Are there any "easy to fly" aeroplanes [Archive]

Lowtimer

15th May 2002, 16:38

I'll leave others to draw extensive comparisons between types, as I have significant experience of relatively few powered aircraft types, but would like to make a few general offerings for debate.

Pure handling qualities (much as I value them) are not synonymous with ease of conducting a flight overall. There are additional factors which make a lot of difference to overall "ease of use" of an aeroplane. e.g --

Field of vision - it increases your workload if you have to manoevre the aeroplane around to see where you need to see

Noise - apart from making you tired, it affects your ability to communicate and situational awareness

Cockpit ergonomics. Even something like an easily reached map pocket can make a big difference (especially if you're used to having one for your chart, checklist etc and suddenly you fly a similar aircraft without one). Things like ease of use of throttle control - is it "sticky", does it enable you to make consistent changes in setting without looking, etc.

From a pure handling point of view I think you have to relate "easiness" to the mission. For instrument flying or cross-country navigation, the PA-28-180 and 181 seem to me to be good-handling aeroplanes, with their strong stability and consistent, informative control weighting. You always know what they are doing. For flying varied circuits on a summer evening I'd consider a Chipmunk to have just about perfect handling, far easier than I'd expect a Pitts to have in the context of that particular flight. Yet when I flew a Pitts S2B I found it a world easier than the Chipmunk for the basic aerobatics I was capable of. (I didn't land it, though!)

skyraider

15th May 2002, 16:43

F3G...

1) easy plane - PA28, not so easy plane, yak, sukhoi, extra - basically anything designed not to be stable..

2) I'd define handling as driving the plane around the sky, straight and level, ascend, decend, bank etc. You can this do this by the time you are ready to solo...

Flying the aircraft is everthing else you have you do while you are doing the driving, navigate, freda's radios, etc.

3) There is a saying

Never let a plane take you anywhere your mind didnt go 5 minutes before.

with this in mind, even an easy plane becomes difficult to fly if it gets you there before your thinking does....

4) I think the 'easy' bit has a lot to do with workload. I can take a plane out for a flip in the local area on a bright sunny day and it's easy. That same plane on a day where the weather is not so good, to a new airfield on the other side of the country might not be so easy...

Another factor is feeling comfortable in the aeroplane. I feel more at home in a PA28 than a C172 or C150, but I have had a couple of chances to fly the C208 Caravan and I feel very comfortable in that...I think that is where the perception comes in...

cheers
Sky

p.s. edited for sounding pompous :o :D

Wrong Stuff

15th May 2002, 17:23

I did think you were a touch harsh on TM for calling the C150 easy to fly. I don't think "easy" can be defined in absolute terms and only has meaning in relative terms. So to call the C150 easy to fly I'd consider correct because it is, relative to the vast majority of aircraft. That doesn't mean that you can't easily kill yourself in one - just that it's easier to kill yourself in almost everything else.

Relating this back to the specific questions you raised:

1 - There are certainly planes which are hard to fly, however you define it. Therefore there must be planes which are easy to fly. As you implicitly point out - it's how you define it that's the difficult bit. The factors which spring to mind are:

- the number & complexity of systems (eg flaps, retractable, wobbly prop etc)
- the specific handling foibles of that aircraft type (eg tendency to groundloop)
- the speed with which everything happens

2 - Not sure where one stops and the other begins. How would you define the difference between handling and flying?

3 - Whirly talked in the other thread of things going to pot when you get overloaded. I'd go along with that as a pretty good definition.

4 - That probably goes back to how you define the easy / hard bit, doesn't it? In some ways the PA28 is easier, in that it's a lovely, stable aircraft - easy to trim and smooth in the cruise relative to the livelier, more go-kart-like C150. In other way's it's definately harder - no "both" setting for the fuel tanks and a fuel pump to remember as well - more systems to trip you up.

Having said all of that, I have a feeling that's not it at all. I haven't flown many types, but one of the most difficult I've flown has been the Tiger Moth (coincidentally!) despite it having hardly any systems and being really slow - just trying to taxi the thing was a major trial. It was certainly a lot easier converting onto a my first retractable wobbly prop - a C182.

M14P

15th May 2002, 18:10

I really think that trying to define 'easy' is not easy!!!

Lowtimer hits the nail pretty much on the head.

I've flown about 70 different types so far. I would prefer to comment on those light VFR aircraft that I feel have fewer vices. The least viceless that I can think of is the PZL Koliber (nee Rallye series) since it is very docile and communicative around the stall, has good take-off/landing performance, benefits from a well designed panel, has a good field of vision and powerful/effective controls.

Stability is strongly positive in pitch and good in other axis. It has a very flattering main gear (trailing link) and therefore satisfies the pax.

I've flown plenty of aircraft that are not viceless but with training are capable of delivering excellent performance and have some good 'safety' characteristics.

Someone mentioned the YAK-52. Perfect example of an aircraft which can be either easy (viceless) or downright nasty. An average PPL can check out in a '52 in a few hours (so this aircraft's easy, right?) but some aspects of spinning and recovery will far outstrip the abilities of Mr Average until he/she gets the training required.

