Eagle Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: oz
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eagle Aircraft
Would like to hear from fellow instructors who instruct on the Eagle 150 acft. What do find the biggest problems are in terms of teaching. I myself have done a fair bit of flying in them and interested in knowing what other people think of this very interesting acft. . .One of the main problems I have found is the lack of stall action. I guess this cant be a bad thing I suppose.
Safety First!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... until the student jumps into another aircraft type that actually stalls or wingdrops violently. . .. .Sorry, haven't flown the Eagle 150, having only had the opportunity to fly the Katana. Would be interesting to compare the two though!. .. .Kermie
They are too small for people my size! (6' 4") I find that my elbow is jammed against the rear bulkhead, and I have to grip the top of the stick instead of holding it around the centre, as I can't get my right arm far enough back. Interesting little plane though.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To start I have to confess I have not flown the Eagle but have studied the type up close and having flown in excess of 75 aircraft makes/models and therefore feel I can make constructive comment.
The Eagle has two problems that I am aware of:
1) Given two occupants of around 80 kg each the machine can only carry a reduced fuel load. From memory the endurance goes down from four hours to about two including reserve.
OK for circuit work but not good enough for a reasonable nax ex of a few hours duration. Please, someone check the figures and comment.
2) You do not get into the machine you strap it on. The cockpit fits well but where do you put your charts, your knee board, the aircraft flight folder, the aerodrome guide and the stuff that you have to carry in your nav bag in case you need it somewhere enroute.
In short the machine is short on space to carry gear that you may need to get your hands on in flight. The luggage locker behind the heads of the pilots is not sufficient. Besides, if you added a nav bag or its typical contents you would probably be more overweight.
For Eagle flyers who love the type let me pose this to you.
If the type is so good for training why is it that so few have been sold over the years that the machine has been in production?
Could the above be part or the whole of the problem?
Is it the lack of production that has prompted the Malaysian owners to move production from Australia to Malaysia or is it simply that that was what they always intended to do so that they can be part of a Government promoted expanding aviation
industry with increased local development of high tech skills?
I like the look of the Eagle and the fact that it has a fuel injected engine. I expect to have somewhere to put my nav bag in order to carry the items that the Government and common sense demand that I have aboard. I cannot carry that gear in an Eagle but I can carry them in a PA28 Warrior and so can my student. I flew a Warrior for 3.8 hours on a nav ex today and did not have to refuel away from base. Could I do that in an Eagle? No!
The Warrior is old and I would like to fly with new hardware but for me the Eagle is not the aircraft for reasons stated. Others seem to agree.
Blue Skies.
The Eagle has two problems that I am aware of:
1) Given two occupants of around 80 kg each the machine can only carry a reduced fuel load. From memory the endurance goes down from four hours to about two including reserve.
OK for circuit work but not good enough for a reasonable nax ex of a few hours duration. Please, someone check the figures and comment.
2) You do not get into the machine you strap it on. The cockpit fits well but where do you put your charts, your knee board, the aircraft flight folder, the aerodrome guide and the stuff that you have to carry in your nav bag in case you need it somewhere enroute.
In short the machine is short on space to carry gear that you may need to get your hands on in flight. The luggage locker behind the heads of the pilots is not sufficient. Besides, if you added a nav bag or its typical contents you would probably be more overweight.
For Eagle flyers who love the type let me pose this to you.
If the type is so good for training why is it that so few have been sold over the years that the machine has been in production?
Could the above be part or the whole of the problem?
Is it the lack of production that has prompted the Malaysian owners to move production from Australia to Malaysia or is it simply that that was what they always intended to do so that they can be part of a Government promoted expanding aviation
industry with increased local development of high tech skills?
I like the look of the Eagle and the fact that it has a fuel injected engine. I expect to have somewhere to put my nav bag in order to carry the items that the Government and common sense demand that I have aboard. I cannot carry that gear in an Eagle but I can carry them in a PA28 Warrior and so can my student. I flew a Warrior for 3.8 hours on a nav ex today and did not have to refuel away from base. Could I do that in an Eagle? No!
