C-152 v/s Katana DA-20 for training
scho...@tir.com
I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
Does anybody have opinion ????
Regards,
Sujit Chokshi
Ed Wischmeyer
scho...@tir.com wrote:
>
> I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
> Does anybody have opinion ????
I did an article on that subject for Private Pilot, maybe a year ago.
The bottom line as I saw it was that Katana pilots, on average, are more
likely to finish their license than 152 pilots, but 152 pilots will be
better prepared to transition into the rest of the fleet.
Ed
--
edw...@sjm.infi.net
RV-4 Pilot
EAA Flight Advisor
FAA Safety Counselor
Aviation Journalist & Photographer
ATP / CFII / PhD
Near San Jose, CA
Jonathan Smith
Ed Wischmeyer (See...@sig.below) wrote:
: scho...@tir.com wrote:
: >
: > I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
: > Does anybody have opinion ????
: I did an article on that subject for Private Pilot, maybe a year ago.
: The bottom line as I saw it was that Katana pilots, on average, are more
: likely to finish their license than 152 pilots, but 152 pilots will be
: better prepared to transition into the rest of the fleet.
Which issue? I'd be interested in seeing that. Also- how did you
compute the statistics? Did you take into account the differences in
instructors and flight schools as it would have an effect on the hours
the stuents flew regardless of what they flew? Thanks.
: Ed
Clive Pickles
On Thu, 22 May 1997 18:32:58 -0400, scho...@tir.com wrote:
>I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
>Does anybody have opinion ????
>
>Regards,
>
>Sujit Chokshi
I started my lessons in a C-150, and finished them in a Katana. I
switched for one particular reason - the C-150's leaked air like
crazy, and when it was -23 degrees Celsius outside, I couldn't get
warm in the Cessna. The Katana's were toasty warm. Of course, in the
Northern hemisphere, it is now summer, so this wouldn't be a problem
for at least 7 months.
Some thoughts on Cessna 150's:
Excellent standard airplanes, if a little unexciting. You can't argue
with its staying power, or it's flight training ability.
Everybody has one, so if you move to another place in the middle of
your lessons, you don't need to get used to another airplane.
If you buy an airplane later on, chances are it will be more
"Cessna-like" than "Katana-like".
Noisy (compared to the Katana)
Slow (again, compared...)
Visibility is a little lacking compared to the Katana ('cept for
looking straight down).
Usually the Cessnas are a little beat up since they have been around
since the cave dweller days.
Katanas:
Another excellent airplane
Hardly anybody has one, so if you move, you have to relearn a bunch of
stuff. The Katana is a little bit more advanced that the Cessna, so
you have to learn how to use a constant speed prop. You don't need to
worry about the mixture control, though. They giveth, and they taketh
away. This is one of the only planes I have seen around here without
a mixture control, but if you go on to more advanced airplanes, the
knowledge you gained with using the constant speed prop will come in
handy.
Quieter than the Cessna
Warmer than the Cessna (this includes the summer, too)
Faster than the Cessna (if you are #2 behind a 150 on takeoff, better
wait a little while before taking off, or you will catch up with it.
Looks cooler.
Uses much less fuel (if you are renting one wet, you don't care about
this)
They are newer, so they are generally in much better condition. This
is a big plus when you are renting an airplane - *in general* the
radios and avionics will be better, and the controls and switches will
be smoother.
Even though the Katana looks small (and who's kidding who, it *is*
small), the interior seems to have as much (if not more) room
side-by-side than the Cessna. The Cessna has a much bigger cargo
area.
On average, I found the Katanas cost about $5-$7/hr (Cdn) more than
the Cessnas to rent.
Don't let anybody tell you that you aren't allowed to fly these things
at night - you can. The very first ones coming in from Europe (the
DV-20's) didn't have lights, but all the Canadian-made ones are night
certified. I believe they had a retrofit of all the earlier ones,
too. You can't fly them in actual IFR conditions, though.
The visibility is better than the Cessna. The windshield (bubble
canopy) is much larger, and the low wing design means that, when you
turn, you don't get your view blocked off.
It is a low wing design, vs. the high wing Cessna. This is a *100%*
subjective preference.
Did I mention that it is cooler? This is a big plus - more than you
would probably think initially. One thing I especially enjoyed about
my cross countries with the Katana was that, after landing at the
destination, someone was always interested in talking about the
airplane, and flying in general.
Is the Katana worth the extra 5 bucks an hour? For me it was. I
quite enjoyed my training with it.
Hope this helps.
Clive
=======================================
Clive Pickles
Ottawa Ontario CANADA
cpic...@iosphere.net
AA5A C-GUFT @ CYOW
Robert Suvak
>
>I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
>Does anybody have opinion ????
>
>Regards,
>
>Sujit Chokshi
I did most of my private pilot training in DA-20, and I'd prefer flying
it over a Cessna anytime, anyday, anywhere. It's a great primary trainer,
it's forgiving, more natural since you fly it using a stick, plus I think
it's excellent for a transition into complex airplanes because of
constant speed prop. Katana experience prepared me for flying C-172RG
because I already had experience with a constant speed prop.
The only thing that you'll find people objecting about when it comes to
Katanas will probably be that there's no mixture control.
Good luck in your training.
Rob PP-ASEL
Jonathan Birge
> Looks cooler.
I've never flown a Katana, but I can certainly take exception to this
one. I've always thought the Katanas looked like big white flying snakes
that had just swallowed two people. Either that or those plastic
PlaySkool airplanes for little kids to sit in.
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <3385cdf2...@news.pwgsc.gc.ca>,
Clive Pickles <cpic...@iosphere.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 1997 18:32:58 -0400, scho...@tir.com wrote:
>
>>Does anybody have opinion ????
