Archer II Vs C172

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Thinking of getting a 172 rating... issues with getting into the aircraft i'm rated on (38 and 28) its going to be about 600-800 NZD.

Never been too sure about the high wing cousins, anybody got any feeling about the pro's and cons of an Archer vs 172 - i'm talking 180 HP in both.

So far my big con is the vis,.. anybody got any different idea's, i heard the short feild perfromance is better on the 172?

our thoughts would be appreciated

[flyinkiwi]

OK let me start out by saying I fly both types and to date have more hours on type in the 172 than the Pa28.

172

Good for those sightseeing trips you take family and friends on
Great for passengers with mobility issues
Better short field performance than Pa28

Pa28

More stable in flight than 172
Easier to refuel
More room inside than 172


I like flying both types for different reasons because their strengths play to my requirements. If I had to pick one I would probably go with the 172 because it can get into and out of more places than the Pa28 can, but I prefer flying the Pa28.

[Pilot DAR]

Fly everything you can get your hands on Kiwi. They all have differences, but they're all the same too. Remember, all certified types have passed certification flight testing to the same standards. Those include many places where the design requirement says that flying the aircraft "must not require unusual pilot skill or attention". That means that with a good understanding of the flight manual, a compotent checkout, and application of good flying skills, you should be able to fly most aircraft without difficulty.

The Archer and the 172 do the same job, just a little differently, don't worry yourself about details. Yes the visibility is different, which leaves me preferring a Cessna with skylights over the Piper a little.... The 172 gets better credit for STOL, but perhaps because it is slightly more at home on rough ground. Depending upon which model (30 or 40 flaps), they might get in a little shorter than the Archer, but I doubt they get out much better, and there's not much point getting in, if you can't get out! You're not going into that short a strip anyway I would expect....

I'm primarily a Cessna man (having owned one for 24 years), but Piper are excellent too (as well as many other types). I was reminded though, while doing a flight test on a Navajo yesterday, that I like the way I don't have to worry about the Cessna high wings dragging in the snow banks!

Is 172 a "rating" in NZ? Is it not the "SEP" rating which I read about here, which covers all such types?

[Morrisman1]

Pilot DAR, here in nz we are type rated for a specific aircraft model, for example I have type ratings for PA28-181, PA34-200T and alpha 160a. It covers 'similar type' so I can fly a PA28-161 and a robin r2160 on those type ratings (I don't think the seneca rating cross references to anything).

STOL performance has come up a couple times so Id just like to raise the topic of propellers, take off performance will vary greatly depending on the propeller fitted to the aircraft. One of the -181 I fly is fitted with a fine pitch prop, cruise is 115ktas and it gets off the ground in next to no time at all. The contrast is another -181 which is fitted with a coarse pitch prop of slightly larger diameter too, this is a totally different beast; it eats close to double the runway the other does and climb performance is about half but in the cruise it is happy at 135ktas which is pretty good for an archer!! Of course landing distance isnt affected the prop but one thing ive noticed with the -181 (and I'm guilty too sometimes) is coming on approach 10kt too fast and this results in a whole lot of floating down the runway. The -181 has good short landing capability (stopped in 100m on grass with bugger all wind) but as with all aircraft its down to technique.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Morrisman is right we don't have the broad categories like you guys in the US/Cananida :ugh: which makes type ratings expensive hobbies (collect em all... if you have the money) although its model based so a PA-28 rating gives you warrior to the non complex archers and dakota's,... anything like an Arrow (CSU and landing gear) requires an additional complex rating if i'm correct?

Morrisman i like the robins alot i flew IN a DR400 when i lived in the UK and that sewed the seed, i just can't bring myseflt to pay 89K for the DR200 thats for sale currently. What are the 200's like they seem to be bigger planes than the tommie but with same HP are they a little underpowered?

As for the 172, im not bush flying (although very used to grass) and i'll save that for my tail dragger rating (which i'm sure i'll get around to, when i want to dent my ego). What are they like in crosswinds? i'm thinking high wing the component has to be less than the 28??

