The Easiest Aircraft to learn to fly?

[djpacro]

Leads on to a much more useful discussion: attributes which are required for a good trainer.

 

Then we can discuss which aircraft have those attributes.

 

Then consider the price.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would be interested, but will be away for a week commencing tomorrow (Friday) Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Leads on to a much more useful discussion: attributes which are required for a good trainer.Then we can discuss which aircraft have those attributes.

Then consider the price.

Quote [ Facthunter] I feel a PILOT must be up to the job. Quote [Facthunter]

 

Yes Nev, . . . . I agree most wholeheartedly ( BUT SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO TRAIN THEM TO THAT STANDARD OF PROFICIENCY SURELY ? )

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

Hi DJP,. . .

 

OK, well guys 'N' Gals. . . . what do we think we want in a primary trainer aeroplane ? Unspinnable ? Unstallable, ? Heavy landing proof ? Brilliant crosswind landing control characterisitics ? Brilliant Low Speed handling ? Better cockpit ergonomics ? Unwreckable engine, no matter how badly operated ? EXTREMELY FORGIVING of any and all possible basic errors often made by Ab Initio students ?. . . . . or. . . . . alternatively. . . . a combination of all the aforementioned. . . ?

 

If I've missed anything, please let me know.

 

Surely then,. . . this is the kind of aircraft we need OR, of course, . . .

 

Just teach students on the currently available types VERY COMPETENTLY. . . . and then the hereinbeforementioned impossible aeroplane specifications just may not,. . . be all that neccessary.

 

Just my five pence worth. . .

 

Philip.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

OK, well guys 'N' Gals. . . . what do we think we want in a primary trainer aeroplane ? Unspinnable ? Unstallable, ? Heavy landing proof ? Brilliant crosswind landing control characterisitics ? Brilliant Low Speed handling ? Better cockpit ergonomics ? Unwreckable engine, no matter how badly operated ? EXTREMELY FORGIVING of any and all possible basic errors often made by Ab Initio students ?. . . . . or. . . . . alternatively. . . . a combination of all the aforementioned. . . ?

We want the opposite of all those things, except maybe the heavy landing and cockpit egonomics. People need to learn to FLY!

[metalman]

some of the things I would consider necessary in a "training" type,

 

must have a degree of adverse yaw, so we all learn what our feet are for

 

must have a good airframe indication of an immanent stall, along with a definite nose drop( I dislike the way some aircraft just mush down ,doesn't really teach anything as the attitude can look similar to slow flight )

 

four hour endurance

 

at least 15knot crosswind ability

 

spin recoverable with the ability to handle the G loading's of a over anxious pull up( even if RAAus doesn't allow it our aircraft cant read the regs and will stall/spin regardless)

 

and at least 45 inches wide at shoulder height( this ones a bit selfish, I'm a big bugger)

 

Matty

 

 

[Guernsey]

The easiest aircraft to learn to fly is not necessarily the best aircraft to learn to fly in.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

A paraglider is pretty easy to learn but there's plenty of challenge if you want to fly it well - especially cross country.

 

Laurie

 

 

[pudestcon]

Well for mine.....

 

Easiest would be the Gazelle - did my navs in a Gazelle, which was pretty easy given you didn't have to fly the thing whilst sorting where you were going.

 

Next would be the Drifter, in which I did my ab initio training - a great aircraft that I will always have a soft spot for.

 

Then the Lightwing - never did master the Lightwing because I couldn't land the buggar, so transferred to the Gazelle.

 

Hardest by far would be T500 Thruster which is my current aircraft. It took a long time for the Thruster(and Steve Vette) to whip me into shape, and I now consider myself reasonably proficent in the Thruster - but beware familiarity!!!!

 

I would really like to get back into the Lightwing now, and finish what I started all those years ago. I reckon I could do it now with a little bit of instruction.

 

Pud

 

 

[metalman]

Well for mine.....Easiest would be the Gazelle - did my navs in a Gazelle, which was pretty easy given you didn't have to fly the thing whilst sorting where you were going.

