Day dreaming about airplanes.

[David MacRay]

Pfft.

If you believe that you are developing bad habits flying a 172, stop flying them. Practice makes permanent, perfect practice makes better skills.

Sure conventional gear is less forgiving but it’s not rocket surgery.

I’m easily the worst pilot here and I would confidently jump in a J-3 right now and attempt to fly it anywhere in range as long as the weather was clear.

I learned to fly in a 172, now because I’m weak on the radio they won’t even let me go by myself in them, and yet sometimes I get complemented on how well I land a Citabria three points on pavement. I only fly it because it’s cheaper. I don’t think it’s more fun dragging along at gross weight with a guy in the back complaining because I am struggling to get it to a certain height before turning crosswind.

Be precise, control your airspeed, altitude and yaw. Land straight and try to touchdown as close to the numbers and centreline as possible every time.

[Slick Goodlin]

buy the best one you can find where someone else has paid the big bucks to make it nice

That reminds me of a friend’s Pacer. He picked it up a few months after it swept every award a Pacer can win and he paid probably under half of what the restorer had into it and even that’s assuming the time spent was worth nothing. Airplane values are weird sometimes.

[David MacRay]

Ok, so “jumping” is an inaccurate description of me trying to get into one of those things but...

[Liquid_Charlie]

Be precise, control your airspeed, altitude and yaw. Land straight and try to touchdown as close to the numbers and centreline as possible every time.

I would beet that into guys when I was mentoring but not as politely FTFA -- "fly the fucking aeroplane" and do it to when you shut down!!

The reaction to aileron drag was always entertaining. Old aeroplanes -- you got to love them!!

It is not just the tail wheel it is the fact that in lower performance aeroplanes

Some really good stuff in this post BPF but poor performance I got to question, maybe I was spoiled but I learned to fly on and built up my time on a 90 hp J-3 grasshopper and performance was never a question -- so there are options out there for 65HP under powered aircraft. I guess it does boil down to the money but like buying your dream home a well planned purchasing plan can get you into that "dream machine" with a well calculated purchasing sequence of a cpl other aircraft to get you there.

As we mature and get more experience our needs change. I'm thinking that you need to approach the first airplane as an investment you will likely flip when you find something better. The other side of the coin is that once you build time your interest on owning changes once you start doing it for a living.

TO guy - Ornge is a pretty good gig, especially in T Bay and NWO. I know a few people working there. I know of one cpl who were DC3-T captains and they jumped to ornge for a better family life. Rotational work wears thin eventually when it comes to family.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I would suggest a 90 hp Cub is still “lower performance”. The extra hp gives it a much better climb rate compared to a 65 hp Cub but it is not significantly faster and its low wing loading still makes it susceptible to atmospheric effects in a way that is not an issue for heavier more powerful aircraft.

Going somewhere in that airplane takes the kind of planning that you don’t need to think about in an airplane with 5 hours of fuel and an auto pilot. I truly believe you are a better pilot for it, especially for someone just starting their flying adventure

David

I am pleased to hear that you are making an effort to fly the C172 well. Unfortunately that attitude seems to be rather uncommon. Most people I see in C 172’s seem to be perfectly content to mostly be a passenger knowing that the airplane will usually save them from themselves.

[David MacRay]

One thing that tends to help prevent me from being a terrible pilot is I actually enjoy flying the plane instead of just riding around in it. I always liked using the foot rests. Cessna rudders should be bigger in my opinion.

I definitely prefer approaching slightly high, I can always descend regardless of engine condition or convection activity, forward slips are our friend. I never fear a little extra height, if you really mess up, you can always go around and try again. On the other hand there is a finite limit to how low you can fly.

My weird sense of humour can cause panic in flight instructors that don’t seem to understand when I’m kidding. I figure some of those jokes should be pretty obvious. I guess not.

[Liquid_Charlie]

I guess that covers just about all "old" light aircraft - by definition a beaver and certainly a whoredyne would fall into that, possibly even a DC3. I didn't come across many aircraft that at some point I thought "under powered" - Fat wings and aileron drag usually defines that class of aircraft to me.

Even the Herc had times where under powered was thought of. Hard to believe but get all the anti-icing systems going and a climb at max weight is pretty painful. Don't know about the "J" model but the "H" for sure.

I can also remember desiring a little better performance out of the good old CV44 - just thought I would throw in some big pistons --

I guess it boils down to the "eyes of the beholder"

[David MacRay]

Here’s one that’s really good for getting from the Pacific to the Atlantic and most points between. Bargain priced and won’t need an engine for several hours.

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... e-aircraft

You probably don’t need to use the rudder but it will fly much nicer if you do.

[Slick Goodlin]

I would suggest a 90 hp Cub is still “lower performance”.

Can confirm. I spent 8.5 in a 100 hp Cub yesterday and between the warm weather, wheel skis, and the maze of plumbing and struts holding them on what a dog! Like 200fpm average climb and absolute ceiling around 6000 feet.

Couldn’t have been a lack of lift. The long wings and a zillion VGs made it damn near impossible to smoothly three point on pavement because it just wouldn’t quit flying.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I can also remember desiring a little better performance out of the good old CV44 - just thought I would throw in some big pistons --

I guess it boils down to the "eyes of the beholder"

I can remember doing reloads out of Billing’s on a 105 deg F day. Poor old DC 6 could barely manage 300 ft min. Flying under a fortuitously aligned cloud street doubled the climb. Starting in lower powered airplane will develop skills that can be surprisingly useful.

Re “eye of the holder” I remember talking to a CF18 driver. He complained that it was a bit of dog in the sandpit when carrying a load of 500 pounders and 3 drops.
I think his idea of “doggy” performance and mine is probably quite different