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Sujit Chokshi
>
>switched for one particular reason - the C-150's leaked air like
>crazy, and when it was -23 degrees Celsius outside, I couldn't get
>warm in the Cessna. The Katana's were toasty warm. Of course, in the
>Northern hemisphere, it is now summer, so this wouldn't be a problem
>for at least 7 months.
As far as training goes, I don't think it matters a great deal which airplane
you choose. But the differences between the airplanes will be important
after your training. The Katana cruises at about 120 knots, is much quiter
and feels and smells new. It is a great plane to go places in. It is like a
new imported sports car, while the Cessna 150 is like a 1970's Chevy.
One bad thing about training in the Katana is that it will spoil you. You will
start to expect the same high tech avionics, visibility and high cruise
speed in every other airplane you fly, and no doubt you will be
disappointed. The Katana looks deceivingly small (has to do with its
aerodynamics), but inside the cockpit the seat space is not any smaller
than the 150. But the 150 does have more leg room and luggage space.
I did my training from start to finish in the Katana. Then I moved to a
different city and could not find any Katanas. So I switched to a
C-150. Unlike I thought it was not at all difficult to switch. The 150 was
much more docile and slow. It chugged along at 85 knots with a deafening
noise. Not as much visibility either.
Even with making all that loud noise, the 150 was not going any faster than
the cars on the highway. It was an insult to my flying. I was embarrased
to tell my friends that it takes me as long to get somewhere as by car.
That just about did it. After two weeks of flying the 150 I quit, and found
a Piper Cherokee with was more in line with what I was expecting from flying.
Here is a comparion chart
Cessna 150 Katana DA-20
Age of fleet 1978 is the newest 1993 (?) is the oldest
Horsepower 120 (?) 81
Wing High Low
Construction Metal Composite
Propellor Fixed Constant Speed
Steering Nose wheel Differential brakes
Cruise 90-100 knots 110-120 knots
Seat space Similar in both
Leg room Lots of it Very little
Luggage Lots of it Almost no luggage
Fuel Flow 5-6 GPH 3,8 GPH
Visibility Good - Standard window Excellent - Bubble canopy
Landing Easy A little difficult due to
its tendency to glide forever
Noise Noisy - headset is a must Quiet - you can carry a normal
conversation.
Cost (to buy) About $20,000 (1978 model) $106,000 (1997 model)
IFR Certifiable Not certifiable yet
Night Flying Yes Yes
Avionics Depends Brand new and high tech
Availability Plenty in every city Not widely available
Coolness Depends Very cool
this line to mail"@telis.org Forrest
If there the same price I'd say Katana.
--
LtGe...@telis.org
scho...@tir.com wrote in article <3384C9...@tir.com>...
this line to mail"@telis.org Forrest
My main reason for recomending the katana was because of the constant speed
prop. Assuming you are going to move up the horsepower ladder it will
eventually come in handy to have some experience with things like prop
speed and manifold pressure.
Roy Smith
bi...@colorado.edu writes:
> I've always thought the Katanas looked like big white flying snakes
> that had just swallowed two people. Either that or those plastic
> PlaySkool airplanes for little kids to sit in.
The best description I have ever heard of a Katana is that it looks like a
flying sperm cell.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Copyright 1997 Roy Smith
For-profit redistribution prohibited
Hilton Goldstein
Forrest wrote:
>
> My main reason for recomending the katana was because of the constant speed
> prop. Assuming you are going to move up the horsepower ladder it will
> eventually come in handy to have some experience with things like prop
> speed and manifold pressure.
Perhaps, but not touching the prop lever will generally give you worse
performance, whereas not touching the mixture lever can kill you. I
think getting the leaning process every 1000' feet engrained into
your/my brain is better than simply setting the prop for better
performance. Just my humble opinion...
Hilton
> scho...@tir.com wrote in article <3384C9...@tir.com>...
> > I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
> > Does anybody have opinion ????
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sujit Chokshi
> >
--
Hilton Goldstein.............................hilton@sgi.com
415-933-5254 (phone).....................(fax) 415-390-6159
M/S 1L-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
80% of Americans think they're above average drivers.
je...@diamondair.com
In article <33863C...@colorado.edu>,
bi...@colorado.edu wrote:
> I've never flown a Katana, but I can certainly take exception to this
> one. I've always thought the Katanas looked like big white flying snakes
> that had just swallowed two people. Either that or those plastic
> PlaySkool airplanes for little kids to sit in.
So... Jonathan... what should an airplane look like then? Inquiring minds
want to know?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ryan R. Healy
je...@diamondair.com wrote:
> So... Jonathan... what should an airplane look like then? Inquiring minds
> want to know?
Maybe a little more substantial perhaps? It should also look right at
home popping out of the clouds after a 200 & 1/2 ILS down to minimums on
a wet soggy day with student in the left seat and CFI in the right.
--
Blue Skies,
***********************************************************
* Ryan R. Healy, C-ASMEL-I, CFI-ASMEL-I, AGI, IGI *
* E-Mail: mailto:rhea...@sprynet.com *
* Web Page: http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rhealy707 *
***********************************************************
Jerry Bransford
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> bi...@colorado.edu writes:
> > I've always thought the Katanas looked like big white flying snakes
> > that had just swallowed two people. Either that or those plastic
> > PlaySkool airplanes for little kids to sit in.
>
> flying sperm cell.
I have it on good authority that "Katana" translated means "weedwacker"
from the sound it's engine makes LOL! Still waiting on your CFI
checkride Roy???
Regards,
Jerry
--
NOTE: To reply, remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address.
