Started in Feb 2001 after getting my first real job as an AME. I finished up my PPL in September while working full time.

Rented, bombed around a bit, and got laid off. Did a float rating in the fall of 2002.

Got a job at a flight school in Feb 2003, and got a deal on a CPL. Went straight into multi rating, then IFR, and a huge amount of cross country time building since I needed 50 PIC hours for the IFR. Passed all of my rides and for a while I was probably the only IFR rated pilot without a night rating, since no instructor was willing to give me my last hour of dual in the middle of summer. Got my CPL signed off on Dec 17, 2003.

Did my instructor rating and got a job right away instructing and charter pilot at the same place I started as an AME.

Shiny Side Up wrote:

I can't understand why people keep sticking with the 172. The Katana/Evolution is slippery and a little twitchy and you have to be on the numbers or you can easily overshoot your runway (or float down the pavement if you try to force it). And you had better learn to slip... It's a great machine to learn on because it makes you pay attention and learn to get ahead of it.

I've never really seen the Katana/Evolution series of planes in that way. I find them far easier to fly than the Cessnas. They're probably the only plane I've seen that is more stable in all its axis than the Cessnas. All adverse yaw has also been worked out of most of the diamonds. The lighter props, reduces a lot of the torque and gyroscopic effects, the pencil thin contoured fuselage reduces a ton of the slipstream effect. The castoring nose wheel makes them even more tolerant of an unstraight touchdown. Any decisions about flaps has largely been taken out of the pilot's hands, they're neatly labelled take off and landing. Not to say that its not enjoyable to fly, since I think everything has value to teach a pilot, if we go by the Colonel's standard of what makes a good trainer, if he hates the Cessna 172, he should outright despise the Diamond.

The statement about the rudder alone indicates that it has been a long time since you flown a Katana or Eclipse. In reality it is just the opposite, it requires A LOT more rudder work than the 152/172 for take off runs, turns, climbs, slow flight. And the rudder has more authority. Smaller body plus larger diameter prop, really big for the size of the airplane results in stronger gyroscopic and precession effects. The DA20 has neutral stability, vs positive stability of the Cessna's. It is also more direct and responsive to the control inputs. The yaw is indeed worked out on the DA40, but not on the DA20. Not sure how the castoring wheel reduced issues with the "unstraight" touchdowns, since you are landing on the mains... the front wheel is in the air not touching down until well late in the post touchdown run. So really, all of the above sounds really strange for anyone flying a DA20.

True about the flaps though I won't comment which one is a better trainer or more enjoyable to fly, as I'd be clearly biased.

There are plenty more advanced, faster, better performance, and simply more awesome aeroplanes than the Diamonds. However there does not seem to be aeroplanes at the moment that earned better statistical safety record. And the Cessna dominance for training in North America can be explained by history, lower acquisition cost, conservative industry. But hardly much else.

Not sure how the castoring wheel reduced issues with the "unstraight" touchdowns, since you are landing on the mains... the front wheel is in the air not touching down until well late in the post touchdown run. So really, all of the above sounds really strange for anyone flying a DA20.

That's how a 172 should be landing also. Nose wheels are for taxiing, mains are for touch down.

If the plane is rolling on the mains but not tracking straight when you correct the 172 wheel turns, then if it's turned when it touches down it grabs.

Well, we are going to technicalities now and probably away from what it interesting for the original poster. I'll just comment really quickly then. The DA20 front is torgued to a certain value so you need to apply force to turn the wheel. It is done to minimize the parasite steering effect of the front wheelpant in flight. This is in the service manual.
The 172 rudder to steering wheel interconnect are spring cables. It dampens the steering and allows for certain degree of "free castoring" to minimize effect of the "unstreight" touch down. As always in this world, the reality is more interesting and the engineering is science of smart compromise.

akoch wrote:
The statement about the rudder alone indicates that it has been a long time since you flown a Katana or Eclipse. In reality it is just the opposite, it requires A LOT more rudder work than the 152/172 for take off runs, turns, climbs, slow flight. And the rudder has more authority. Smaller body plus larger diameter prop, really big for the size of the airplane results in stronger gyroscopic and precession effects. The DA20 has neutral stability, vs positive stability of the Cessna's. It is also more direct and responsive to the control inputs. The yaw is indeed worked out on the DA40, but not on the DA20. Not sure how the castoring wheel reduced issues with the "unstraight" touchdowns, since you are landing on the mains... the front wheel is in the air not touching down until well late in the post touchdown run. So really, all of the above sounds really strange for anyone flying a DA20.