Longnitudinal stability has a great deal to do with 'easyness' but overly stable aircraft are as bad as divergent ones.

Overall speed has less to do with things - I've been thoroughly out of ideas in a Tiger Moth at about 40 knots (and occasionally at a walking pace!)

Ergonomics and 'intuativeness' contribute massively since the effectiveness that a human interacts with a machine will generally decide how well that machine operates.

You can hurt yourself through stupidity in even the easiest most viceless aircraft. My message is - always seek PROPER training.

Chuck Ellsworth

15th May 2002, 19:29

Well, the Cessna 150 would fall under the easy catagory.

The Grumman Turbo Goose would fall under the difficult catagory.

Anyhow there are two examples.

Cat Driver:

................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

Final 3 Greens

15th May 2002, 20:16

Wrong Stuff

You ask me for my definition of handling versus flying.

I'm not sure I have a well developed definition, but I think that the ability to handle an aeroplane is common to both, but flying is the ability to manage the total experience including navigation, communication, traffic management etc, as well as the crucial area of decision making (maybe even not to fly that day.)

For instance on a proper flight sim I can handle a high performance jet transport - my take offs, general handling, approaches and landings are okay I would say, but I sure as hell can't "fly" the sim since it takes all my focus to handle it and it requires an experienced instructor to help me to do the rest by appropriate prompts.

On a PA28 or Pup, I can handle the aeroplane and maintain enough multi tasking capability to do the other things too .... so long as I stay within my safe envelope.

Tiger_ Moth

16th May 2002, 17:00

Obviously when I said cessnas were easy to fly I meant it relatively and did not put in a bunch of clauses like as long as... and if .... because it only made up a small part of my post.

Anyway, I have not flown a cessna but I've talked to people who have flown Tiger Moths and cessnas , pipers etc and they say the Tiger is a lot harder.
A phrase I've heard quite often is : "if you fly Tiger Moths you could probably convert onto a cessna in 5 hours but if you fly cessnas you WON'T be able to convert to Moths in 5 hours"

I think how long it takes you to get used to flying it is quite a good indicator of how hard something is to fly. ie: how long it is before you feel comfortable in the plane

I havent flown a cessna but I imagine to actually fly it would be similar to a Tiger Moth apart from the noise, the view and a few instruments: the Moth could do with a VSI. The biggest difference is probably when it comes to landing the thing.

There are other things but I cant think of them right now

FNG

16th May 2002, 17:25

Dealing solely with aircraft handling, some are undoubtedly easier than others. Easier doesn't imply inferior. Nosewheels are easier to land and taxi than tailwheels, which is one reason why they were introduced. Old aircraft, such as Moths, with lots of adverse yaw and weak ailerons, are more difficult to keep on a heading and more difficult to turn than more recent designs. Of the limited range of types I have tried (C150, PA 28, Pup, Bulldog, Cub, Colt, Cap 10 and Tiger Moth), the Moth is definitely the hardest to handle, the Cessna and PA28 easiest, but, as I said, easy doesn't have to imply inferior.

Final 3 Greens

16th May 2002, 17:41

Tiger Moth

Anyway, I have not flown a cessna but I've talked to people who have flown Tiger Moths and cessnas , pipers etc and they say the Tiger is a lot harder

My first instructor also said something similar.

;) Finals

formationfoto

16th May 2002, 20:53

I have known people who have flown a supersonic passenger jet and had difficulty landing a PA28 so where does the easy / hard debate stand with that. Clearly some aircraft are more demanding (complex systems etc.), some are more difficult to handle (poor control harmonisation etc.), but most things are relatively easy after practice. Any trainer is designed to be relatively easy - including the Tiger Moth - which I find to be a doddle providing there isn't more than 10 Kts of wind straight across a paved runway. Chipmunk very forgiving. C152 simple and not too much to think about. But I have also seen people struggle with each of these types.

Positive inherent stability makes for easy and docile but tends to make the aircraft less interesting.

So as with most things the answer depends on a range of factors and there is no 'one size fits all' response just some general comparisons which will mostly hold true.

I have control

16th May 2002, 22:21

The Ercoupe was purpose designed to be easy to fly - un-complex airplane, tricycle gear, certified unspinnable, no rudder pedals.

A and C

17th May 2002, 07:03

No aircraft is easy to fly some are harder to fly than others but all demand respect , however all aircraft are easy to kill yourself in.

Whirlybird

17th May 2002, 08:21

I'm wondering if "easy to fly" depends to some extent on the individual too. I'm reminded of when, having fairly recently got my PPL(H), I took up a pilot friend with whom I'd done a lot of f/w flying before I discovered whirly wings.

"We've lost you, haven't we", he said after the flight.
I asked him what he meant.
"You not only obviously prefer helicopters; you fly them better too".

He was right. In an odd sort of way, I found them easier - though I'm not sure if that's the right word. I just always felt more comfortable in them. I still do, though now I could put it down to more rotary hours and being definitely rusty at f/w flying. And I can see that objectively a C152 is much easier to fly than an R22! :eek: But I still wonder if there's an element of personal..preference, likes and dislikes, don't know the right way to put it, in this.