Next would be the Drifter, in which I did my ab initio training - a great aircraft that I will always have a soft spot for.

 

Then the Lightwing - never did master the Lightwing because I couldn't land the buggar, so transferred to the Gazelle.

 

Hardest by far would be T500 Thruster which is my current aircraft. It took a long time for the Thruster(and Steve Vette) to whip me into shape, and I now consider myself reasonably proficent in the Thruster - but beware familiarity!!!!

 

I would really like to get back into the Lightwing now, and finish what I started all those years ago. I reckon I could do it now with a little bit of instruction.

 

Pud

Interesting, I have a " the one that got away" story, although mines a drifter, did about 4 hours in one and just couldn't get it, the plane got sold and I never got to beat it! I went away thinking the taildragger thing just wasn't for me ,,,,,ended up getting my feet to work and now fly a few different taildraggers,,,but I have never got into a drifter again,,,,I would live to see if I could master the bugger , maybe one day.

That could be a whole new thread, AIRCRAFT I NEVER MASTERED!

 

Matty

 

 

[Phil Perry]

We want the opposite of all those things, except maybe the heavy landing and cockpit egonomics. People need to learn to FLY!

I believe that is what I wuz inferring Howard ! ! ! ! ( or did you miss my point ? )

 

 

[SilverWing]

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.

 

Interesting comment on the Foxbat nose leg. As the importer, I haven't supplied many replacement nose legs - maybe they're stronger than you think?

 

 

[Danger Mouse]

The Gazelle is the easiest to fly and it was the best for building confidence before moving to other types. Back in the day as a basic GA trainer our students always progressed faster on the Gazelle than on the 172 or Tomahawk. Students were faster to first solo and usually spent fewer hours getting to the GFPT or PPL. It has forgiving handling characteristics and is slow enough for student pilots to keep ahead of the aircraft. The hardest thing when learning to fly is getting through those first lessons without losing confidence in your ability to actually learn this new skill. For a flying school it is always when you lose your students. I must say that at the time those who were able to use the Gazelle would usually come back for another flight.

 

I agree that it is important to be proficient on a number of types, but the Gazelle is a great start.

 

 

[Bandit12]

The hardest thing when learning to fly is getting through those first lessons without losing confidence in your ability to actually learn this new skill.

I'm no instructor, but agree wholeheartedly. Early success is a remarkable motivator when trying to learn anything new.

 

 

[Powerin]

Time for a silly question from someone who hasn't flown many aircraft....what do you mean by "easy to fly"? Or perhaps a better question is what makes an aircraft difficult to fly? Getting off the ground and back on can be difficult, but are there many aircraft that are actually difficult to keep in the air? And if so what are the characteristics that make them a challenge?

 

 

[DGL Fox]

So for the guys that have flown both the Gazelle and the Foxbat, which one would they say is the easiest to learn to fly in? and why?

 

David

 

 

[facthunter]

Aircraft can be difficult to fly for many reasons and different pilots will react differently to them. Some bad traits include:

 

Ineffective controls, unstable in any way. poor visibility over cowl, poor control feel. very low wing loading ( a trainer is better if it penetrates gusts a bit). tendency to wing drop (tip stall). adverse aileron effect, too much natural stability. poor cockpit ergonomics/discomfort, under/overpowered , big pitch change with airspeed variation, awkward brake application, tailwheel configured, ground directional control, excess engine air noise, bad instrument layout, faster clean design (harder to get down and slow up. (A more draggy plane is easier) Others may think of more. Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

So for the guys that have flown both the Gazelle and the Foxbat, which one would they say is the easiest to learn to fly in? and why?David

Trained in a Gazelle (quite a few years ago).....now own a Foxbat.

I picked both up very quickly and found no issues or problems in the context of aircraft handling.

 

The Gazelle was cramped for a big fella like me. An hour was more than enough in one.....Knees jammed under the panel sort of thing.

