Trainer Advantages...

[VW Pilot]

What are the advantages of a trainer that has a high mounted wing (C-172)
and the advanges of a low mounted wing trainer( PA-28)??? Of everyone's experience, which makes a better trainer?? Some CFIs I've talked to have said that there is no real difference But I feel the PA-28 is a better trainer...what advantages does the PA-28 Have over the C-172 and vise versa???

Thanks.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

I like the PA 28 for the low wing...great visibility. I also like its landing characteristics. I lot of people will say they don't like the way it lands but I find it doesn't float as much as the cessna and is fairly easy to put it where you want it.

The 172's and the like are great planes also. Usually easy to find, most of the time they are fairly cheap. They fly great and are very forgiving.

So I'd say train in both. If you are working on your PVT I would pick one and stick with it. Then maybe use the other for your instrument.

 

[flyer172r]

I've taught people in both and I'd say you can learn to fly equally well in either. It seems that most people pick a type early based on what "feels right" and then fall in love with it, then at some point probably try the other.

My suggestion is: if you like flying the PA-28, and if you're more comfortable with it, then stick with it (as long as one will be readily available) through the private checkride, then afterwards get checked out in a 172.

I do remember reading an article a few years ago that said Cessna chose the high wing because they thought it was better aerodynamically (don't remember the details, sorry) and Piper chose the low wing because their marketing department thought it looked better. Beech chose the low wing to make mounting the landing gear easier.

 

[Pilot Doc]

ford vs. chevy. no difference.

I'd pay much more attention to the condition/equipment of the planes, the attributes of the instructor/school/airport that go along with them, etc.

 

[SPilot]

Quote my instructor: If you wanna see the ground, go Cessna, if you wanna see the sky, go Arrow.

They are both designed to be trainers, they can take a hard landing and they are easy to fly. No real difference.

 

[AirBadger]

I'd say take whichever one is more available or isn't in the shop.

 

[nosehair]

There is a difference.
I say this from many, many years of instructing in both types.

The low wing is more stable and easier to land than the high wing because of the "cushioning" ground effect.

The high wing allows more crosswind air to come up under the wing to bother you on cross wind landings.

Those are the main differences in training - learning to land. So, if you want it easy, like learning to ride a bike with training wheels, use a low wing.

But you will have difficulty controlling the high wing in a crosswind.

When learning cross-counrty, you can see the ground infinitely better in a high wing. This is much better when learning to see the ground and read a map.

The low wing is more stable and easier to learn instrument flying. You aren't looking outside anyway, and the additional stabilaty allows more focus on instrument procedures.

Eventually, there will be no substantial difference, as most poster say, but I think they have forgotten the beginning raw days of learning.

I would recommend the high wing to initially learn good aircraft control on the landing and cross country, then the the low wing beyond that to see the difference, then make your own decision based on personal preference.