FlyingForFun

17th May 2002, 08:53

Stick and Rudder, by Wolfgang Lange-something-or-other-which-I-can't-spell, is an excellent book. But when the author wrote it (first part of the last century, can't remember the exact year), he was certain that planes would, very soon, become easy to fly - and people would be able to hop in their plane, the same way they could hop into a car.

In particular, he said the rudder would be removed. Improved designs would mean the slip-stream effect and other left-turning tendencies would be removed. The latest aileron designs at the time already meant that very little rudder input was required to counter adverse yaw. Planes would be designed so that the stick could not be pulled far enough back to allow a stall, thus the use of the rudder to prevent wing-drop or recover from a spin would become superfluous. Better flap designs would eliminate the need to side-slip to lose height. And the introduction of the new-fangled tricycle-style undercarriages meant that aircraft would be able to land crabbed in a cross-wind.

How wrong he was!

Actually, I think there's a large amount of truth in what he says - I'm sure it would be possible to design aircraft without a rudder, in fact I'd be surprised if someone hadn't done it. But would you be happy to fly something like that???

Certainly some aircraft are easier to fly than others, and there are many features which contribute to this. But there's no such thing as an easy-to-fly aircraft IMHO, especially in weather conditions that are approaching the aircraft's or your limit - and I don't think that TM was trying to imply this at all in his other thread.

FFF
---------------

Wee Weasley Welshman

17th May 2002, 09:02

Chipmunk is the easiest in my opinion.

WWW

FNG

17th May 2002, 11:54

Wolfgang Langewische is the bloke. He wrote "Stick and Rudder" in the 1940s. He was a strong advocate of nosewheel gear, and a big fan of the Ercoupe concept. More generally, the book is an excellent think-piece on turning, landing and other aspects of aircraft handling.

I assume, by the way, that an Ercoupe could be rather limited in cross winds because of the absence of independent rudder pedals (the rudder being linked to the ailerons). Anyone know if this is the case?

FlyingForFun

17th May 2002, 12:06

Thanks FNG - as always, the wealth of knowledge to fill in the gaps that I forget, or never knew!

And, to add to your Ercoupe question, does anyone know if it is almost as easy to fly as driving a car, as Langewische said such a plane would be?

FFF
--------------

Evo7

17th May 2002, 12:23

Somewhat strangely, the Ercoupe also performed the first rocket-assisted take off...

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/prewwii/rato.jpg

Ah, it works at last.... :rolleyes:

From http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/prewwii/rato.htm

FNG

Landing a 2-control 'Coupe is an "interesting" experience!! You crab it into the wind and land that way!! The nose wheel will caster and straighten it out ON THE RUNWAY. Another historical fact: all original Boeing 707 pilots were taught to land in the 'Coupe - the 707 had a similar problem - the low hanging engines meant that you couldn't drop a wing into a crosswind - you had to land them crabbed!!

From http://www.ercoupe.com/couphist.htm

Interesting aeroplane :)

eveepee

17th May 2002, 17:47

As a new "Ppruner" and very new to flying (only 10 hours), I thought I would throw my tuppenceworth in for what its worth!

In the 10 hours instruction so far I have had 4 different planes -
PA28 (1hr induction), AA5A (5 hours), A-2 Ercoupe (2 hours - I was lucky enough to fly this in Santa Fe whilst on holiday) and
C152 ( 2hours). I'm not sure what all this change is doing for my flying but I'm a slow leaner anyway ! (As you might have guessed).

Of the four I found the Ercoupe to be the easiest to learn to fly - or perhaps that was just my frame of mind - being on holiday and knowing the instructor would not have to be subjected to my mistakes again! It was very basic and didn't seem to have too many dials to watch all at the same time ! (Did have an ashtray though).
:)

Back home I'm sticking with the Cessna - its certainly a lot easier to learn to taxi in over the Grunman which I found really difficult. This seems quite important as you can't take off without mastering this skill (can you?)! The only disadvantages I've found so far is that forward visibility is hindered when in a climb and the wings do seem to get in the way sometimes! Apart from that I'm enjoying learning in it and intend to stick with it. :)

slim_slag

17th May 2002, 21:12

Harder: Planes where human moves control surfaces
Easier: Planes where computer moves control surfaces

:D :D

BEagle

18th May 2002, 06:26

Easiest ac I've flown: A330-200.
Nicest handling light ac I've flown: Quickie 200
Most difficult ac I've flown: Buccaneer S2B
Most unpleasant ac I've flown: Jetstream T1
Best overall ac I've flown: Hunter 'GT'6

Tinstaafl

18th May 2002, 10:12

What was it about the most difficult and the most unpleasant that made you feel that way about them, Beagle?

Final 3 Greens

20th May 2002, 18:29

Slim_slag

True when computer working, not so when computer freezes!