[Morrisman1]

Morrisman i like the robins alot i flew IN a DR400 when i lived in the UK and that sewed the seed, i just can't bring myseflt to pay 89K for the DR200 thats for sale currently. What are the 200's like they seem to be bigger planes than the tommie but with same HP are they a little underpowered?

the are about the same size as a tomahawk, the 160a is a great plane, the 120a not so much due to less power and a much lower payload. The 160a cruises at 115 ktas and you can fill it up with gas (160L) and have two people in it and still be legal. They are great fun to fly but not really suited to long distance cruising because they are not quite as stable as the likes of a PA28 so require frequent control inputs to stay on course.

They don't have quite as much luggage room as a tomahawk but as far as seating room goes Im 6'1" and comfortably fit in.

On the topic of type ratings you can fly a -161 on a -181 rating but not the other way around from what I've been told. Before using the 'similar type' rule I would certainly find out from the authorities just to avoid trouble later on

[172driver]

PA28 More room inside than 172

Pray, tell - which mysterious variant of the PA28 are you flying ??

:confused:

[HercFeend]

Quote:
PA28 More room inside than 172
Pray, tell - which mysterious variant of the PA28 are you flying ??



I was thinking the same thing...... IMO there's acres more room in a 172 over all of the PA28

My two cents - I did all my training and most of my flying until recently in PA28 (140, 151, 161, & 181) and a few months got a 172 rating. I have to say I love flying the 172, not that it's better or worse or anything, it's just different and a change. The downward vis is a huge bonus :D

NZ Ratings - Morrisman is correct. Rating go down not up - a 140 rating doesn't give you a 161 but a 181 rating does.......

[Pilot DAR]

NZ Ratings - Morrisman is correct. Rating go down not up - a 140 rating doesn't give you a 161 but a 181 rating does.......

I suppose that a reason that we don't have the type rating system in Canada (for "low" performance, under 12,500lbs), is that there probably not enough people who have the ratings for all the aircraft, to give them!

Years ago I spied the beautiful Bellanca Viking (there are less than 10 in Canada) newly in a client's hanger. I jokingly said to him "if that ever needs a fly, let me know...". The reply came back to me, "as a matter of fact, it does need a run, so take it up, and get used to it, 'cause I'll need you to check out a low time pilot/new owner in it next week". No type rating involved.

The aforementioned is not new for me, many of the types I have flown, I checked myself out in, as there was no one around to ride with me, much less give me a type rating! In Canada all helicopters are type rated, I believe principally because their autorotation characterisitics can be quite different.

If I were bound by the rating system presented in this thread, I'd be off to the authority to ask why? All the [certified] aircraft are certified to the same standards, why would one light aircraft be significantly different from the other - beyond what the flight manual might tell you about it?

Too much government?

[flyinkiwi]

I had never heard that NZ ratings go down the series but not up, so I did a bit of checking, and AC61-10 states:

Similar aircraft types
Rule 61.55(d) allows for an aircraft type rating to include any other aircraft, if in the opinion of the qualified flight instructor, the type is so similar as to require no further conversion instruction or type competency demonstration. The flight instructor must endorse the logbook with the type and submit to the Director a certified copy of the logbook entry.
The decision on similar type is entirely the responsibility of the qualified flight instructor who is current on type and conversant with the experience and ability of the candidate.

So it seems that it is entirely up to the instructor giving you the type rating as to what aircraft you can and cannot fly. For example, my license has Pa28 181 and Pa28R 200 on it, so the law as written suggests I cannot legally fly a 140 or 161 as PIC. If you have Pa28 on your license you are good to go up and down the range.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

ahh this makes no sense, so i did my PA28 rating in a 181 (Archer II) so i can fly the Warrior but not the Dak then? but only if my instructor thinks i can? News to me, as it was explained it was an airframe thing until you get to complex stuff.

I can see why you would want a check ride and a few hours tuition with some WB stuff going from 28 to 172 (which really all a rating is) the POH will be fairly different, new systems to learn. where as the systems on a 28 probebly wont differ so much between variants??? streching how much i know about this stuff here..

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I must check what it says in my log book re the wording, not sent away for me new license yet. probably get the new credit card type??

[HercFeend]

To be honest I'm only going on what I was told by my instructor. I had a 140 rating and then 'needed' to do a rating for the 181 which, he said, would also cover me for the 161 too........

