Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

On 2007-03-23 09:36:05 -0700, "Kingfish" said:

Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
in 172s and PA28s)
I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
finger exactly on why.

As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:19:38 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
finger exactly on why.

As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.

Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

TC

Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
finger exactly on why.

As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.

Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

TC

Sheesh!

I though it had some endearing qualities, and still do. The nay sayers
really overstate.

Peter

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:25:57 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:


Sheesh!

I though it had some endearing qualities, and still do. The nay sayers
really overstate.

Peter


I allegedly trained in one, and allegedly maintained 5 that
accumulated around 15000 hours.

It is a FAA type certificated airplane, other than that, they are
semi-ugly to fly and fully-ugly to maintain.

Again, since it was designed from a clean sheet, supposedly from input
from flight instructors, there is really no excuse for how it turned
out.

Somebody (not me, not going there again) ought to stall/spin one and
video the tail shaking and post it on utoob.

Regards;

TC

Sheesh!

I though it had some endearing qualities, and still do. The nay sayers
really overstate.

Peter


I allegedly trained in one, and allegedly maintained 5 that
accumulated around 15000 hours.

It is a FAA type certificated airplane, other than that, they are
semi-ugly to fly and fully-ugly to maintain.

Again, since it was designed from a clean sheet, supposedly from input
from flight instructors, there is really no excuse for how it turned
out.

Somebody (not me, not going there again) ought to stall/spin one and
video the tail shaking and post it on utoob.

Regards;

TC

I temporarily forgot about that last part...

I never got to spin one, but a look back during a stall could give a guy
religeon. That tee tail wiggled more than a Hawaiian girl at a Luau!

I have heard that the Tomahawk was originally designed to have a
conventional tail--which would have made it a much better airplane in
several ways.

Peter

Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
I found it to be a dog in comparison.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152, I
found it to be a dog in comparison.

Jose

I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more enjoyable
aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10 more
knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.

I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep the
ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then use
pitch and power to recover from the stall...

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
...

Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152, I
found it to be a dog in comparison.

Jose


I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more enjoyable
aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10 more
knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.

I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep the
ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then use
pitch and power to recover from the stall...

KB

The main nuisance in Tomahawk is the spring -operated pitch trim.

I flew my basic training in a Tomahawk. It's still light-years
more an airplane than a C150.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

In article ,
says...
Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
I found it to be a dog in comparison.

I trained in a Traumahawk too - I think their best feature is the
visibility - it's just wonderful.

--
Duncan

On 2007-03-24 12:43:52 -0700, said:


Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

TC

I did not mention the Tomahawk. However, it is not a high performance
or complex aircraft. I have never flown in one, either.

This airplane has in the past generated some controversy on these
groups, including calls from some experienced flight instructors for
revocation of its airworthiness certificate. I suppose that a search of
the NTSB database might be more illuminating as to the causes of
accidents in this plane.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor