152 crash at Sussex
Thank you everyone,
It is actually the short wing tail-wheel Rans S6-116. A fine animal and usable into quite small strips, yet able to go reasonably well.
The ASI is very inaccurate and with, in the UK, no external static source it exaggerates to give a highly inflated 'cruise'. GPS to & from made the error over 15 mph at ~100 mph.
For assessing correction over the full speed range, especially at the stall is a bit hairy - hovering close to the stall AND waiting for the GPS to yield a figure. To the best of my ability I think it gets closer to the truth at very low speeds
When I taxed the LAA with this they replied that I should use the IAS at the stall as a reference. Which makes sense. But I prefer it to tell more like the truth when faster.
A RansMail reader told me to try a static pipe to near the cabin floor level, which helped enough. Even so, though reliable it reads ~7 mph high at 100 mph.
As for the last bit of finals, I guess having set her up by the ASI one does then principally look forwards at the strip and landing point for round out/flare etc. [My Jodel years ago had a stall warning tab operating a squeaker, set above the stall of course, and one had an excellent aural speed cum effective AofA input whilst concentrating one's vision out front. I always liked that feature.]
I'd considered something simple & similar would be safer for the Rans, but the leading edge of the Rans wing is an Ali tube which wouldn't take kindly to having a hole for a tab switch hacked into it.
However if anyone has some other simple solution I'd be happy to try it.
mike hallam
It is actually the short wing tail-wheel Rans S6-116. A fine animal and usable into quite small strips, yet able to go reasonably well.
The ASI is very inaccurate and with, in the UK, no external static source it exaggerates to give a highly inflated 'cruise'. GPS to & from made the error over 15 mph at ~100 mph.
For assessing correction over the full speed range, especially at the stall is a bit hairy - hovering close to the stall AND waiting for the GPS to yield a figure. To the best of my ability I think it gets closer to the truth at very low speeds
When I taxed the LAA with this they replied that I should use the IAS at the stall as a reference. Which makes sense. But I prefer it to tell more like the truth when faster.
A RansMail reader told me to try a static pipe to near the cabin floor level, which helped enough. Even so, though reliable it reads ~7 mph high at 100 mph.
As for the last bit of finals, I guess having set her up by the ASI one does then principally look forwards at the strip and landing point for round out/flare etc. [My Jodel years ago had a stall warning tab operating a squeaker, set above the stall of course, and one had an excellent aural speed cum effective AofA input whilst concentrating one's vision out front. I always liked that feature.]
I'd considered something simple & similar would be safer for the Rans, but the leading edge of the Rans wing is an Ali tube which wouldn't take kindly to having a hole for a tab switch hacked into it.
However if anyone has some other simple solution I'd be happy to try it.
mike hallam
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now this might sound daft....
A piece of thin plate on the forward support strut thin profile to the wind. And a bit of string through a hole in it trailing back along the plate. Make some marks round the plate and video it while you do a stall then back up to max chat.
When you get back you using the marked reference points you can perm mark the stall angle on it knock a couple of degrees off for the approach.
Might work.
A piece of thin plate on the forward support strut thin profile to the wind. And a bit of string through a hole in it trailing back along the plate. Make some marks round the plate and video it while you do a stall then back up to max chat.
When you get back you using the marked reference points you can perm mark the stall angle on it knock a couple of degrees off for the approach.
Might work.
Too fast an approach invites a long float where the airspeed, attitude required to maintain the flare altitude, and the bank angler and rudder to maintain the centerline, if there is a crosswind, is constantly changing. The probability that a low time pilot will get this wrong and allow a premature nose wheel first touch down is a lot higher then if he/she flew the right airspeed on final.
Therefore IMO the solution to the epidemic of nosewheel first touchdowns in the UK and everywhere starts with on speed approaches.
There are no instructors who say to their students "land on the nosewheel first" and I think pretty much every student knows that they are not supposed to do this, so saying "just keep the nose up in the flare" is facile and IMO of little practical use in improving the accident rate.