I did PPL in the UK and CPL here (NZ) - like others I prefer the 'type of aircraft' rating i.e SEP system as apposed to the 'type of engine' rating i.e. 140, 151, 161, 181, 172 system employed here.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Also liking the double doors in the C172! forgot that bit...

So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?

[Pilot DAR]

Far be it from me to challenge the New Zealand pilot licensing authority, but this type rating for single engine Pipers and Cessnas sounds like a way of masking for inadequate pilot training. A properly trained and informed pilot should be able to safely fly aircraft of similar types, without a formal demonstration of skill in each type.

Why are we testers and approvers of aircraft, going to such effort to assure design compliance with the common standards, if the licensing regulator is going to bypass our efforts, and require specialized training anyway? This is better managed by the insurers of the aircraft, who will consider more factors in a pilot's skill and experience.

Part of the problem might be found in:

So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?

Lots of pilots being "heard" to express their opinions on the characterisitcs of different aircraft types, where all of these aircraft have demonstrated compliance with the handling requirements. Yes, some do fly "better" or "differently" than others, but they all meet the minimum requirements. They're not that different! I opine that you might see more difference in characterisitcs in the PA 28 when flying it a gross weight forward C of G, compared to light weight aft C of G, than you'd experience between similarly loaded PA 28's and 172's. Yes secondary controls and design philosophies vary, but that's why you read the flight manual.

I think it unlikely that pilots will commonly fly these aircraft with such skill, or in consistant conditions, so as to notice the nuances of crosswind handling in each.

In general, don't worry yourself, read the flight manual, and go and enjoy the aircraft. Enjoy the differences, but don't worry that they are so great that you will not be able to manage them if you are paying attention and applying your skills.

That being said, additional training is appropriate for tricycle pilots, who are planning to fly taildraggers.

[flyinkiwi]

So high wing has nothing to do with X wind performance (limited knowledge on this) i heard it does have some taxiiing implications True/False?

You can get closer to marker cones than you would in a Pa28 coz those big things sticking out the side are higher off the ground ;)

Seriously, the 172 does not have the direct nose wheel steering linkages that the Pa28 and a lot of other aircraft have. Instead it has some sort of indirect elastic bungy type linkage (not factually correct but it certainly feels like it). The result is that the steering response is not as sharp nor as accurate as you may be used to. You get accustomed to it fairly quickly however.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Is the differential braking similar to the C152, if so i found this to be very effective. i did find the turning circle without braking to be much wider that the PA28.

[Pilot DAR]

The steering of Cessnas can take a bit of getting used to, when you're fresh off a Piper. Yes, there are springs in there. This permits the nosewheel to not turn in flight with the application of rudder. It also insulates the rudder control system, and pilot's feet, from shocks from rough ground, or nosewheel shimmy. Yes, without differential braking, the Cessnas may have a larger turn radius, but it is managable.

[HercFeend]

sounds like a way of masking for inadequate pilot training. A properly trained and informed pilot should be able to safely fly aircraft of similar types, without a formal demonstration of skill in each type.

Personally I think it's more about making money for the the clubs/schools and the CAA. On average a single engine a/c rating involves about 2 hours flying - circuits, turns, stalls, FLWOP, low flying etc. Add to this that every time you want a rating endorsed on your actual licence it will cost you $$.

From personal experience I'm glad I did a couple of rounds with an instructor in the 172 after flying nothing but Pipers. I found it very different in most respects, particularly how slow you can get the suckers before the stall, how slow you have to get them before they'll land and how freakin far they glide - I was gob smacked (in comparison to the 140 flying brick)....... This is not to say of course that I didn't possess the competency just that it was good to be able to draw on experience (in this case an instructor) during my first hours in a Cessna - I'm not too big of a man to turn down knowledge from one more knowledgeable then myself.

Just on a note re pilot training - it is my understanding that in general pilots trained in New Zealand are held in high regard. I've trained in the UK and NZ and found both countries to be very high quality and safety focused.

