We can all learn from that!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
I operate a spam can out of a grass strip that is very short and narrow. Weight and balance are critical as is flying the numbers and correct short field technique. But somedays when it is hot and humd it makes my bum clench!!!
There is no reason why a spam can can't be flow out of most farm strips it just takes some thinking and solid pilot skills.
There is no reason why a spam can can't be flow out of most farm strips it just takes some thinking and solid pilot skills.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I was taught, and tested on, takeoff and landing calculations. I have also had to work them out once or twice as part of the check-out process before renting various new types. But really I never bother with such matters in 'real life', for essentially the same reasons that MikeeB lists.
I do think that anyone contemplating landing or taking off from a new-to-them short and/or rough strip should do the calculations ... and triple check them ... and if possible speak to someone familiar with the strip. Best of all, eschew PA28s and other nosewheel airplanes (fine aircraft for touring, but not for this sort of thing: horses for courses).
I do think that anyone contemplating landing or taking off from a new-to-them short and/or rough strip should do the calculations ... and triple check them ... and if possible speak to someone familiar with the strip. Best of all, eschew PA28s and other nosewheel airplanes (fine aircraft for touring, but not for this sort of thing: horses for courses).
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
There is no reason why a spam can can't be flow out of most farm strips it just takes some thinking and solid pilot skills.
Thanks,
- Michael
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
From: SX in SX in UK
'Spam can' is a generic term for C150/PA28, in fact most all-metal light aircraft are rudely called 'spam-cans' .
Its a bit harsh really, but take comfort that the P-51 Mustang was originally called 'The Spam Can' and thats an aircraft most prooners would dearly like a trip in.
Its a bit harsh really, but take comfort that the P-51 Mustang was originally called 'The Spam Can' and thats an aircraft most prooners would dearly like a trip in.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
'Spam can' is a generic term for C150/PA28, in fact most all-metal light aircraft are rudely called 'spam-cans'
So there must a hierarchy involved, what's the generally accepted pecking-order for GA aircraft then?
- Michael
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
"Spam Can" tends to be used of the mass market American aircraft such as C150 to 172 and PA 28, particularly by arrogant gits such as me who fly things made out of wood. The term is more or less derogatory, but can be used affectionately, as in "G-SPAM is only a spamcan, but we love it". It's not just about being made of metal, as people would not tend to call Socatas, Cirruses (Cirrii?), Pups, Rallyes, Kolibers, and so forth, spam cans.
The heirarchy is as with cars, and goes as follows:-
(1) Whatever you fly yourself is great.
(2) Whatever other people fly, if not the same as (1), is a POS.
Does this help?
The heirarchy is as with cars, and goes as follows:-
(1) Whatever you fly yourself is great.
(2) Whatever other people fly, if not the same as (1), is a POS.
Does this help?
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
what's the generally accepted pecking-order for GA aircraft?
You've opened a can of worms there! I think that it's fair to say that "there are many opinions, but no definitive answer".
Many pilots would tell you that high performance singles like Bonanzas and Mooneys are at the top of the heap ... and indeed that's probably true, if IFR stuff is your game (although even such relatively sophisticated airplanes are trumped by cabin-class twins and Piper's Meridian). Others would say that nosedragger airplanes are for sissys, and that 'real pilots' fly tailwheel bushplanes (C185, PA-18, DHC-2, FBA-2C1, etc.). On the other hand, you'd get a lot of votes for aerobatic airplanes (Pitts, Extra, etc.), or floatplanes.
Generally speaking, the more expensive and more difficult to fly a 'plane is, the more status it has ... but even that rule of thumb is subject to exceptions, e.g. the reverse snob appeal of a pristine J-3 Cub or a vintage Ercoupe.
Most people would agree that common, easy-fly airplanes like the C-172 and PA28 are at the bottom of the status scale ... but if pushed, those same pilots would grudgingly admit that most of their experience is in those same airplanes, and that they are economic,efficient aircraft for most practical purposes (training, $100 hamburgers, medium-distance touring, etc.).
I throw out for consideration the following two propositions that I have found to be true, in my own limited experience:
(1) no matter how fast/expensive/fancy/etc. an airplane is, it's always possible to find one that is 'better';
(2) in their own way, virtually all aircraft are enjoyable to fly.
MLS-12D
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
You've opened a can of worms there!
I learn in a spam-can C150, but hopefully once I've got my licence I can branch out into more interesting types. Personally, I'd love to learn to fly a Pitts biplane as I've always thought they looked fantastic, but from what everyone says they are a real handful in the circuit.
- Michael
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I'd love to learn to fly a Pitts biplane as I've always thought they looked fantastic, but from what everyone says they are a real handful in the circuit.
I believe that there are very, very few aircraft that can't be mastered by a private pilot of average skill, assuming a reasonable level of dedication and quality instruction. Personally, I'm (still) learning to fly the Harvard. Is it a challenge? Sure. Absolutely. Will I eventually fly it with confidence? You betcha. (Am I an ace pilot? No way!
