Which Aircraft

J

jdangel

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
87
Location
Massachusetts / 1b9
Display Name
JeffInBoston
Home Airfield
1b9
Because you were all so helpful in my last question about returning to flying, I wanted to solicit a couple of opinions regarding which aircraft to return to flying in.

Quick readers digest version of my story:
- Returning to flying after 15 years
- Private Pilot
- 85 hours in C172
- Considering building a low wing, but this is more a dream than anything

I am going to take my first lesson in getting back to flying status tomorrow. I currently have a Warrior booked figuring I would start trying out low wing aircraft to get a feel for them.

Is this a good idea? Since my ancient experience is in a 172, does anyone feel it would be better to return to 172s for the time being and then after I am back in the saddle switch? Or does it matter?

Thanks,
Jeff
 
After 15 years, I doubt it makes any difference. Low-wing doesn't fly a whole lot different than high-wing except maybe that low-wings have more of a tendency to float if you come in too hot.

Of course, this is all real easy to say for a guy who hasn't flown anything but rotorcraft in the last couple of years...
 
Doesn't matter. Choose by comfort, equipment, price.... There is no difference between flying a low wing or high. You won't have any more problems whether you choose the Warrior or 172.
 
Train in whatever you're going to rent/fly/buy the most often.
 
Concur with Henning -- it really makes no difference at this point. The important factors are the quality of the aircraft you fly and the instruction you receive. Go to the place where you get the best combination of those.
 
I third (or fourth) the others comments.

I personally slightly prefer the low wings, because I think that the seat is a little closer to the floor, and I find it more comfortable.

Flying wise there is little difference between them.

~ Christopher
 
RotaryWingBob said:
After 15 years, I doubt it makes any difference. Low-wing doesn't fly a whole lot different than high-wing except maybe that low-wings have more of a tendency to float if you come in too hot.

Of course, this is all real easy to say for a guy who hasn't flown anything but rotorcraft in the last couple of years...
Click to expand...
I differ a big with your analysis. Low wings are far more superior than high wings. Cessna has finally realized this and recently acquired a company that provided them with two low models. The only reason I think they did this was that their own design and engineering staff were not up to the task to design the superior low wing aircraft after years of only designing inferior ones. Of course all of that could just be complete bullocks! :D:D:D:D

Ask Chris Jones about RVs he has built at least one. I have never built anything that I would entrust my life too. ;)
 
jwriteclub said:
I third (or fourth) the others comments.

I personally slightly prefer the low wings, because I think that the seat is a little closer to the floor, and I find it more comfortable.

Flying wise there is little difference between them.

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

Can't imagine getting much closer than in a 150/152..:rofl:
 
IMHO..

I would vote for devoting your time, effort, and money into getting back into active flying rather than trying to build a plane WHILE getting current. It's VERY difficult to devote sufficient attention to both activities simultaneously. I think it should be a requirement that builders get some recurrent training with a CFI before they start flying their newly built bird. Once you get knee-deep in building, you devote all your time and money to that and flying skills get put on the back burner.

As for high-vs-low wing, I don't think it really matters. As long as you hit the numbers, the planes handle relatively the same. Flying is flying is flying, if you do it right.

Now back to building........ Once you get active in committing aviation again, and if you're still in the mood for building, I'll put a vote in for an RV. And yes, I am biased. :D
 
I suggest you buy my plane, so I can get my Comanche :)

(I'm gonng keep plugging it until someone buys it! :D)
 
Fly, be a pilot. Fly in whatever is closest and works best, doesn't much matter. Build later. How would you know what to build if you haven't flown? Fly.
 
I don't think the Warrior will prepare you specifically for the handling qualities of the average low-wing kit plane, although there is a huge variety available.
But it will get you used to missing half the scenery, there is that... :D
 
rottydaddy said:
I don't think the Warrior will prepare you specifically for the handling qualities of the average low-wing kit plane, although there is a huge variety available.
Click to expand...
If you're interested in eventually flying something like an RV, note that the RV factory recommends pre-training in an AA-1 (the original slick wing version, not the cuffed wing AA-1A/B/C models).
 
Thanks. I would of course take transition training (plenty of it) prior to flying an RV, etc.

Not sure about the building at this point, it is more of a dream than anything. I will say though that I have now flown twice over the last couple of days (in the end it was in a 172) and I am once again hooked.

Thanks
 
Awesome! Great to hear you're getting back in the saddle! :yes:

I guess we'll see you at Gaston's next year. ;)
 
Hi Jeff,

My situation was similar to yours except the numbers were a little different. When I quit flying it was for 8 years and at the time I had about 160 hours. Four years after my last flight I began construction of my RV and didn't fly again until it was basically finished. At that time I did 1 hour with an instructor in an Archer and then got a bi annual flight review. Total flight time about 2 1/2 hours to be legal again. The point is that it came right back and just really wasn't a big deal. Then before flying my RV I took the factory transition training which was about 5 hours before signoff and the beginning of the good times again.

Have fun and good luck with your dream to build.

Best,
Bryan
 
smigaldi said:
Cessna has finally realized this and recently acquired a company that provided them with two low models. The only reason I think they did this was that their own design and engineering staff were not up to the task to design the superior low wing aircraft after years of only designing inferior ones. Of course all of that could just be complete bullocks!
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I just got a mailing from my local Cessna dealer, and the ad says: "NEWS FLASH! CESSNA BUYS COLUMBIA AIRCRAFT! We are now taking orders for 350 and 400 models. Contact us now - 2008 positions are selling fast!"

They wasted no time, did they?
 
nddons said:
This is interesting. I just got a mailing from my local Cessna dealer, and the ad says: "NEWS FLASH! CESSNA BUYS COLUMBIA AIRCRAFT! We are now taking orders for 350 and 400 models. Contact us now - 2008 positions are selling fast!"

They wasted no time, did they?
Click to expand...

:dunno: Would you? It's all about return on investment.
 
Not that they invested all that much.

Plus, why not? All they need to do to make it a Cessna is paint the name Cessna on the airframe, otherwise its that same plane as it always was.

~ Christopher
 
nddons said:
This is interesting. I just got a mailing from my local Cessna dealer, and the ad says: "NEWS FLASH! CESSNA BUYS COLUMBIA AIRCRAFT! We are now taking orders for 350 and 400 models. Contact us now - 2008 positions are selling fast!"

They wasted no time, did they?
Click to expand...
My low/high wing comment was tongue in cheek. But if you look at the Columbia planes they are really very well designed. Compared to the Cirrus' I think the Columbia bet them hands down. Much better numbers and quality.
 
I only have one ride in the Cirrus and no time in a certified Columbia, but I have some time in both a Lancair ES and a IV-Propjet.

They are the two most fun planes I have ever flown. Period.

~ Christopher
 
brywd said:
I began construction of my RV and didn't fly again until it was basically finished.
Click to expand...

Welcome to another RV'er to PoA! :yes:

-Chris <-- 212hrs in RV-7A and counting...
 
smigaldi said:
But if you look at the Columbia planes they are really very well designed. Compared to the Cirrus' I think the Columbia bet them hands down. Much better numbers and quality.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? I have 1.1 hrs in an SR-22, and about .3 hrs sitting in a Columbia :) at AirVenture, but otherwise no real point of reference, so this is just idle curiosity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top