The Warrior is old and I would like to fly with new hardware but for me the Eagle is not the aircraft for reasons stated. Others seem to agree.
Blue Skies.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Eagle is a 'sports' airplane - pretending to be a trainer.
Do the sums - two average people and not a hell of a lot of endurance.
I also recall a couple breaking nose gear. For comments, call the Royal Aero Club in Brisbane. I recall they had a few on lease from the factory and handed them back.
Having said that, it's one of only a few new types about. So maybe that makes it better than droning around in an old 14,000 hour C172.
Do the sums - two average people and not a hell of a lot of endurance.
I also recall a couple breaking nose gear. For comments, call the Royal Aero Club in Brisbane. I recall they had a few on lease from the factory and handed them back.
Having said that, it's one of only a few new types about. So maybe that makes it better than droning around in an old 14,000 hour C172.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want a new aircraft but with old-fashioned characteristics (stalling and endurance for example) I recommend the new C172's. We fly them with airline cadets and have no complaints at all.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Asia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Eagle Aircraft
Lack of stall action???
Not this aircraft! A friend of mine was killed in an Eagle 150 a couple of years ago because he stalled on base. He had about 800 hrs and had done about 50 in the Eagle 150.
Read this, it's the ATSB report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=119
Never flown it myself but as far as I've heard, it doesn't stall easily, but when it does it does into a very deep stall. He had a wing drop it seems and recovered before it dropped and spun the opposite direction before going in to the ground. A tragic day for all who knew him, we miss him greatly.
I agree about the new C172Rs. They are good as initial trainers and with quite comfortable handling characteristics. They also have a ridiculously low stall speed 33kts (flap) 44kts (clean) which means you can fly it all the way to the ground with full & positive elevator control through the low speed range (does not get sloppy when slow). Haven't flown it for a couple of years, but have good memories.
Good luck in your search for a good training aircraft, just be careful if you choose the Eagle, it is not as docile as you think.
Not this aircraft! A friend of mine was killed in an Eagle 150 a couple of years ago because he stalled on base. He had about 800 hrs and had done about 50 in the Eagle 150.
Read this, it's the ATSB report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=119
Never flown it myself but as far as I've heard, it doesn't stall easily, but when it does it does into a very deep stall. He had a wing drop it seems and recovered before it dropped and spun the opposite direction before going in to the ground. A tragic day for all who knew him, we miss him greatly.
I agree about the new C172Rs. They are good as initial trainers and with quite comfortable handling characteristics. They also have a ridiculously low stall speed 33kts (flap) 44kts (clean) which means you can fly it all the way to the ground with full & positive elevator control through the low speed range (does not get sloppy when slow). Haven't flown it for a couple of years, but have good memories.
Good luck in your search for a good training aircraft, just be careful if you choose the Eagle, it is not as docile as you think.
Last edited by No Cigar; 18th Apr 2002 at 09:57.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see most of the comments about the eagle are from those who have never flown them!
I have more than a few hrs on them and find them to be an excellent aircraft. Yes it is not a great aircraft for Nav ex, however do not see to many 152's out over the hills.
As far as handling I have found the general stall charecteristics to be fairly docile, but with any aircraft depending on what configuration you place it in, is what will follow the stall.
For those detractors I suggest a flight in one and then pass judgement.
I have more than a few hrs on them and find them to be an excellent aircraft. Yes it is not a great aircraft for Nav ex, however do not see to many 152's out over the hills.
As far as handling I have found the general stall charecteristics to be fairly docile, but with any aircraft depending on what configuration you place it in, is what will follow the stall.
