Arrow PA-28 Experienced In-Flight Break-Up
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a big technical advantage in a V-tail: instead of three huge things dragging in the airflow, you have just two. No wonder the new SE jets are V-tails (Cirrus and Eclipse, IIRC). It's got to be worth 10-20kt, which at the relevant cruise TAS is worth an awful lot of fuel flow.
V's were very en-vouge for gliders for a while before they worked out there wasn't that much advantage over a more traditional tail - glider types are very fastidious about aerodynamic efficiency!
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO,
With regards to recent aircraft, rather than the 70's design context of this thread. I simply don't know. The dangly bits have to add drag but then the top TASs are for the 'faster' turbo normalised ones are quoted at 25,000' where air density is about 50% less. Not sure if this is relevant to the types we've been discussing thus far.
With regards to recent aircraft, rather than the 70's design context of this thread. I simply don't know. The dangly bits have to add drag but then the top TASs are for the 'faster' turbo normalised ones are quoted at 25,000' where air density is about 50% less. Not sure if this is relevant to the types we've been discussing thus far.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sternone - sorry you're wrong, see here, page 39 -
www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP701.pdf
This document lists a Beech Bonanza 33 which broke up in midair over France, following loss of control in IMC.
www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP701.pdf
This document lists a Beech Bonanza 33 which broke up in midair over France, following loss of control in IMC.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the truth here is that PA28's are close on the most common GA type in the air today. If grossly mishandled they can break - as indeed will any other aircraft. Therefore there will be a greater body of anecdotal evidence of accidents involving PA28's than most other aircraft, simply by dint of the numbers flying.
Compound that with the reality that, because the bulk of the pa28's are basic, non-complex, machines operated by salt-of-the-earth basic PPL holders - accidents will happen.
Contrast this scenario with complex aircraft such as mooneys, beechcraft, tb20's (or indeed the more complex iterations of the piper family) where pilots have more hours, more training and have survived their early hours post ppl, and now have gained an appreciation of what constitutes sensible handling and what constitutes MISHANDLING and the figures change.
A book called "The Killing Zone" paints this picture far more elloquently than I but suffice to say that I believe that we all stand a far greater risk of dying as a result of one of our own errors (cfit, fuel mis-management, showing off at low level over one's neighbours house, etc) than as a result of our Piper Arrow falling to pieces in the air.
Training and experience are paramount in our field and more likely to save our lives than grounding the PA28 fleet for spurious reasons.
I would finally like to point out that 34.7% of statistics are simply made up on the spot...
Compound that with the reality that, because the bulk of the pa28's are basic, non-complex, machines operated by salt-of-the-earth basic PPL holders - accidents will happen.
Contrast this scenario with complex aircraft such as mooneys, beechcraft, tb20's (or indeed the more complex iterations of the piper family) where pilots have more hours, more training and have survived their early hours post ppl, and now have gained an appreciation of what constitutes sensible handling and what constitutes MISHANDLING and the figures change.
A book called "The Killing Zone" paints this picture far more elloquently than I but suffice to say that I believe that we all stand a far greater risk of dying as a result of one of our own errors (cfit, fuel mis-management, showing off at low level over one's neighbours house, etc) than as a result of our Piper Arrow falling to pieces in the air.
Training and experience are paramount in our field and more likely to save our lives than grounding the PA28 fleet for spurious reasons.
I would finally like to point out that 34.7% of statistics are simply made up on the spot...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edited to ask whether the Killing Zone is a jolly fine book and worth purchasing?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Killing Zone is a pretty interesting read. The main thrust of which is two-fold;
Firstly there is a statistical 'spike' post PPL of accidents experienced by pilots with between 100 and 350 hrs under their belt. The theory espoused being that the pilots in this 'zone' had enough confidence to fly in challenging conditions, but not enough experience to do so successfully (or enough experience to know not to leave the ground at all).
Secondly the take-up of instrument training has a hugely positive effect on the numbers of accidents arising from flights into IMC or CFIT and this has been aided by a more attainable qualification.
One of the examples quoted was the JFK II accident, which seemed to combine both of the writers points.
However, rather like Panorama these days, you could probably condense the message into a much slimmer tome, but it's still a worthwhile read, Quite why we can't translate the second message (which seems perfectly clear) into an attainable, JAA-wide, qualification in something approaching a reasonable timeframe is beyond me....
Firstly there is a statistical 'spike' post PPL of accidents experienced by pilots with between 100 and 350 hrs under their belt. The theory espoused being that the pilots in this 'zone' had enough confidence to fly in challenging conditions, but not enough experience to do so successfully (or enough experience to know not to leave the ground at all).
Secondly the take-up of instrument training has a hugely positive effect on the numbers of accidents arising from flights into IMC or CFIT and this has been aided by a more attainable qualification.
One of the examples quoted was the JFK II accident, which seemed to combine both of the writers points.
However, rather like Panorama these days, you could probably condense the message into a much slimmer tome, but it's still a worthwhile read, Quite why we can't translate the second message (which seems perfectly clear) into an attainable, JAA-wide, qualification in something approaching a reasonable timeframe is beyond me....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but G-EMMA, do you imagine learning landings while doing each time full stop landings ?? I did so far over 200 circuits...
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading it that he is against touch and goes .. i found that rather weird...
It's not bad for a read, but it's not the top... is it worth purchasing, no, is it worth reading, yes.
Professional Student
Stats aside, I found the book a very good & interesting read.
WS; I agree, I did my IMC before I started my hourbuilding and am very grateful for doing so. If it was fully JAR etc it would be even better.
WS; I agree, I did my IMC before I started my hourbuilding and am very grateful for doing so. If it was fully JAR etc it would be even better.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest sternone what books on GA safety would you recommend actually buying then?
I find 'be a better pilot' by alan bramson much better... also i find that reading 'stick and rudder' made me a safer pilot..
what books do you advise ?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what books do you advise ?
Spitfire: The Biography is quite good and so are many of the Battle of Britain classics like First Light for example.
Handling the Big Jets gives a very interesting insight into how big planes fly (if you're into that sort of thing which I slightly doubt many in this forum are)
The Compleat Taildragger is probably the best book written on taildraggers for the novice conventional gear pilot.
Professional Student
"Fate Is The Hunter" by Ernest K. Gann 
Getting back on topic.... I don't think touch & goes are as safe as full-stop landings either, but I still do them periodically to brush up my skills, especially on taildraggers.
Spinning/stalls aren't as safe as straight & level flight either, but they've still got to be done to maintain skill currency.
Sternone; I was curious about how many Bonanza 33s were involved in breakups in midair (I agree btw; the later models and Beech in general, do seem to have the reputation of very well built aircraft from what I've read) and a look on the NTSB website, searching for Bonanza 33s, revealed that (during the first few pages anyway) that most of the fatal accidents seemed to involve CFIT/loss of control during IMC.
Getting back on topic.... I don't think touch & goes are as safe as full-stop landings either, but I still do them periodically to brush up my skills, especially on taildraggers.
Spinning/stalls aren't as safe as straight & level flight either, but they've still got to be done to maintain skill currency.
Sternone; I was curious about how many Bonanza 33s were involved in breakups in midair (I agree btw; the later models and Beech in general, do seem to have the reputation of very well built aircraft from what I've read) and a look on the NTSB website, searching for Bonanza 33s, revealed that (during the first few pages anyway) that most of the fatal accidents seemed to involve CFIT/loss of control during IMC.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'm against touch'n'goes too. (In my vast, just got my PPL experience 
)
You combine (probably) the two most dangerous bits of flight (t/o and landing) into a short space of time, with the requirement to re-configure the aeroplane in between while you're eating up tarmac at maybe 40odd kts (throw in say 3-5sec for the electric flaps to wind in)
You arrive at the ground with a mindset of leaving again. Possibly you're pressured to get it down because you're worried about space, or possibly you just have the mechanical process at the forefront. Either way you don't really have an accurate handle on where you're going to be off the ground by - I can make a visual estimate of where I'm going to depart the ground from a standing start (in typical conditions), I have little idea where I'm going to on a touch and go, certainly at my experience level.
You can find with the workload up, maybe at a strange aerodrome, you do something inexplicably stupid, miss toggling the flap switch and become airborne with 40deg of flap like I did. (Fortunately it was well managed, the instructor was with me, and we didn't park it in the trees at the far end).
Not to say they shouldn't be done in the right circumstances, but there are plenty of reasons why they are dangerous, and not a good idea.
) You combine (probably) the two most dangerous bits of flight (t/o and landing) into a short space of time, with the requirement to re-configure the aeroplane in between while you're eating up tarmac at maybe 40odd kts (throw in say 3-5sec for the electric flaps to wind in)
You arrive at the ground with a mindset of leaving again. Possibly you're pressured to get it down because you're worried about space, or possibly you just have the mechanical process at the forefront. Either way you don't really have an accurate handle on where you're going to be off the ground by - I can make a visual estimate of where I'm going to depart the ground from a standing start (in typical conditions), I have little idea where I'm going to on a touch and go, certainly at my experience level.
You can find with the workload up, maybe at a strange aerodrome, you do something inexplicably stupid, miss toggling the flap switch and become airborne with 40deg of flap like I did. (Fortunately it was well managed, the instructor was with me, and we didn't park it in the trees at the far end).
Not to say they shouldn't be done in the right circumstances, but there are plenty of reasons why they are dangerous, and not a good idea.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The touch and goes thing is perhaps getting slightly off the point of the thread....but this is what I think:
On the PA28 when doing touch and goes before my PPL I was advised to not use the third stage of flap so that when I touched down I didn't have to bring it up again for take off. This worked fine.
On short fields you've got to have good judgement regarding how far down the runway you're going to let the plane float before hitting the TOGA button and trying again and also recognising when to stop and taxing back for take off rather than attempting to take off again from the roll. That needs to be emphasised during training
When I started on the Super Cub the touch and go became perhaps slightly more hazardous...my instructor told me to raise the flaps and wind the trimmer back before taking off again (all this while rolling down the runway) which on more than one occasion lead to me almost loosing directional control....one day I tried just leaving everything and taking off with full flap...and actually that was a much better idea...the Cub will lift off in about 100m and I swear I've taken off before with the ASI reading zero! (It is a very old ASI).
On the C152 I find the flaps a little fiddly to get to the right notch...but if you don't need take off flaps (when one tarmac) getting them up is easy.
The last OBA crash was arguably party caused by a loss of control doing an (unauthorised) touch and go.
I think they are safe and will continue to do them though.
On the PA28 when doing touch and goes before my PPL I was advised to not use the third stage of flap so that when I touched down I didn't have to bring it up again for take off. This worked fine.
On short fields you've got to have good judgement regarding how far down the runway you're going to let the plane float before hitting the TOGA button and trying again and also recognising when to stop and taxing back for take off rather than attempting to take off again from the roll. That needs to be emphasised during training
When I started on the Super Cub the touch and go became perhaps slightly more hazardous...my instructor told me to raise the flaps and wind the trimmer back before taking off again (all this while rolling down the runway) which on more than one occasion lead to me almost loosing directional control....one day I tried just leaving everything and taking off with full flap...and actually that was a much better idea...the Cub will lift off in about 100m and I swear I've taken off before with the ASI reading zero! (It is a very old ASI).
On the C152 I find the flaps a little fiddly to get to the right notch...but if you don't need take off flaps (when one tarmac) getting them up is easy.
The last OBA crash was arguably party caused by a loss of control doing an (unauthorised) touch and go.
I think they are safe and will continue to do them though.
Professional Student
Contacttower, agree with you on the Supercub - I've done the same, but far more impressive for me was the reduction in power when I forgot to put the carb heat back in 
Was once doing a touch and go in the 152TT, and managed to retract ALL flap from full flap, rather than the incremental stages I'd wanted, due to hamfistedness. That was interesting too!
Was once doing a touch and go in the 152TT, and managed to retract ALL flap from full flap, rather than the incremental stages I'd wanted, due to hamfistedness. That was interesting too!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to Sternone's question about 200 landings - I did mine at OBA and each time did full stop, back to the hold - it only added a minute or two on to each one - I was still managing 7/8 circuits and hour, which is more than enough when you're learning!
They do teach t&g's but not when solo. Wasn't a problem really - did plenty of em with the FI on board, and a threw it away plenty times too when starting out.
Anyway - apologies for the thread drift
They do teach t&g's but not when solo. Wasn't a problem really - did plenty of em with the FI on board, and a threw it away plenty times too when starting out.
Anyway - apologies for the thread drift
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was once doing a touch and go in the 152TT, and managed to retract ALL flap from full flap, rather than the incremental stages I'd wanted, due to hamfistedness. That was interesting too!
I have done exactly the same thing with the flap before (once in the air!
) but luckily the flap retraction mechanism on the C152 is quite slow!
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did mine at OBA and each time did full stop, back to the hold - it only added a minute or two on to each one - I was still managing 7/8 circuits and hour, which is more than enough when you're learning!