:D :D :D :D

BEagle

20th May 2002, 19:57

Buccaneer was very unpleasant at low speed (anything below 300KIAS). Had considerable adverse yaw, low control forces with little natural feedback. To change from cruise flight regime to final approach went something like: Idle power, 100% airbrake. At 300KIAS, change hands and pull lever to put ailerons into low-gear mode, switch 3 autostabs to low speed, change hands again. Then, at 280?KIAS, select 15-10-10. That's 15 deg of mainplane flap, 10 deg of aileron droop and 10 deg of tailplane flap - all of which must move together and stop together; this is checked on 'cheese' gauges. Then at 230?KIAS, select u/c down and do the rest of the pre-landing checks from memory. I think that at this stage airbrake went to 75%. Then, at 225?KIAS, select 30-20-20 and check the cheeses again to ensure that everything is moving together and stops together, plus the blow gauges of which 2 were on the glareshield, the other somewhere down by your left elbow. Then at 200?KIAS select 45-25-25, check cheeses and blow again (different pressures this time) and decelerate to achieve 'datum' (Vat) plus 10 kts. Start the final turn and ensure that the AoA, IAS, balance and thrust are all OK - there is no interconnection between rudder and aileron to assist the highly marginal lateral stability; decelerate to datum+5 half-way round. At this stage the ac is very unstable in all planes and must be flown very carefully indeed. Throttling back too much will cause rapid sink, excessive AoA and is extremely dangerous. Finally, once the brute is on final approach on the correct glidepath, select 100% airbrake and reduce to datum speed keeping the AoA audio in the 'steady+ low' range and the engines above 86% HP RPM... That's what I call difficult!!

Jetstream T1 - everything about this piece of junk is totally unsatisfactory. After a seemingly endless pre-flight checklist, unnecessarily complicated engine starting of the accursed Astazous is accompanied by considerable vibration and fuss. Asymmetric thrust and/or brake is effective in taxying the thing - but is not allowed! One has to use the impossibly stiff and very poor nosewheel steering. More chanting of checklists and it is time to get the heap airborne. That isn't difficult; however, in the air the dreadful control harmony of heavy but sensitive elevators plus light and ineffective ailerons becomes apparent. Plus HMFC's heavy radios have conspired to put the CG quite a long way aft, reducing the thing's longitudinal stability. On asymmetric power it is far nicer than on symmetric power - because it only makes half the noise. On the approach you are supposed to fly it 'point and power' and to bring the 'power levers' to minimum just before touchdown. But the effect of the large propellers means that much of the wing is directly influenced by propeller slipstream. So reducing power causes loss of lift, plus probable yaw and roll as the props are unlikely to change blade angle together. Hence, if you close the power levers in the approved manner, it will lurch out of the sky and thud down heavily - elevator authority also having been lost as a result of reduced propeller slipstream. So anyone with half a brain leaves some power on during the flare and only reduces to idle about 0.5" above the runway. A really horrible b£oody aeroplane; perhaps non-RAF ones are nicer - they certainly couldn't be any nastier!

Tinstaafl

20th May 2002, 21:37

Ta Beagle.

Hmm, definitely each seems like another fine product from 'B@stards Incorporated - UK branch'!

I find it amazing that such poor ergonomics was accepted in the design.

Final 3 Greens

21st May 2002, 05:32

BEagle

Thanks for two fascinating insights.

The Bucanner must have been a real handful for a pilot returning from a demanding low level sortie.

Think I'll stick to the Pup!

:D

ETOPS773

21st May 2002, 09:57

did my PPL in C150,was great to learn in,now flying in a PA28 and cannot believe how much more relxed it is to fly..alot more spacious and i`d probably say a better aircraft to own.
However..the dear old C150 does have a certain...charm to it..the crosswind landings are so fun,and it feels like getting into a go kart,the PA28 being a mercedes.

LowNSlow

21st May 2002, 12:37

BEagle,

The old Buccaneer must have been real fun to land on a dark and stormy night with the carrier deck bouncing up and down. My hat goes off to all you chaps who had to fly those things for a day job ;) If they were so bad, why the hell did the Rn / RAF keep them for so long :confused:

BEagle

22nd May 2002, 20:04

Having told you why I thought that the Buccaneer and Jetstream were pretty unpleasant, it’s only fitting that I tell you why the lovely Hunter ‘GT6’ was my favourite ever aeroplane. Take a standard Hunter F Mk 6, remove the heavy 4 x 30mm Aden gun pack and the draggy ‘Sabrina’ link collectors, add a TACAN so at least you know where you are, then paint the whole thing in go-faster high gloss ‘raspberry ripple’ polyurethane paint and there you have it.

