Transitioning to 6 pack and low wing

WannFly

WannFly

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
6,553
Location
KLZU
Display Name
Display name:
Priyo
What does it take to transition to a low wing archer II with 6 pack from a g1000 equipped 172? Other than fly the heck out of it?

Remember, I am pre-solo student.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Boost pumps and tank switching. A somewhat different sight picture. Surprisingly little else.

Of course you'll have to learn to read the round dials, but it's not very hard.

The hardest part is figuring out the navigation and autopilot (if any). G1000s are pretty standardized. Archers could have just anything.
 
If you're pre-solo, I'd imagine it will be much easier than if you had been flying a G1000 for awhile. I switched from a 172 to a Warrior pre-solo as well, and never went back. I found the low wing much easier to master and more enjoyable. It did take some getting used to with the sight picture. I flared high a lot in the beginning, but once I got used to it, my landing were better than they were in the 172.
 
The low wing will take a few landings to get muscle memory for increased ground effect and float. The analogs are simpler and there is far less flight information than in the G1000.
 
You'll love the oleo gear I think....but it won't go "sprong" like the spring gear on the 172 when ya bounce it really hard. :)o_O

For the steam vs PlayStation question, keep your eyes looking outside. Yer VFR.
 
Clark1961 said:
You'll love the oleo gear I think....but it won't go "sprong" like the spring gear on the 172 when ya bounce it really hard. :)o_O

For the steam vs PlayStation question, keep your eyes looking outside. Yer VFR.
Click to expand...

I agree with this ^

I'm green as a gourd here and don't have any glass time at all, except on X-Plane 10/11 sim, but using that, nothing jumped out at me as strikingly advantageous.
Steam gauges seem perfectly fine to me so far, but I'm sure the glass panels must have some advantages or the money wouldn't be spent on them.
I've only flown a 172M (1977) and a PA-28 Cherokee 140 (1966)
One flight in the Cherokee and my immediate impression was:
Cherokee felt smoother and more docile while flying. Less rocking around I guess you might say, just a more solid feel altogether.
Cherokee taxi with rudder pedals were more responsive. I think they are direct linkage- no bungees? Someone may confirm/deny..I'm not positive.
Cherokee trim was more exact and stable feeling.
Cherokee manual flaps were pretty cool and immediate.
This particular Cherokee had only hand brakes, no toe pedals. I had no trouble using them the first time, and also liked the locking mechanism during run-up and parking. didn't need the toe brakes for taxi as the pedals were very responsive.
For whatever reason, I could see over the nose better in the Cherokee...not sure exactly why.
Cherokee felt less bouncy on landing.
I know they are similar planes, but everything about the 172 feels more spongy and springy .. the taxi and runway steering, the flying, the landing gear.
Not sure if that's good or bad or neither... just my observation from that one flight.
for reference, I've only got about 15 hrs total in the 172.
I'm sure if I had more hours in the Cherokee I would see a few more flaws or less of a difference probably due to conditions like wind, turbulence etc... but I did like the feeling of sitting on top of the wing instead of feeling like I was swinging from it.
Transitioning should be pretty effortless in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Transitioning is fine. Got an insurance checkout and spent an hour doing all the maneuvers. Stalls are less of an event in my stubby winged 1970 Cherokee 140 than they are in the already docile 172. The only thing to get used to is memorizing your new speeds. Everything else is better. =D
 
MAKG1 said:
Boost pumps and tank switching. A somewhat different sight picture. Surprisingly little else.
Click to expand...

Remembering the pump takes conscious effort for us "always flown gravity fed" folks for a while, for sure. And not having a "both" setting on the tanks.

Once you get used to it, it flows along with everything else but it's annoying at first. :)
 
I followed almost exactly the same path you are. Got my private rating in a G1000 172 (in fact, I flew a couple of the planes that you're likely flying now) and bought an old Cherokee right after passing my checkride. Transitioning for a VFR pilot should be relatively quick and easy since you don't use the majority of the G1000 functions anyway.

The guys who I've transitioned who struggle the most are the guys who are instrument pilots who have only flown with glass and now are trying to make sense of what the instruments are telling them while instrument flying. I suspect the largest problem is the lack of functionality with the typical analog instrument panel found in light singles compared to what they're used to.
 
denverpilot said:
Remembering the pump takes conscious effort for us "always flown gravity fed" folks for a while, for sure. And not having a "both" setting on the tanks.
Click to expand...
Same with carb heat when you trained a fuel injected DA20.

250hrs in a C182P and I'm still prone to forget to pull that knob during landing.
 
mondtster said:
The guys who I've transitioned who struggle the most are the guys who are instrument pilots who have only flown with glass and now are trying to make sense of what the instruments are telling them while instrument flying. I suspect the largest problem is the lack of functionality with the typical analog instrument panel found in light singles compared to what they're used to.
Click to expand...

Don't think that's it. The functionality is identical other than ground track and automatically calculated winds.

Everything else is displayed that you need. Just in a different layout. Assuming there's an IFR GPS that is.

VOR only, they may be out of practice real bad. That's a different story.
 
The instrument scan on a G1000 is quicker and easier than a six-pack. All the gyro instruments are in the center. All the pitot and pressure instruments are on the sides of the PFD. There is redundancy in the AHRS/ADC so if you lose one simply switch to the other. And the MFD is a backup to the PFD. But like the argument over cabon fiber and BRS chutes versus tin and hoping to squeeze in between cars on a road, the same crowd will argue analog over glass.
 
WannFly said:
What does it take to transition to a low wing archer II with 6 pack from a g1000 equipped 172? Other than fly the heck out of it?

Remember, I am pre-solo student.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
fly. that is all.
 
denverpilot said:
Don't think that's it. The functionality is identical other than ground track and automatically calculated winds.

Everything else is displayed that you need. Just in a different layout. Assuming there's an IFR GPS that is.

VOR only, they may be out of practice real bad. That's a different story.
Click to expand...

It is it. When all a person has flown is a G1000 with an HSI and the avionics do everything for you, and show you exactly where in the world you are, then you transition to having a separate indicator and DG and a higher workload things go downhill quickly. At least that's what I've observed. Functionality is not the same, although similar if you actually know what you're looking at.

VFR however, is little problem.
 
mondtster said:
It is it. When all a person has flown is a G1000 with an HSI and the avionics do everything for you, and show you exactly where in the world you are, then you transition to having a separate indicator and DG and a higher workload things go downhill quickly. At least that's what I've observed. Functionality is not the same, although similar if you actually know what you're looking at.

VFR however, is little problem.
Click to expand...

I get the workload thing. I'm kinda happy I learned on steam. The few times I've done glass even a venerable old Garmin 430 feels like "cheating".

Remapping the scan isn't too difficult coming from steam to glass I noticed.

I'm almost sure those coming from glass to steam have to speed up and widen their view a bit and if they get overloaded they tunnel vision and don't see everything they need to see. That would feel like more "workload" for sure.

SkyDog58 said:
Personally, I'd need more than a six pack to fly a low wing. :cheers: :goofy:
Click to expand...

LOL!
 
AggieMike88 said:
Same with carb heat when you trained a fuel injected DA20.

250hrs in a C182P and I'm still prone to forget to pull that knob during landing.
Click to expand...

I can give ya a cheat for that. Just hook your thumb around/on top of the carb heat knob in your placement of your hand on the throttle.

With practice you can actually pull both at the same time if you're doing something that requires a full power cut (not nice to the engine, but you get where I'm going here)... and it'll remind you to pull it with the throttle.

It's just kinda a "rest your hand on both" but you don't have to pull both if you don't want to. See if it works for you. I may have longer fingers than you and it may not be comfortable for you, but if it works ergonomically, cool.

Can't say I came up with it. Someone showed me a long time ago. I've always looked for ways to place my hands ever since that'll remind me of things without going so far to put them in really awkward positions. This one is pretty good though.
 
