The Easiest Aircraft to learn to fly?

[pmccarthy]

I have heard over time many aircraft being described as "landing them selves". They are usually low wing types with pronounced ground effect. The first I encountered was the Piper PA 28 Cherokee when it was released in

I still miss the absolute confidence I had in landing the Pa-28

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of people found them that way. I flew them into Tomago (Cautaulds Hexam)airfield which had high trees each side of the strip and there were always "strange" winds to keep me focussed. Nev

 

 

[cooperplace]

IMO that would be because a Jabiru LSA isn't the easiest aircraft to learn to fly. Not by a long way.

of course!

 

 

[cooperplace]

There was a B1-RD for sale recently Nong. Problem with them was they could only really be flown in calm conditions. They were almost identical to the Frank Bailey designed Mustang that I flew a lot of hours in in 1982.The C150 has to be one of the most forgiving and strong aircarft to fly and my favourite Ab initio trainer. I have seen them stalled from 20' and slam onto the runway and still be flyable after inspection. Nothing in the RAA category would survive that.

 

My favourite easy to fly RA Aus machines are the WB drifter and the Foxbat, but the Foxbat has a veeeerrry weak nose wheel, but beautiful to fly. I cant comment on the Gazelle as I have never had the privilege of flying one.

 

In the tail wheel GA category my favourite is the Citabria 7GCBC followed by my Auster J1B, but neither of these are easy training aircraft, you have to use your feet aggressively if you want to stay on the runway.

there's a Cessna 150 on Ebay:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1976-Cessna-150-Commuter-/141006843913?pt=AU_Aircraft&hash=item20d4a9b009

 

 

[eightyknots]

The Savannah is the easiest to fly by far I think. Its crosswind component is listed as 27 knots from memory

This is a quotation from the ICP Savannah's POH:

 

By using this technique, with an approach speed of around 35 kn CAS [iAS], crosswind components of up to 20 knots may be handled without significant difficulty, although the pilot should expect to have to apply considerable concentration and should brief any passenger accordingly. Crosswind components above 20 knots should not be attempted other than by experienced pilots fully familiar with the type.

 

(Page 12 of 30)

 

20 knots crosswind for lesser experienced pilots is a very good crosswind figure!

 

 

[Marty_d]

Yes and that tail tie - down ring is mounted on the fuselage rear bulkhead, which if cracked can get quite expensive to replace !!................Maj...

Luckily, they never asked me to pay for it. I assumed it was either relatively inexpensive (so the Aero Club wore the cost) or it was an insurance job. Apart from that "Did you realise..." phone call, nothing was ever said about it!

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Wouldn't worry about it, it's fairly common. That ring will handle a fair bit of abuse, but I have seen people break them off completely............................Maj...

 

 

[Phil Perry]

That is exactly what I meant. A great trainer because of control authority and what I call control resolution ... BUT sadly they have still killed a few students with instructors.

Hi again David. . . .

 

You mention that (sadly - I AGREE ! ) some students have been killed WITH AN INSTRUCTOR ON BOARD. . . .? I wonder why this was,. . . YES, I agree that any instructor must, at some stage of pilot training, allow the student to get into a "Little bit of difficulty". . . and then show them how to correct the situation, whether this be "Slightly" heavy landings, or unusual attitudes. . . but NO INSTRUCTOR SHOULD EVER allow the situation to regress to a point where it is non-recoverable, this is insane and unacceptable. YET, yes. . . it appears to occasionally occur.

 

When I became an "Instructor" . . .I must admit to thoughts of personal invulnerability also, but a few students made me realise that this was not even slightly the case. I found that "Mr, or Mrs A. Student" Can, quite often actually, place an instructor into a situation where things get rather awkward, whether this is due to slovenly teaching technique, generally slack practice, or the sudden intervention of mechanical or unexpected meteorological phenomena. . .

 

I've had students freeze on the controls, I've no doubt others also have had this experience. . .