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
Jonathan Birge
> > I've never flown a Katana, but I can certainly take exception to this
> > that had just swallowed two people. Either that or those plastic
> > PlaySkool airplanes for little kids to sit in.
>
> want to know?
Jeez. Don't get snarky, now. If you have to ask a sarcastic question
you're probably misreading me. Obviously there's no absolute measure of
asthetics. I was just giving my impression, which is obviously affected
by previous experience. However, humans are very visually oriented
creatures, and I can't help the fact that I think Katanas look
unsubstantial and awkward, as if they were modified to fit 2 people, not
designed to. Frankly, I don't want to be the biggest part of an
aircraft. That may be unfounded, but I can't help it.
Frankly, a lot of the things I like (and I suspect I'm not entirely
alone) about aviation are purely superficial. That's why I like flying
an airplane with a nice aluminum looking panel rather than a ratty old
plastic one, even though the aluminum just adds weight and absolutely no
safety.
At any rate, you don't need to worry about what I think, because I'm
sure Diamond did sufficient market research that shows my opinion to be
in the minority and that most people absolutely love the Katana's shape.
Right?
-Jonathan
Jerry Bransford
scho...@tir.com wrote:
>
> I am thinking of taking flying lessons in either C-152 or Katana.
> Does anybody have opinion ????
>
> Regards,
>
> Sujit Chokshi
Though you probably like the Katana's looks better, I strongly recommend
the C-152 for your training. The Cessna is more like the majority of
popular aircraft and requires you 'fly' it, not just work the controls.
Because the C152 is more like the general aviation aircraft you'll fly
after getting your pilot's certificate, you'll have a MUCH easier time
transitioning to other aircraft after having learned to fly in the
C152. The C-152 isn't the most popular trainer aircraft in the world
for nothing!
Jonathan Birge
Jerry, you may be right but I really hate this kind of argument. This
king of thinking really impedes progress, which is very hard to come by
in GA. It's the same argument that gave Microsoft all the market despite
having none of the quality. The "Status Quo" argument is going to keep
us flying obsolete aircraft until they simply fall out of the sky.
Unless I'm misreading you, your argument is basically: the 152 isn't as
well engineered as a Katana and thus makes you work harder, which will
benefit you since most of the aircraft you will encounter will be just
as bad or worse. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
-Jonathan
je...@diamondair.com
In article <3387DA...@colorado.edu>,
Jonathan - Did not really mean to ask the question in snarky way. Perhaps
I did misunderstand your comment (especially since I read your other
posting on this subject). Consider the snark removed! Jeff
je...@diamondair.com
je...@diamondair.com
Jonathan:
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Jeff
je...@diamondair.com
In article <338957...@colorado.edu>,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Jerry Bransford
je...@diamondair.com wrote:
>
> Jonathan:
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
> Jeff
> je...@diamondair.com
>
> In article <338957...@colorado.edu>,
> bi...@colorado.edu wrote:
> >
> > Jerry, you may be right but I really hate this kind of argument. This
> > king of thinking really impedes progress, which is very hard to come by
> > in GA. It's the same argument that gave Microsoft all the market despite
> > having none of the quality. The "Status Quo" argument is going to keep
> > us flying obsolete aircraft until they simply fall out of the sky.
> > Unless I'm misreading you, your argument is basically: the 152 isn't as
> > well engineered as a Katana and thus makes you work harder, which will
> > benefit you since most of the aircraft you will encounter will be just
> > as bad or worse. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
No, it has nothing to do with "working harder"...the Cessna 152 is
simply an aircraft that makes you to fly it properly, such as using the
right amount of rudder to properly coordinate a turn. The Katana I flew
didn't seem to care much about me providing sufficient rudder to
coordinate the turn, kind of like the Cherokees I like to fly.
> > > Though you probably like the Katana's looks better, I strongly recommend
> > > the C-152 for your training. The Cessna is more like the majority of
> > > popular aircraft and requires you 'fly' it, not just work the controls.
> > > Because the C152 is more like the general aviation aircraft you'll fly
> > > after getting your pilot's certificate, you'll have a MUCH easier time
> > > transitioning to other aircraft after having learned to fly in the
> > > C152. The C-152 isn't the most popular trainer aircraft in the world
> > > for nothing!
Jonathan Birge
> No, it has nothing to do with "working harder"...the Cessna 152 is
> simply an aircraft that makes you to fly it properly, such as using the
> right amount of rudder to properly coordinate a turn. The Katana I flew
> didn't seem to care much about me providing sufficient rudder to
> coordinate the turn, kind of like the Cherokees I like to fly.
Sounds like "working harder" to me, with or without quotes. If Diamond
can make an airplane that doesn't need much, if any, rudder in a turn,
then why does that mean you don't learn to fly properly? You're defining
"properly" purely in a historical context. Just because most existing
airplanes have the need for rudder to counteract adverse yaw and other
*engineering deficiencies* (i.e. torque and p-factor) shouldn't mean
that proper flying means kicking the rudder into a turn.
In a perfect world, the argument you'd be making would be: Don't bother
learning on a 152--they're obsolete. Safer aircraft now exist that are
easier to fly and you will eventually see all the pesky old birds that
require so much coordination replaced by these newer models.
This is one of the reasons why general aviation is in such a sad state.
Can you think of any other industry where *twenty* year old designs are
still manufactured and sold as new??? Cessna shouldn't be able to get
away with charging 150 grand for a twenty year old design.
Your argument against the Katana as a trainer could have just as well
been used against the C152 when the C140 was the standard trainer. I
guess the mindset of GA changed at some point in the meantime. Why don't
you object to the fact that a 152 pretty much recovers itself from a
spin and opposed to the 140, which really makes you "fly" it out of a
spin?
