Clouds

[Ebbie 2003]

Personally I am not a fan of clouds, flew into one once that was thin mist but become a full on cloud around me - not a fun experience.

I do try to go over them, the air seems smoother.

On my recent trip down from the US I tried something I saw mentioned on there and referred to as the thumb trick - I was dubious but gave it a go.

Rest your hand on the glareshield - line up top of thumb with top of cloud - keep still for a count of about 3-5 - if the cloud creeps about the thumb you are going to go through it, if it creeps down you are going over. Works for the bottoms of clouds too - best thing I ever saw on here and it worked perfectly, I skimmed over the tops of a few using it.

Not a fan of going around clouds - I do steer around the columns of cloud that climb out of the layers though.

Down here I find that there is generally a layer with bottoms at about 3,000ft and tops up to about 6,000 - weird thing is buzzing along it always seems that one is surrounded by clouds that are all 360 degrees around but 5-10 miles away (it's a visual thing with some 5 miles and behind the at 10 miles etc etc) - I have some photos of the effect if I could figure out how to attach them.

[Council Van]

Most of the time in Southern Africa you would not need to worry about flying in Cloud's.

In a light aircraft however good an instrument pilot you are you would not want to fly in or near African thunderstorms. I came out of Dalaman in Turkey last week and we went through the edge of a storm (fault with the weather radar range function) and the ride was quite rough in our big shiney jet. Storms in Turkey in May are just babies compared to the monsters you get in Southern Africa!

With reference of the thumb method above. Take a half full bottle of water. Hold it in front of you so you are looking across the top of the water.. Cloud below the top of the water then over the cloud you go. Cloud above the top of the water then into the cloud you go.

[9 lives]

we went through the edge of a storm (fault with the weather radar range function)

Speak firmly at the weather radar, and tell it who's in charge! Then fly around the weather .

I was the junior co pilot to a very experienced (ex RAF Red Arrows) pilot, as we ferried a Twin Otter the length of Africa in 1985. We had no weather radar, nor flight into icing equipment, so although filed IFR, we were really VFR in terms of equipment. Maps were not great, so we were filed on airways, but having to sometimes fly lower than the minimum altitudes, as the Twin Otter could not practically reach them. As we flew toward a rather large cloud, at somewhere around 7000 feet (I don't remember exactly), my Spidy senses tingled. I suggested that we fly around that cloud. After some persuasion, and a little muttering about inexperienced pilot, he went around. As we got around the upwind side, I saw that the cloud was full of rocks, it was one of the first of the mountains in northern Kenya. Lesson learned indelibly!

Unless you're fully equipped for flight in cloud, and doing it exactly as it should be done - don't!

I'm still alive to share these life threatening stories, so I do. Sadly, my mentor, who taught me (or allowed me to learn) so much, was one of two pilots in a fatal accident of a Dash 7, so my lessons from him ended with the report of that flight...

[Africanlion]

Thank you you all for your kind replies

How about the Zenith 801 would that pass the weight requirements in SA

What's main difference between Cessna 150 and 172

[9 lives]

The Cessna 150 is a modest, economical two place plane, with adequate handling, and decent short runway performance, better with a STOL kit installed on the wing.

The Cessna 152 is a re-engined C 150, a little faster, and more powerful, though not as good as some 150's in a shorter runway.

The C 172 is a decent two place plane, or a modest compromise as a four place. Faster than a 150/152, and more expensive to operate, but, will carry more if that's what you want to do.

There were a few modified C 152's with more power yet, and a changed propeller, they were eager aircraft, I'd be pleased to have one, but they are uncommon.

There are differences in the 172 over the decades, and what you gain one way, you lose another. I would rather an older one (pre 1962). Similarly, the 150 varied over the decades, though not as much as the 172. The 152, all of which were about the same as each other (they did not have "A"/"B"/"C" etc.), were airframe the same firewall back, as the last 150's made, 150M's. Only the flaps were different. All 150's have 40 degrees of flaps available, no 152s do, 172's come either way. For short runways, 40 flap is beneficial. There are 40 flap detractors, pay them no heed, if short runway operation is your objective.