During 1975, I’d finished my Gnat course and had been holding awaiting a pre-Tactical Weapons Unit Hunter course. When the course started, it was a few days’ groundschool, some simulator trips and then on to the Hunter T Mk 7, otherwise known as the ‘barge’. After the compact Gnat with its central warning system, Hobson motor pitch system and OR 946 instrumentation, the ‘barge’ was a real backward step - and it seemed as big as an airliner! But after passing the simulator check and the T7 dual rides, finally the day came on 9 Dec 75 to fly a real single seat fighter for the first time! Get kitted up in goon suit and anti-‘g’ suit, then out to the aeroplane parked on ‘Hunter beach’ at Valley. Walk round, prod, poke, squint, then up the ladder and into the cockpit. ‘Fitz’, a CFS trapper visiting 4FTS keeps a fatherly eye on proceedings from the top of the ladder as I truss myself into a maze of webbing which would satisfy the most earnest bondage fetishist. Finally it’s time to lift the gangbar and turn on the batteries. First surprise - there’s no intercom sidetone. Because, of course, there’s no-one to talk to in a single-seater, stupid! Do the checks then wave finger at the groundcrew and Press the Button. The Avpin starter works as advertised and the smell of iso-propyl-nitrate fills the air. But all is well, gennies on , radio on, IFF on, power controls on. ‘Fitz’ smiles and disappears, the ladder is removed and it’s time to call for taxy clearance. Next surprise, it’s so much easier to taxy than the 'barge' and before long I’m at the holding point. Take-off clearance received, it's on to RW32 and time to go. Power up, quick stir of the controls then set top left and off we go. A brief ‘da-da-da’ from the bleed valves but initial acceleration seems much like it was in the T7. But then the extra oomph of the big Avon makes itself felt and there’s an almighty roar from somewhere behind as the IAS increases rapidly. Suddenly we’re airborne - Brakes on, gear up, flaps up, gear lights out, pressurisation master on.....then at 500ft start the right turn onto 140° to intercept the 100° radial. But we’re already passing 1000 ft and going like a train! Throttle to max continuous and adjust to 370 KIAS - except we’re already doing over 400! Pitch up, nail the speed, there’s the radial, turn left, breathe out. ATC ask whether I’m ever going to change to Approach! Oops, to Stud 2 then up the radial towards FL 200. At around 10 000 ft, remember to set 1013..... Finally catch up with the beast at FL 200 and check position. How can I be so far away from base already? Aim in a safe direction, think ‘OK - let’s see what she’ll do’ - set max continuous and M0.9-something comes up amazingly quickly. Tweak the control column back and the altimeter goes bananas - as do ATC as I’m in the upper airspace without clearance! Then settle down to some aeros and max rate turns before aiming back at Valley for a QGH to PAR. That all goes OK, so I roll and then out go to initials for a visual run-in-and-break. Overtake a couple of Gnats, call ‘initials’, then idle power, airbrake out....70-80° angle of bank and 23° flap on the break. Roll out, airbrake in, gear down - and the controls go into manual as the hydraulic pump can’t cope with both things together. So I add a bit of power and all is well. Call ‘final’, set 38° flap and pitch into the final turn. Then full flap, slow down to Vat plus 10 and another nice roller. Full power - lovely noise - another circuit and it’s time to land. Turn off, taxy in and shut down, grinning from ear to ear.

My logbook says ‘December 10 1975 Hunter F6 XF386 Self / Solo Ex RF4 0:50 First Pilot (Captain), 0:05 actual IF, QGH/PAR, 3 landings. But that hardly describes such an experience!

And what of XF386? She lived on for over 20 more years before being scrapped at Otterburn in 1996 after 40 years loyal service. A cruel death for such a lovely lady - I hope she’s up there in Hunter heaven.......

M14P

23rd May 2002, 08:03

Cool!

B*gger all relevance to this thread but still cool.

BEagle

23rd May 2002, 18:22

I found the Quickie 200 to be a very entertaining light aeroplane. I took a chum up to Trumpton International to pick up the one he'd bought some years ago - he was a RAF pilot but didn't actually have a PPL, so a so-called Quickie expert flew it back. Some weeks later, my chum asked me whether I'd like to come on a trip with him in it - would you say no? A very 'laid back' seating position and appalling rearwards view were my first impressions (the first thing I would do is to build a mirror into the inside edge of each wheel spat) - and it has a single throttle over on the far left, a central control column (remember that it's a 2-seater!), a pitch trim wheel and another odd control which sets the tiny tail stabiliser angle. He starts it up and off we go - very Quickie-ly we're up at FL60. "Ermm, are you happy with where we are?" quoth I. "Yes - look we're here. Miles clear of controlled airspace", says he. I'm just about to point out that his chart is a CAA 'Low' chart when ATC politely tell him that we're about 2 miles from Class A airspace, so he does a quick 180. 'Tis now time to enquire about the beast. It transpires that the tail stab setting control can be used to achieve a variety of attitudes which will give straight and level at the same speed....very odd! But he asks if I want a go, so I readily agree and am delighted to find the most positive and well-damped roll response of any light aeroplane I've ever flown. So much so that a barrell roll seems in order - and is easily achieved. Except that on the way down I find the only snag with the tail stab control. He's got it set for economic high-speed cruise which means that there is precious little 'up-elevator' response available. Except there aren't any elevators, just drooping flaps on the lower wing! Am suddenly reminded of the Gnat in manual - and set the beast's tail stab up so that the control column is 'load free central' - in trim with as much 'up' as 'down' available at the desired IAS! We belt round the Cotswolds at about 160 KIAS and I try a couple of totally uneventful stalls, then back to the circuit. He does the first approach having moved the tail stab so that there's enough 'up' available to flare; on the touch-and-go he's all over the runway in a series of swoops. This does not give me much confidence, but I accept the offer of a circuit with some trepidation. It flies beautifully in the circuit, but the view on final is dreadful and I'm calling power settings as there isn't a throttle on my (right hand) side of the aeroplane. "Idle, please", touchdown and discover that keeping it straight is actually dead easy if you use rudder, not aileron as he had! His use of aileron merely caused that side of the wide track undercarriage to drag and yaw to develop! I give him a few suggestions and his next landing is fine. We park and go into the club for a cup of tea. I ask him how he spells his name so that I can fill in my logbook - whereupon he announces that I'd been the Commander all along as he still doesn't have a civil licence...............