Respectfully Yours,
Jonathan
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <338B6C...@cts.com>, Jerry Bransford <jer...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>The more you learn in the beginning, the more good habits you learn in
>the beginning. Since a Katana doesn't require you "work as hard" to fly
>it, and a C-152 does, I stand by what I said, that a C-152 is a superior
>aircraft to *learn* to fly with.
I learned entirely in the Katana and had no trouble transitioning to
the C-150. Sure, it did require more rudder to stay co-ordinated, but
that was the least of all my problems. I had more problems with the
higher dash panel, high-wing and the nose-wheel steering of the C-150
than any of its flight characteristics.
Choosing the 152 to learn simply because it is more difficult to fly does
not make any sense. If so, why don't we learn to fly in a tail-dragger, which
is unquestionably more difficult to fly ? In my opinion I would rather learn
in a tricyle gear and then transition to a tail-dragger if I ever have to.
As a student one is already overwhelmed with all the things he has to learn
that there is no reason to make things any more difficult.
I think what we are witnessing here is the classic case of resistance to new
technology. Eventually any technology that makes life easier wins. Look at
how GPS starting to be accepted.
Jerry Bransford
I'm not going to get into a long-winded discussion on this but it's
easier to transition to larger and higher performance aircraft from a
C-152 than it is from a Katana, that was and *is* my point. That's
because the C152 requires proper use of flight controls such as rudder
input, more attention to coordinating turns, etc. than a Katana does. A
Katana is less demanding (less work), which means you're less 'required'
to learn proper control input. You say a Katana is "less work" to
fly... you're exactly right because you can basically almost fly a
Katana with your feet on the floor, not what's required for properly
flying larger and more complex general aviation aircraft. The more you
learn in the beginning, the more good habits you learn in
the beginning.
Since as we both agree a Katana doesn't require you "work as hard" to
fly it, and a C-152 does require you to "work harder", I stand by what I
said, that a C-152 is a superior aircraft to learn to fly *with*, while
the Katana is easier to *learn to fly*. Those two points are not the
same. Newer is not necessarily better, IMHO.
Jerry
Hilton Goldstein
Jonathan Birge wrote:
>
> > No, it has nothing to do with "working harder"...the Cessna 152 is
> > simply an aircraft that makes you to fly it properly, such as using the
> > right amount of rudder to properly coordinate a turn. The Katana I flew
> > didn't seem to care much about me providing sufficient rudder to
> > coordinate the turn, kind of like the Cherokees I like to fly.
>
> Sounds like "working harder" to me, with or without quotes. If Diamond
> can make an airplane that doesn't need much, if any, rudder in a turn,
> then why does that mean you don't learn to fly properly? You're defining
> "properly" purely in a historical context. Just because most existing
> airplanes have the need for rudder to counteract adverse yaw and other
> *engineering deficiencies* (i.e. torque and p-factor) shouldn't mean
> that proper flying means kicking the rudder into a turn.
Adverse yaw could (loosely) be called an engineering deficiency, but
torque and P-factor is pure physics. How would you engineer a plane
differently to get rid of torque and P-factor?
Hilton
Jonathan Birge
> Adverse yaw could (loosely) be called an engineering deficiency, but
> torque and P-factor is pure physics. How would you engineer a plane
> differently to get rid of torque and P-factor?
Ask the folks at Beechcraft. They did just this with sophisticated
avionics on the MkII military trainer. It a high powered turbo-prop that
acts and flys like a jet. Actually, adverse yaw is just physics, too.
Everything's just physics. Doesn't mean that it can't be hidden with
good engineering. For example, the aerodynamics of a plane in flight are
staggeringly complex, yet we fly them without need for a supercomputer
next to us.
With regard to Jerry's assertion that a 152 trains people for larger,
higher performance airplanes: I agree but this should be qualified by
adding "larger higher performance airplanes that are flying today."
Hopefully aviation will actually see some real improvement someday and
then people will just say that a 152 prepares you to fly airplanes that
are extinct. I always thought that aviation's lack of progress was due
to lawyers and insurance companies. I'm starting to get the impression
that it's far more indemnic.
-Jonathan
John R. Johnson
On Tue, 27 May 1997, Jerry Bransford wrote:
<snip>
>
> Since as we both agree a Katana doesn't require you "work as hard" to
> fly it, and a C-152 does require you to "work harder", I stand by what I
> said, that a C-152 is a superior aircraft to learn to fly *with*, while
> the Katana is easier to *learn to fly*. Those two points are not the
> same. Newer is not necessarily better, IMHO.
>
Now I think a C-152 is super easy to fly and very forgiving. If you
REALLY want to learn to fly you should do all of your flight instruction
is something really challenging like maybe a two place Pitts, or even a
Wright Flyer. After all, the trickier and more difficult you make it,
the more you get to learn!
<sarcasm mode off>
I actual practice, the Cessna 150/152 series is the most popular trainer
ever built. Why? Because it is stable, easy to fly, docile and predictable
near the edges of the flight envelope, offers few surprised to cowardly
( healthy attitude ) flight instructors, and is REAL CHEAP to own and
operate in a flight school.
John
Ron Natalie
> That's
> because the C152 requires proper use of flight controls such as rudder
> input, more attention to coordinating turns, etc. than a Katana does.
What do you base this statement on? A lot of 152 pilots fly fine
for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
or turning the trim wheel.