After that, there dozens of other Cessna types, all with their own characteristics...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The 152 is only really a two seater if

• the two of you aren't particularly heavy, and/or
• you don't want to load all that much fuel, and/or
• you're not bothered about operating over the legal weight.

And on this last point you might not be particularly bothered if you've got 2km of tarmac runway at sea level in a cold country, but you might be rather more bothered if you want to achieve book take-off and landing performance figures for short, hot, high, non-tarmac runways.



[FTAOD: I am not advocating operating an aircraft overweight.]

[9 lives]

The 152 is only really a two seater if

Is true. It is for that reason, I have come to appreciate the 150. It actually has a lesser useful load, though with the standard 48" pitch prop actually gets out of tighter spaces better.

When the 152 was first introduced, woohoo! It was a 150 with 110 HP! It's be a rocket! We all wanted to fly it. It was 1978, and I was about to solo. It came to pass that as my flying club bought the first 152 which came to Canada, I became the first student to first solo in it - when it had 33 hours total time! (My instructor was challenged for sending me first solo in a brand new plane!). But, in finishing my PPL on a mixture of 150/152, I came to prefer the 150.

Any aircraft choice requires the purchaser to do their homework, and assure that the aircraft selected has the operational capacity to do the job. But remember, don't but more plane than you really need. fly with economy most of the time, and rent bigger on the less common occasions you might need the greater capability. Owning does not stop you from still renting!

[Colibri49]

The 801 is a big heavy thirsty beast which would necessitate having a full PPL, rather than the SA NPL. So how about the 750 STOL which at a maximum operating mass of 650 kg falls into the LSA 700 kg category? If it's possible to obtain one with a Rotax 914 turbo, you'd have the answer to hot and high operations from short-ish strips and with full fuel you could still carry a passenger, there being well above 400 lbs load capacity left after filling the tank. Bundu Aviation has several other engine and propeller options, so a turbo may not be necessary. The bubble doors make for an exceptionally wide and comfortable cabin.


At 90 to 95 mph cruise (max is 100) you'd have a range between 350 and 400 miles with maybe 1/2 hour reserve. There's also the option of extra fuel tanks.

The 750 is already on the SA register, or else as first buyer/builder you'd have the great trouble and expense of getting it through many "hoops" in order to get their approval.

STOL CH 750 light sport utility airplane from Zenith Aircraft Company - the ultimate short take-off and landing sport kitplane - Sport Pilot Ready

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKNKX0jJwKM



https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl...=1494593942838

[WHBM]

Get your instructor to take you up into a significant cloud. Several times. Do a 180 inside it and come out level again. It may not be in the PPL skill test but is worthwhile not to be doing it the first time untrained.

The V part of VFR also applies. Mr WHBM Senior, on the ground at his RAF base in WW2, witnessed two aircraft in the loose circuit enter a cloud from opposing directions. Loss of two full crews. He remembered it for the rest of his life, and after he told me, I will do so too.

[Capt Kremmen]

Africanlion


I've operated two Zenair 701s here in GB for the last twenty years in the Group A category at 500Kg. I had partial panels in both, supplemented by satellite derived information from a GPS. One, has the 80hp Rotax, the other the 100.


Subject to the rules of weight and maintenance prevailing in your country, I would endorse the 701 for your purpose. There is hardly a better Stol a/c on the planet. Here mogas is normally used. We do our own maintenance with certain items inspected and signed off by an inspector.


Fuel load is 90 liters (20 galls) to empty. 44lbs of baggage carried on rear parcel shelf - if need be. Unless you have a three axis auto pilot I wouldn't recommend flight in IMC in any a/c.


The 701 is simple, robust and does what it says in the blurb. An all round superb aircraft.