 

NO INSTRUCTOR SHOULD EVER ALLOW A STUDENT TO PLACE THE FLYING APPLIANCE INTO A CATEGORY OF FLIGHT WHICH COULD WELL RESULT IN FATALITIES. ( in an ideal world. . .! )

 

Happy days

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

One of the most notable was an Auster 2 seat archer that got away at Bankstown and took ages for someone to shoot it down. It is fairly hard to believe a tailwheel plane would keep straight on take off with no one in it. Nev

Just goes to show Nev,. . that some aircraft types fly perfectly well, that is, until a "Pilot" interferes with the controls ! ! ! ! !

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

This is a quotation from the ICP Savannah's POH:

20 knots crosswind for the lesser experienced pilots is a very good crosswind figure!

"Very Good" if you wanna get blown off the runway sideways cobber ! ! ! ! !

 

( But I fly a Savannah, and I do know what you're getting at H )

 

When flying my friend Simon's Savannah, I always use the standard taildragger "Wing well down into wind" right onto the deck sideslip to stay on the centreline, but I've only done this in Xwinds reported as around 16/17 knots from almost 90 deg off strip. ( so far, it has worked and I have not bent it yet. . . ! ! )

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Errr... from experience, with two largish passengers in the back seat, you can break off the rear tie-down ring on the C172 in an otherwise very nice (if a little nose-high) landing.Didn't even realise until the CFI rang me up the next day!

Marty, . . .Marty. . .

 

You can land C- 172 without scraping it's Ass. . . unless you hold it off too long of course ! ! This is one of the easiest aeroplanes by far that I have ever had the privilege to fly. They are so benign in most facets of flight, especially LANDINGS. A bit like driving an old bus really. . .and I mean no disrespect to the designer when I say that.

 

I recently set one up for an approach to EGNS ( Isle of Man airport, Ronaldsway ) to demonstrate to my Microlight pilot passengers how stable it was, . . and they were "Gobsmacked" at how it actually landed itself, quite gently using 1100 rpm, 25 deg flap ( approx ) and with NO hold-off nor flare applied by me, on rwy 26 at I.O.M. [ I had not planned on not actually applying pitch-up input to flare, but that's how it turned out ! ] and NO,. . .It DIDN'T wheelbarrow on the nosewheel either ( ! ) we got a friendly gust which pitched it up just enough ! ! Yeah, ok. . ok, I had to keep it straight on the rwy using my size 12's. but that's fair, as one of the tyres was fractionally under-pressure. . . ( I always do an exceptionally good pre-flight, but don't normally carry a tyre pressure gauge in me flight case. . . ! )

 

One of the best tin boxes that was ever designed in my view, which is supported by the fact that for many years, it was the most produced and numerous airframe on the planet, only being knocked off it's pillar by the Bell bloody Jetranger ! ! ! ( totally unfair in my view ! )

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The Gazelle taught me to flyThe Jabiru taught me to be a pilot

The CTsw taught me experience

"The GLIDER taught me to fly

 

The L-11 Bird dog taught me to fly with an ENGINE

 

a few dozen other types taught me experience BUT. . . .,

 

The local Microlight CFI still says I fly like a tit ( ! )

 

( Moral - - - - it's GOOD, occasionally, to see ourselves as others see us. . . ? )

 

Phil

 

 

[metalman]

"The GLIDER taught me to flyThe L-11 Bird dog taught me to fly with an ENGINE

a few dozen other types taught me experience BUT. . . .,

 

The local Microlight CFI still says I fly like a tit ( ! )

 

( Moral - - - - it's GOOD, occasionally, to see ourselves as others see us. . . ? )

 

Phil

Mmmm bird dog , been looking at them with green eyes lately.

And what does flying like a tit mean,,,,,do the other guys like watching you jiggle down the runway,,,,or do you always travel in pairs?

 

 

[facthunter]

Tits are small birds. Not mamaries in this context.