For those detractors I suggest a flight in one and then pass judgement.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Eagle Aircraft
Speaking of these aircraft, did someone say that production has moved to Malaysia? They were building them in Perth, Western Australia. Anyway I have a number of hours in these things and I would agree they are very difficult to do a Nav excercise especially dual, but for ab-initio the thing to remember is the student does'nt know any better, and it is no harder than any other type for them, also it teaches finnesse in flying, but if they convert to a C172 or similar suddenly it feels like they are flying a truck!
I've got about 20 hours or so on type on the Eagle and I first flew the aircraft when I had about 70 odd hours. I found it quite a challenge to fly well, very hard to land but a lot of fun. Not a good trainer at all, very limited on range and space, also have the problem of having throttle in left hand, right hand on stick, very hard to do 'normal' cockpit duties without letting go of the stick.
It was very difficult to start, starters made metal in the examples I flew which meant early overhauls on the engines, engines also had other problems, I had one fail completely on base leg, FCU shut down on it, water leaked into avionics and both examples I flew with 1000 odd hours had surface cracks in several areas around the main gear.
Flying in my endorsement in a turning stall it whipped us inverted very quickly which suprised the instucter as well as myself! It had the gliding ability of a brick going down at about 800-1000fpm at best glide. Other 'weird' thing was the rudder pedels, you push initally for rudder, then harder for brakes, quite hard to get used to especially with the castoring nosewheel.
Other than all that....it was GREAT fun to fly, roll rate was very impressive, at even at MTOW it climbed at well above 1000fpm, 115-120kts cruise was more than possible, lovely sports aircraft but honestly probably a little too difficult an aircraft to use as an initial trainer, experienced instructers admitted that they found it the most challenging aircraft to land even after flying aircraft like 210s/Barons/Navajo's....
I've also flown about 20 hours on the new 172R model, I quite like it but find it VERY gutless in comparison to old 172M/N/P models, and downright scary at times at weights around MTOW. In the climb the one I fly anyway runs out of 'go' at about 5000 feet anywhere near MTOW, seems to have a very coarse prop, you only get 22-2300 rpm on takeoff....of course gets some extra speed in the cruise....avionics etc in it are just great though, but this of course effects your useful load.
It was very difficult to start, starters made metal in the examples I flew which meant early overhauls on the engines, engines also had other problems, I had one fail completely on base leg, FCU shut down on it, water leaked into avionics and both examples I flew with 1000 odd hours had surface cracks in several areas around the main gear.
Flying in my endorsement in a turning stall it whipped us inverted very quickly which suprised the instucter as well as myself! It had the gliding ability of a brick going down at about 800-1000fpm at best glide. Other 'weird' thing was the rudder pedels, you push initally for rudder, then harder for brakes, quite hard to get used to especially with the castoring nosewheel.
Other than all that....it was GREAT fun to fly, roll rate was very impressive, at even at MTOW it climbed at well above 1000fpm, 115-120kts cruise was more than possible, lovely sports aircraft but honestly probably a little too difficult an aircraft to use as an initial trainer, experienced instructers admitted that they found it the most challenging aircraft to land even after flying aircraft like 210s/Barons/Navajo's....
I've also flown about 20 hours on the new 172R model, I quite like it but find it VERY gutless in comparison to old 172M/N/P models, and downright scary at times at weights around MTOW. In the climb the one I fly anyway runs out of 'go' at about 5000 feet anywhere near MTOW, seems to have a very coarse prop, you only get 22-2300 rpm on takeoff....of course gets some extra speed in the cruise....avionics etc in it are just great though, but this of course effects your useful load.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth....ish
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown the eagle since they were first delivered to the school off the production line, however I am not a high time pilot.
I have to say that all aircraft, not only the Eagle, have their +v and -ve features, and as such you choose your aircraft according to your flight/mission.
We use the Eagle as a trainer to GFPT std, however if the student struggles to keep up with the aircraft and has problems thinking ahead then we suggest that they maybe change to training in a Cessna.
Its all very nice training in a modern, fast aircraft but its pretty pointless if your struggling to learn.
