Cessna 162 Skycatcher Crashes
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX
No, they don't PLAN to lose one but they sure do want to find out if the design has any rattlesnakes lurking in it. Most people who are bitten by one don't see it before they step on it.
So whilst they try to design them out prior, they push all parts of the envelope to see what may lurk there, occasionally and it seems so in this case they do.
If they can't design out whatever it was, then they will "fix" it, using one of the many "fixes" out of the "fix" tool box. A quiet walk around a ramp full of aircraft from 2 seat trainers to exec jets with someone who knows both what he's talking about and what to look for, can be very instructive.
Having built probably 70% of the commercial aircraft now flying I suspect they know a thing or two about how to design an aircraft that granny can fly up to and including the Columbus.
Believe it or not I have heard more pilots??
than I care to, tell me that in any event most Cessna's aren't "real" aircraft because they are so, in relative terms, idiot proof. Go figure.
Seems to me the regulators need to make provision for the pilot? who insists on showing the world that he can do the equivalent of defusing an IED whilst standing on one leg in a hammock.
PS: Oh and BTW the Cessna 303 Crusader is the closest any piston manufacturer has ever got to the pilot proof piston twin. Short of an exhibition of superior dumbosity all of the things that would normally kill you in a piston twin were designed out.
The aircraft was stillborn in the great late 80's liability fiasco.
No, they don't PLAN to lose one but they sure do want to find out if the design has any rattlesnakes lurking in it. Most people who are bitten by one don't see it before they step on it.
So whilst they try to design them out prior, they push all parts of the envelope to see what may lurk there, occasionally and it seems so in this case they do.
If they can't design out whatever it was, then they will "fix" it, using one of the many "fixes" out of the "fix" tool box. A quiet walk around a ramp full of aircraft from 2 seat trainers to exec jets with someone who knows both what he's talking about and what to look for, can be very instructive.
Having built probably 70% of the commercial aircraft now flying I suspect they know a thing or two about how to design an aircraft that granny can fly up to and including the Columbus.
Believe it or not I have heard more pilots??
than I care to, tell me that in any event most Cessna's aren't "real" aircraft because they are so, in relative terms, idiot proof. Go figure.Seems to me the regulators need to make provision for the pilot? who insists on showing the world that he can do the equivalent of defusing an IED whilst standing on one leg in a hammock.
PS: Oh and BTW the Cessna 303 Crusader is the closest any piston manufacturer has ever got to the pilot proof piston twin. Short of an exhibition of superior dumbosity all of the things that would normally kill you in a piston twin were designed out.
The aircraft was stillborn in the great late 80's liability fiasco.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spin testing
The PAC 750 test aircraft in NZ had two large water drums and an electric pump fitted in the fuselage,so they could vary the C of G in flight. They told me they had spun it more than 100 times during the testing.
In the days before concorde, the english were researching delta wings etc, and they built a small jet powered delta wing research aircraft to gather data. They actually built three of them. Each one crashed and killed it's pilot.
The project was considered a sucess!!!!
The idiot proof aircraft has not yet been built.
And the bull**** proof pilot has not arrived yet either.
In the days before concorde, the english were researching delta wings etc, and they built a small jet powered delta wing research aircraft to gather data. They actually built three of them. Each one crashed and killed it's pilot.
The project was considered a sucess!!!!
The idiot proof aircraft has not yet been built.
And the bull**** proof pilot has not arrived yet either.
What a pearler!
Moderator
bushy
I don't think that is correct. At least one Avro 707 ended up in Australia, Melbourne I think from memory? Recent photos of the two remaining Avro 707s are on Airlines Net.
In the days before concorde, the english were researching delta wings etc, and they built a small jet powered delta wing research aircraft to gather data. They actually built three of them. Each one crashed and killed it's pilot.
The project was considered a sucess!!!!
The project was considered a sucess!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
"Believe it or not I have heard more pilots?? than I care to, tell me that in any event most Cessna's aren't "real" aircraft because they are so, in relative terms, idiot proof. Go figure."
That would explain why you like them so much Gaunty
Happy Birthday from a few days ago too.
than I care to, tell me that in any event most Cessna's aren't "real" aircraft because they are so, in relative terms, idiot proof. Go figure."That would explain why you like them so much Gaunty
Happy Birthday from a few days ago too.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwheel
As usual you have lots of interesting facts. And you can certainly see where the Vulcan came from when you look at those pictures.
But there was another one and they did all crash and kill their pilots. There are none left to go in a museum.
History remembers what society wants it to remember.
But there was another one and they did all crash and kill their pilots. There are none left to go in a museum.
History remembers what society wants it to remember.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
XXX
Had you been looking for this video link to post along with your earlier post about J160's?
YouTube - Teste Jabiru / Jabiru Test
Had you been looking for this video link to post along with your earlier post about J160's?
YouTube - Teste Jabiru / Jabiru Test
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: No. Cal, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was also my understanding, that it exiteded the spin itself only to be watched by the parachuting pilot above or below.
Reminds me many moons ago teaching a CPL student spin recovery in a C150 Aerobat, the one with the smaller tail. After climbing to 5000 ft and entering a spin the bloody thing didn’t want to come out of it. We were both near six feet tall requiring the seats to be in the aft position but still within CG limits. Upon realising our situation we both lent forward and the thing snapped out, 1000 feet below the hard deck. I was very wary of that bloody aircraft after that.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
Can't remember their names but there was a school in the US teaching spin recovery techniques.
