c172

[dougal28]

Even though the 172 is more expensive, you will save money becauce it is a better training tool than the 152 I have instrusted in both and have noticed that students learn a lot faster when they are confortable and also feel safe. The 172 does both of these, and is much more stable platform. Also it is a much more realistic airplane, the 152 is just a kite with an engine and can be a dangerous airplane.

 

[Birddog]

I don't know where you are getting the basis for that opinion. I can list a dozen reasons why one student might learn faster than another, with aircraft type not being near the top. What about the 152 makes it unsafe? To follow your line of reasoning, if a 172 is a better trainer than a 152, then a 208 would be a great trainer. No carb heat or mixture issues to worry about there either. How about some facts to back this claim up.

 

[Cardinal]

A 208 would be a great trainer! Aside from the cost, it would be perfect to train the "doctor" type new pilot that wants to move into advanced aircraft right off the bat. That could work...

 

[flydog]

Thats the first time I heard anyone refer to a C-152 as a dangerous airplane

 

[boscenter]

What a bunch of crap, the 152 is not a dangerous airplane!!

Your argument has no basis. Both the 152 and 172 are solid training aircraft.

The only reason a person would prefer one over the other is if they are the doctor/lawyer type that likes newer things.

I don't believe a student's ability to learn changes with the aircraft. Really, they are all the same (for the most part)!

 

[avbug]

The only real disadvantage to the 152 is that it's a little too stable, and a little too forgiving. Students can develop bad habits landing that would not be so easily forgiven in other airplanes. It must almost be wrestled into a spin, and then it comes out on it's own generally speaking. But overall, it's a great trainer, and has proved it's worth over hundreds of thousands of training hours.

Giving a student more power, more performance, and greater stability is counterproductive in a training aircraft. A student should be required to learn to plan ahead, and it's best to do so in an airplane that doesn't have the performance that allows them to fudge. It's the student that needs to be taught, not the airplane. The airplane does just fine by itself.

 

[dougal28]

If you don't think an aircraft that can only climb at 200-300 ft per min @ 68 kts on a hot day is a safe airplane than congratulations. I prefer a little more power and altitude on takeoff especially when I have students soloing from a short runway during the summer. One little burble from the engine on takeoff and thats it. In the winter it's a different story, thats all I meant by saying it can be unsafe. An ah birddog thats not a line of reasoning, I made a general statement about one aircraft not the 208, take your sarcasm somewhere else. I am sure there are other posts you can find to argue about. Gee I wonder why they don't make 152 anymore?

 

[flydog]

Iif your 152 climbs at 200 FPM better check your compressions. Thats 5 minutes just to get to pattern altitude and I have never seen that in any 152 hot or cold.

The best trainers ever made are the J-3 Cub and the Champ. Neither had great performance and are much harder for a beginner to fly and land than a 152 yet I dont think anyone would consider them unsafe.

 

[Mickey]

Everybody has an opinion. That is normal. It sounds more like you are uncomfortable in the C152 , not your students. I've found that students develope a better feel and softer touch for flying when they learn in a C152 instead of a C172. The 152 pilots can usually transition much easier into the 172 than the 172 pilots can transition into a 152. I agree with you that the 172 is a more stable platform, but that might not help them in the future. The 152 is lighter and more responsive that, yes, allows students to recover from mistakes quicker and easier,but, these qualities also make it easier for the student to over control and make a mistake.
Vy of 67kts in a 152 vs. 79kts for a 172R. Yes you will get a better climb and a better glide out of the 172. I just don't think that that alone makes one airplane safer than another. For a heavy student and a heavy instructor I think it's a no brainer, go with the 172.
My $.02
Take care

 

[cvsfly]

Every aircraft has its limitations. Its in the aircraft manual. The hard part is for the pilot determining his.

 

[dougal28]

Everybody has there own opinion, mine is the safety of my students. I have no quams myself flying the 152 infact I did all my ratings in one and have spent about 600hrs in it. To this date I have been and instuctor for two years and have a good pass rate. I have given over 450 hrs of instruction and have determined that the 172 makes for a safer environment for my students. Better equipment, performance, more room, quicker times to get the private. Now that was the answer to the original post ok. I think the mighty 152 is great plane in it's own rank, it's more fun, cheaper, and a little more forgiving on those hard nose wheel landings. There both planes are equal no one wins.

 

[avbug]

More forgiving on nosewheel landings? Well, that about says it all, doesn't it? Why not make it more forgiving when running into brick walls or trees? That's somewhat like saying an car with airbags is more forgiving when running into the back of a bus.

Don't make nosewheel landings. Don't allow students to do it either. A student properly taught won't do it. The problem comes of failure to properly teach. THe firewall will bend just as eaily on a 152 as on a 172 on a hard nosewheel landing, and it will do similiar damage to the engine mount. It will also damage the strut, and wreak havoc with the Lord shimmy dampner.

