P

prkaye

Well Known Member
I have a few months of keeping-current to be doing in rental plans before I start flying my RV-9A. I'm trying to decide whether to do this in the C172 or the Grob 115C. The C172 is about 20/hr cheaper.
Despite the increased cost, I am strongly leaning towards the Grob, because it is my guess that it will be much closer to how my RV-9A flies, in terms of aircraft handling.
Is this a correct assumption?
 
Low Wing

If it was me I would go with the Grob because of the low wing aspect. I have one hour of transition in a 9A and coming from a C-172 world I found that the 9 wanted to float in ground affect so I wasn't comfortable with the landings. I intend to get current in a low wing and then do more transition training in the 9A before I fly mine the first time. Granted I have 79 hours in a C-172 and 1 hour in a 9A.
 
I have a bunch of hours in the Katana which is a low-wing. I could go back to the katana, but I thought the Grob would be better being that it has the same engine as the -9A.
 
If you can find a Tomahawk in the area, it should be cheaper than either, and (IMHO) a good plane in which to keep current if you are going to be flying the 9A. I did this about three years ago ($55/hr then) and you will find the view down final very similar and speeds in the pattern also similar. Landing are pretty similar, although take-offs are vastly different as the Tomahawk has very little elevator authority until you gain some speed. Flap effectiveness is also much less in the TH. After flying the TH, I did my transition in a 7 and moved to the 9A with no problems at all. The TH is an underrated trainer and gives better representation of a higher performance aircraft than does the 172, IMHO.

Bob Kelly
 
Hey Phil

I vote for the Grob. As I was finishing my -8 I put about 20 hours on the Grob at OAS. Loved it. Nice airplane, comfortable, aerobatic (although that really doesn't count ;-)
 
doesn't matter

The specific model doesn't matter as much as that you fly SOMETHING.
The -9A is an easy transition from anything, so you'll be fine. If you can afford 1.5 hours in the 172 for every 1.0 in the Grob, then just fly the 172.

Unless you just want to fly the Grob, then do that. Just fly.

As far as the engine goes - there's not a dime's worth of difference in the operation of any of the Lycoming engines, once it's started. I wouldn't let that be a reason to pick one or the other.
 
Hey Phil,

I would also vote for the Grob. I flew it for the aerobatics course, and it is probably better suited for -9A transition training than for aero..! But a great plane. In my mind the best choice for you locally.

Same engine, low wing, FP prop, stick vs yoke, equally unfriendly nose wheel.. And only ~ 1k hrs TT (compared to the 172s which are decades old).

The katanas have long wings that glide forever. The Grob will give you more relevant engine-out practice for the RV, which tends to sink pretty quick.

M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.