[Pilot DAR]

I agree that perhaps it is a cash grab, but the regulator really should not be perpetuating it. I would not speak to the skill level of any one nationality relative to another, it would be totally unsupportable generalization, and of no value. Instead, it is probably fair to point out that a compotent pilot, with adequate review and understanding of the flight manual, and perhaps a briefing, should be able to safely fly any aircraft of the same "type". My experience getting "checked out" has generally been pretty dissapointing. I have not seen a demonstration of the skill set I would expect of a flying instructor. Some know their limitations, and say so, others have alarmed me with their innocence, yet attitude!

If we hold the hand and baby every pilot into thinking that they cannot figure things out for themselves, because we had to show them, a whole layer of self confidence will be stiffled. Pilots need to feel the rush of "Oooo, can I do this?" from time to time, to keep them sharp. If a compotent PA 28 pilot cannot get a 172 safely back on the ground without supervision, I'm worried....

I assert that a flight which is going wrong in the PA 28, could demand much greater skill and versitility in the pilot, that the transition to the 172.

I'll be thinking about this, as I have to go and test fly a PA 28-161 for an approval, in a month or so, and it's probably been 20 years since I have flown one. I'm confident that I will manage safely.....

[flyinkiwi]

I decided to ask the CAA about it, and their response was that the rule (the part I quoted in my post above) was self evident. The instructor giving you the rating decides at the time what the limitations are.

It may be that in the future should I decide to fly a 161 that a suitably qualified and rated instructor could look at my hours in the 181 and type rate me on the spot.

[flyinkiwi]

Question for you Herc, did you find you had to adjust your rudder technique when flying the 172 for the first time? I find when flying with Pa28 pilots that they tend to get a little out of balance at first when turning the 172 because the Frise ailerons don't seem to be as effective at damping adverse yaw as the differential ones in the Pa28 so they apply less rudder than is required.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Pilot DAR: i would much rather confirm rumours and seek some disscussion rather than finding it out on a windy day for myself (and flip and aeroplane) Pilots with low hours like myself don't have all the 'tools' yet of the experienced pilot to ascertain whether something is true or not, this is the same reason i read and absord all the CAA AAIB Publications, to understand what did and could happen.

Assumptions around types are always there... i jumped into 1 C152 for the first time a few weeks ago and was safe, ok a few differences but i could fly it happily. The CPL instructor gave me a few 'props' for learning in 'Traumahawks' as he said they were twitchy and unstable..... huh... and this is not the first time i have heard this.

There was a major difference in the C152 to the Tomahawk, in the flare a tomahawk can reliably sink quite quickly and have wheels on the ground early (but still clipping along at 60-65 kts) I got quite good scores in the Omaka spot landing comps by getting this right!
The C152 i had to slow down to a speed which i was almost uncomfotable with... (it was still flying down the runway at 45kts). so i can see how the short feild pefrormance would work on this type,... its all about energy!

I think there's a difference from being safe and being proficient. I'm safe in a C152, i'm proficient in a PA38.

[Pilot DAR]

I think there's a difference from being safe and being proficient.

Absolutely correct!

The fact that an aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the design requirements, and is therefore certified, should mean that a well trained pilot after reading the flight manual, can fly it - safely, but probably slim on proficiencey for the first few hours.

I agree that a Tomahawk is on the challenging side for a Cessna pilot. The first time I flew one was a "self checkout" for a ferry flight. I wold not present those first few legs as a demonstration of my proficancy on type!

If you want to understand the immense amount of testing and evaluation which goes into the perfection and cerifiation of a new type, I highly recommend a book called: Cessna, Wings for the World, by Tompson. No manufacturer benefits from their aircraft gaining a reputation of being odd, or difficult to fly. There is a lot of effort to assure that "regular" pilots can handle them with ease.

That said, I would never discourage a pilot who feels uncertain, seeking more training. I do too, from any compotent pilot who'll fly with me!

But, for myself, and perhaps other pilots, sometimes you just have to check yourself out, 'cause there's no one else around to do it. It is wise to develop the skill to be confident flying different types.