True about the flaps though I won't comment which one is a better trainer or more enjoyable to fly, as I'd be clearly biased.

The remark about the nose wheel, is mostly based upon the way I see another school fly the things with consistent three point landings in the poor beasts. I should qualify it that they seem even more tolerant to unstraight, three point landings. I should also say that the differences in the described qualities were really pretty trivial, the diamonds are a bit more responsive doing away with a lot of the control cables.

However there does not seem to be aeroplanes at the moment that earned better statistical safety record. And the Cessna dominance for training in North America can be explained by history, lower acquisition cost, conservative industry. But hardly much else.

Statistics as you well know though don't tell the whole story. If the Diamond fleet out there ever gets to the age of the Cessna fleet I guess we can make a better comparrison. Or if they get used like the Cessnas. Some of that "safety" though is just there because they made the airplane easier to fly, nuff said. I'm reminded of the remark of one pilot when he flew the Diamond for the first time: "Wow, that thing makes me look like I'm good at this."

Cessnas have also maintained their position since they're just plain useful airplanes. They also still have a lower operations cost than the diamonds - fuel savings by using the rotax are more than ate up by higher maintenance costs. The Cessna also accomodates a larger range of users as well (seat rail issues be damned) - something some flight schools are finding out the hard way. Ass comfort is a high priority for most recreational pilots and Cessna just plain makes a better seat.

Now that's not to say that they aren't fun to fly sometimes (though my ass can't take more than about an hour in one) but if I was to run a flight school (and I do), the economics of it would dictate that I would use Cessnas.

I fly a DA20 out of a major airport in Ontario. About 60h TT; just need some solo practice time to get up to the flight test standards. I've never flown anything else but I can speak from experience that it pretty much needs some right rudder all the time, more when rolling right, and less when rolling left. Spent about 15k so far including ground school, spread out since May last year since I also keep a day job. The school started me with the sim but I'm not sure how useful it was really.

I am not exactly a natural pilot (Motion sickness; hand-eye coordination; proprioception) but it's been a great learning experience exactly because it didn't come easily.

I plan to do night rating next but if the bug really bites I might look into a purchasing an airplane or at least a share of one.

Doing it again I would have opted out of the sim time, and I would have done the ground school in the winter when the days are shorter. Also if you are doing it for fun I would consider joining a club that has club facilities like a lounge, and a social aspect for setting up group long flights etc.

Edit - I would have also looked at the Flight Test Guide sooner and invested $40 in one of those patch cables that allow you to record comms.

Shiny Side Up wrote: Statistics as you well know though don't tell the whole story. If the Diamond fleet out there ever gets to the age of the Cessna fleet I guess we can make a better comparrison. Or if they get used like the Cessnas. Some of that "safety" though is just there because they made the airplane easier to fly, nuff said. I'm reminded of the remark of one pilot when he flew the Diamond for the first time: "Wow, that thing makes me look like I'm good at this."

Cessnas have also maintained their position since they're just plain useful airplanes. They also still have a lower operations cost than the diamonds - fuel savings by using the rotax are more than ate up by higher maintenance costs. The Cessna also accomodates a larger range of users as well (seat rail issues be damned) - something some flight schools are finding out the hard way. Ass comfort is a high priority for most recreational pilots and Cessna just plain makes a better seat.

Now that's not to say that they aren't fun to fly sometimes (though my ass can't take more than about an hour in one) but if I was to run a flight school (and I do), the economics of it would dictate that I would use Cessnas.

Well, regarding statistics I can agree - let's wait and see. So far the difference that needs to be overcome is x3. This is a fair bit.