Of course, the same is also true of people flying high performance
aircraft as well. My 260 HP retract has interconnect rudder and
ailerons...although I'd strongly recommend use of the trim wheel.
je...@diamondair.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970528110008.200I-100000@reliant>,
After following this thread for the last few days, I have to say that
this is probably one of THE most lucid, civilized exchanges, confined to
a single subject without alot of the usual digressing that I have seen in
the newsgroups for sometime. Proves that this medium does have some merit
after all. (no sacarsm intended) Jeff
je...@diamondair.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970528110008.200I-100000@reliant>,
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
> I actual practice, the Cessna 150/152 series is the most popular trainer
> ever built. Why? Because it is stable, easy to fly, docile and predictable
> near the edges of the flight envelope, offers few surprised to cowardly
> ( healthy attitude ) flight instructors, and is REAL CHEAP to own and
> operate in a flight school.
>
> John
John: I couldn't agree with you more. The 150/152 series aircraft does in
fact hold the "modern" distinction of being the most "used" trainer on
the ramp. Had alot to do with the marketing and sales philosophy we had
during the heydey years of Cessna LSE sales (ex-Cessnoid here). However,
the calendar has taken its toll on those aircraft, as it does to all
things, and the cost of operation issue is now a real issue with many
busy flight schools. The costs of properly maintaining an aging airframe
and engine are now making the consideration of much more costly new
aircraft a legitimate alternative to the endless cycle of "fix and fly"
that plague the workhorse trainers of the 70's and early 80's. The 152 is
a good airplane just as it was when they were still in production but it
stands to reason that when introducing new products to the marketplace
that they should rightfully incorporate as much of what we have learned
over the past 15+ years that we didn't know then. Jeff
Jean Richard
Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> > That's
> > because the C152 requires proper use of flight controls such as rudder
> > input, more attention to coordinating turns, etc. than a Katana does.
>
> What do you base this statement on? A lot of 152 pilots fly fine
> for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
> or turning the trim wheel.
Modern airplanes are very well compensated for adverse yaw and it's o.k.
like that. A non rudder turn doesn't mean a bad one.
But if you want to use rudder, go with a sailplane. Sailplane ailerons are
not compensated for adverse yaw since that means more drag.
And even if C-152 needs rudder to keep the ball in the center, C-152 pilots
still find it difficult when transitionning to sailplanes (and I'm sure a Katana
pilot will be better prepared to do it).
J. Richard
Jean Richard
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> Choosing the 152 to learn simply because it is more difficult to fly does
> not make any sense. If so, why don't we learn to fly in a tail-dragger, which
> is unquestionably more difficult to fly ?
I have 365 flying hours, half in taildragger and I don't understand people who
say that a taildragger is "unquestionably more difficult to fly". I have mostly
flown C172 as a tricycle and both a Super Cub and a Citabria as taildraggers.
The easiest to fly is probably the Citabria.
Yes, you have to be more careful on landing, but careful doesn't mean
difficult.
J. Richard
"Jeff Hays"
> > What do you base this statement on? A lot of 152 pilots fly fine
> > for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
> > or turning the trim wheel.
Huh? A Cessna 152's feels like a sloppy boat without rudder. I'm not a
sailplane pilot, but I know what those pedals are for.
Jeff Hays.
John R. Johnson
You are absolutely right, Jean. Actually a taildragger flies pretty much
like a nosedragger when you are flying. So does a seaplane. The only
difference becomes apparent when you STOP flying! :-)
Any pilot should utilize the flight controls to control the aircraft until
the speed is so low that they are no longer effective. That has been
summed up in the pithy aphorism "Fly it until you TIE it!" Actually, that
applies equally to all airplanes, taildraggers, seaplanes, and C-152's.
However, of all of those different landing airplanes, only the nosedraggers
allow you to FORGET that rule and get sloppy without forcefully reminding
you of it.
For people who cannot remember that rule, taildraggers are MUCH more
difficult to fly!
John
Jonathan Birge
Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Since as we both agree a Katana doesn't require you "work as hard" to
> fly it, and a C-152 does require you to "work harder", I stand by what I
> said, that a C-152 is a superior aircraft to learn to fly *with*, while
> the Katana is easier to *learn to fly*. Those two points are not the
> same. Newer is not necessarily better, IMHO.
The problem is, that's not entirely what you're saying. You're saying
that *better* is not necessarily better. We both seem to agree the
Katana is better engineered, and your entire argument is that you
shouldn't learn to fly on such a plane since most other planes aren't as
modern and easy to fly. You're right, newer is not necessarily better.
Just look at Windows 95. But when something new is actually better, than
it would be nice if it were given a chance and not immediately dismissed
as worthless for reasons which essentially boil down to nothing more
than status quo.
Yours,
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Birge <bi...@colorado.edu>
Optoelectronic Computing Systems Center
University of Colorado, Campus Box 525
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0525
Office: ECEE 237
Voice: (303) 492-5605
Fax: (303) 492-3674
John R. Johnson
Jeff,
You are right. Without using rudder a C-152 can be pretty uncomfortable.
In my big old Stinson Reliant it is even more obvious. I always make it
a point to let anyone in my airplane who would like to try to fly it,
get up in front and fly a while. The cabin IS big enough that they
can get up and change seats from front to back without much problem.
I am always surprised at the number of experienced pilots who have
trouble coordinating the rudder. However, I have never had a taildragger
pilot or a glider pilot who didn't promptly and correctly coordinate.
I can only surmise, that many modern airplanes are sufficiently balanced
or forgiving, that they forgive carelessness on the rudders in normal
flight. Big old birds like mine are much less forgiving.
John
Jerry Bransford
> What do you base this statement on? A lot of 152 pilots fly fine
> for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
> or turning the trim wheel.
