Author Topic: Learning to fly (Read 8098 times)

Straiga · « **Reply #45 on:** December 12, 2004, 01:56:37 AM »

Jigsaw

Whats your hours and ratings. Any 135 experience?

jigsaw · « **Reply #46 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:35:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Straiga
Jigsaw

Whats your hours and ratings. Any 135 experience?

CASEL, CAMEL, (hp endorsed), CFII, MEI, AGI. 600T/130M last time I totaled. No 135 yet. If students or the photography biz don't pick up dramatically after the first of the year, I'm going to bite the bullet for a right seat 135 turbine training program.

Thanks

beet1e · « **Reply #47 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:48:45 AM »

The British Gliding Association syllabus included performing a solo spin viewed by an official observer on the ground, and you had to complete this before they'd let you go cross country. My total weight in those days, with parachute, was about 200# - and the really hard thing was not the recovery (which was easy) but getting the thing (K13 glider) to spin in the first place. Often it ended up as a spiral dive. Powered planes generally had a placard reading "Intentional Spins Prohibited".

I think a 270# occupant in a C152 should be fairly safe from unintentional spins.

Hmmm I noticed high wing types like 152/172 were more popular in the US than they are here. I preferred low wing like the Warrior, and owned a half share in one once, and leased it back to the club - till some dork crashed it trying to land in a field the size of a shoe box.

Yes, the PA38 Traumahawk - I think there is something in what Rshubert says - I've never been in one, but I've heard about them being impossible to recover from a spin - an inverted spin - something to do with the airflow to the elevator being blocked because of the high tail. If it had a low tail it would have been all right (?). Apart from gliders, the only plane I ever flew with a high tail was the Piper Arrow 4 (once) which seemed reluctant to flare on landing - instructor seemed to think it was because the tail was not in ground effect for the landing. Long time ago, can't remember...

Straiga · « **Reply #48 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:53:31 AM »

Try Scenic Airlines Pt 121 DH-6-300 Twin Otters Las Vegas Nv
Vision Airlines Pt 121 Donair 128 Las Vegas Nv
Air Vegas Pt 121 BE-99 Las Vegas Nv
Mesa Air RJ-145 Phoenix AZ
Island Air pt 121 Dash 8 Honolulu Hawaii

These are all low time starting jobs but it all Pt 121 airline experience.

Good luck Straiga

jigsaw · « **Reply #49 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:56:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
instructor seemed to think it was because the tail was not in ground effect for the landing. Long time ago, can't remember...

T-tail doesn't have the added airflow from the spiraling slipstream. Flew an Arrow IV for my complex endoresment right after I got my PPL. You could feel the stabilator kick in at about 70 kts on the takeoff roll.

Golfer · « **Reply #50 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:56:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Hmmm I noticed high wing types like 152/172 were more popular in the US than they are here. I preferred low wing like the Warrior, and owned a half share in one once, and leased it back to the club - till some dork crashed it trying to land in a field the size of a shoe box.

Yes, the PA38 Traumahawk - I think there is something in what Rshubert says - I've never been in one, but I've heard about them being impossible to recover from a spin - an inverted spin - something to do with the airflow to the elevator being blocked because of the high tail. If it had a low tail it would have been all right (?). Apart from gliders, the only plane I ever flew with a high tail was the Piper Arrow 4 (once) which seemed reluctant to flare on landing - instructor seemed to think it was because the tail was not in ground effect for the landing. Long time ago, can't remember...

Not knockin you beet, just quoting. The whole T-Tail scare thing came about when folks didn't know what would cause what became known as the 'deep stall.' Experimental rocket and wickedly insane mega huge performance jets (F-104 Starfighter as an example) could fly with such a high AoA that the airflow over the horizontal tail...well there wasn't any.

Many are familiar with the first tail dragger version of the Me-262 and that the test pilots needed to tap on the brakes to get the tail to rotate up while rolling down the runway. Much the same thing, there simply isn't any air blowing over the tail surface to make it do anything.

There really isn't any big problem with this in smaller less performing airplanes such as the Tomahawk (a fun airplane in my own opinion). Even big king airs like the 200 and 350 won't have much problem with it even if the situation came where it could even go into a deep stall situation.

I'd spin it. I won't ride on an Airbus. Two simple facts for me

jigsaw · « **Reply #51 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:58:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Straiga

These are all low time starting jobs but it all Pt 121 airline experience.

Good luck Straiga

Got an app in with Scenic and know a few people working there from my old flight school. I'll look in to the others. Thanks for the tip.

Straiga · « **Reply #52 on:** December 12, 2004, 05:42:27 AM »

Quote

Yes, the PA38 Traumahawk - I think there is something in what Rshubert says - I've never been in one, but I've heard about them being impossible to recover from a spin - an inverted spin - something to do with the airflow to the elevator being blocked because of the high tail. If it had a low tail it would have been all right (?). Apart from gliders, the only plane I ever flew with a high tail was the Piper Arrow 4 (once) which seemed reluctant to flare on landing - instructor seemed to think it was because the tail was not in ground effect for the landing. Long time ago, can't remember...

Give me a break! People who havent flown the PA-38 have so many opions and spread more lies about something they havent experience. Hanger flying is for the birds. Go fly it or who cares what your opion is. (the smoke is now disapaiting)

If you cant get a Piper Arrow IV to flair your flying it wrong, yea you probable need a little more airflow across the T-Tail, and yes the tails in ground effect.

Your right Golfer, let them have it.

The King Air 200, 300 and 350 are easy to deep stall you wouldnt believe it. 3100 ft per min rate of sink though.