Once I finished my PPL and went to learn to fly a 172 my reaction was "wow, this thing needs so little rudder work, is not sensitive, you get away with a lot and is so easy to fly and land. No fun." That's still my impression to this day. So we probably are becoming way subjective here. Don't know if this is only me but when I'm taking other pilots to fly with me I mostly see them struggling with the directional and speed control and especially landing of the DA20. Many lower time pilots could not put it on the ground first or second time around. Granted 6000h+ RV drivers did not have a problem. And you or somebody like CS will only laugh, but none the less...

If anyone finding that a seat on a 152 is more comfortable, I am at loss as to why. Yet to see a guy switching back and force between 152 and DA20 to say that. 172 sure has more room. More comfortable seat? I don't think it is. But it is probably what you're used to. So far 7h+ cross-counties were just fine. I'm using a seat cushion though.

It has hard for me to comment on the maintenance costs since I use it as a personal airplane. It has been minimal so far. I also noticed that the flight school at CZBB with these charges $118h wet for a Katana. This seems to indicate their cost are same or lower than anyone else around?

BTW, most of the DA20 have the Continental 240, Katanas with the Rotax is a rare bird here. Nothing against Rotax though, great engine.

So I personally think that most flight schools use the Cessnas because it is a known quality to them, something they have been doing forever and don't have a reason to switch. But us students don't really have any good reason to go and learn on one of the 40+ year old airframes. At least without looking at the modern day state of the airplane design. Sorry, purely IMHO.

I won't fit into a Katana.

With lots of them, the flight examiner has to turn a blind eye to the gross weight figures.... or greatly embellish his or her weight.

For flight training, the differences in the two aircraft are minor. One advantage the Cessna will give you is that you will be flying something similar for your first job (172, 182, 185, 206) while the only Diamond you will be flying for a living will be for instruction.

Mine was back in 1999 in the UK at EGSG when I was in my mid 20s. Took 59 hrs and almost 2 years. Started in 152s, but got fed up with the yoke hitting my knees so I switched to the 172. Flying in Canada is much cheaper and easier than in the UK (or any part of Europe for that matter).

The DV20s have a great view out the front. Teeny rudder pedals make getting good footing on them a bit annoying. Don't like the electro-bungee trim. While the pushrod control connections are indeed responsive, I still find that the controls feel heavier and less responsive than a 152. When it comes to the rudder pressures, even a 172 is lighter.

Glides well, great view, cramped cockpit, terrible seats.

Shiny Side Up wrote:I've never really seen the Katana/Evolution series of planes in that way. I find them far easier to fly than the Cessnas.

I was mostly coming at it from the point of view of energy management, and getting ahead of the airplane. They don't shed energy easily, and if you couple that with the long glide ratio you really need to think ahead, or you're going to land long or go around a lot compared to a 172 (disclaimer... this is my perception as a low time pilot with way more hours in a DA20 than a 172) At least it was that way for me.

All adverse yaw has also been worked out of most of the diamonds. The lighter props, reduces a lot of the torque and gyroscopic effects, the pencil thin contoured fuselage reduces a ton of the slipstream effect. The castoring nose wheel makes them even more tolerant of an unstraight touchdown.

It needs rudder on takeoff for sure. Not a ton though.

if we go by the Colonel's standard of what makes a good trainer, if he hates the Cessna 172, he should outright despise the Diamond.

Its not a Pitts or a taildragger, so its doomed from that perspective anyway. But since you bring it up, I am curious. What do you say Colonel? DA20C1, worthwhile as a trainer? Any redeeming features? At least it has a stick.

g

Is fun to talk about using taildraggers for training but those days have come and gone and will never be back. Whether its a C 150/172 or a Cherokee or a Diamond they really are almost the only choices because those are the only aircraft 95% of the current instructors can fly. When you get your licence and put in a few hours on your own and start feeling like you can really handle an aircraft go and get a check out in a tail wheel aircraft, you'll learn lots and have fun as well as understand for the first time what the rudder does.

Whether its a C 150/172 or a Cherokee or a Diamond they really are almost the only choices because those are the only aircraft 95% of the current instructors can fly.