 

The Foxbat has a "modern feel" about it. Got the yokes as I don't like centre sticks. A lot more cabin room by comparison. More relaxed flying.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I have never flown a Gazelle. I learned to fly at age 16 in a Moraine Salnier Rallye MS880B,a very forgiving STOL aircraft. I then went to C150, C172, Citabria 7GCBC, then C182RG, C180, C185, C206, Auster. during my GA PPL times I also flew the Frank Bailey designed 95:10 Mustang and the Drifter back in the 80s this was before the AUF.

 

When I finally did my AUF conversion a few years back I did the LP part in a Drifter and the HP part in a Foxbat. Love both aircraft, the Foxbat was a delight to fly, predictable, responsive, not docile, plenty of control authority right down to the stall. The hold off and flair were stable and predictable, I fell in love with it in minutes. The only thing missing was the little wheel on the tail ... LOL. The instructor told me to taxi with the yoke back as the nose leg was a weak point, that was habitual with me as most of my time has been in tail wheelers.

 

I would say the Foxbat was an ideal trainer except a trainer should ideally be very strong to cater for the inevitable student hard landings.

 

 

[facthunter]

I believe they are stronger now than the earlier versions, David. I think they (Foxbat) would be a better aircraft to own and operate but If I had one I wouldn't put it on line. The Gazelle is unbelievably easy to recover from anything normal ,but a spiral needs care where it quickly becomes dangerous due to strength and speed limits with "G" loads. It handles windy conditions much better than anything I know of in normally available aircraft. You have much less anxiety sending people with limited experience, solo in it, as it's pretty forgiving.Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

So for the guys that have flown both the Gazelle and the Foxbat, which one would they say is the easiest to learn to fly in? and why?David

Can you show me a picture of a Gazelle,. . . .as I'm not familiar with the type. Over here in the steaming hot UK, ( they reckon it'll be 35 celcius tomorrow. . .) a "Gazelle" is a serious looking military helicopter. . . . ( which I have not flown either. . .

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The Foxbat is not a "Pilot's" aeroplane, it is better described as a "Gentleman's aeronautical Appliance" no vices ( that I've ever found. . ) what was it that Douglas Adams said . . .? oh yes,. . ."Mostly Harmless" . . . .good description of the Aeroprakt A-22.

 

Phil ( wot's an Aussie Gazelle look like ? ? ? ? )

 

 

[metalman]

This is a Skyfox , a gazelle has a training wheel on the front, strangely the Skyfox has a reputation for being a bugger to land and the gazelle ,the complete opposite,

 

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Geez, . . .thanks Metal, . . . . this looks almost identical to the Denney KITFOX in which I have about a half million hours, ( might be overestimating here. . . just a little . . .) I can't IMAGINE putting a nosedragger training wheel on KITFOX,. . . this would be simply an utter barstardization of a pure flying machine. . . . BUT - - - I can't argue with those who like a wheel at the front as well. . . . ( it takes all sorts to make a groundloop )

 

Thanks for the heads up matey . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[lark]

The C172 would surely have to be one of the easier GA types.

 

 

[metalman]

Y

 

Geez, . . .thanks Metal, . . . . this looks almost identical to the Denney KITFOX in which I have about a half million hours, ( might be overestimating here. . . just a little . . .) I can't IMAGINE putting a nosedragger training wheel on KITFOX,. . . this would be simply an utter barstardization of a pure flying machine. . . . BUT - - - I can't argue with those who like a wheel at the front as well. . . . ( it takes all sorts to make a groundloop )Thanks for the heads up matey . . .

 

Phil

Yeh, the design has had it's fair share of copies, I think it all started with the Avid Flyer, and it seems there's a copy in nearly every corner of the world, the Kitfox has been very successful ,I've got a few mates with them. The South African one look nice aswell. I've got an old gazelle fuselage sitting at home that'll get carved up and modded in the next few years.