On the other hand as I posted earlier resisting the urge to pad the approach speeds as unfortunately many flight schools and emphasizing good attitude and airspeed control on final along with the automatic reaction to immediately go around anytime a nose wheel first touchdown occurs, would IMO actually make a difference.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
I strongly disagree with this statement particularly as it implies that flying the proper approach speed is not important.
You and I sure have different ideas about flying and teaching flying, one of the biggest difference seems to be I am not a " paint by numbers " type of teacher.
If you are considering getting your type rating on that PBY, best you not choose me as your instructor B.P.F.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Girls, Girls!
The correct speed at round out will result in a landing at the right AoA after the necessary hold off. I don't care how many hours you have, this will always be true for a 152.
The correct speed at round out will result in a landing at the right AoA after the necessary hold off. I don't care how many hours you have, this will always be true for a 152.
So, I discovered over morning coffee today that, not only did your man collapse the nosewheel on his Cessna 152, but the really interesting event of the day was a visiting Cirrus.
It came out of the clouds for the first time, hit the runway (several times) and had to make a go-around.
It came out of the clouds for the second time, hit the runway (several times) and went around.
It apparently landed off the third approach.
Good result.
It came out of the clouds for the first time, hit the runway (several times) and had to make a go-around.
It came out of the clouds for the second time, hit the runway (several times) and went around.
It apparently landed off the third approach.
Good result.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now this might sound daft....
A piece of thin plate on the forward support strut thin profile to the wind. And a bit of string through a hole in it trailing back along the plate...
A piece of thin plate on the forward support strut thin profile to the wind. And a bit of string through a hole in it trailing back along the plate...
So why not for up/down airflow too? For low-wing aircraft some wool stuck toward the rear of the wing might also show early signs of the stall.
I guess the most obvious drawback is you have to look away from the runway to see it.
And it might cost a few thousand quid to get type approval for the wool...
The number of runway prangs in the UK is directly related to the number of clueless fuds that are teaching to do approaches with 3 degree glides with an extra 10 on the POH another 5 knts for gusts and another 5 knts for mum and ending up being nearly 30% above the stall speed in the flare with abit of power on "cause it makes the landing smoother". Thus using more runway than a 737 does.
Personally I hate doing three degree approaches in any light aircraft. I actually tried really hard the other day to do one in the cub and couldn't force myself to get that low that far from the runway. Must be doing too much tug flying this year (which involves crossing the threshold 200 feet agl so as not to bounce the rope off a public road as our club is too tight to buy the doohicky that winds the rope in)
Plus if the engine coughs on a stoopid flat approach there's not much choice of where to crash......
Moderator
I was "checked out" in June in a DA-42, so I could be insured to flight test a modification on it. The instructor was a nice fellow, who I'm going to presume had a training regime of a more recent style than mine. He was intent that I should land the plane very flat, just about three pointing it on. I found it very challenging to touchdown in and aircraft which was not ready to be on the ground yet. I did not get a landing as smooth as my personal standards would like to see doing it his way. But, to get the okay, I did things his way. Once off on my own doing the testing, I reverted to my way of doing things, which is to keep it in the air, until it wanted to settle on. It landed beautifully every time - and much less rattling and shaking from the rather long nose strut up front.
It served as a reminder that "today's" instructors might have a different way of flying, and it might not be what my experience tells me is "right". But, I'm not an instructor either. I do imagine a whole lot of students who have been trained by these instructors, and believe that fighting an aircraft into contact with the runway, against the physics of the aircraft wanting to still be airborne at that speed, is the proper way. One day those newly trained pilots will fly with an old timer, and be presented with the other way. It will take a relearning for them to grasp the concept (probably 'cause they're afraid to stall too!)
It served as a reminder that "today's" instructors might have a different way of flying, and it might not be what my experience tells me is "right". But, I'm not an instructor either. I do imagine a whole lot of students who have been trained by these instructors, and believe that fighting an aircraft into contact with the runway, against the physics of the aircraft wanting to still be airborne at that speed, is the proper way. One day those newly trained pilots will fly with an old timer, and be presented with the other way. It will take a relearning for them to grasp the concept (probably 'cause they're afraid to stall too!)