Well, a lot of people are poor pilots too... read the NTSB accident
reports, especially approach and departure stall fatalities. Doesn't
make it right, though. We're trained to use rudder pedals as student
pilots and getting sloppy is the only excuse for not using them.
'Common officer I've been drivin' 'is way fer years, lot's of pople driv
dronk and ar saaafeee HIC....
Jerry Bransford
Jonathan Birge wrote:
>
> Jerry, you may be right but I really hate this kind of argument. This
> king of thinking really impedes progress, which is very hard to come by
> in GA. It's the same argument that gave Microsoft all the market despite
> having none of the quality. The "Status Quo" argument is going to keep
> us flying obsolete aircraft until they simply fall out of the sky.
> Unless I'm misreading you, your argument is basically: the 152 isn't as
> well engineered as a Katana and thus makes you work harder, which will
> benefit you since most of the aircraft you will encounter will be just
> as bad or worse. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Absolutely *not* what I said. I never even came close to saying the
Cessna 152 wasn't as well engineered which makes it harder to fly. ALL
I'M SAYING is that the C152 is a (the most) popular training aircraft
because it gives quick feedback on sloppy technique. You can FEEL
sloppy technique in a C152, *much* less in a Katana. A Beecraft Bonanza
is an engineering masterpiece but it won't tolerate sloppy flying
either! The C152, for example, wants the rudder to be used properly to
make it turn properly, while the Katanas I've flown don't really give
any feedback on misuse of the rudder in a turn, for example.
Most advanced aircraft need to be flown properly, which includes good
pilot technique. A superior training aircraft will give faster and more
definite feedback to sloppy technique than an airplane that doesn't.
The Katana doesn't give that quick feedback to sloppy techique the way
the C152 is noted for. The C152 is forgiving, while still providing
sufficient feedback when you screw the maneuver up.
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
Jonathan Birge wrote:
>
> Jerry, you may be right but I really hate this kind of argument. This
> king of thinking really impedes progress, which is very hard to come by
> in GA. It's the same argument that gave Microsoft all the market despite
> having none of the quality. The "Status Quo" argument is going to keep
> us flying obsolete aircraft until they simply fall out of the sky.
> Unless I'm misreading you, your argument is basically: the 152 isn't as
> well engineered as a Katana and thus makes you work harder, which will
> benefit you since most of the aircraft you will encounter will be just
> as bad or worse. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
I guess an analogy would be manual shift vs automatic cars. Is there any
real need to learn how to use a clutch and shift lever these days - same
arguments (pro & con) there too .....
===========================
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
===========================
Dave Stadt
Andrew:
I learned in a C152 and this past Saturday got my tailwheel
endorsement in a J3. If I had it to do over again I would
have taken all training in a tailwheel plane. Tailwheel is
not really more difficult but requires a much higher level
of expertise for landings and takeoffs and is intolerent of
the bad habits tricycle gear tends to shrug off. In the air
there is not much difference other than the fact you can open
the entire right side of the J3 on nice warm days. :-)
Dave S.
On to that glider rating.
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> I learned entirely in the Katana and had no trouble transitioning to
> the C-150. Sure, it did require more rudder to stay co-ordinated, but
> that was the least of all my problems. I had more problems with the
> higher dash panel, high-wing and the nose-wheel steering of the C-150
> than any of its flight characteristics.
>
> Choosing the 152 to learn simply because it is more difficult to fly does
> not make any sense. If so, why don't we learn to fly in a tail-dragger, which
Jean Richard
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Jonathan Birge wrote:
> >
> > Jerry, you may be right but I really hate this kind of argument. This
> > king of thinking really impedes progress, which is very hard to come by
> > in GA. It's the same argument that gave Microsoft all the market despite
> > having none of the quality. The "Status Quo" argument is going to keep
> > us flying obsolete aircraft until they simply fall out of the sky.
> > Unless I'm misreading you, your argument is basically: the 152 isn't as
> > well engineered as a Katana and thus makes you work harder, which will
> > benefit you since most of the aircraft you will encounter will be just
> > as bad or worse. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I guess an analogy would be manual shift vs automatic cars. Is there any
> real need to learn how to use a clutch and shift lever these days - same
> arguments (pro & con) there too .....
Manual shift leaves you 30% more power and saves you 30% fuel (at least with
small engines). So, the analogy is not really appropriate.
But probably we both agree that we have to learn how to use the rudder.
However, a plane with good Frise ailerons doesn't mean you won't learn to
do it, and if a Cessna 152 needs a touch of rudder to keep the ball in the center,
that doesn't mean pilots will automatically learn good use of rudder with it.
I've flown with pilots converting from airplanes to sailplanes and C152 pilots
did have the same problems as other ones. Not worst but not better.
J. Richard
Kirk Ellis
On Thu, 29 May 1997 13:13:15 -0500, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 May 1997, "Jeff Hays" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > > What do you base this statement on? A lot of 152 pilots fly fine
>> > > for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
>> > > or turning the trim wheel.
>>
>> Huh? A Cessna 152's feels like a sloppy boat without rudder. I'm not a
>> sailplane pilot, but I know what those pedals are for.
>>
>> Jeff Hays.
>>
>
>Jeff,
>
>You are right. Without using rudder a C-152 can be pretty uncomfortable.
>In my big old Stinson Reliant it is even more obvious. I always make it
>a point to let anyone in my airplane who would like to try to fly it,
>get up in front and fly a while. The cabin IS big enough that they
>can get up and change seats from front to back without much problem.
>I am always surprised at the number of experienced pilots who have
>trouble coordinating the rudder. However, I have never had a taildragger
>pilot or a glider pilot who didn't promptly and correctly coordinate.
