The switch... Piper to Cessna

Which is why Cessnas are better trainers imo. Ground steering does suck though. Even Diamond and its wacky differental braking setup is better.

What's wacky about it?

"Can you park it there?"

"Oh yeah sure!"

I happen to like the Pipers better than I do the Cessnas, but that's just a personal preference. The 172 is a bit sluggish down there in the flare as far as directional control (to me, it seems that you have to apply more force than in a few other machines I fly), but other than that, it's just another airplane.

Oh. Sump the tanks, too: http://www.what2fly.com/airworthiness_directives/ce-10-40.pdf
 
Alright, I'm feeling better about this now. I'm still trying to get the hang of the performance charts, and being able to calculate the stuff in a decent amount of time. Other than that I'm excited to get signed off in these planes, as they are much nicer than the pipers I've been flying.
 
Cessnas are built better, but can be more of a pain to work on. Especially the dadgum 206. I'd like to beat the engineer that shoehorned that motor in there.

The Cherokees are not as well built, but I'm convinced that a half-trained ape with a crescent wrench and a pair of vise-grips could keep one flying in a pinch.
 
For the cruise charts, the trick is to find your density altitude then use the "standard temperature" column in the middle. Just slide on up to your density altitude (I know I know it says pressure altitude on the left side, but you just corrected for temperature and can now use density) and you have your numbers.

Flying wise, Pipers feel a little more solid. Cessna will feel loosey goosey at first until you get a handle on it, especially the rudder and ground steering.

Good trick, but one easier way is to just round up the temp and round up the PA and just use that number. No interpolation needed. The only time an exact number is needed is during the FAA written. The extra distance will help for safer planning for real life situations.

An example would be to round up 14C to 20C and 1400PA to 2000PA and just use the published numbers.
 
Good trick, but one easier way is to just round up the temp and round up the PA and just use that number. No interpolation needed. The only time an exact number is needed is during the FAA written. The extra distance will help for safer planning for real life situations.

An example would be to round up 14C to 20C and 1400PA to 2000PA and just use the published numbers.

:yeahthat: Much faster, and gives you a little buffer for whatever performance degradation the engine has suffered over the years, the fact that you're not a test pilot, etc. etc.

Only time I'd go to the density altitude method is when the temperature falls outside the published range, but if it's that hot (or that cold), spending more time inside doing performance calculations doesn't sound like a bad idea. :)
 
I've read a few topics on this but I'm sure there's more.
I'm just about ready to finish my PIC x-country for my instrument rating, and I have done every single hour of my flight training in Cherokees. However, they are very basic and really don't cut it for instrument training.

I'm just curious Andrew, what do you consider basic and not cutting it for instrument training? Is it not IFR capable?
 
I'm just curious Andrew, what do you consider basic and not cutting it for instrument training? Is it not IFR capable?

They lack IFR GPS, and one of them lacks a VOR. I'm also switching because of the engine issues I had flying one of their planes, as well as the continious maintenence issues, and they seem to lack the ability to repair their planes. While this place has great aircraft, in great shape, and has all of the IFR equipment neccesary. I will go back to fly the cherokee's on my own occasionally, because I love those planes. But for my IR this is clearly the path to go.
 
Other than the GPS, those are pretty damn good reasons. You're supposed to be trying to avoid killing yourself with your flying not worrying about letting the plane and the shoddy mx do it for you!
 
Other than the GPS, those are pretty damn good reasons. You're supposed to be trying to avoid killing yourself with your flying not worrying about letting the plane and the shoddy mx do it for you!

Exactly, I'm only 16 and I've already have my fair share of near emergencies.. Good thing I have a great flight instructor. Might not be around if I didn't.
 
They lack IFR GPS, and one of them lacks a VOR. I'm also switching because of the engine issues I had flying one of their planes, as well as the continious maintenence issues, and they seem to lack the ability to repair their planes. While this place has great aircraft, in great shape, and has all of the IFR equipment neccesary. I will go back to fly the cherokee's on my own occasionally, because I love those planes. But for my IR this is clearly the path to go.

Sorry, why should IFR GPS matter? 2 vors, maybe a dme & you're good to go!
 