Do you honestly believe that Cessna stopped production on the 152, or didn't resume it, because of safety issues? You're far too new to aviation to make such ridiculous insinuations if you really don't know. It's a matter of economics. Strictly economics. The 152 has never been considered a safety risk, and never will be, except by those who lack the basic skills to operate it safely.

Do you really believe that if the engine has "one little burble" on takeoff that "that's it?" Come on! You probably don't require students to land without power, or pull engines away from the airport, either. I'm reminded of instructors I've seen who ended up in a spin with their students, and came back to the office white as a ghost and shaking. Such folks have no business being in the air with a student. An instructor who is afraid of the airplane shouldn't be in it.

The 152 has a fine climb rate for a trainer. You're perhaps thinking of a 150 at higher density altitudes. In any event, 200-300 fpm isn't a bad thing, especially in a trainer. Frankly, I operated a large four engine airplane professionally that could only do 100 fpm when loaded, and did it quite safely. If I had only experience in aircraft with ample performance, then I'd have been in a world of hurt. However, I came from a background where my training used airplanes that required a mile or so after the runway just to get up enough to retract the flaps and climb over the powerlines and be on my way. That's where training begins...when the student doesn't have everything done for him or her.

There's nothing wrong with a 172. There's nothing wrong with a 152. To make the suggestion that the 152 is remotely dangerous shows a great ignorance, and suggests a deeper problem than simple distrust of the machine. Thousands upon thousands of instructors, and hundreds of thousands of students, have flown in that airplane for hundreds of thousands of hours...with little or no complaint.

A poor carpenter blames his tools. It's not the tool.

 

[frndflpr]

A plane is a plane, a person is a person, education and dedication make the difference!

 

[dougal28]

I guess I hit a soft spot in avbug by giving my opinion. I thought that is what this board was for. If you refer back to the original question about training in the 172, I was simlpy giving some of it's advantages. And as far as bashing someones credentials for having an opinion I think you need to vent somewhere else. you don't have the stightest idea who I am or what kind of instructor I am. I love my job and I do it well. And to reiterate I am simply saying that the 172 makes for a better trainer in my OPINION. On average my students flying the 172 have been finishing with about 15 less hours, I not just making this up. And as far as your comment on nose wheel landings I don't baby sit my students I let them make mistakes so they will know what to do when I am not in the plane. Quit taking my comments and turning them into insults. I hope you feel better about yourself for making those comments.

 

[flydog]

I dont think Avbug is out to personally insult you

Its just that when a flight instructor calls a 152 a dangerous airplane it makes us all a little nervous. Also the comment about being more forgiving on nosewheel landings is odd.

Its about where youve been and what you have seen. I have pulled banners so big the rate of climb was measured in feet per hour so its all relative. That might make some people nervous but those that are nervous about flying a 152 may want to rethink their career choice.

 

[A1FlyBoy]

dougal28:

Avbug was responding to statements presented by you. No one has knocked your credentials, but do disagree with some of your opinions.


As far as, "I don't baby sit my students I let them make mistakes so they will know what to do when I am not in the plane."

I hope you are teaching them proper landing technique from day 1.

 

[dougal28]

I done with this one, now I've got someone telling me to rethink my career b/c I think the 172 is a better trainer. Once agiain I don't think the 152 is dangerous I like my students to fly 172's. And to answer the other question about proper landing technique I not even going there, b/c hopefully as a fellow instructor you know what I am talking about. Now the nosewheel deal, as you know the 172 has a more power stronger nose strut due to increased weight from the engine. This factor in my experience can cause greater rebound effect if the student happens to not touchdown properly, which they will do. Please get a grip people.

 

[dlwdracos]

I trained in a 150, and then purchased it from its owner. I love the 150 It's the last "affordable" airplane. There is very little difference in the performance between a 150 or 152. They are basically the same plane with a few horses more, and a few gallons more usable fuel.

What makes a 150-152 a great trainer is the fact that they do requre power management. You cant firewall the throttle and get out of trouble like with a 180hp 172's. Try flying one of the early models with the 6 cylinder Contenal. I think they give something like 145hp. They are basically just as power starved as the 150.

Why do you think so many people learned on the J-3 Cub. It certainly never had a surplus of power. The fact is, if one ever get in an emergency, he will most likely be flying without power, so the lessons learned in a 150 are valuable.

 

[ShawnC]

152s are one of the best trainers that you can get. I spent most of my training in a 152, spent a little in the J-3 and I loved it all. They are both perfectly safe or else I wouldn't have flown in them.

 

[flydog]

as you know the 172 has a more power stronger nose strut due to increased weight from the engine. This factor in my experience can cause greater rebound effect if the student happens to not touchdown properly

Can you explain "rebound effect"

They never covered that when I learned to fly

By the way the difference in weight between an O-235 and an O-360 is about 50 Lbs. I doubt it makes that much of a difference in the "rebound effect" when your students plow the nose gear onto the runway