Well also don't forget that there are really no economic tailwheel trainers made anymore either. The closest would be either a new Husky or a new Citabria or Decathalon and they aren't cheap. Old taildraggers on the other hand aren't easy to find or put in service either for the purpose. Personally my ideal training machine is a Cessna 170, but they're sort of become collectors items these days. If I had a ton of money to blow, I'd think about reverting later model 172s to taildragger configuration, but that's largely wishful thinking.

What do you say Colonel?

I honestly can't say that I've ever flown any certified
nosewheel aircraft that I think would be a good ab initio
trainer.

PS Pitts is an insane aircraft for ab initio training. I
once soloed a guy in a Pitts but that was a very
special case. He had more natural pilot skill than any
100 pilots combined in Canada. Simply spectacular.

PPS No, I'm not taking about Eric. He first soloed in
the Maule at 14, then the Pitts at 16. Eric is a superb
stick - here he is, flying wing at age 19:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXWiIrTZlg

But I'm afraid neither Eric or I are genetically in the
same league as the other guy I am talking about.

------------Drunk Talk-------------
Many apologies CS

The hatred you are spewing says far more about
you than I.

Do you hate Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler and
Valentino Rossi?

You remind me of the gunman that attacked
Bob Marley.

My wife did her basic training in an older Citabria which is probably the easiest of all the tail wheel aircraft to fly but it does a decent job as a basic trainer. I just purchased a Piper PA-20 Pacer for her to build some time in. Its a little more to handle on the ground but when she gets 50 hours in on the Pacer she should be able to fly most tail wheels. I like the old Cessna 170's as well but your right keeping a vintage aircraft going in a training enviorment is tough. Converting a newer Cessna 172 to a tail wheel isn't a great idea as they were dumbed down enough that they are short on rudder but putting an older straight tail 172 to tailwheel works quite well and makes a much better aircraft than a newer one.

Trematode wrote:terrible seats.

I just wanted to emphasize this. Even thinking about the Katana's seat makes my back start to ache.

Full disclosure though, I've never flown anything but a well-used A1. Maybe the seat pads don't suck so spectacularly when they're new.

costermonger wrote:

Trematode wrote:terrible seats.

I just wanted to emphasize this. Even thinking about the Katana's seat makes my back start to ache.

Full disclosure though, I've never flown anything but a well-used A1. Maybe the seat pads don't suck so spectacularly when they're new.

It seems to work differently for different people. Some like a pickup truck, others a hatchback. Seating and comfort are different in each of them. Purely preference, and physical "feel" for different body composition.

C1's seats (and seating position) is a bit different from the A1.

Try a Van's RV7, see how that goes. Great example of a different view on the aircraft design compromises.

Very true. I know one of my students preferred the Diamond's seating set up, but he might have been the body they made the mold from. Diamonds have always been an excersise in pain management for myself. I did one three hour leg in one and I just about couldn't walk for hours afterwards. On the flip side the longest leg I've doene in a Cessna was 7 hours nonstop which aside from bladder discomfort at the end wasn't an issue.

My wife did her basic training in an older Citabria which is probably the easiest of all the tail wheel aircraft to fly but it does a decent job as a basic trainer.

The Citabria is a good little machine for training, though again running and maintaining a fleet of them would just be a non starter, even though it would be the most reasonable steed available for the task.

Converting a newer Cessna 172 to a tail wheel isn't a great idea as they were dumbed down enough that they are short on rudder

Well I was talking in boatloads of fantasy money in which I would have a new tail resculpted as well into a more pleasing art deco styled round shape.

Warning, my typical rambling style of story follows. Relevant bit in blue.

Since grade one all I wanted was to get out of school and get a better paying job. Therefore near the end of high school I had good marks in grade 10 general science and grade 11 social studies, barely passed lower grade 10 math and lower grade 12 english, I guess spelling didn't count. I was three credits short of a diploma. At career night I suggested I might like to be a pilot and was told plainly. "You can't. You need to go to college and just don't have the grades to get in. You need high level math and physics."