The student will then fly the C172 for nav flights to complete their PPL
Ok, so the Eagle isn't best suited for Nav's, but then I don't know any schools around that promote it as such, as mentioned earlier you don't see C152's chsrging off over the scarp on a 3hr nav
As far as landing it goes I have never had a problem, and can usually grease her on ok, but she can float if you come in a little hot but don't they all??
We have found them to be expensive on the maint. side of things, they're about 5 yrs old now, and you can go through tyres with students bald patching them by landing with brakes on.
They are a very hot aircraft to fly in summer and you'll burn a bald noggin without a hat!
Overall they are great fun to fly, with good performance and good alround visability. Although they were first marketed as a Trainer/Tourer type aircraft the latter was dropped for reasons noted by others such as range and space in cockpit. So they are primarily a primary trainer like the 152.
I understand that they were at one point looking at making a 4 place Eagle but I don't think it ever got off the drawing board.
Cheers,
P.O.M
I have to say that all aircraft, not only the Eagle, have their +v and -ve features, and as such you choose your aircraft according to your flight/mission.
We use the Eagle as a trainer to GFPT std, however if the student struggles to keep up with the aircraft and has problems thinking ahead then we suggest that they maybe change to training in a Cessna.
Its all very nice training in a modern, fast aircraft but its pretty pointless if your struggling to learn.
The student will then fly the C172 for nav flights to complete their PPL
Ok, so the Eagle isn't best suited for Nav's, but then I don't know any schools around that promote it as such, as mentioned earlier you don't see C152's chsrging off over the scarp on a 3hr nav
As far as landing it goes I have never had a problem, and can usually grease her on ok, but she can float if you come in a little hot but don't they all??
We have found them to be expensive on the maint. side of things, they're about 5 yrs old now, and you can go through tyres with students bald patching them by landing with brakes on.
They are a very hot aircraft to fly in summer and you'll burn a bald noggin without a hat!
Overall they are great fun to fly, with good performance and good alround visability. Although they were first marketed as a Trainer/Tourer type aircraft the latter was dropped for reasons noted by others such as range and space in cockpit. So they are primarily a primary trainer like the 152.
I understand that they were at one point looking at making a 4 place Eagle but I don't think it ever got off the drawing board.
Cheers,
P.O.M
While the Eagle is pleasant to fly, I had several criticisms:
Because the pilot lays back at an angle in the cockpit (like a deck-chair) I found it difficult to twist around and look over my shoulder for other aircraft. The bubble canopy made for a real sweat box in the sun.
Secondly I thought the brake/rudder system was lousy, with almost no "feel" in the braking system. Much of the time taxying seems to be spent dragging the brakes inadvertently. Cross-wind landings needed watching as crossed controls meant that brake was applied at touch-down whether you meant to or not.
Also in the climb and in level flight, the nose angle is rather high exacerbated by the high position of the instrument panel. This restricts the view over the nose and I had to keep on tipping my head back to see where I was going and who was in front.
The upright seating view in the Cessna is adequate (apart from the high wing problem)and the brake use is conventional. For all these reasons I tended therefore to encourage students to learn to fly on the Cessna rather than the Eagle 150.
Because the pilot lays back at an angle in the cockpit (like a deck-chair) I found it difficult to twist around and look over my shoulder for other aircraft. The bubble canopy made for a real sweat box in the sun.
Secondly I thought the brake/rudder system was lousy, with almost no "feel" in the braking system. Much of the time taxying seems to be spent dragging the brakes inadvertently. Cross-wind landings needed watching as crossed controls meant that brake was applied at touch-down whether you meant to or not.
Also in the climb and in level flight, the nose angle is rather high exacerbated by the high position of the instrument panel. This restricts the view over the nose and I had to keep on tipping my head back to see where I was going and who was in front.
The upright seating view in the Cessna is adequate (apart from the high wing problem)and the brake use is conventional. For all these reasons I tended therefore to encourage students to learn to fly on the Cessna rather than the Eagle 150.
