Which airplane is the most common sense float trainer to train on in terms of easy training on the student. Is the piper cub with a stick easier and more fun than the 172?

Thanks

I have very limited experience on floats.

I did my float rating on a PA12 Super Cruiser. It made sense and it sure wasn't hard.
Lots of fun, but I can't attribute it to the stick in particular.

IMO, you'll enjoy learning to flying floats regardless of the airplane.

I will take what is the cheapest one for $500 Alex.

I did mine on the 172 XP. I would imagine this plane would be good for float training since it mimics the 180 in everything but payload and fuel burn, it is metal (most flight school aircraft live outside) and it is easy to maintain and get parts for.

Super Cubs are nice, but there is the fabric, the seating capacity (the place where I did my float rating sold scenic tours as well), the door (I suppose you have to learn an opposite float dock sometime, but first time sure wouldn't be nice) and the fact that anything with the word 'Cub' in it is overpriced.

If I was looking for a two place rag wing aircraft to use as a float trainer, I would use a 150 HP Citabria with flaps. Cheaper than the Cub, more room, same power, nearly the same performance. Can't haul as much, but for training, who cares?

As for the stick vs wheel thing, yeah, a stick feels way more natural and fun IMHO. I think the only reason why they put wheels in light aircraft was to get students used to flying big airliners. Now that half of them have sticks, the wheel in light aircraft is slowly going away (Diamond, Cirrus, Corvallis, etc)

Cub is more fun, but the 172 is easier to fly.

if you want a float job your best bet is a 185. Although a cub will probably be the most fun flying you will ever do

PS cubs are far better float performers than any citabria due to the high lift low speed cub wing

i disagree, in my opinion, the cub is easier and more forgiving to fly on floats then the 172. The type of plane you learn on means sweet @#$! all, the instructor on the other hand, is by far more important.

I did my initial on a Supercub, VERY easy to fly, power to weight is great and it lands like a leaf.

I did my initial com on a 172, it's underpowered and a little lethargic (better trainer), plus you have cowl flaps and a CS prop.

Training on in a CS float plane is a good idea, you can reduce the MP to compensate for high altitude operations without going up to the mountain lakes.

most 172's dont have cowl flaps or a constant speed prop except the hawk xp, the 150hp standard 172's are better trainers due to the low power to weight ratio. i dont understand why people think they need to learn on a 180, its just another cessna. on another note, the reduced power take off is not a very good idea, the engine isn't getting the extra fuel for cooling and im pretty sure it's not mentioned anywhere in the AFM.

mr.jinks wrote:on another note, the reduced power take off is not a very good idea, the engine isn't getting the extra fuel for cooling and im pretty sure it's not mentioned anywhere in the AFM.

Alot of things arnt mentioned in the AFM.

Many students learn how to fly floats in some rather easy lakes, HOWEVER there is a good chance after you give them their ticket they will fly in density alt/mx gross/alpine ponds etc and in most cases it is not practical to teach in those actual conditions,

SO you can use the MP to simulate those conditions ...OR just not do that training...which is paramount to not preparing the student and a failure as a instructor!

The cooling argument is not a valid one, a few TO/landings will not crack up your cylinders, besides most aircraft with CS props tend to have CHT/EGT gauges you can watch anyway.


You should read "NOTES OF A SEAPLANE INSTRUCTOR" I would value opinions in a book that places like Kenmore recommend over the AFM

https://www.seaplanes.org/catalog/produ ... 063cfb26b3

i guess i'd rather teach proper engine handling to students and just do that kind of training in a real environment. If a person gets a reputation as being rough on airplanes, their employability goes down the shitter pretty quick. but hey, what do i know.

mr.jinks wrote:i guess i'd rather teach proper engine handling to students and just do that kind of training in a real environment. If a person gets a reputation as being rough on airplanes, their employability goes down the shitter pretty quick. but hey, what do i know.

Training and operations are two completely different animals.

Could you imagine simulating an engine failure by doing an inch a minute power reduction like you do during ops to prevent shock cooling? The increased safety gained by having a pilot knowing what to do in a certain circumstance outweighs a bit of extra wear and tear on the engine.

i agree iflyforpie, that stuff is completely neccessary.

mr.jinks wrote:i agree iflyforpie, that stuff is completely neccessary.

Didnt you just disagree with me Jinks? ahh I see when pie says it you agree lol

yes and no.