Final 3 Greens

23rd May 2002, 20:13

BEagle

Please keep the **irrelevant** postings coming.

They are fascinating.

:) Finals

BRL

23rd May 2002, 20:46

Beagle, many thanks for taking the time to write these excellent stories. They are indeed relevant to this thread.... :)

M14P. Moderator are we now....? ;)

BEagle

23rd May 2002, 21:02

OK -

There’s a photo-shoot opportunity for a whole host of aviation journos to record the 40th anniversary of a certain aeroplane. Three of us are to fly our dear old Vickers Funbuses in formation, do some air-to-air refuelling, then home for tea and medals. I’m no. 2 to another mate, we’ve got 4 journos on board but most of the others are in no. 3’s jet. The plan is for him to get airborne first and poke off to the East Coast, we’ll then follow, get set up in formation and await the plethora of pointy-jets which have been arranged - regrettably the weather is too poor for a formation departure. But then no. 1 goes tits up, so I’m now lead. We tell no. 3 to get airborne as planned, sort out the 6-ship which is due to meet him on the area, we’ll then give him some gas and settle down in cell with me leading, the fast jets joining and the journos snapping. No. 3 gets airborne, we’re taxying when we hear that no. 1 is now serviceable. So we get airborne as planned and wait to hear how no. 1 is doing. We hear that he’s airborne, so we bin our plan, no.3 goes on to the North Sea whilst we throw a 360 to fall in behind no. 1 - he’s 24 miles away at this point. There he is - ease, harden - pull as hard as is safely possible in a 40-year old ex-airliner and tuck in on his wing in close echelon right. Out to the area, form cell, take 4 Jaguars on our wing. Follow no. 1 - he’s waiting for 4 F3s whilst we sort out our Jaguars’ requirements. Then we’ve got 4 Jags on us, 2 F3s joining him 1 mile ahead and 1000ft below, another 2 F3s joining us - and where the hell is no. 3? He joins us and manoeuvres to keep the journos happy. Now there are another 2 Jags joining and a couple of GR4s are also due. They all turn up, no.3 gets his piccies but the fuel in our tankers isn’t terribly well equalised. So we pop down to join no. 1, asking for 5 tonnes of fuel. Join in echelon right, move astern then hang on for no. 3 and the journos to arrive. They’re happy, ‘clear contact centre’ is called so I make contact with all the tenderness of a returning nuclear submarine sailor greeting his girl-friend after 6 months under the ice cap! We get our gas, then it’s no.3’s turn. He does the same, we go wide echelon left on no. 1. When 3 is complete we clear him to join us and no. 1 bogs off back to base. No.3 and I now race back across to the Irish Sea, handover to Warton as there’s an EF 2000 for our journos to snap. On the area, EF mate turns up and the journos go all moist and ecstatic. Up to the top, turn south and then north again. EF is finished and after being cleared to leave, disappears upwards at an incredible rate! It doesn’t half go!! We’re on the way back now, clear of controlled airspace we descend towards base for a pairs approach - 8 Conways in close formation! But the ATIS is giving a picture of pretty poor weather, so after a bit more photography for our journos we split and come home independently. Co-pilot does a nice ILS and positive touchdown, ideal on the wet runway which we have to land upon. Taxi in, shut down and the journos are all waggy-tailed and happy - 3:45 hours flying, great fun - but nothing really out of the ordinary for the RAF tanker force.....

That’s what I did at the office today! And on Sunday I’ve got 4 days away to Africa and back!!

BRL

23rd May 2002, 21:58

StiknRuder Sorry mate but i messed up your post. I tried to insert a clever-smart-arse reply to your bit at the end, R.E. Fun police.....!! As i say, i totally bolloxed it up but managed to save the contents of the thread......Here it is without funny/crap edit..!!!!!

BEagle's story about the Quickie reminds me of a tale I heard several years ago about a certain Mr J****n of healthy cereal bar fame. I, so much, want the story to be true - however in light of the nanny forum mesage posted today I offer an alleged version!

Allegedly this sprightly pensioner found himself in the dock, after he had allegedly beaten-up Santa Pod raceway in a Stearman and gone through the timing lights in the opposite direction which allegedly caused said lights to malfunction.

