a sensible person would not strap themeselves into a 935, or something completely rediculous with someone that still has their training wheels. That's just common sense. But where's the cutoff? and to relate back to the thread, where does a dechathlon fall in the spectrum? It's no GT3, but its certainly not a corolla either. You could make an arguement that learning to fly in a complex airplane *could have some benefits too. ie, if you want to become a commercial pilot.

I guess the bottom line is, there is probably actually nothing wrong with learning in the decathlon, but one should weigh and understand the options. And also understand how those options may effect the quality, duration and cost of training.

Either way you're flying, and I can thing of MANY worse things to be doing. :D

Speaking of aviation, anyone going to be at Sun-n-Fun, Lakeland FL, next Friday?

Sun n' Fun » Home

Nope.... last year I was there in the Pacer (10 long hours each way) was the year Charley Hillard died on the runway after flipping due to locked brakes.

I will be there! camping all week!

unless someone wants help flying in. I would love to jumpseat out to your airport and help out.