The Cessna Piper rivalry has gone on for a half century. It is fuelled by brand loyal pilots in each generation. For those pilots who are objective, you'll more likely hear comments on "differences", but not so much one type being better or worst, or more or less difficult to fly thn the other. Yes, in specific roles, each have strengths, but for general flying, if you're compotent to fly one, you're safe to fly the other.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Can you explian why you (and others) think a Tommahawk is challenging for a Cessna Pilot, i'm starting to think i missed something, i flew Tommies exclusively (apert from a few hours in a Technam and an Archer) and i found them to be stable and not temperamental (you have to seriously want to stall it, ok the wing drop stall can be interesting if taken to the extreme)

I have had several people tell me that the tommies are 'harder' or 'Different' is it because of the higher landing speeds?

I flew a C152 and the only thing i found to be really different (aside from checks and the leccy flaps) is the landing speed and how slow you can drag it in!

[Pilot DAR]

Ah yes, the Tomahawk. I have nothing bad to say about them, they do what they were designed to do well, and are not quite as good at what they were not designed to do - fair enough!

If you're used to dragging a Cessna out of a soft field, the Tomahawk will seem different. The effect of the "T" tail not really beginning to do anything until about 45 -50 knots is attained, can be a little alarming if you have foolishly bugun your takeoff with the controls held all the way back (Cessna style). Tha Tomahawk nose will rush upward, and you'll get a vigourous PIO happening (ask me how I know). I did not bang it, but I quickly realized why the pilot before me had, and I was ferrying it away from the repair!

I flew several Tomahawks more than 100 hours after that, and loved them, but not for their soft field performance, but is was not what they were designed for!

If, at that early part of my flying career, I had been better trained to expect different types of aircraft handling, I would have been better prepared for the Tomahawk (or if I'd read the flight maual, or got a checkout). I was well taught the "Cessna way" by Cessna instructors and a Cessna Pilot's Center. Piper was nearly a bad word.

Since then I have learned the charms of Piper, and many other types, and learned to not assume they all fly the same - but they all meet the requirements!

[FlyingStone]

The wing drop tendency in Tomahawks isn't so benign, since it can occur as early as in slightly un-coordinated flight when approaching stall. For example on Cessna 172, you need quite some rudder to induce enough yaw which then causes wing drop. Mainly the reason is better directional stability (mainly due to dorsal fin, which Tommy lacks). Try flying Tomahawk and Cessna 172 hands and legs off and turbulence and you'll see that Tomahawk has much greater tendency to oscilate around yaw axis. The T-tail versus conventional tailplane also adds to different handling during the flare - Tomahawk has a slight tendency to bounce if you use too much force on the elevator.

Continuing, C172 has an excellent elevator trim, which consists of trim tab, while in Tomahawk you trim the stabilizator via spring-type system, which isn't as accurate and in some aircraft it's far from good, so trimming the Tomahawk can be quite more demanding than Cessna. Looking at the fuel system, you have to move the fuel selector in the Tomahawk every hour or so, when in Cessna you just leave it at BOTH and it requires very little balancing (especially on long trips with no prolonged banking) between fuel tanks. You also don't have any fuel pumps in Cessna (at least in ones powered by O-320 - unless you have optional auxiliary fuel pump to prevent vapour lock), since all the fuel is gravity-fed to the engine.

I could go on and on, but what is the most important: both Tomahawk and Cessna 172 are excellent aircraft, each well designed for it's mission profile. Tomahawk is an excellent primary trainer, especially for slow flight, but I wouldn't fly long trips in it.

[Pilot DAR]

The dorsal fin probaly has less to do with directional stability, and more to do with the effectivness of the rudder, and the characterisitcs of rudder lock, which nether type is known for (some modified C 180's can get cloase). The wing of the 172 (and they do have airfoil differences depending upon model) seems more docile when approaching the stall. The 172's can be finely adjusted to prevent wing drop, and if you're flying a well maintained and set up 172, wing drop in the stall is rare. I cannot speak to the ability of the Tomahawk's wings to be individually adjusted. Both of the Tomahawks I regularly flew had very pleasant stall characterisitcs, though yes, less tolerant of slip during approach to stall than the 172.

The lack of a "both" fuel selector position on the Tomahawk is an intended design feature, required because it is not possible to interconnect the vent spaces in the wing tanks of any low wing aircraft I have ever known. I find the need to purposefully change tanks in flight to be an excellent reminder to the pilot to constantly consider fuel quantity. I venture to suggest (though cannot support) that Tomahawks probably have a comparitively low incidence of fuel exhastion. I know it was a big design consideration.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

The Tommie will wing drop with rudder amidships, but you have to pull it through, fuel imbalance is also key < for my flight test i loaded up the plane with asymetic fuel and used the appropirate tank, then i KNEW which wing would drop on the stall> you get it to a nice nose up stall then a good yank further, careful first time i did this i ended up on my back!