[thing]

The 152 is only really a two seater if

• the two of you aren't particularly heavy, and/or
• you don't want to load all that much fuel, and/or

This is true, so I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 150 Aerobat. 130hp donk (although no where as smooth as the Lycoming) and 40 degrees of flap. Plus with full fuel it will lift two 200 pound people legally, depending on the actual fit of that particular aircraft obviously. OK it has a few litres less usable but it's a damn good short field beast for a 150. My prefered 150/152 out of them all if you don't mind the RR vibration generator up front.

[Mechta]

[Colibri49]

Hello again Africanlion,


YouTube presented another video to me unsolicited and unresearched, but I thought you might be interested because its main focus is on the benefit of turbocharging at high density altitudes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8-VaGQ-_8Y


Of course Bundu Aviation would be delighted to oblige you by fitting such improvements, as stated in their video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKNKX0jJwKM

[9 lives]

Turbo is great, if you need it where you operate normally. Otherwise, it is expensive, heavy, and may demand expensive maintenance. Buy what you need in the plane, don't buy what you don't need.

[foxmoth]

Unless you have a three axis auto pilot I wouldn't recommend flight in IMC in any a/c.

What a load of rot, if you are in practice and the right aircraft it is no harder than flying VMC, even a bit out of practice and not so ideal aircraft it can be easier to climb up through a layer and then sit in the sunshine rather than scud run!

[Capt Kremmen]

Well that's fine for a Sky God such as yourself but, for some of us lesser mortals - the belt and braces approach is more suitable !

[Romeo Tango]

If you need a 3 axis autopilot to feel safe inside a cloud you have no business being there.

[Capt Kremmen]

Too right ! That's why I'm never there. Uncontrolled flight into terrain remains the number one cause of accidents. Keep out of the white fuzzy stuff unless you're wearing belt and braces.

[lasseb]

Uncontrolled flight into terrain remains the number one cause of accidents.

Uncontrolled flight into terrain is not an accident cause, its an accident result. An accident in flight that does not end with "flight" into terrain, is probably not that serious an accident

But seriously... If anyone with an IR/eIR/IMCr thinks that an autopilot is required to fly IMC, they should immediately go to the nearest authority and deposit the rating!

[Colibri49]

Africanlion,


The little debate above regarding the merits of flying in IMC with or without the benefit of a 3 axis autopilot is a bit of a red herring, because the added complication and expense of fitting such aids is probably beyond what you have in mind and might not be permissible in SA anyway. By not offering training for an instrument rating in aircraft below a maximum mass of 700 kg, the South Africans are making it clear that they don't expect anyone flying such light aircraft even to be contemplating it!


Benefit of hindsight and flying over 30 years and thousands of hours IMC with a full UK Instrument Rating, plus having flown in SA IMC without any kind of autopilot or stabilisation, allows me to have an opinion. Instrument flying without such aids is very hard work and makes you really tired very quickly, especially in strong turbulence such as is more common in cumulus clouds in hot countries.


This tiredness can kill you, because it becomes really difficult in quite a short time to maintain the full mental picture of the flight which you are making. So omissions and mistakes will soon happen without you noticing them.


Something else I'd like to add is the difference in IMC between the UK, or some of the relatively low-terrain European countries and parts of South Africa where some mountains reach up to above 10,000 ft. Even if you aren't planning to fly near the rugged terrain regions, but to remain over the Highveld, thunderstorms of truly monstrous scale often bubble up out of nowhere in a remarkably short time-scale from the middle of the day onwards.


It's really difficult for the meteorologists to predict the location and extent of such cumulonimbus activity, which often contains hail. It sometimes happens that these destructive "storm engines" are embedded inside other more benign layers of cloud, meaning that you've no chance of seeing them while in IMC without the benefit of on-board radar.


Similar storms occur over the American prairies and to get an idea of their violence, a military C130 Hercules (very strong airframe) once got spat out of a storm minus one or both wings. Vertical currents inside them can reach 1000s of feet per minute.