>
>I can only surmise, that many modern airplanes are sufficiently balanced
>or forgiving, that they forgive carelessness on the rudders in normal
>flight. Big old birds like mine are much less forgiving.
>
>John
>
John,
I am training in a Warrior right now. It is the only plane I have ever
flown, and the use of rudder pedals does seem to be unimportant most
of the time when turning. Do you think it might be wise for me to try
a 152 that requires more rudder control so I can get the feel for how
it is supposed to be?
Kirk
Scott n Chris Stewart
Howdy all,
"Jeff Hays" wrote:
> Huh? A Cessna 152's feels like a sloppy boat without rudder. I'm not a
> sailplane pilot, but I know what those pedals are for.
Today in a 172 my instructor had me turn around to look at the rear
seats while he demonstrated turning with and without the rudder, and it
was clear that the rear seat passengers would soon be turning green
without rudder. Then he had me close my eyes while he did it both ways,
and WOW what a difference. Without the visual, I could really feel how
'uncoordinated' it feels without rudder. And I know he can feel it -
sometimes when I make a turn and he's looking out the right side, he
sometimes says 'right rudder!' and I look at the turn coordinator, and
sure enough, he's right!
--
=scott&chris
Flyboy
Hi there:
I got my private on Cessnas and have flown many types of
aircrafts since then(including taildraggers). I started
working on my commercial on Katanas just to try constant
speed A/C. At first I found them much harder to fly than
cessnas. It is very pitch sensitive and you have to land
it properly (as opposed to 150s that land themselves).
I love them now and I beleive that we have to follow the
technology (remember transition from Mainframe computers
to PCs ... PCs do not make us dummer than the previous
generation, they are just easier to work with). However, I
deeply beleive that pilots should fly taildraggers at some
point to polish their skills.
Safe flying ....
Mehdi Azali
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Jonathan Birge wrote:
> >
> > Jerry, you may be right but I really hate this kind of argument. This
> > king of thinking really impedes progress, which is very hard to come by
> > in GA. It's the same argument that gave Microsoft all the market despite
> > having none of the quality. The "Status Quo" argument is going to keep
> > us flying obsolete aircraft until they simply fall out of the sky.
> > Unless I'm misreading you, your argument is basically: the 152 isn't as
> > well engineered as a Katana and thus makes you work harder, which will
> > benefit you since most of the aircraft you will encounter will be just
> > as bad or worse. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I guess an analogy would be manual shift vs automatic cars. Is there any
> real need to learn how to use a clutch and shift lever these days - same
> arguments (pro & con) there too .....
>
Ron Natalie
>>
>> > That's
>> > because the C152 requires proper use of flight controls such as rudder
>> > input, more attention to coordinating turns, etc. than a Katana does.
>>
>> for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
>> or turning the trim wheel.
> Well, a lot of people are poor pilots too... read the NTSB accident
> reports, especially approach and departure stall fatalities. Doesn't
> make it right, though. We're trained to use rudder pedals as student
> pilots and getting sloppy is the only excuse for not using them.
That was my point (read what I was referring to)...the 152 does
not "REQUIRE" use of the rudders, it's just a good idea.
Richard C. McCann
Taildraggers and tricycle aircraft fly the same. The difference is while
it is on the ground. Taxiing a tricycle aircraft is like letting a broom
dangle from your fingers. Taxiing a taildragger is like balancing a broom
on its end in your palm. Maybe slightly more involved, and more to think
about, but I not more difficult once you get used to it.
Jerry Bransford
Re-read what I said... about the NTSB accident reports. Do you still
feel it's just a "good idea" to use rudder pedals? You can fly without
doing anything that most people would consider "required" like checking
for adequate fuel, oil, not using proper rudder when turning final, not
flying into IMC conditions.... Sheesh, your statement "the 152 does
not "REQUIRE" use of the rudders, it's just a good idea" is literally
unbelieveably poor advice.
nightjar
John R. Johnson <jo...@siu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970529130928.200N-100000@reliant>...
>
> I can only surmise, that many modern airplanes are sufficiently balanced
> or forgiving, that they forgive carelessness on the rudders in normal
> flight. Big old birds like mine are much less forgiving.
>
Neither the Warrior nor the TB-9 I learnt in really cared much whether you
used the rudder to co-ordinate the turn. When I started flying a twin,
where rudder use is rather more important, my multi rating instructor had
to go back and train me in some basic flying.
Colin Bignell
Kuemmel Judith
Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> That's because the C152 requires proper use of flight controls such as rudder
> input, more attention to coordinating turns, etc. than a Katana does.
> What do you base this statement on? A lot of 152 pilots fly fine
> for years without touching the rudder pedals (properly)in the air
> or turning the trim wheel.
> > Well, a lot of people are poor pilots too... read the NTSB accident
> > reports, especially approach and departure stall fatalities. Doesn't
> > make it right, though. We're trained to use rudder pedals as student
> > pilots and getting sloppy is the only excuse for not using them.
> > That was my point (read what I was referring to)...the 152 does
> > not "REQUIRE" use of the rudders, it's just a good idea.
Hi There!
Anyone ever flew ONLY with rudder ?
Ron Natalie
Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Re-read what I said... about the NTSB accident reports. Do you still
> feel it's just a "good idea" to use rudder pedals?
I think you are continuing to misinterpret what I said. I don't
advocate
flying any airplane not using the rudders. What I was arguing was the
statement made that 152's somehow made better pilots than Katanas with
regard to rudder usage, when in fact, it is possible for a sloppy
student
(or recent private pilot who thinks he knows it all) to fly either plane
(not well mind you, but it will fly) without touching the pedals in the
air.
