Circuit Speeds for C-152
Moderator
I would agree that fingers are probably not the best unit of reference. They are variable in size and application, and most of all, they are not a means or unit of measure specified in any flight manual I've ever seen.
I think that pilots will beneift most from learning where there aircraft is in space, and where it's going to be next, based largely upon their senses. Other than final approach, I'd much rather see an aircraft flying steadly 5 knots off it's ideal speed, than the pilot head in, chasing a target speed with many pitch and power changes, and oblivious to traffic and navigation.
When pilots use unconventional means to make up for simply sensing and flying the aircraft, they could fall short when that means is not even close to applicable in another aircraft type. Remind yourselves that the certification basis for every certified aircraft has in many places in its design requirements "must not require unusual pilot skill or attention". That is intended to assure that aircraft are not out there which are abnormally challenging to fly. Take advantage of this common characteristic when you fly, and let the aircraft tell you what is right for it.
The PA 28 said to have gone through the hedge because the pilot was looking for an airspeed indication, must have spent the last of its time in motion with its nosewheel hard into the runway. That aircraft accelerating throuh 70 knots would really want to be in the air. Fighting it to stay on the ground must have been qute a task!
I think that pilots will beneift most from learning where there aircraft is in space, and where it's going to be next, based largely upon their senses. Other than final approach, I'd much rather see an aircraft flying steadly 5 knots off it's ideal speed, than the pilot head in, chasing a target speed with many pitch and power changes, and oblivious to traffic and navigation.
When pilots use unconventional means to make up for simply sensing and flying the aircraft, they could fall short when that means is not even close to applicable in another aircraft type. Remind yourselves that the certification basis for every certified aircraft has in many places in its design requirements "must not require unusual pilot skill or attention". That is intended to assure that aircraft are not out there which are abnormally challenging to fly. Take advantage of this common characteristic when you fly, and let the aircraft tell you what is right for it.
The PA 28 said to have gone through the hedge because the pilot was looking for an airspeed indication, must have spent the last of its time in motion with its nosewheel hard into the runway. That aircraft accelerating throuh 70 knots would really want to be in the air. Fighting it to stay on the ground must have been qute a task!
I think the C150/152 series do not get the respect they deserve. They are easy to fly but surprisingly difficult to fly well. That is to maintain a steady selected airspeed, altitude and coordinated flight in a all conditions requires a light touch and attention from the pilot. The lighter controls also IMO make them more pleasant to fly than the Cessna, Piper 4 seater and the modest engine power means you don't just push the air out of the way you have to fly the wing.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I take it you remember CAC doing that little change around Gertrude?
They kept one of the 152s on for a while (VT IIRC). Pretty well nobody but me ever flew it, so availability was excellent - it was as good as my own private aircraft.
So ... checking it out one day, having not flown it for a couple of weeks, I got my first (and to date only) experience of actually finding water in the fuel. The result, I guessed, of it not having flown at all for a fortnight.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK East
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was still learning at the time [you may remember radio calls for whiskey wankey obviously for G-WY] but I still hold a place in my heart for them. Regards the fuel, didn't CAC leave them unhangered? Or were they put somewhere in leaky 2/10/12 hangar..can't quite remember.
See how you feel over time KandiFloss, explore a little you might like the surprises.
Make sure you close the door.
See how you feel over time KandiFloss, explore a little you might like the surprises.
Make sure you close the door.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65 kts on final in a C152 would feel fast to me, even if it is the book figure! I usually fly 60 kts final in the 172, makes for good short field landings.
edit for EGBM: Especially onto 23 at Derby
edit for EGBM: Especially onto 23 at Derby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Make sure you close the door.
If you're clever you fail to notice leaving the end of the seatbelt dangling out of the door. This manifests itself as a loud banging noise at about the point at which you reach take-off speed. You can stop and sort it and backtrack and try again, or take off and open the door and sort it in flight, your choice.
This failure mode is actually described in a Cessna training manual. Which I'd read first, so when it happened to me I knew what was going on.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C150/C152s are great little aeroplanes.
Easy to fly, hard to fly well, as already said.
Much more fun than the C172 if you are just bimbling or doing circuits and not travelling in earnest.
Easy to fly, hard to fly well, as already said.
Much more fun than the C172 if you are just bimbling or doing circuits and not travelling in earnest.
I was still learning at the time [you may remember radio calls for whiskey wankey obviously for G-WY] but I still hold a place in my heart for them. Regards the fuel, didn't CAC leave them unhangered? Or were they put somewhere in leaky 2/10/12 hangar..can't quite remember.
