flight training rates

A

arkavgal

Well-Known Member
Local FBO quoted me 70 an hour in a tomahawk + 40 per hour for instructor free. 90 an hour for a Cessna 170. It's a really good outfit. I was wondering if that is a reasonable rate. FBO across town wants $118 + $40 for instruction.
 
srleslie said:
Local FBO quoted me 70 an hour in a tomahawk + 40 per hour for instructor free. 90 an hour for a Cessna 170. It's a really good outfit. I was wondering if that is a reasonable rate. FBO across town wants $118 + $40 for instruction.
Click to expand...

Just to have a Cessna 170 available is astounding. Airplane rates are very reasonable.
 
I don't know much about a Tomahawk so what is the difference between training in it vs the 170? 20 dollars an hour difference adds up fast
 
170!
a6cd88a8-acac-9e43.jpg
 
Not to be a downer, but I wanted to point out the Cessna 170 will not teach a person "how to fly."

It will force a person to use proper rudder/aileron input during takeoff and landing, particularly in crosswinds. For the other 90% of things needed to be a safe pilot, a Cessna 170 will be exactly like every other winged thing out there.

The reason I bring this up is because the mystique around tailwheel flying cracks me up. It's really not rocket science, it's just less forgiving of poor technique on the ground. I've met some pilots with lots of tailwheel experience that I would never consider to be "good" pilots because they have such poor judgment, technical knowledge, instrument skills, etc. Contrary to popular belief, learning in a tailwheel aircraft will not make you Chuck Yeager crossed with Chuck Norris.

I had 1000+ hours before setting foot in a tailwheel. I managed to survive somehow.

All of that said, I still recommend the C-170. They're super fun planes and if nothing else, you'll have a sweet point of conversation whenever you start talking with other pilots about your training. I'd say literally only about 1 in 1000 private pilots learn in a tailwheel aircraft anymore. That's pretty cool to have such a unique background.
 
jrh said:
Not to be a downer, but I wanted to point out the Cessna 170 will not teach a person "how to fly."

It will force a person to use proper rudder/aileron input during takeoff and landing, particularly in crosswinds. For the other 90% of things needed to be a safe pilot, a Cessna 170 will be exactly like every other winged thing out there.

The reason I bring this up is because the mystique around tailwheel flying cracks me up. It's really not rocket science, it's just less forgiving of poor technique on the ground. I've met some pilots with lots of tailwheel experience that I would never consider to be "good" pilots because they have such poor judgment, technical knowledge, instrument skills, etc. Contrary to popular belief, learning in a tailwheel aircraft will not make you Chuck Yeager crossed with Chuck Norris.

I had 1000+ hours before setting foot in a tailwheel. I managed to survive somehow.

All of that said, I still recommend the C-170. They're super fun planes and if nothing else, you'll have a sweet point of conversation whenever you start talking with other pilots about your training. I'd say literally only about 1 in 1000 private pilots learn in a tailwheel aircraft anymore. That's pretty cool to have such a unique background.
Click to expand...

Being able to properly use the rudder is a large part of the stick and rudder skills necessary for flying and one that is often missing for some reason. Also I have never had a problem with a tail wheel pilot trying to land a tricycle airplane on the nose wheel. The skills learned flying the 170 will transfer to other airplanes- such as keeping the nose straight and not tolerating drift on landing. The bad habits "learned" flying tricycle airplanes (such as not keeping the nose straight and tolerating drift on landing), truly come to light when one tries to land a tail wheel airplane.
 
Blackhawk said:
Being able to properly use the rudder is a large part of the stick and rudder skills necessary for flying and one that is often missing for some reason. Also I have never had a problem with a tail wheel pilot trying to land a tricycle airplane on the nose wheel. The skills learned flying the 170 will transfer to other airplanes- such as keeping the nose straight and not tolerating drift on landing. The bad habits "learned" flying tricycle airplanes (such as not keeping the nose straight and tolerating drift on landing), truly come to light when one tries to land a tail wheel airplane.
Click to expand...

Right. It will definitely make a person better at landing. It definitely forces a person to learn important skills.

I just get of this macho, chest thumping, REAL men fly tailwheels, tailwheels will make you a REAL pilot, blah blah blah...vibe from a lot of people.

I shrug and say, "Ehh...landings are 10 percent of what it takes to be a good pilot." I don't want any tricycle-only experienced pilots to think they're somehow inferior because they've never flown a tailwheel.

Tailwheel pilots aren't nearly as badass as a lot of people make them out to be. I'm not going to lie, it's fun to bask in the glory, but I'm smart enough to know my tailwheel skillz don't define me as a pilot.
 
I'd gladly pay 10 more an hour to rent a 170 over the 172 if I had the choice... take the 170 man!
 
I used to instruct in a Tomahawk and I thought it was a good plane. Don't shy away from it just because people call it the traumahawk. It is basically a 152 only with more room and better visibility. Even though the Tomahawk is a good plane, I would still prefer to fly the 170. Like others have said tailwheels are fun.
 
If your learning to fly do it the least expensive way possible. I have a lot of hours in a Piper Tomahawk and overall its a good trainer. I got my spin endorsement for CFI in a Tomahawk. That was back in 1993...Old School and crazy or stupid :)
 
N18040 said:
I used to instruct in a Tomahawk and I thought it was a good plane. Don't shy away from it just because people call it the traumahawk. It is basically a 152 only with more room and better visibility. Even though the Tomahawk is a good plane, I would still prefer to fly the 170. Like others have said tailwheels are fun.
Click to expand...
that's exactly it. I'd kill to fly a tomahawk rather than a 172 while training, it's much more fun to fly.

But a 170, that's a whole other world!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top