Skyhawk vs Skycatcher for initial training.

[mngtsystem]

Is it better to learn in a Skyhawk 172 or a Skycatcher when doing your initial flight training?

The first obvious difference is cost. But, does it matter what you learn in? Can one start in the Skycatcher and then as they get "experience" move on to the the Skyhawk to complete the training for a PPL.

Is there a better aircraft to get your initial flight training in?

Is initial training, initial training regardless of what you fly in?

Would weather be a consideration i.e. does the lighter skycatcher with the inability to work in "too" high winds be an issue down the road?

And one more .... when doing your initial training, what is a good amount of time to spend flying e.g. two hours a day, twice a day; three hours a day once a day?

Thanks for your input!

If a similar thread is out there, I apologize and please lead me to it.

 

[esa17]

Is it better to learn in a Skyhawk 172 or a Skycatcher when doing your initial flight training?

Six of one half a dozen of the other.

The first obvious difference is cost.

There is the answer to your question. PIC is PIC.

But, does it matter what you learn in? Can one start in the Skycatcher and then as they get "experience" move on to the the Skyhawk to complete the training for a PPL.

Yes you could, I do recommend you fly them both.

Is there a better aircraft to get your initial flight training in?

Is initial training, initial training regardless of what you fly in?

There is no "better" airplane without some wild exception. Don't try learning in a Baron, that probably won't end well.

Would weather be a consideration i.e. does the lighter skycatcher with the inability to work in "too" high winds be an issue down the road?

If you can land that thing in winds gusting to 40 you can land anything. Don't be scared of wind.

And one more .... when doing your initial training, what is a good amount of time to spend flying e.g. two hours a day, twice a day; three hours a day once a day?

When I got my private I flew about 1.5hrs 3 to 4 times a week. Some students I wouldn't let fly more than twice, some I flew with daily. It all depends on your stamina and ability to absorb and process information. If you start taking lessons 4x a week and aren't able to digest what you're being taught dial it back a bit.

 

[XLR99]

Fly whatever's less expensive but still safe. Check around at multiple FBOs in your area; try and talk to current students away from the staff to get their input on the FBO about quality of instruction, maintenance, customer service, etc.
If they start off talking about loans, upfront payments, etc, walk away.
Hint - post your city in your profile - lots of good CFIs on this board, as well as other people who can help steer you away from the bad places, and toward the good ones.

Biggest advice - start reading and studying early on, make sure to show up for a lesson prepared and knowing what you'll be working on that day.

 

[The Gardener]

I wasn't aware there were any skycatchers in service yet?

Were hoping to get #99 when it comes out of the mill.

 

[DE727UPS]

I'd limit my flying to once a day. At least until you solo. After that, maybe one dual and one solo a day, but I don't see any reason to be in a big hurry. You need to give it time to sink in.

If it were the same price, I'd do it in a 172. Proven and commonplace airframe. Something you'll likely to instruct in later. If it were substantially cheaper, I'd do it in the 162. Or if you're more interested in sport aviation. Otherwise, especially if your career minded, I'd stick with the 172. A 152 might be a good compromise if you can fit in one and it's cheaper than a 172.

 

[pwttogfk]

I'm a fan of the 152--no point having empty backseats during your training...plus you learn a LOT about weight and balance if your instructor's over 150 pounds!

 

[jrh]

Fly whatever's less expensive but still safe. Check around at multiple FBOs in your area; try and talk to current students away from the staff to get their input on the FBO about quality of instruction, maintenance, customer service, etc.
If they start off talking about loans, upfront payments, etc, walk away.
Hint - post your city in your profile - lots of good CFIs on this board, as well as other people who can help steer you away from the bad places, and toward the good ones.

Biggest advice - start reading and studying early on, make sure to show up for a lesson prepared and knowing what you'll be working on that day.

I agree with everything you said, except the bolded parts.

Most newbies have no clue how to decide if something is safe or not. Therefore, the statement of going with whatever is less expensive becomes a very dangerous rule to live by. They don't know if the price/value relationship is good or not.

As for loans, upfront payments, etc., I've beaten that dead horse many times in other threads. I'll just say that I think you're completely wrong, and the school I manage is proof.

 

[jrh]

I'm a fan of the 152--no point having empty backseats during your training...plus you learn a LOT about weight and balance if your instructor's over 150 pounds!

I think a person learns more about weight and balance by flying an empty 172 as well as a fully loaded 172. Bigger differences in gross weight, CG shifts, etc. The differences become more obvious.

 

[alfadog]

I'm a fan of the 152--no point having empty backseats during your training...plus you learn a LOT about weight and balance if your instructor's over 150 pounds!

How about if your flight examiner is over 300 lbs??

I learned to fly in a 150 back in the 70's and my flight examiner was likely 350 lbs. First thing he said was, "we will be overweight, don't worry about it; they say the hummingbird (bumblebee? it's been a while) can't fly but it does and so will we". OK, who was I to argue with the examiner?

 

[XLR99]

I agree with everything you said, except the bolded parts.

Most newbies have no clue how to decide if something is safe or not. Therefore, the statement of going with whatever is less expensive becomes a very dangerous rule to live by. They don't know if the price/value relationship is good or not.

As for loans, upfront payments, etc., I've beaten that dead horse many times in other threads. I'll just say that I think you're completely wrong, and the school I manage is proof.

I don't disagree with you, which is why I emphasized to talk to other people about anyplace he's considering, including JC'ers about good vs bad FBOs. I'm guessing we all know places with subpar mx. My point was more on the lines of not being married to the concept of training in the newest greatest airplane out there.
Regarding the $$ I didn't elaborate much, but I said 'Start off' ie: you show up at the door, and the salesguy (not CFI) immediately sits you down to talk about financing and advance pay discounts, before you actually talk about learning to fly. If the focus of 'closing the sale' is making an upfront payment, rather than the process of becoming a pilot, that to me is a red flag. Nothing wrong with discussing it as an option later in that conversation, but I actually had this happen to me several years ago when I was shopping for a flight school. Felt like walking into a used car dealership.

