What aircraft to fly??

[Ajax]

Hi, this question is not about jet/props/tilt rotor. It's about general aviation. I have a PPL I took the checkride as soon as I got back from PLC, I learned to fly in a C-152 and I'm a PLC-SNA, so I have a good deal of time before Primary.
My question is, what aircraft should I check out next so I can fly the next few years? I'm thinking maybe a low-wing like a T-34, or an aerobatic because we have an aerobatic trainer near where i live and he charges 150 an hour for dual instruction (includes plane and instructor), or should I work on my instrument? or train in something a little more high powered and complex like an Arrow??

Thanks for the help

 

[mules83]

In my opinion, I would work on your instrument. The information you would gain would be very useful in future training in the navy. Plus, instrument is nice to get because IFR cross countries are a lot easier than VFR ones. For a commercial rating, you pretty just learn how to do takeoff and landings better and get to do some worthless maneuvers (lazy eights, chandelles, etc.). With instrument, you are learning a completely new set of tasks that make you a better and safer pilot. You don't need to fly something more powerfull or complex because you wont learn anything new that will be of great use in the future. Just put I fake gear handle in a c150 to practice putting the gear down. Personally, after I got my ratings, I would find the cheapest plane to fly and fly the $h!t out of it.

Also, try and find a cheap tailwheel airplane to fly. I fly a j3 cub for $35 dry an hour. Plus you learn GREAT stick and rudder flying.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Hi, this question is not about jet/props/tilt rotor. It's about general aviation. I have a PPL I took the checkride as soon as I got back from PLC, I learned to fly in a C-152 and I'm a PLC-SNA, so I have a good deal of time before Primary.
My question is, what aircraft should I check out next so I can fly the next few years? I'm thinking maybe a low-wing like a T-34, or an aerobatic because we have an aerobatic trainer near where i live and he charges 150 an hour for dual instruction (includes plane and instructor), or should I work on my instrument? or train in something a little more high powered and complex like an Arrow??

Thanks for the help

I would suggest canvasing the FBO's in your area and see if you can find a Diamond Katana DA-20.

• 
  It generally rents for under $70/hour wet
  low wing aircraft
  easy to fly but challenging to fly well
  Canopy hat provides a sight picture not unlike a T-34/T-37
  Modern design
  A challenge to land on windy days
  Makes you use your feet (rudder control)
  Grear platform for fundementals of attitude flying that will be critical to success in Primary (Power+Attitude=Performance)

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Do whatever sounds the most fun to you. Don't approach whatever type of flying to do next with the idea that its going to make you better prepared for Primary. With that said, I think an instrument rating is a solid investment. However, you'll get all this in Primary (read: that's about $4k you don't have to pay). If it were me, I'd do something different. Like Mules said, getting a tailwheel checkout can give you some good stick and rudder experience. I would imagine there are a few seaplane training facilities in Maryland...that's something they don't teach you in Primary. Personally, I'd move up to a little better performing four place and then "share" expenses with friends/family and take some killer x-countries.

 

[saltpeter]

The performance difference between a 200 h.p. "high performance single" and a 112 h.p. trainer, does not constitute the added expense. The instrument rating will make you a more professional pilot, albeit without the pay. However, you will learn more obtaining that rating, than you will in any other endeavor in aviation. Not only will you be forced to fly with precision, which is a good thing by itself, you will learn to make decision on your own. Suddenly, you'll learn to demand what you have decided is the best course of action from ATC instead of ATC leading the pilot by the nose through their airspace. Ice, wind, turbulence, thunderstorm, low visibilty, all good stuff and great learning.

 

[mules83]

The performance difference between a 200 h.p. "high performance single" and a 112 h.p. trainer, does not constitute the added expense.

Jease, you know nothing. High performance is 201 hp or more. Just joking; about you knowing nothing. I learned this the hard way because at ERAU, I did my complex (for commerical rating) work in a piper arrow and it had a 200 hp engine so no high performance for me. Really stupid. I flew less than .3 in a >201 hp airplane to get that endorsement which was.... really stupid.

 

[saltpeter]

Should have done your high proformance / complex for the commercial licence in a twin, jease.

 

[saltpeter]

Could have killed three birds with one stone.

 

[mules83]

That brings up the same issue again. I did my multi at ERAU (had to) and flew seminoles which have 180 hp engines. Seminoles had more performance than the C182 i flew for the other endorsement so it didnt change my knowledge at all. The FAR's should make it a combine HP of greater than 201 hp.

 

[Ajax]

So, what I gather is; Instrument would be helpful, but also training in a Diamond would be beneficial. So I guess that means I should attempt to get my instrument in a Diamond Aircraft?? Granted I have quite a bit of time between now and Primary, I will be able to take my time and do this.
Thanks

 

[mules83]

I cant recall if diamond a/c are glass cockpits or not but anways, be careful doing instrument training in an all glass a/c. It would be alot different if you went to flyng t34's with dials. Im not a big fan of glass cockpit training (for instrument) because it is a big difference from dials because your scan will be totally different and flying partial panel is non-existent in glass ships. It is a lot easier going from dials to glass than the other way around. I personally would not fly with somebody (if i wasnt flying) in an all dial a/c on a IFR x-country if all their instrument training was in a SR22 (all glass cockpit).

If you want to get instrument, get it, glass or not. Im just saying, if you want every cent to be worth you training now and in the future (navy career), you should do it with dials.

In my opinion, there should be an endorsement for a person who wants to move from glass to dials if flying instrument.

 

[BugDriver]

Instrument Rating - Best Investment

I started API with 300 hrs ASEL (150 hrs of which was actual Instrument); finished Primary with a 70+ NSS; got my first choice of pipeline.

Both in the T-34C and the T-45A, the greatest two assets I carried over from my civilian flight time were: (1) my instrument scan and (2) my situational awareness that came along with the instrument rating.

Due to most of my civilian flight hours being at the controls of C172s and C182s, I sweated my unfamiliarity with: (a) flying with a stick vice yoke; (b) aerobatics; (c) "Navy" comms; (d) turbine powerplants; (e) tandem cockpits vice side-by-side; (f) low-wing vice high-wing.

Turns out, having the underlying knowledge base of a civilian instrument rating made adjusting to, for example, "Navy" comms, relatively easy. I tend to believe you'll have a bigger advantage in the MPTS grading system in Primary if you walk into your first "Basic Instrument" simulator knowing the fundamentals of how to fly, for example, a VOR-DME or ILS approach, even if you're only used to a C152, than if you blew your cash now on logging VFR hours in a High Performance single.

 

[Gatordev]

I never understood why so many people get wrapped up about flying a low-wing vs high wing. I flew both on the civilian side before flight school, but probably had more time in a low wing. Yes, I know there are some aerodynamic differences, but really, it's not that big a deal. I always thought model was much more of an issue than wing postion. Piper Warrior/Cherokee...like a crappy Buick. Cessna 150/152...like my old Dodge Omni. Not a lot of power, but maneuverable enough. Cessna 172...Crappy Buick, but more stable and I can't see beyond the nose. Grumman...ahh, the Grumman. Light, responsive, but just stable enough to learn instruments on.

All IMHO, of course.

 

[ChuckMK23]

The Grumman Tiger is a sweet little ride. Sliding canopy to boot!

 

[nugget81]

Has anyone here had any aerobatics experience before getting into the Navy training system? I'm curious whether or not it has helped/hurt any student aviators...