Sorry, why should IFR GPS matter? 2 vors, maybe a dme & you're good to go!
Shouldn't be a deciding factor, but it is a nice tool to have in your bag...especially with alot of new RNAV approaches popping up. I just started my IR training in the same 1982 C172P I took my PPL checkride in. It's got a Garmin 430 (which I haven't used under the hood yet, still trying to get my scan down and fine tune my VOR tracking before I get to use it) and about 4 out of 8 IAP's at my home field require RNAV. In addition just about all of the NDB's in the area have been decommissioned and just about all of the associated approaches have been replaced with RNAV procedures. In this day and age, it seems that earning an IR in an airplane with GPS puts you at an advantage, however it shouldn't be a crutch and you darned well better know what to do if it fails (just like when flying VFR)...
 
Shouldn't be a deciding factor, but it is a nice tool to have in your bag...especially with alot of new RNAV approaches popping up. I just started my IR training in the same 1982 C172P I took my PPL checkride in. It's got a Garmin 430 (which I haven't used under the hood yet, still trying to get my scan down and fine tune my VOR tracking before I get to use it) and about 4 out of 8 IAP's at my home field require RNAV. In addition just about all of the NDB's in the area have been decommissioned and just about all of the associated approaches have been replaced with RNAV procedures. In this day and age, it seems that earning an IR in an airplane with GPS puts you at an advantage, however it shouldn't be a crutch and you darned well better know what to do if it fails (just like when flying VFR)...


Agreed, it just seemed odd that he prefaced it..as if that was the deciding factor.

I've never flown a piper, but made the switch from cirrus to cessna for my ppl and instrument. Low wings are a dream to land...I miss my cirrus. My favorite part of the preflight with passengers was telling them about how to use the 'chute. "If I die for some reason...pull the black lever back, then the red lever...when the engine dies, pull this do-hicky at the top in the ceiling and hold on tight! Or you could try and land it..even though you have no aviation experience...regardless, I'll be dead, so I don't care."
 
Sorry, why should IFR GPS matter? 2 vors, maybe a dme & you're good to go!

If you live where I live, VOR minima are so ridiculously high that the approach is nothing more than a descent to VFR conditions followed by a landing - thereby making operations without RNAV difficult when the weather's anything less than VFR. Sure, we can shoot an approach to the neighboring airport with an ILS when the local weather is less than 1100-1 1/2 (not making this up), but my car isn't at the neighboring airport ;)

LPV miunimums = good enough reason to buy an IFR GPS with WAAS, I think.
 
J/w, how do you have a PPL if you're 16?

He doesn't have one, but he can do the PIC cross countries on endorsed solo flights and do all of his IR training before he gets the private. When he turns 17, he can take his checkride for his private, and technically take the checkride for his IR later on in the same day.

Good luck with the transition! I don't have much experience with Piper, but Cessna has never let me down. :D
 
Alright, so a follow up on my first flight in a Cessna. Although it wasn't too bad it really didn't go the way I wanted it to go. First things I noticed... The steering on the ground, it's almost as if no matter what I try to do I cannot make tight turns or control it with precision like I could in the Cherokee's. Does being able to control it well come with more time in the planes? Second thing, the plane seemed to be less stable in slow flight. Really not an issue it just took more work to keep it at a constant altitude. Now... STALLS. Good lord, I attempted to do a power off stall and simply could not get it to do a full stall, the airpseed indicator was almost to zero and the nose refuced to drop, I had all available back pressure in and still.. no luck. Ok, no worries, it was close to a stall and I got the experience. Power on stall... Good god, compared to the Piper stalls that's one hell of a rollarcoaster. I kept the ball centered, all of that stuff and recovered fine a little bit shaken. Steep turns were fine. Landings, well... I had a difficult time with them. I would always be high on final, most likely because of how high I'm sitting compared to a Piper. I would end up flaring too low and smack the ground with all three gears, I was flaring how I normally flare in the Piper's turns out it dosn't work too well in a Cessna. Anyways, final landing was better than the rest by far. Going back up again Monday, hopefully it goes much better...
 
Back
Top