R

rkochcyxh

Active Member
Hi everyone. My son and daughter have both expressed an interest in getting their license. They are both in University. Would the 9A make a good trainer. Or would I be better off renting a C172/C150.
Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Yes!!!

I have flown in Cessna 150/150, standard 150, 172, Piper Archers but mostly in a 6A. I have several hours in a 9A as well. I recently did my Biennial in a 172. I don't care if I ever fly one again. The transition from training and certifying in a Cessna to a 6A was a snap. I have stated several times to fellow RV pilots, all aspects of a 9A are a piece of cake. I will not have any reservations about my son learning in my 7A when it is done. Whatever you choose in the end will be a good choice. They all fly great.
 
rkochcyxh said:
Hi everyone. My son and daughter have both expressed an interest in getting their license. They are both in University. Would the 9A make a good trainer. Or would I be better off renting a C172/C150.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Click to expand...
As a long time owner of a C-150 and recently completed my RV-6A, I think I may be in a position to answer your question relative to my personal experience. When it came time for transition training, the insurance company insisted the training be in a 6A,7A, or 8A. They stated the 9A handles considerably different than the airplane I was preparing to transition into. They were right. I have had occasion to fly the 9A and it really is as docile as a C-150 except on steroids! RV's are not difficult to fly. If you were in a position to...your children could take all their initial flying lessons in any RV. Its the transition that matters. For instance, if I was foolish enough to try to fly my brand new 6A with no prior flight experience in the type...even with 1000 hours in my C-150 logged, I would likely have been hurt....or worse. It's performance is that different. However, if I tried the same foolish stunt in a 9A, in all likelyhood would have gotten away with it. Insurance companies hate to make payouts, so when they dictate the terms of a given policy, their arguments are usually well thought out.

P.S. to J.T.: If you monitor this forum, do you have anything to add?

Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
C-150F N3107X
 
Will the RV9 take the abuse that a C150 takes when a new student is just learning. I know when I was learning, there were some ugly landings.
Thanks for your comments
 
Cessna 150

I doubt that it would be easy to find one today in a flight school but in my opinion the C-150 was the very best primary trainer. I will never understand why Cessna did not restart a "150" line when they resumed single engine aircraft production. When I first flew a C-172 I felt like I was flying a big airplane - transending into another level of pilot responsibility and capability. There is a good chance the new student will make damaging mistakes especially with the non-oleo-strut nose gear that is prone to porpusing. There is no way I could recommend spending all the time and money building an RV-9A (somebody has to do that even if it isn't you) and putting it in the hands of a student pilot. Learning to fly is a major transition that does not need any extra demands added to the process. If they really want to learn to fly the C-150 is a wonderous machine that will take them into a new dimension in magic carpet style.

Bob Axsom
 
I agree that a C150 is most likely the BEST trainer ever made. It may be OK to use a 9A, but I think that there would learn more effectivly in the underpowered 150 than the hot-performing 9A. If someone learns in a aircraft with performance of a 9a, they won't know how to fly aircraft with lesser performance, whereas if they learn in a 150, they will apprecitate the 9a that much more when they transistion.
 
I remember praticing solo landings and thinking, " damn, I'm glad I don't own this plane."

and that was long before I thought of a RV. I was thinking of owning my very own C-150.

"DARN! another bad one. Glad I don't own this plane." dropped the plane in on another one...

C-172 is a great, forgiving plane.
 
I'm building the 9 and think it is the great plane and, if you're willing to forgo aerobatic potential, the best of Van's line... That said, however:

1. The -9/9A is still very much a "hotrod" compared to any production plane that one would be likely to train in. It can build up speed REALLY fast if the nose is allowed to drop at all. Van's demonstrated this to me very dramatically on a demo flight! Compared to a 150/172, a student could easily get themselves in trouble. Well trained they'd be less likely to, but student pilots are likely to make mistakes. I kind of laugh when it's referred to as a "trainer." The words "trainer" (and all that connotates) and "RV" just don't go together (fortunately! :) )

2. Learning to fly in an RV could help you develop some bad habit regarding rudder usage. RV's (and perhaps especially the -9) can almost be flown with feet on the floor. Learning the NEED to use rudder rather than aileron to pick up a wing during a stall in a 150/172 was one of the best things the 150/152 taught me. You don't need to do that with the -9/A because the stall is so benign and the ailerons so effective. Coordinated aileron/rudder usage likewise. If you have a good instructor who can find a way to instill this rudder usage into your training in an RV, this issue would not be as important.

3. Early landings? I think I handled the local FBOs trainers relatively gently, but I bounced my headset off at least once. Do you want to do that on a plane you built (or spent a LOT of money to buy)? Moreover, I think there is ENOUGH question about the nosewheels of RVs (as someone above mentioned) to make you think twice about this. I'm not saying there is a "problem," just that they are probably just not as forgiving of the very poor piloting that all student pilots do at some point in their training.

Again, good instruction can probably overcome the first two, though probably not the third if we're dealing with student pilots. All in all, if trying to acheive cost savings, buy a 150/152/172 for training purposes and then sell it when done and buy an RV. You'd probably sell it for what you paid for it, making the flight hours free.

Hope this helps your decision making. FWIW. Good luck.
 
I flew a Cessna 150 for about 60 hours when I was training and we flew into grass strips on several occasions. I'm not sure that would be a wise choice in an RV-9 with a student pilot at the controls. I am even having second thoughts on basing my plane at home on a grass strip because of everything I've been reading about possible problems with the nose wheel pant digging into the dirt. I think I'll fly off a paved runway for a while at least until I satisfy myself that I can safely handle grass runways. I had a lot of fun flying that old 150 and dropped it in HARD a couple of times with no damage except to my pride.

Jim Wright RV-9A right wing 90919 Arkansas
 
Forgetting about the flying qualities for a moment, ask yourself this question:

Would I be willing to let a 0 time student use my aircraft to get their PPL? Think about all the abuse that aircraft is going to see. The fact that it's your son or daughter is irrelavant.

Everyone's different and what's right for me probably isn't right for you, but I'd sleep better at night knowing that someone wasn't learning to land in my own airplane and dropping it in from 2 feet.
 
Like some of the others I can recall a couple times early on when training I pancaked the poor 152 once, and ground a flat spot on the tie down ring once. Both times my CFI was saying PULL BACK PULL BACK etc... (the fact that I had a young CFI might have had something to do with it...)

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.