 

You must do an excessive hold off to scrape the tail or it is tail heavy loaded. I am an old hold off till the horn blows Cessna trike U/C flyer, but have never heard of scraping the tail. That could actually do a bit of serious ( and expensive) damage. I can't see the need to hold the nose that high unless playing with it. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yep, if the horn isn't sounding in the 172 you aren't holding off enough. That is the way I was taught.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Tits are small birds. Not mamaries in this context.You must do an excessive hold off to scrape the tail or it is tail heavy loaded. I am an old hold off till the horn blows Cessna trike U/C flyer, but have never heard of scraping the tail. That could actually do a bit of serious ( and expensive) damage. I can't see the need to hold the nose that high unless playing with it. Nev

Do you mean playing with those birds?

 

 

[facthunter]

Not with the birds, but with the plane or whatever else you figure. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The tie down ring on a 172 or any other Cessna is not a stall warning !!!....not intended to contact the ground. Basically it can/will crack the rear bulkhead, which is a big job to replace....Why worry about a few cracks in your rear bulkhead ?.to it attaches rudder, elevator and elevator trim cables and pulleys....that's all, plus it is a structural bulkhead and an integral part of the monocoque tail cone assembly.....................if your scraping the tail tied own ring ..your doing it wrong !.......Maj...

 

 

[facthunter]

I completely agree Maj. I've operated them into short strips and it would be a most exaggerated hold off to achieve it, and I can't see why it would be needed ever.. You might do it flapless but why bother? Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Come on guys!!!

 

I was 19 years old, had about 25 hours, flying for the first time with 2 - let's say largish - pax in the back seat. Yes, I am aware that the only bits of the plane that should touch the ground are the black donut thingys, but in that case it just didn't happen. At least it taught me to be more careful in the flare when fully loaded!

 

 

[River]

Re "What's the easiest aircraft to learn to fly"... Reckon I should take a bowl at this subject too (Glutton for stoning)

 

Noted that no one has mentioned the 'old gravel truck', the Lightwing GR912 or the tricycle version Sport 2000 model.

 

After running up quite a few hours on the Lightwing and thinking that this aircraft was quite good at flying 'easily' I had occasion to fly the Gazelle 912 and was amazed as to how very very easy it was to fly, sideslip and land etc etc - actually I though the Gazelle was too-easy to fly after my earlier hours on a Lightwing's.

 

The Lightwing in my humble opinion made for a great seat-of-the-pants training aircraft where you had to leant to fly-the-aircraft, be it maneuvering, correct attitude and handling or landing. But its best learning area I've always thought was its landing with the use of air speed, flaps and learning to stop the aircraft in a straight line using the Lightwing's less-than-spectacular braking ability

 

I found one (the pilot) had to be in control otherwise the Lightwing could become a little 'cranky', especially if your flying the tricycle version. The taildragger model was a gem on landing, however for some reason the tricycle model (Sport 2000) undercarriage felt as if it was not 100% perfect in its geometry, it just always felt wrong with the interaction between the front wheel and its two main gear. Making a good smooth landing on the piano keys with a Lightwing taught you to fly the aircraft correctly to the full stop where-as the Gazelle, well you could really make a mess of an approach, flare and landing worst than any dogs-breakfast and still walk away thinking what a great pilot one is... Hmmm.

 

The Lightwing's flaps made for great barn doors with heaps of drag and very little lift, a good aircraft for training as you come in with full flap and unless you are in command of the aircraft you'll drop like a rock where-as the Gazelle has no flaps. Admittedly though, the Gazelle did teach you to land without flaps quite well.

 

I also recall that in level flight the Lightwing required you to correctly trim the aircraft and continue to trim the aircraft for different speeds and attitudes, etc. With the Gazelle, with-in reason, you could get away with quite sloppy piloting skills (no offense intended with fellow members who fly Gazelles). It's just that in leaning to fly there's two trains-of-thought on leaning to fly, one is fly an aircraft that does not 'frighten' a new learner/pilot and is very easy to fly. The other train-of-thought is to learn to fly on an aircraft that teaches the learner/pilot the correctness of flight and understanding the various vices that both a aircraft and flight attitudes.

 

I believe the old Lightwing was the latter of these two trains-of-thought. It's harder to fly and whilst built like a gravel truck, it's a great overall general purpose aircraft able to carry quite a good load too. Err legally that is

 

Today though one see's a number of reasonably new aircraft that would be suitable for learning to fly including the Foxbat, Tecnam and Eurofox spring to mind and no doubt a number of other aircraft too.