Thank you everyone,
It is actually the short wing tail-wheel Rans S6-116. A fine animal and usable into quite small strips, yet able to go reasonably well.
The ASI is very inaccurate and with, in the UK, no external static source it exaggerates to give a highly inflated 'cruise'. GPS to & from made the error over 15 mph at ~100 mph.
For assessing correction over the full speed range, especially at the stall is a bit hairy - hovering close to the stall AND waiting for the GPS to yield a figure. To the best of my ability I think it gets closer to the truth at very low speeds
When I taxed the LAA with this they replied that I should use the IAS at the stall as a reference. Which makes sense. But I prefer it to tell more like the truth when faster.
A RansMail reader told me to try a static pipe to near the cabin floor level, which helped enough. Even so, though reliable it reads ~7 mph high at 100 mph.
As for the last bit of finals, I guess having set her up by the ASI one does then principally look forwards at the strip and landing point for round out/flare etc. [My Jodel years ago had a stall warning tab operating a squeaker, set above the stall of course, and one had an excellent aural speed cum effective AofA input whilst concentrating one's vision out front. I always liked that feature.]
I'd considered something simple & similar would be safer for the Rans, but the leading edge of the Rans wing is an Ali tube which wouldn't take kindly to having a hole for a tab switch hacked into it.
However if anyone has some other simple solution I'd be happy to try it.
mike hallam
It is actually the short wing tail-wheel Rans S6-116. A fine animal and usable into quite small strips, yet able to go reasonably well.
The ASI is very inaccurate and with, in the UK, no external static source it exaggerates to give a highly inflated 'cruise'. GPS to & from made the error over 15 mph at ~100 mph.
For assessing correction over the full speed range, especially at the stall is a bit hairy - hovering close to the stall AND waiting for the GPS to yield a figure. To the best of my ability I think it gets closer to the truth at very low speeds
When I taxed the LAA with this they replied that I should use the IAS at the stall as a reference. Which makes sense. But I prefer it to tell more like the truth when faster.
A RansMail reader told me to try a static pipe to near the cabin floor level, which helped enough. Even so, though reliable it reads ~7 mph high at 100 mph.
As for the last bit of finals, I guess having set her up by the ASI one does then principally look forwards at the strip and landing point for round out/flare etc. [My Jodel years ago had a stall warning tab operating a squeaker, set above the stall of course, and one had an excellent aural speed cum effective AofA input whilst concentrating one's vision out front. I always liked that feature.]
I'd considered something simple & similar would be safer for the Rans, but the leading edge of the Rans wing is an Ali tube which wouldn't take kindly to having a hole for a tab switch hacked into it.
However if anyone has some other simple solution I'd be happy to try it.
mike hallam
I'm about to do some flight testing on somebody else's S6 at the start of what's likely to be a slightly protracted mod approval process that I'm helping him with.
As part of that I'm going to be doing an ASI calibration against GPS (using the BMAA's method, which I've done before on probably 20 or so assorted aeroplanes).
It would be interesting to see how his compares to yours, and I'd be happy to fly an ASI calbration for you.
I'm not sure how coherent your owners community is for the type, but I imagine that you're at the centre of it. It really wouldn't be that hard to collectively build a sensible operators manual for the type, built upon this information (and probably using another type's manual as a template) and you'd be doing something genuinely useful for the safety of the owners community you're in.
Ignoring the regulations for a moment, in my opinion, it really doesn't matter if the ASI reads badly out, so long as it's consistent, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE ERRORS ARE. BMAA policy, which I agree with (but I would I suppose) is that homebuilts all have the ASIs calibrated against GPS, and the errors placarded - so long as you know correctly: Vs, Va, Vf, Vne, Vref, Vx in IAS, and the ASI doesn't hit the stops anywhere between Vs and Vne, that's all fine. Checking all this, as I said, takes 60-90 minutes in the air, and maybe an hour of number crunching on the ground and is not unsafe to do.