[Pilot DAR]

Hmmm,,

The Tomahawk had to demonstrate compliance with the following to get certified. (my bold)

Sec. 23.201

Wings level stall.

[(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll by unreversed use of the rolling control and to produce and to correct yaw by unreversed use of the directional control, up to the time the airplane stalls.
(b) The wings level stall characteristics must be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting from a speed at least 10 knots above the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled back so that the rate of speed reduction will not exceed one knot per second until a stall is produced, as shown by either:
(1) An uncontrollable downward pitching motion of the airplane;
(2) A downward pitching motion of the airplane that results from the activation of a stall avoidance device (for example, stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
(c) Normal use of elevator control for recovery is allowed after the downward pitching motion of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section has unmistakably been produced, of after the control has been held against the stop for not less than the longer of two seconds or the time employed in the minimum steady slight speed determination of Sec. 23.49.
(d) During the entry into and the recovery from the maneuver, it must be possible to prevent more than 15 degrees of roll or yaw by the normal use of controls.
(e) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown under the following conditions:
(1) Wing Flaps: Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate normal operating position.
(2) Landing Gear: Retracted and extended.
(3) Cowl Flaps: Appropriate to configuration.
(4) Power:
(i) Power off; and
(ii) 75 percent maximum continuous power. However, if the power-to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power result in extreme nose-high attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum landing weight and a speed of 1.4 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/50e865a7927c93c385256687006c52db/SectionRule/0.AE4!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif, except that the power may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.
(5) Trim: The airplane trimmed at a speed as near 1.5 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/50e865a7927c93c385256687006c52db/SectionRule/0.11AA!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif as practicable.
(6) Propeller: Full increase r.p.m. position for the power off condition.]


There is no reference to fuel imbalance in the foregoing, so it would not be a requirement to have the fuel in any particular tank (or occupant in particular seat) to acheive this handling.

If the particular one you were flying does not fly that way, it is either the technique being applied entering the stall, or the aircraft does not conform to it's type design (maintenance required).

At the risk of sounding unkind, which I certaily do not intend, it is the perpetuation of observations such as that you have presented, which become the rumours and airport legends, which predispose pilots to dislike aircraft they have never flown. I don't think that helps our industry.

If the Tomahawk ended up on it's back in a stall, It looked something like this?

zjB_q7AIvDo

[FlyingKiwi_73]

My instructor was showing me the entry into the wing drop stall, one the second more agreesive stall the tommie had its nose through maybe 60/70deg (this was done by taking it to the stall then giving it a final..yank to get an extreme nose up angle) then dropped a wing, it certianly felt like we were on our backs the a/c rotated approx 100 deg(bit further than a max rate turn). not a full rotation, possibly partial spin?

On my flight test, i did a more gentler version and sure enough it dropped the 'right' wing. i had been shown by a different pilot, not instuctor, a less severe method of entering the wing drop stall.

I feel the tommie is very stable and i'm more than comfortable flying them, and you really have to go out of your way to make it do anything 'scary'.
My original point was i'm not sure why it has the reputation it seems to have,.. maybe it is these stories of the wing drop stall as you suggest.
I don't mean to perpetuate 'myths' i'll tell anybody how i enjoy flying the tommie, if i could legally get 4 people into it, i'd buy one.

[Pilot DAR]

I have not before heard of a purposeful "wing drop stall". Though I would agree that pilots should be comfortable (or simply safe) with unusual attitudes, this sound like it goes a little beyond what would be expected of a non aerobatic pilot, or a pilot flying a Tomahawk. That manuever certainly exceeds what it would be required to demonstrate for certification, so it's reaction (entry into a spin) would be permitted, and the spin would have otherwise been shown to be recoverable in that type.

I did once test fly a brand new certified aircraft to approve a modification, to find to my surprize that no matter how gently and carefully entered, a stall could not be done without a half turn spin entry. This very certainly did not conform to the required standards for handling. I requested that it be re-evaluated back at the factory. This request was supported by Transport Canada. I warned the experienced pilot of my findings, and he tested for himself, and later agreed. Prior to getting it back to the factory, he did manage to kill himself and another person in a stall spin after takeoff. Fortunately that same unaccpetable characterisitc was coincidentally found on another of the factory's new aircraft, and the manufacturing flaw which lead to it was corrected.

You will find that a stall entered very aggressively can show up even the most minor assymetric characteristic in an aircraft, and you're probably going to be going around part of a turn. As long as you're ready for it, and the aircraft is spinn approved, that might be okay. Remind yourself that this would possibly fall into the legal definition of aerobatics (it would in Canada), in case that matters in terms of conforming to local regulation. And, that kind of maneuver done at a higher speed, and with rudder input, would be a snap roll entry, for which the Tomahawk is very certainly not approved or intended.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My instructor was showing me the entry into the wing drop stall, one the second more agreesive stall the tommie had its nose through maybe 60/70deg (this was done by taking it to the stall then giving it a final..yank to get an extreme nose up angle) then dropped a wing, it certianly felt like we were on our backs the a/c rotated approx 100 deg(bit further than a max rate turn). not a full rotation, possibly partial spin?

.

Your instructor was stupid. Extreme stall entries like this can result in very high angle of attack and an unrecoverable spin entry. This exact scenario is what happened to the Cessna Skycatcher which crashed during a test flight. The test probe measured AOA's in excess of 40 deg (normal stall is about 17 deg AOA).

Non aerobatic qualified instructors in non aerobatic aircraft have no business doing such silliness and there is no training value in this kind of manoever.

[HercFeend]

Training in the recovery of and demonstrating the recovery of wing drop stalls is part of the CAA curriculum in NZ for PPL and CPL and is tested in the flight tests.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

HercFeend is correct its part of the NZ CAA syllabus we are trained to show correct entry and recover of a wing drop stall, we are also required to a simple stall to the buffet and and 'Advanced' stall in the landing config, ie 70 knots 1500 rpm and full flap, minimum height loss on these stalls i believe is not less than 100ft (with the exception of the wing drop) it was also the thing i was most worried about until i leaned the correct technique.

In my instructors defence he warned me, i asked for it (show me what happens if you have a really high nose attitude), and he was demonstrating how 'stupid' you have to be to make the air plane depart, to me i was a valid lesson and all done above 3000 Ft.

[flyinkiwi]

Training in the recovery of and demonstrating the recovery of wing drop stalls is part of the CAA curriculum in NZ for PPL and CPL and is tested in the flight tests.

I also had to demonstrate one during the max all up weight checks for my type ratings. Not sure if it is a requirement though.

[Pilot DAR]

So as the wing drop stall is an element of training and testing in New Zealand, could I ask for a more clear description of this maneuver? How is it different from a spin entry? Is the flight test flown on spin approved aircraft types only?

I had a look at the NZ CAA flight test standards document, and I do see the wing drop stall requirement - I've never heard of it before! It does not describe the maneuver though, so I'm still courious as to how it differs from (or is) a spin entry.

I did note with interest the requirement that the candidate not use aileron during the initial recovery. This is also the first time I have seen this urban myth in writing. I find this very courious, as the design requirement for all of these aircraft requires that they be able to be recovered with normal use of the controls, which would include the correct use of airlerons. A few aircraft specify the preferred spin recovery method not using ailerons - Cessna Caravan for example, simply because the spoiler going up with the aileron is a disadvantage to the recovery. While doing spins in other types, I frequently fnd myself at odds with another pilot, who may be along, as to the use of ailerons or not. Some pilots say don't use them, but cannot support their assertion with anything written. Obviously, in NZ they could! But I still wonder about the reasoning......

I continue to be puzzled as to why the requirements for pilot technique differ from those for the aircraft demonstration of handling.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Hah its not just me perpetuating myths then! its the CAA!