I shrugged and got a good paying job at a factory. Three years later after renting a lot of beer. Soo much beer and buying everything I had ever wanted except a dragster. I realized you spend an aweful lot of your awake time at work. When you buy that thing you always wanted you decide you might like some new thing next. I also noticed I seemed to be getting dumber not using my brain and killing it with beer. Time to find a better job.

So obviously I quit to collect some U.I. and become a rock star. Oddly enough no one came to my parents basement to offer a recording contract. My buddy asked, "Why don't you take an electrical apprenticeship like me?" I told him, "Because I don't want to be an electrician." Unemployment insurance wanted to know why I quit my job. So instead of going to their interview I took an electrical apprenticeship.

Driving to work for Canem Electric, I heard an ad for Okatoks Air on the radio. "Let your career takeoff!" at this point had I took some night courses higher grade 12 english (still can't spell), got a diploma and some real grade twelve credits.

I phoned an FTU and asked what the prerequisites were to take flight training. The answer was "What?"
I'm wondering what marks l need in math and physics to become a pilot?
"Oh? Uh, you don't need anything like that. Just come down and learn to fly." Oh...

During the next 7 years I would alternately be laid off and not be able to afford to fly, then be working lots of overtime to pay for all the beer, burgers and flying lesson I put on my credit card and have no time to fly. Eventually I did ok in grade 12 chemistry and actually passed one of my nemesis, higher grade eleven math. Played in some bands, worked on my cars, never finished my dragster, did kempo and a bunch of other distractions I forget.

10/19/1991 I logged my first hour at Calgary Flying Club. Eventually I got a PPL 08/19/1994. then I also finished the electrical aprenticeship started in 1988.
At that time the club kept warning us to stay out of CYYC because the controlers did not like students in their busy airspace. Since I wanted to work as a pilot I thought that was rediculas. I switched to flight training there at Morgan Air.

In 1997 there was lot's of work so '98 I bought a house instead of an airplane, that killed flight training so I didn't quite finish my CPL.

'99 got a girlfriend then I bought a Harley, my dad said I guess you won't be flying any more. I said, "relax I make a lot of money." changed girlfriends to one I knew a long time. In 2000 I got married and my dad was right. The only things I ever regret are buying the house, Harley and a work truck in 2010. Didn't fly in 2000, 2003 or 2004 By 2006 I had ceased flying at all.

A couple of years ago due to marriage and back/leg problems, I gave up hope of ever flying again.

One day I created a screen name here after a while partially due to the encouragement of a stranger in smith falls, I got a new medical then started walking a bunch and flying again.

It almost hurt when I did't fly at all but I recently I realized even though I would like to fly everyday I just need to fly sometimes. I used to want my own plane but now realize I can't afford it because the plane would sit too much and it would be much more expensive versus renting as long as I'm only flying every few months.

I hope to fly a couple times a month eventually because you absolutely have to practice to keep up your skills, but might need to find a part time job to finance it because even though looking after my kids, cooking and vacuuming is a good thing it does not pay very well.

The Citabria is a good little machine for training

I can't think of a better aircraft for primary training than the
Citabria/Decathlon/Scout/whatever-they're-calling-it-these-days.

Personally I prefer the metal-wing versions.

'99 got a girlfriend then I bought a Harley, my dad said
I guess you won't be flying any more.

Hm. I see an awful lot of very expensive Harleys on
the road. I know of one - basically tape and paint,
called something like a Screaming Chicken - which
cost the same price as a very nice used aerobatic
biplane.

Choices, choices.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

The Citabria is a good little machine for training

I can't think of a better aircraft for primary training than the
Citabria/Decathlon/Scout/whatever-they're-calling-it-these-days.

Actually those are all different airplanes which they still make in each variation these days, same fuselages, different wings and engines, and in the case of the Scout, different gear legs. The Citabria is the 7, the Decathalon the 8 and the Scout the 9, with that confusing alphabet soup of letters American Champion inherited from Aeronca.

Actually quite amazing when you realize that the Aeronca's were designed in the early 40's. Over the years little changes here and there but by and large the same basic aircraft that your grampa learned to fly in.

those are all different airplanes

Sure, but any student pilot would be lucky to learn
to fly on any of them!