While the Archer needs the boost pump prophylactically, not all low wings do. Those flying Bonanzas or the like with injected Continentals don't touch the boost pump switch (other than to prime) unless they think there's a problem with the engine driven pump. Indeed running the pump on high can kill the engine at times.

Not all low wings have tank switching either. The Navion standard fuel selector is ON-OFF just like a Cessna 152. Both wing tanks drain to a common, smaller tank. There's only one filler for both sides as well.
 
citizen5000 said:
The instrument scan on a G1000 is quicker and easier than a six-pack. All the gyro instruments are in the center. All the pitot and pressure instruments are on the sides of the PFD. There is redundancy in the AHRS/ADC so if you lose one simply switch to the other. And the MFD is a backup to the PFD. But like the argument over cabon fiber and BRS chutes versus tin and hoping to squeeze in between cars on a road, the same crowd will argue analog over glass.
Click to expand...
Not in a Cessna G1000.

There is only one AHRS/ADC. Redundancy is steam gauge AI, ASI, and altimeter. It's a pretty weird scan with a failed AHRS.

Very few Cessnas have BRS.
 
The next Ben has arrived
 
For VFR stuff I honestly prefer the six pack setup, since the analog instruments show you very directly all the information you need to know, you spend most of your time looking outside the plane anyway.

I do have time in glass Cirrus planes, and while the glass is extremely cool and gives you loads of Vital Information at once I think it's a little overkill for most VFR stuff if you want to just get up and go flying for that hundred-dollar burger run
 
The top of the instrument panel is much lower on the Cherokee; I'm relatively tall and I don't like the Cessnas since I can't see forward without effort (plus it's too easy to walk into the wing!)

The nose wheel on the Cherokee is tied to the rudder, so make sure rudder is neutral before touching down the nose, otherwise you can ground loop- or at least swerve.

Glass is overrated IMO, and develops the bad habit of keeping your eyes inside the plane. Anyone pre-solo doesn't have the scan ingrained so it should be no issue at all.

And you'll like having a throttle quadrant instead of the locomotive-inspired push rod controls used in most other brands.
 
Tantalum said:
glass is extremely cool and gives you loads of Vital Information at once I think it's a little overkill for most
Click to expand...

As you know the same six pack of instruments is on the G1000 PFD (along with HSI, AoA, GS, TAS, synthetic vision, inset ADS-B). The MFD has the engine instruments which are still necessary in round gauge planes.

One major plus to a glass panel setup is the integration of a autopilot, radios, EFB and crew management. These things may also still present in round gauge planes but on a tablet and separate pieces of gear in the panel.
 
The instrument scan is simpler in a six pack - just less "noise" than on the cluttered G1000 MFD, and it's also somewhat more intuitive. Won't take you anytime at all, VFR, to transition. The Archer is probably a little bit better IFR platform. The 172, as mentioned, has a simpler fuel system.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Are we talking Ben from Jackson Hole who had sheep? What happened to him?
Click to expand...
No. The Ben that made his mark in the Red Board and then wandered over here hails from the west coast, general region around San Francisco
 
Thanks guys, good info here. Switching tanks, primer, carb heat, manual flaps, are a bunch of new things. Had no idea about the nose wheel and rudder thing. What s the rationale behind that?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
One major plus to a glass panel setup is the integration of a autopilot, radios, EFB and crew management. These things may also still present in round gauge planes but on a tablet and separate pieces of gear in the panel
Click to expand...
Agree on that, many steam gauge panels are hodge podged together by this point, and flows can me inconsistent. The glass though is well thought out and helps me with flows, but I still feel like for simple vfr training in a 172 the Nintendo thing can be distracting and give you an illusion of safety
 
citizen5000 said:
One major plus to a glass panel setup is the integration of a autopilot, radios, EFB and crew management. These things may also still present in round gauge planes but on a tablet and separate pieces of gear in the panel.
Click to expand...

What "crew management" does this magical glass accomplish? Also seen plenty of glass that has no autopilot, EFB, nor radios integrated into it. But the crew management was the one that made me LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top