 

You may notice I'm slightly biased towards training aircraft that you as a pilot have to fly and not having you come along for the ride so-to-speak.

 

There, that's broken the prop... Rats!

 

Rodger

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably the best plane available is a Whitney Boomerang. Not light enough for RAAus. The question is the" easiest " to learn to fly. There are two issues that are mutually exclusive. If the plane is "too" easy to fly you won't learn to fly well, with just it. The Gazelle is such a plane. After you have flown it satisfactorily do more training on something else a bit more challenging soon. If you wait a while and try something harder later, you may think you have "lost it" as a pilot. Nev

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

737's must be pretty easy to fly, there are so many of them around the World.

 

So easy, even Motz can fly one!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Probably the best plane available is a Whitney Boomerang. Not light enough for RAAus. The question is the" easiest " to learn to fly. There are two issues that are mutually exclusive. If the plane is "too" easy to fly you won't learn to fly well, with just it. The Gazelle is such a plane. After you have flown it satisfactorily do more training on something else a bit more challenging soon. If you wait a while and try something harder later, you may think you have "lost it" as a pilot. Nev

Nev,. . .

 

I was once told in no uncertain terms that the "Ercoupe" or Aircoupe as the septics call it. . . was the easiest aeroplane to learn to fly in.

 

If you have not seen one of these ( and I'd be mortified if you have not come accross the type somewhere in your long association with aeronauticalthingies )

 

They have a twin tailfin ( A La Lancaster ) adn NO rudder pedals. The yaw control obviously being effected by secondary aileron effect. . .

 

WELL. . . . .I flew one of these in 1991 in France, and I have to say honestly, that If I'd learned to fly from Ab Init in one of these, I would have killed myself in the very next type. . . . . Spongy and 'orrible. . would be my description of the controls. Whereas the Mignet Ballerit, a development of the French "Flying Flea" using secondary effect also, but the other way around, ie, no ailerons, the rudder being controlled by rotating the control yoke, and the entire top wing surface used as an elevator. . .was much better to fly, although being a bit of a bytich in a strong crosswind due to the "slower than expected" control reaction to a dropped wing ! !

 

I honestly cannot remember if there were any "Rudder" control surfaces on the Ercoupe, which could have possibly been connected in some way to the aileron circuit, so I will be happy to be corrected by one of you worthies who may know the type a little better.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

737's must be pretty easy to fly, there are so many of them around the World.So easy, even Motz can fly one!

B737 ? ? Piece of cake mate, lovely airframe, does just what it says on the box. ( must be why there's so many of 'em about. . .)

 

Never flown a 74 though, although I have had several simulator rides in the type, and actually managed on TWO occasions to crash perfectly right down the centreline of the runway at both Singapore as well as Gatwick, both as a result of the application of full power TOO LATE and got behind the inertia curve. . . . fortunately, simulator = No lawsuits or dead passengers and mess all over the tarmac, and news reporters getting the story all wrong again. . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks for the lengthy comment, Phil. I am familiar with both of those aircraft and have piles of stuff on the Pou de Ciel. (and several friends who have built and flown various versions). I have plans for the original one in French somewhere.

 

Henri is probably the first serious origenator of the home-built concept with the aim also of making a simple safe unspinnable aircraft. He thought of himself as a POOR pilot (in the skill sense) and was alarmed at the number of pilots who died because of the dreaded death spiral.

 

I recommend anyone remotely interested in this topic search for all data on the "Flying Flea" and it's creator. Henri Mignet

 

Anyhow back to the more topical, I don't like planes that deviate from the conventional. Invariably they may correct some situation but make others more dangerous. Those aircraft are Gimmicky.

 

Aircraft should not fly that have dangerous flying characteristics either, and there are many flying that DO have bad flying traits. . I feel a PILOT must be up to the job.. With good training this could be achieved in about 80 hours. You shouldn't need more time than that. Some just shouldn't be there at all, and do some other hobby. Nev