)If you really want to learn to fly the Pitts (never done it myself), don't let your apprehension stop you from living your dream ... save your money and then make the pilgramage to fly with Budd Davisson or one of his competitors.
Northern Monkey
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: Newcastle, England
Since youre in Sheffield, if you can go up the road to Full Sutton, you can go and have a go in an S2A, its about £200 an hour, but most aeros flights are for 40 mins, so that about £130, and you can log it towards the 45 hrs required for your ppl, and towards the 2 hours of stalling and spinning you need to complete.
Im currently flying there in the firefly, trying to get sufficiently proficient to fly in the beginners aeros comp at sherburn, where both myself and MikeeB will be competing for last place.
NB
Im currently flying there in the firefly, trying to get sufficiently proficient to fly in the beginners aeros comp at sherburn, where both myself and MikeeB will be competing for last place.
NB
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Brighton, UK
And if you like the Pitts you can always look at something like the Starduster (PFA type) which apparently is less of a handful but still has the looks. Not that I am saying you wouldn't one day be capable of handling a Pitts, you understand 
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
The Starduster is, in my opinion, a bit dull. The ailerons are heavy and the roll rate is unspectacular. It does, however, have some of the charm of an open cockpit biplane and climbs quite well. The Pitts is a bit faster than most GA types on the approach, and you have to get on top of side-slipping for aircraft of this category.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
Thanks for the Pitts advice, certainly something to look forward to for the future, I would guess I need to get my PPL and then get some basic taildragger experience before having a hope with something so twitchy!
Here's a taildragger question though - at one time all aircraft were this configuration, certainly up to WW2. So everyone presumably learnt on them! It now seems to be classed as an advanced skill, I wondered if one of the main reasons was that in the "old days" airfields were just a big grass field and you could always land into the wind?
A lot of the GA fields now seem to be converted WW2 bases like Gamston and Sandtoft up here, but they only have one of the three runways working.
I've got an old flying manual from 1916 and it doesn't even mention crosswinds!
- Michael
Here's a taildragger question though - at one time all aircraft were this configuration, certainly up to WW2. So everyone presumably learnt on them! It now seems to be classed as an advanced skill, I wondered if one of the main reasons was that in the "old days" airfields were just a big grass field and you could always land into the wind?
A lot of the GA fields now seem to be converted WW2 bases like Gamston and Sandtoft up here, but they only have one of the three runways working.
I've got an old flying manual from 1916 and it doesn't even mention crosswinds!
- Michael
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
It's partly to do with changes in airfields as you say, but also partly to do with the skill of flying tailwheel aircraft becoming rare amongst instructors, so that nowadays tailwheel flying is presented as a big deal, whereas our grandads soloed Tiger Moths in three to six hours. Also, to be frank, tailwheel pilots don't really mind the generation of a faux mystique associated with flying "real" aeroplanes. Bear in mind that, as appears from another thread, some instructors seem to think that landing on grass is an arcane specialist skill.
I recommend doing your tailwheel tick on a Cub, as it's a good generic type of tailwheeler, and a delightful aeroplane.
Even better idea: do what NinjaBill did and obtain your PPL in the Cap 10 at Sherburn. Thereafter, transitioning to a Pitts ought to be no big deal.
I recommend doing your tailwheel tick on a Cub, as it's a good generic type of tailwheeler, and a delightful aeroplane.
Even better idea: do what NinjaBill did and obtain your PPL in the Cap 10 at Sherburn. Thereafter, transitioning to a Pitts ought to be no big deal.
Northern Monkey
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: Newcastle, England
When I first decided to fly the Cap 10, instead of a C150 for my ppl (after doing about 10 hrs in the c150) i was told it would be a little more difficult to land, but if i kept to the speeds in the POH, and landed not far past the numbers, then it wouldnt be a problem, and that was landing on about 600m of grass, and that it may be a bit more difficult to taxi.
Now after reading a few days of pprune, I find that not only landing a taildragger is almost impossibly hard, that I must have almost suicidal tendancies for trying to land on GRASS as well.
In fact, i think i might as well stop it right now, and find somewhere with at least 2000m of tarmac before landing anything more tricky than a pa28, which i shall do so using a trickle of power, while approaching at POH speed + 20kts, and landing half way up the runway, before 'roasting the brakes'
NB
Now after reading a few days of pprune, I find that not only landing a taildragger is almost impossibly hard, that I must have almost suicidal tendancies for trying to land on GRASS as well.
In fact, i think i might as well stop it right now, and find somewhere with at least 2000m of tarmac before landing anything more tricky than a pa28, which i shall do so using a trickle of power, while approaching at POH speed + 20kts, and landing half way up the runway, before 'roasting the brakes'
NB