The theory was "recovery" is more likely to be exacerbated by ham fisted pushing and shoving than resolved.
Answer, just let go and it will, if it is within C of G, recover all on its own within a turn or so.
I tried it and it worked every time.
It was widely reported and written up in "Flying" and made a lot of common sense.
Can't remember their names but there was a school in the US teaching spin recovery techniques.
The theory was "recovery" is more likely to be exacerbated by ham fisted pushing and shoving than resolved.
Answer, just let go and it will, if it is within C of G, recover all on its own within a turn or so.
I tried it and it worked every time.
It was widely reported and written up in "Flying" and made a lot of common sense.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skycatcher,
The Mueller-Beggs spin recovery method gets a mention in CAAP 155-1(0) Aerobatics. It does however have a number of disclaimers including the fact that it will not work in many types of aircraft.
7.24.5 The procedure is mentioned in this CAAP for information purposes. It is NOT being recommended as a spin recovery procedure. However it may possibly be useful if a pilot becomes disoriented.
Mueller-Beggs Spin Recovery:
• Close throttle;
• Let go of the control column;
• Full rudder opposite to rotation (yaw);
• When rotation stops - centralise rudder;
• Re-grasp control column, roll wings level and recover to level flight.
The Mueller-Beggs spin recovery method gets a mention in CAAP 155-1(0) Aerobatics. It does however have a number of disclaimers including the fact that it will not work in many types of aircraft.
7.24.5 The procedure is mentioned in this CAAP for information purposes. It is NOT being recommended as a spin recovery procedure. However it may possibly be useful if a pilot becomes disoriented.
Mueller-Beggs Spin Recovery:
• Close throttle;
• Let go of the control column;
• Full rudder opposite to rotation (yaw);
• When rotation stops - centralise rudder;
• Re-grasp control column, roll wings level and recover to level flight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from Cessna is that it entered an un-recoverable spin and it was the non-conforming prototype model.
Perhaps some changes were made. The aircraft was found pretty much in-tact where it "crashed."
Witnesses allegedly saw sparks coming from the aircraft as it descended.
Perhaps some changes were made. The aircraft was found pretty much in-tact where it "crashed."
Witnesses allegedly saw sparks coming from the aircraft as it descended.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it was a "Not so hard deck" or a "Mushy deck" 
I remember two incidents I have had with spinning aircraft that had me with very big eyes.
I was aerobatting (well, as far as you can) a 152 Scareobat once and was in the process of recovering from a spin. It wouldn't stop rotating regardless of how much rudder I applied, and it seemed I didn't have full travel of the rudder in one direction (the direction I required). I ended up breaking the stall and spiraling out.
When I landed (after changing my undies) I had a poke about down the tail end to see if I could find anything obviously amiss. I found a Biro poking out of the tail cone, aligning itself with the side of the rudder and basically making an effective stopper. I stomped on that rudder peddle pretty hard and managed to dent the rudder, but it wasn't enough to get it into a position to stop the rotation.
Second incident was a Robin R2160. Fuel tank behind where you sit. flicked and flopped around fine until it was time to return. Using a pretty aggressive stall spin to loose height, it wound up a bit faster and a little higher in the nose than I was used to seeing. when I tried to recover, I stopped it rotating, but it took several more turns than normal, but stayed stalled. very flat and scary when I had full down elevator in. after a bit of rocking back and forth with the elevator, it eventually went nose down so hard I whacked my bean on the canopy. scared the ****e out of me and the pax.
Turns out there was a bit more fuel in the tank than was recommended for spinning. fuel moves to the back of the tank while rotating and moved the already marginal CoG to the rear...... and scaring the crap outta the pilot.
I learned all about reading the POH from that.
I remember two incidents I have had with spinning aircraft that had me with very big eyes.
I was aerobatting (well, as far as you can) a 152 Scareobat once and was in the process of recovering from a spin. It wouldn't stop rotating regardless of how much rudder I applied, and it seemed I didn't have full travel of the rudder in one direction (the direction I required). I ended up breaking the stall and spiraling out.
When I landed (after changing my undies) I had a poke about down the tail end to see if I could find anything obviously amiss. I found a Biro poking out of the tail cone, aligning itself with the side of the rudder and basically making an effective stopper. I stomped on that rudder peddle pretty hard and managed to dent the rudder, but it wasn't enough to get it into a position to stop the rotation.
Second incident was a Robin R2160. Fuel tank behind where you sit. flicked and flopped around fine until it was time to return. Using a pretty aggressive stall spin to loose height, it wound up a bit faster and a little higher in the nose than I was used to seeing. when I tried to recover, I stopped it rotating, but it took several more turns than normal, but stayed stalled. very flat and scary when I had full down elevator in. after a bit of rocking back and forth with the elevator, it eventually went nose down so hard I whacked my bean on the canopy. scared the ****e out of me and the pax.
Turns out there was a bit more fuel in the tank than was recommended for spinning. fuel moves to the back of the tank while rotating and moved the already marginal CoG to the rear...... and scaring the crap outta the pilot.
I learned all about reading the POH from that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTDK, if you watched Top Gun you'd realise that the hard-deck is a theoretical lower limit of a sequence of, in this case aerobatics. If they were operating at 5,000ft the hard deck might be 3,000ft. A sensible way to operate. My hard deck is 50ft agl.