I can't tell you what the syllabus says but practically i was told to do the following:

carb heat ON, Reduce power to 1500rpm
Hold back pressure and trim nose up (VSI should be 0) as speed bleeds off, carb heat OFF
As speed continues to bleed off to stall speed apply more back pressure maintaining directional control with the rudder, keep doing this beyond the buffet.
The Tommie at this point will either drop a wing or mush untidily into a stall.
Recovery is Nose down Full Power, raise nose as ASI climbs through 60-70kts DO NOT Pick up the wing with aileron until flying speed is attained
That was stressed and was an instant fail if you did it (like a tail wind landing :=)

There must have been some safety amendment to training for this, in NZ we don't really regulate safety issues until people die, mabe a student made the big mistake?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Training in the recovery of and demonstrating the recovery of wing drop stalls is part of the CAA curriculum in NZ for PPL and CPL and is tested in the flight tests.

Are saying that a power on stall entry with a 60 to 70 deg nose up attitude (as quoted in flying kiwi 77's post #32) is required for a flight test in NZ ?

[flyinkiwi]

I could not find anything in the PPL Flight Test Standards guide to suggest that is the case BPF. This is the only relevant entry:

Action:
The examiner/instructor will;
(b) If required, nominate the aircraft’s configuration for the demonstration.

[Pilot DAR]

a power on stall entry with a 60 to 70 deg nose up attitude

No, that's a buggered up loop entry!

From what I read, the "wing drop stall" is entered with all flight controls used to maintain straigh and level, properly co-ordinated flight, so it must be only the moderate power which being used to drop the wing, with a bit of torque. I would expect that some candidates must get a little frustrated, as many planes I have stalled would not really react much to this amount of power, partictularly if they were out of rigging to counteract the torque. I really can imaging the pure objective of a demonstration of control of the aircraft being effectivly maintained by the candidate pilot, being nudged by an instructor/examiner applying some rudder, just to get it to drop a wing as desired. Oh well, it must be fun!


kiwi73, I shan't hold you responsible for the prohibition on the use of ailerons during stalls, 'cause I know it's not your fault! But someone is missing something somewhere.....

The design requirment for these aircraft does not say anything about it - "normal use of the controls" (as I have mentioned more than once), and with the exeption of the Caravan, all the flight manuals I have reviewed, make no reference to a limitation on the use of the ailerons during stalls. My previous attempt to learn where this originated, in respect of certified aircraft, fell short of an answer! Urban myth!

Were I to fail a flight test element, while flying the aircraft within the techniques specified in the flight manual for that aircraft, I'd squawk!

During my multi ride in the C 310, the examiner docked me 4 points for retracting the flaps during the landing rollout. I pointed out that I had landed on a runway which could be considered "short" (though not too much so), and the flight manual said for short field landings, to retract the flaps upon touchdown. He agreed the FM said that, but still docked the points, saying that I have otherwise done so well, the the 4 points would not make a difference. I did not fight it!

Fly the plane the way the flight manual says!

[FlyingKiwi_73]

No 60-70 deg nose up was one of my instructors showing me an extreme example,.. just to clairfy we started at 45-ish then pulled back as the stall approched. like i say it was a one off, and not something i want to repeat either. But i did literally ask for it.

The Wing drop stall i demonstrated on my flight test was much more benign. I can also do them on command these days so theres gotta be something in it?

Pilot DAR: you have hit apon the problem i think, low hours pilots like me get told by pilots with more hours and more exams that you should ABSOLUTELY not do X, because they were probably told the same thing by their instructors in the same tone. I imagine most of these examples are from wrote learning rather than practical experiment.

Sadly i have looked at the FM for the Tommie once, and that was only to do the WB and P Charts. :eek:

[Pilot DAR]

While we natter on about planes, some of your people died Kiwi, what a sadness...

My thoughts are with the people, who are always more important than the planes....

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Cheers Pilot DAR.

Yes its a horrible wake up call to NZ, we have been expecting a big quake for some time, but not in Christchurch, everybody has been affected, even in my family there has been a death.

NZ is blessed to be heavily aviation dependant and the private helicopter and fixed wing fleets are mobilised. The MAC are working ferrying people and where i live the skies are fiull of transiting choppers. Pilots can help! i can help by staying out of the airspace! I'm also organising efforts here in the capital in my offcial job.

There is an air of distinct unease accross the country. I find it hard to watch the news at the moment.

Kiwi73