Straiga

Golfer · « **Reply #53 on:** December 12, 2004, 10:33:45 AM »

I would add that my T-Tail experience involves three airplanes to my memory at the moment.

BE-76 Duchess
PA-32-RT-300 Lance
PA-38 Tomahawk

The Duchess is a light twin and I find it has a tendency to have a slight (very mild) but unexplained fishtail to it. Even in fairly smooth air I found that it would sway from side to side, but not enough to be uncomfortable to me or passengers.

The Lance is a truck. I loved it for weather flying because of its stability and you can pile as much as you want into it and it'll still go. (I have ~50 hrs in a 1997 Saratoga IIHP and found it to be better than the 1970something Lance, but that could just be the modern niceities and minor aerodynamic refinements over 20 years)

The Tomahawk, well it's a fun airplane. I have liked them ever since I saw one do a roll in "Iron Eagle".

Straiga: Didn't know that about the bigger horses in the King Air stable, I know that their horizontal tails are frickin huge and they go faster than me at the present time. When in flight can you get them to go into a deep stall (Refresher for those reading, that is when the airframe, typically the wing, blocks air from even blowing over the horizontal stab and elevator) and what's it take?

Definatlely no shortage of monday morning quarterbacks, back seat drivers and armchair generals in this game. I had hardly noticed that everyone is a certified expert in aerodynamics!

mora · « **Reply #54 on:** December 12, 2004, 10:48:41 AM »

During the 60's there was several crashes of T-tailed prototype airliners due to deepstall. The Brits overcame the problem by installing stick pushers that prevented high AOA situations to the BAC-111 and to the Trident. The Americans put vortex generators on the wings of the DC-9 to make sure there was enough airflow on the tail even in high AOA situations.

Chairboy · « **Reply #55 on:** December 12, 2004, 02:27:08 PM »

Had my second lesson today. It was foggy, so we did an hour of ground school and then he had me preflight the plane. I did that, then did the startup checklist, started the engine, then shut it down and did the postflight checklist, etc.

Very educational, the guy has a great teaching style. Lots of question/answer sessions, and it makes me deduce WHY certain things happen, so I'm really engaged.

Of course, being really interested in the subject is probaby helping my enthusiasm.

Straiga · « **Reply #56 on:** December 12, 2004, 08:46:45 PM »

When you stall the King Airs you enter power off like any other airplaneyou hear the horn first, then the buffett then the stall it easy, but for a deep stall just hold it off and hold it off. It just get mushy and enters a deep stall, at about 3000 ft per min rate of desent. To recover lower the nose to the horizon apply full power and it accelerates out.

Now power on stalls around 100 kts pull the nose up ad full power and keep on pulling up and up and up. It will stall about 55 degrees nose up and stalls about 61 kts. To recover just push the nose to the horizon, and it will accelerate out.

Straiga

Chairboy · « **Reply #57 on:** December 12, 2004, 08:55:14 PM »

We took off this evening and climbed above the weird haze that was blanketing Santa Monica. We flew out to Malibu and did some descending turns, then it got dark pretty quick, so he had me do some instrument flying with a hood. I got to fly it through the landing with some assistance, first landing AND it was dark, pretty cool.

This flight, I was doing all the taxiing and checklists, so it's really starting to feel real.

beet1e · « **Reply #58 on:** December 13, 2004, 04:31:52 AM »

Golfer - no problem, mate. Like I said, I have never been in a PA38 Traumahawk, and I'm not nor have I ever been a certified expert in aerodynamics! I was quoting Rshubert, as I had heard the same thing about the PA38 behaviour in a spin. How come you'd never ride on an Airbus? - Because it's fly by wire? I wonder how many airliners with conventional controls will be left in 20 years time.

Mora said "During the 60's there was several crashes of T-tailed prototype airliners due to deepstall. The Brits overcame the problem by installing stick pushers that prevented high AOA situations to the BAC-111 and to the Trident. The Americans put vortex generators on the wings of the DC-9 to make sure there was enough airflow on the tail even in high AOA situations." Yes, and I was sharing a house with a BA Trident pilot in the 70s. I've mentioned this somewhere else - he thought things were bad enough if the stick shakers started up, but was appalled at the thought of the pilots holding the thing in a stall so long as to get stick push!

Straiga - it seems you have some worthwhile input to this thread, but cannot add it without ranting at people. I wasn't "hangar flying" the PA38. I was commenting on the fact that I'd heard the same as Rshubert viz. its spin characteristics.

Quote

If you cant get a Piper Arrow IV to flair your flying it wrong,

Like I said, I flew a Piper Arrow 4 ONCE - that means one time only. The landing was fine. I merely observed that it was slightly more reluctant to flare than other types with a conventional tail.

Quote

Hanger flying is for the birds.

Perhaps your opinion would carry more weight if you could spell HANGAR correctly. And while we're on the subject, it's flare (not flair), opinion (not opion), haven't (not havent), and dissipating (not disapaiting). Jeez, even the Norwegian/Finnish guys can do better than that. You, sir, are an opinionated salamander, who cannot impart his knowledge without ranting and becoming rude. If I were to go for another checkride (tomahawk or arrow4) I would choose an instructor like jigsaw or golfer. I would avoid you like the plague, as I would any instructor who has an inflated sense of his own importance.

Straiga · « **Reply #59 on:** December 13, 2004, 05:58:00 AM »

Well excuse me sir, I was up for 18 hours and I missed spelled a few words. Also I miss qouted the wrong quote, sorry. and for some peoples opinion it frustrates me that they know ALL without some experiences, flying the airplanes.

With over 600 students that received there ticket with me I must be doing something right.

Later this salamander has to go flying!

Straiga