Which Is A More Complex Aircraft?
Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:17 am
[img width=500 height=281]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MADKeDVifh0/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]
or
[img width=500 height=281]http://www.airline-empires.com/uploads/ ... 724369.png[/img]
B-17 or C172?
The answer might surprise you. TC says you need a longer checklist
for a 172 than a four-engine World War Two bomber.
[img width=378 height=500][/img]
It's pretty hard to understand why flight training in Canada sucks.
At my current airport, in addition to the usual infestation of Cessnas,
you can also rent Champs, Citabrias, Pitts, Extra, T-6 and L39. None
of these aircraft will teach you anything useful about aviation, I am told,
but gosh, they're an awful lot of fun. And no TC FTU OC.
I also see privately-flown T-34, T-28, P-51, BD-5J and a bunch of other
weird stuff that also don't teach you anything about flying, according to
the Canadian Kings of Aviationâ„¢.
or
[img width=500 height=281]http://www.airline-empires.com/uploads/ ... 724369.png[/img]
B-17 or C172?
The answer might surprise you. TC says you need a longer checklist
for a 172 than a four-engine World War Two bomber.
[img width=378 height=500][/img]
It's pretty hard to understand why flight training in Canada sucks.
At my current airport, in addition to the usual infestation of Cessnas,
you can also rent Champs, Citabrias, Pitts, Extra, T-6 and L39. None
of these aircraft will teach you anything useful about aviation, I am told,
but gosh, they're an awful lot of fun. And no TC FTU OC.
I also see privately-flown T-34, T-28, P-51, BD-5J and a bunch of other
weird stuff that also don't teach you anything about flying, according to
the Canadian Kings of Aviationâ„¢.