NZFF

Just wondering...

i'll be doing my ppl in 152/172 and a archer

Traumahawk!

Tommahawk or Warrior/Tobago

Did my PPL in a Katana.

did mine in C152/C172/C182RG plus a bit in a PA28-180 and about 140hrs in the CT4B (yes thats B, as it was then)

as for the ratshit hatchet (tomahawk) the aeroclub would have to be paying me to get into one of those!

For me T38 or F-16Dblock52ccip

Mmm, I've only flown in Cessnas and Tecnams..for me it would depend on the standard of the particular aeroplane. Tecnams are nicer to fly than 172s, though 152 Aerobats are really cool (despite the fact that I've only had .3 of flight time in the 152). I guess I would have to have a decent flight (1 hour...) in an aeroplane to decide if I like it, unfortunately most people don't really have that choice due to time + money. It's sorta hard to say..maybe I'm thinking about this too much...let's just settle for Tecnam

Doing my PPL in a Alpha 160A

Initial Training in a C152, done some flying in C172 and doing PPL training in a PA 28-161

Multi in a Seneca

~Zk-KAG~

Mike M wrote: Doing my PPL in a Alpha 160A

Nice!

How do you find it? where are you training?

C152/172/180/Piper Pawnee/Fletcher/Piper Comanche/DC3,just to mention a few.

ZK-KAG wrote:

Multi in a Seneca

Eww.. really?

Whats wrong with the Seneca?

Whats wrong with the Seneca?

I second that- I love 'em!

VA used to have one. Can we please just not go there.. All i'm saying is they're a horrendous a/c in lots of ways. Well from an operators perspective anyway. I'll have a Baron thanks

pois0n wrote:

Mike M wrote: Doing my PPL in a Alpha 160A

Nice!

How do you find it? where are you training?

I'am training with the Waikato Aero Club.

The Alpha is a great aircraft to fly, it is highly responsive and is an excellent aerobatic aircraft as well as a training aircraft.

Although it was a large transition from the old 152's the club use to have.

victor_alpha_charlie wrote: VA used to have one. Can we please just not go there.. All i'm saying is they're a horrendous a/c in lots of ways. Well from an operators perspective anyway. I'll have a Baron thanks

Ok, its just a bit random saying they are horrendous and then not back that up...

As a training perspective, they are great from what I hear. Used all over the country..

~ZK-KAG~

ZK-KAG wrote:

victor_alpha_charlie wrote: VA used to have one. Can we please just not go there..  All i'm saying is they're a horrendous a/c in lots of ways. Well from an operators perspective anyway. I'll have a Baron thanks

Ok, its just a bit random saying they are horrendous and then not back that up...

As a training perspective, they are great from what I hear. Used all over the country..

~ZK-KAG~

Well a cherokee six carries more payload, and a baron can carry double, they have very low gear and flap speeds, poor visibility to the sides because of the height of the engines, Its easy to strike a prop on the ground taxiing over rough ground or landing in a crosswind due to the height of the prop above the ground, and i think thats about it.. But i suppose most of these aren't important when just training, and some are just based on opinion. I reckon they're pretty ugly too

OK so maybe not horrendous, but bad nonetheless.

Hmm - thats interesting about the Seneca - a Baron would generally cost more to buy (double the price of a Seneca new - $1m US dollars for a new Baron!) and cost more to run as they have 300hp (depending on the model) aside as opposed to about 220hp aside on the Seneca but yes I would rather have a Baron. I see there is only two Barons in NZ but 21 Senecas - I guess that is because of economics?