Go back carefully and read the message I was responding to, the first
time out (which you cut out in all the followups).
Margy Patterson
Kuemmel Judith wrote:
>
> > not "REQUIRE" use of the rudders, it's just a good idea.
>
> Hi There!
> Anyone ever flew ONLY with rudder ?
When I was a student my instructor had me "prove" you could fly an
airplane with a number of inop items. The most fun was taking off when
I wasn't allowed to use my hands at all!
Margy
Ron Natalie
> What do all these folks who forego the use of the rudder in a 150/152 do
> during stall practice?
Who says they practice stalls. Those unlikely to use the rudders are
unlikely to work on other skills. Besides (not that I'm recommending
this), you can stall a 152 and recover it just fine without using the
rudders. Try it some time.
AGAIN: Lest someone continue to misinterpret me. USE THE RUDDERS.
Just because you can get by for a while without them doesn't mean
that you never need them.
Genevieve K.
Colin:
I agree with John R. Johnson; if you don't use rudder, and use it properly, in a Super
Cub, I don't think your're going to stay right side up for long. In fact, I'm pretty
sure you won't even make it off the airstrip.
Genevieve
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Kuemmel Judith wrote:
<snip>
>
> Hi There!
> Anyone ever flew ONLY with rudder ?
>
Yes. I have made it a point to try flying with any combination of
two of the three controls, plus trim. With care it can be done.
Turns with only rudder are not difficult, but feel just as sloppy
as turns with only aileron. In both cases you have to make gentle
turns slowly. Rudder only you have to give it time for the wing
on the inside to drop a little and give your bank. It will.
Aileron only, you have to give it time for the nose to come back
in the right direction. It will.
John
Kirk Ellis
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:39:39 -0400, Margy Patterson <mar...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Kuemmel Judith wrote:
>>
> > > not "REQUIRE" use of the rudders, it's just a good idea.
>>
>> Hi There!
>> Anyone ever flew ONLY with rudder ?
>
>
>When I was a student my instructor had me "prove" you could fly an
>airplane with a number of inop items. The most fun was taking off when
>I wasn't allowed to use my hands at all!
>
>Margy
How in the world can you do that Margy??? Sans hands.................
I gotta give that a try!!
Kirk Ellis
Kirk Ellis
On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 00:57:16 GMT, kel...@bellsouth.net (Kirk Ellis)
wrote:
Testing
--
kel...@bellsouth.net
Gravity can be a real bitch if the wing quits moving..
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Margy Patterson wrote:
<snip>
>
> When I was a student my instructor had me "prove" you could fly an
> airplane with a number of inop items. The most fun was taking off when
> I wasn't allowed to use my hands at all!
>
> Margy
That IS fun, Margy. I do that quite often, just to keep my "hand" in
so to speak! :-) Of course I do trim for takeoff and use my feet on
the rudders. The airplane doesn't seem to mind a bit. It just
accellerates down the runway and lifts into the air just as if I knew
what I was doing! :-0
I frequently caution guests who are flying my airplane about PIT, or
Pilot Induced Turbulence. When they complain about how bumpy it is,
I merely suggest they let go of the controls. The airplane usually
smooths out and flies beautifully! It is a humbling experience.
John
Ron Natalie
> When I was a student my instructor had me "prove" you could fly an
> airplane with a number of inop items. The most fun was taking off when
> I wasn't allowed to use my hands at all!
The hard part is advancing the throttle with your foot.
Margy Patterson
Kirk Ellis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:39:39 -0400, Margy Patterson <mar...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Kuemmel Judith wrote:
> >>
> > > > not "REQUIRE" use of the rudders, it's just a good idea.
> >>
> >> Hi There!
> >> Anyone ever flew ONLY with rudder ?
> >
> >
> >airplane with a number of inop items. The most fun was taking off when
> >I wasn't allowed to use my hands at all!
> >
>
> How in the world can you do that Margy??? Sans hands.................
> I gotta give that a try!!
>
> Kirk Ellis
Trim and rudder! The first time I did it I was more than a bit
uncomfortable with my hands in my lap. I advocate having an instructor
in the right seat when doing anything for the first time.
Margy
Randall Lupien
>
Hi Marianne,
It sounds like you got some good information from
the others that have responded to your post. I just
wanted to make a suggestion, why not try some spin
training? In a good spin class you would be able to
experience spins of all types, including flat spins. It’s
a great feeling knowing that if you should spin you
can fix it (depending on altitude ). For that matter,
how about some aerobatics……oops, sorry, sometimes
I get carried away!
Tony Lupien
rlu...@mail.idt.net
Bryan Gettel
Margy Patterson <mar...@erols.com> wrote:
On my very first lesson, the first thing my instructor had me do
(after reaching altitude, etc.) was make a few turns using only the
rudder. He claimed I'd be more likely to keep using rudder if that's
what I did first. While my coordination does have much room for
improvement, my feet are almost always busy and never on the floor.
Now that I think of it, my first few takeoffs were hands-off as well.
All I did was operate the throttle and use the rudder to keep the
plane on the centerline. Not until rotation speed did he have me use
the yoke. (He may have been using it all along though.) I'd guess
this was probably to break my automotive habits.
- Bryan
MGillis
If you only use the rudder on a turn, isn't there a danger of
going into a flat spin?
Isn't the rudder only to be used for adverse yaw (in a turn) and
the ailerons are used otherwise?
.. Marianne
DJenk1222
Most old taildraggers need a lot of rudder to stay coordinated. Rudder is
also wonderful when your low and slow and need all the control you can
get. If you don't use the rudder under those circumstances, you are
wasting a lot of your ability to control the aircraft