On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:40:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:
snip

I've had several people who bought their own high performance airplanes
before starting instruction and then went on with me from the beginning
on through the program. Solo took a few hours more, but after that, all
was basically normal from there. I wouldn't say it was all that much
more difficult teaching them in these airplanes than it would have been
in a 150 Cessna or a 140 Cherokee.
In the end, it all depends on the same things in this scenario that it
does in a non- high performance airplane;
1.The motivation of both the student and the instructor
2.The competence of the instructor

snip

Pretty much says it all.

As an alleged technician, my initial "training" was flying right seat
in whatever freighthog was flying with whichever freightdog that had
been flying all day and wanted someone to ride along half the night.

Again, as an alleged technician, the systems side of " learning" in a
complex, high performance aircraft was pretty much a non-event.

I'm sure that you understand that a little higher level of knowledge
is needed to efficiently troubleshoot and maintain a system than to
fly behind it (inside it?).

Finally did my official primary training in a 7AC, then a PA38-112,
but had more real-life "lessons" in complex, high performance singles
(& twins) than the traditional trainer.

Most of these "lessons" were from professional pilots with 5K-10K
hours.

Would also agree that if one can keep up with the airplane, most c h-p
singles are easier to fly with regard to the overall "harmony" of the
flight controls, and from having plenty of power-opposed to having
barely enuff.

Always enjoy reading your stuff, sorta wish I coulda gotten into
warbirds instead of GA 25 years ago...

Regards;

TC