He was allegedly found guilty of occassioning damage and breaching the ANO.

Allegedly the beak pronounced his verdict and told the gentleman that he would have to pay for the damage and would have to surrender his pilot's licence.

"Your Honour, I have never held a licence", said gent was allegedly heard to say in court, "but I was an RAF pilot during the last war".

standing by to be corrected or disciplined by the fun police

Stik

and my easiest to fly is a C208 Caravan and the hardest to fly well is to hand fly a Cheyenne II. The Pitts - it's honest, it does exactly what you tell it (instantaneously) until you tell it to stop (almost instantaneously)!

M14P

24th May 2002, 09:15

Er - Sorry chaps you took it all the wrong way. I really enjoy BEagles posts. I read them all in total wonderment that anybody can design such fearsome beasts and that pilots can use these tools to go to war in.

I think that the original thread was about Easy/Difficult planes and what made them so. Maybe it's time for a new thread about interesting operational points of high performance (or otherwise) aircraft?

Bye

Final 3 Greens

24th May 2002, 15:11

M14P

I have no objection if this thread mutates into your suggestion, otherwise why don't you start a new one and see what gets posted - agre its fascinating stuff!

:) F3G

Dan Winterland

24th May 2002, 18:26

The Germans designed a light aircraft before WW2 which was designed to be so easy to fly, a studednt could fly it solo on his first ever flight after a thorough briefing (It only had one seat!) I forget it's name - I think it was German for 'hummingbird'. I read an account of flying it and the theory appeared to be correct.

I used to own an Aerospatiale Rallye which was originally a Morane Saulanier design which won a French Government sponsored competition to build a safe trainer. It was a delight to fly, very easy to land in very strong crosswinds, had a landing speed of 7mph (so it seemed!) thanks to some enormous leading edge slats, had a stick - the throttle operated by the left (correct) hand and nice balance and co-ordination. And despite being very stable, it could fly reasonable aerobatics (for which it was cleared) - far nicer to turn upside down than the C150 'so called' aerobat. The Rallye was the easiest trainer I have ever flown.

WWW - I have to disagree regarding the Chipmunk. I spent three years instructing on those full time. Perhaps nice to fly and well harmonised when airborne, but the groung handling knocks it down a few notches.

And I concur with BEagle's assessment of the Jetstream. A thoroughly nasty aircraft in nearly every aspect. My mates who went on to fly the Hercules commented that the Herc would have been a good lead in trainer for the Jetstream!

BEagle

24th May 2002, 19:21

F3G - I think you're referring to the 'Zaunkoenig'?

I've also heard the comment that the C130 would make an excellent lead-in trainer for the wretched Wetdream T1 from ETPS assessors!

Final 3 Greens

24th May 2002, 21:20

BEagle

I can't claim credit for mentioning the Zaunkoenig (Wren I believe), which goes to Dan Winterland, but here is the link to a rather sparse site about this interesting aeroplane, which is sadly recorded as "de-registered" on the CAA G-INFO site.

http://www.lightaircraft.net/zaunkoenig.htm

Loved your "my day at the office."

What did I do today at the office today? We let's just say it wasn't in the same enjoyment league, although I did get to have lunch with a gorgeous young lady!

;)

Cusco

24th May 2002, 22:47

I remember the Zaunkoenig flying out of Marshalls airport in Cambridge , to where ,as a spotty kid I used to cycle miles to buy a pint of clear dope in a lemonade bottle for sixpence to stick on my model aeroplanes.

There used to be a grass bit at Marshalls where anyone could admire the a/c without security probs.

I think I took a pic of it on my Kodak brownie but no longer have any of my schoolboy pics.

Queer looking a/c: used to take off at walking pace and fly at a snails pace.

Must've been 1958 ish IIRC.

andrewc

25th May 2002, 00:28

I've had my Cirrus SR-22 since the beginning of the year,
having learnt mainly on PA-28 with some C172 & TB-10.

You have to accept the fact that I'm in love with the aircraft
but it genuinely is easy to fly...

It lands a trifle fast versus other light singles @75-80 knots
but with full flap doesn't tend to balloon and is easy to put
on the numbers without bouncing.

Taking off its a real pocket rocket with best climb of
1500-2000fpm, have to watch out for overhead join
traffic coming across the numbers at 1000' as thats
exactly where it will be climbing through.

It will happily carry four people and bags 800nm at 180
knots to land in a 400m grass strip at the far end. Essentially
you get the flight characteristics of a light twin with the
running costs of a fixed-gear single.

The avionics, Arnav display, Garmin 430x2, Digital HSI,
Stormscope, Skywatch and autopilot give the pilot exceptional
situational awareness and control combined with an excellent
view of the outside world.

Ignoring all of the electronics - which do make life easier - the
plane is very easy to fly. The side stick taking all of five minutes
to get used to from joystick/yoke set-ups. Fuel-injection means
no carb heat, single-lever power control means no seperate
prop pitch & power. Fixed gear means no chance of forgetting
to get 3 greens...

All in all an easier aircraft.