 

[pwttogfk]

How about if your flight examiner is over 300 lbs??

I learned to fly in a 150 back in the 70's and my flight examiner was likely 350 lbs. First thing he said was, "we will be overweight, don't worry about it; they say the hummingbird (bumblebee? it's been a while) can't fly but it does and so will we". OK, who was I to argue with the examiner?

What is it with large examiners? The local guy at my airport doesn't do checkrides in the 152 for exactly that reason, I had to find a guy willing to drive about 45 minutes to fly with me in the 152. I did my IFR checkride in the 172 with our local guy...fun time, complete with him spilling diet Coke on my temporary certificate and eating cheetoes during the debrief!

 

[poser765]

I'll admit I know almost nothing when it comes to sport pilot stuff, but isn't a Skycatcher a LSA? Can you work towards a private cert in an LSA? If you have a sport pilot certificate how well does that credential transfer over to other non sport certificates?

SO I guess having the answers to those questions as well as what your training goals are would decide which aircraft is better for initial training.

PS my above questions are not rhetorical. I would really like to know the answers to those.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I'll admit I know almost nothing when it comes to sport pilot stuff, but isn't a Skycatcher a LSA? Can you work towards a private cert in an LSA? If you have a sport pilot certificate how well does that credential transfer over to other non sport certificates?

Yup, you could do an ATP ride in a Skycatcher if you so desired to. Day and night, doesn't matter, as long as its properly equipped. IFR too for that matter. Just because its an S-LSA, doesn't mean you have to have a sport certificate to operate it.

Doing the sport pilot as the first pilot rating can be a muddy issue. Currently, the way I've seen the FAA explain it, is that if your sport training is done by a subpart H flight instructor or subpart K flight instructor (regular CFI versus sport CFI). Basically a sport CFI can only give sport instruction, and as such, the flight instruction received from them isn't able to be used for a private or higher rating.

 

[mxaexm]

I'll admit I know almost nothing when it comes to sport pilot stuff, but isn't a Skycatcher a LSA? Can you work towards a private cert in an LSA? If you have a sport pilot certificate how well does that credential transfer over to other non sport certificates?

SO I guess having the answers to those questions as well as what your training goals are would decide which aircraft is better for initial training.

PS my above questions are not rhetorical. I would really like to know the answers to those.

I think you can get your private in LSA-If I'm not mistaken Piper Cub is LSA.

 

[poser765]

Good to know guys, thanks. I didn't realize that there was that much intermingling of the two "categories." I tended to kind of think that one was a completely different branch than the other with two different sets of regulations, which I guess is true to an extent.

In the operation where I am currently employed there is no chance I could be teaching a sport pilot, so I've just never taken the time to read that section of 61. I did know that I could teach sport pilots though

 

[jrh]

I don't disagree with you, which is why I emphasized to talk to other people about anyplace he's considering, including JC'ers about good vs bad FBOs. I'm guessing we all know places with subpar mx. My point was more on the lines of not being married to the concept of training in the newest greatest airplane out there.
Regarding the $$ I didn't elaborate much, but I said 'Start off' ie: you show up at the door, and the salesguy (not CFI) immediately sits you down to talk about financing and advance pay discounts, before you actually talk about learning to fly. If the focus of 'closing the sale' is making an upfront payment, rather than the process of becoming a pilot, that to me is a red flag. Nothing wrong with discussing it as an option later in that conversation, but I actually had this happen to me several years ago when I was shopping for a flight school. Felt like walking into a used car dealership.

Cool, we're on the same page. Good advice all around.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Only thing that concerns me is the Skycatcher's spin problem. If the test pilots can't get it out what shot does a new instructor have at it?

Anyway, my $0.02.

 

[jrh]

Only thing that concerns me is the Skycatcher's spin problem. If the test pilots can't get it out what shot does a new instructor have at it?

Anyway, my $0.02.

I wouldn't really call it a "problem."

They did 500+ spin entries and spins during flight testing. This is WAY more than any other LSA on the market.

They found a few configurations (power on entries, far aft CG loadings, etc.) that lead to unrecoverable spins. They modified the tail design, did more testing, and are confident the problems were eliminated.

I'm not sure why they didn't ultimately certify it for spins, but I believe it's a safe airframe.

 

[The Gardener]

I agree with everything you said, except the bolded parts.

Most newbies have no clue how to decide if something is safe or not. Therefore, the statement of going with whatever is less expensive becomes a very dangerous rule to live by. They don't know if the price/value relationship is good or not.

As for loans, upfront payments, etc., I've beaten that dead horse many times in other threads. I'll just say that I think you're completely wrong, and the school I manage is proof.

Ok, ok, do tell. What show are you operating?

Also, when is the Skycatcher really supposed to hit the market?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I wouldn't really call it a "problem."

They did 500+ spin entries and spins during flight testing. This is WAY more than any other LSA on the market.

They found a few configurations (power on entries, far aft CG loadings, etc.) that lead to unrecoverable spins. They modified the tail design, did more testing, and are confident the problems were eliminated.

I'm not sure why they didn't ultimately certify it for spins, but I believe it's a safe airframe.

That's about the only thing I'd give Cessna a plus for in regards to the Groundpounder. Otherwise, they are a day late and a dollar short to the LSA party. Other than flight schools, you simply aren't going to find people buying these as personal LSA's, as the payload is awful.