-- Andrew

BEagle

25th May 2002, 06:42

Regrettably 'kids of today' probably wouldn't be allowed to buy clear dope - or balsa cement - or to use a balsa knife either, for that matter. They'd probably be suspected of sniffing the former and using the latter on eachother. But how many would actually cycle miles to buy something for their creative hobby in any case.....mumble, dribble, 'b£oody kids', mumble.......

Cirrus SR-22 is indeed very impressive - and so much more efficient and better finished then 'traditional' spam cans.

It seems that the Zaunkoeing was a most interesting research aeroplane; there was a DH 53 'Hummingbird', I believe, but I'm not sure which German design was being referred to.

Wee Weasley Welshman

25th May 2002, 08:38

Dan - must admit I was thinking purely about an airborne assessment.

BEagle - compelling posts old chap, any more?

WWW

Final 3 Greens

25th May 2002, 17:52

BEagle

My seven year old son is currently working on a F6F balsa model, complete with dope and cement.

We'll see how easy it is to fly in due course! :D

BEagle

25th May 2002, 19:26

F3G - very glad to hear that he's still able to have such fun! Model shops are few and far between and the fun detectors have almost stopped youngsters doing anything as dangerous as building and flying model aeroplanes!

Ahhh - many an hour spent freezing to death trying to get an AM 10 powered C/L aeroplane to fly.....the smell of dope, balsa cement and of course Keil Kraft diesel fuel was a heady cocktail when we couldn't afford anything bigger to fly!

Chimbu chuckles

11th Jun 2002, 10:25

Got pointed here from another thread and have enjoyed reading all the posts enormously...especially Beagles.

FWIW a few comments;

Nothing is easy to fly until you either know how or have sufficient experience of similar machines to be able to 'wing it'.

My first experience of a Tiger Moth was a 'just get in it and bugg'r off affair'...but I had many hours in all sorts of Taildraggers and it was a doddle...on grass with calm winds...a little scarier years later when I was forced to taxi one on tarmac and couldn't do it without a 'wing walker'.

I used to think the C185 was the hardest TW aircraft I had ever flown. This was once again a case of "there it is...you've flown a Pitts...go and teach yourself to fly it!" It took a little while(about 5 hours of shear terror) but I 'mastered' the old girl....I thought:(

This was in the PNG Highlands, my TT was 350hrs, I then had to learn to fly her in and out of short, steep, often muddy/wet, one way, curved strips at really high density altitudes (often over 10000') with tailwinds/windsheer and elevated thresholds..i.e. you went from 2000agl to touchdown on a 17% sloping strip with a tailwind causing a balloon just as you started to round out, no possibility of a go around from a mile+ out on finals and nothing in front of you but a huge mountain or ridgeline(no natural horizon)..all in a few seconds...and then you ruddered her around the corner of this 400 meter long, 20 meter wide strip at 20 to 30 knots!!!

12 or 15 times a day!!

I have many hours these days in 185s and while not easy to fly they are not hard either...what we did with them was hard!!!

10000 hours later I have extensive command experience in about 10 different piston twins, 3 different turbine twins + a four engine turbine prop aircraft, 4 different jets and a plethera of single engine aircraft with the little wheel at the back or front.

And in NOT 1 case was the frst couple of hours easy...the only difference is how long before it becomes easier...and then second nature.

I enjoyed an interesting experience recently at AA2002. A ride in the Eurofighter sim under the tutelage of the Bae Test Pilot in charge of that aircrafts progress...having a mental blank on the chaps name but a truer gentleman you'd be hard pressed meeting!

Having sat me in it, pointed out a few things, speeds etc, he put me on the runway at Valley and said "GO".

Both throttles forward into reheat, accel to the speed he had mentioned, rotate gently, snap the gear up, pitch nose up about 30 degrees and complete a climbing roll...pitch over and accel to M1.2 and run along the coast towards the hills at 50'...up into the hills for a stack of classic 'up one side, roll inverted, down the other side, roll rightway up again' for about 20 minutes...back to Valley, with general aeros enroute, for a landing that was reasonable...given that he didn't warn me about the beasts control law which pitchs the nose up a little in the flare for you..until it was a tad late...which meant a little float and a firm touchdown.

I was stunned with how 'easy' it was to fly in general terms...I don't mean how easy it would be to 'fight' the aircraft but just to zoom around in. All you have to do is lower the gear and fly the Hud speed vector with thrust/attitude...the flaps etc are automatic. Lots of aeros over the years helped too!

In chatting to him afterwards he stated that the aircraft has been designed so 'any PPL' could fly it. That may be understating it a little but anyone with enough jet time to be used to thinking at those speeds would find it the easiest aircraft to fly that the have ever stepped into!!!.

When I bought it to a halt it even set the park brake for me as the EFIS screens changed mode and prompted the securing of the aircraft (about 5 items) prior to joining the chaps in the mess for beer call!!!

BEAGLES...I'm a 40 year old Corporate C&T Captain....BUT WHO DO I HAVE TO KILL TO FLY THE REAL THING:D

Chuck.