But, the LAA is in my opinion wrong in the advice they've given you. Lots of aeroplanes in this class will particularly show a significant and worsening underread between 1.3Vs and Vs. This means that if you multiply Vs(IAS) by 1.3 you could in reality be flying well below 1.3Vs which particularly in an aeroplane that light and draggy could well just lead to an accident.
G
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're not called mainwheels for nothing, I'm ex Super-cub and Auster although have some 152/172 time.
I can understand why the 3 degree approach is favoured by some, however my preference was always for a steeper approach with a gradual round out to get me over the hedge at the right speed - comparatively easy with a draggy Cub or Auster admittedly.
However, the 152 and 172 carry speed better, (esp. a loaded 172) and speed control is more difficult, for a tyro it's difficult to get speed control right along with everything else and erring on the 'safe' side is inevitable.
Correct speed control is the key and a good hold off too, the other thing is NOT to get fixated on landing on every approach. I had a good instructor who always made me go around if it wasn't right, didn't b*ll*ck me but explained what was wrong and how to make it right - as he said you only get charged for landing, you can go round for free!
I can understand why the 3 degree approach is favoured by some, however my preference was always for a steeper approach with a gradual round out to get me over the hedge at the right speed - comparatively easy with a draggy Cub or Auster admittedly.
However, the 152 and 172 carry speed better, (esp. a loaded 172) and speed control is more difficult, for a tyro it's difficult to get speed control right along with everything else and erring on the 'safe' side is inevitable.
Correct speed control is the key and a good hold off too, the other thing is NOT to get fixated on landing on every approach. I had a good instructor who always made me go around if it wasn't right, didn't b*ll*ck me but explained what was wrong and how to make it right - as he said you only get charged for landing, you can go round for free!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its is if they are chasing the needles.
you can use it as much as you like.
Slightly off-thread, but I am quite interested in Ghengis' suggestions that the RANS community work together to devise a usable POH for the S6. It will be difficult as there are so many variations of the type (different wings, engines, undercarriage, weight, etc) but I am sure it is doable and I'd be keen to participate if Mike H wants to get something going.
Andy
Andy
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying 1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
This photo was taken by myself while my instructor flew the landing. Rolling out onto final at Kidlington, due to traffic it was high & fast. We landed around the midway point & as we turned to vacate the runway, I looked over my shoulder to see the following aircraft perform a go around.
This photo was taken by myself while my instructor flew the landing. Rolling out onto final at Kidlington, due to traffic it was high & fast. We landed around the midway point & as we turned to vacate the runway, I looked over my shoulder to see the following aircraft perform a go around.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was "checked out" in June in a DA-42, so I could be insured to flight test a modification on it. The instructor was a nice fellow, who I'm going to presume had a training regime of a more recent style than mine. He was intent that I should land the plane very flat, just about three pointing it on. I found it very challenging to touchdown in and aircraft which was not ready to be on the ground yet. I did not get a landing as smooth as my personal standards would like to see doing it his way. But, to get the okay, I did things his way. Once off on my own doing the testing, I reverted to my way of doing things, which is to keep it in the air, until it wanted to settle on. It landed beautifully every time - and much less rattling and shaking from the rather long nose strut up front.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure most on here have landed off worse...
In the whole speed vs. attitude debate, and which is the most important factor for getting right in the landing it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with arriving fast provided one has enough runway to lose the speed and then select the right attitude. I mean one flies an ILS down to 200ft faster normally than one would if approaching in visually (or at least that is what I was taught...) with the assumption being that a runway with an ILS will be so long for a light aircraft that it doesn't matter. Similarly it is quite correct to land well beyond the threshold at a busy airport with a 3000m runway if that means you minimise your occupancy time by getting closer to an exit.
The nose wheels get broken when people arrive too fast at short runways and rather than go around try and force the aircraft to land in a flatter attitude than is correct.
In the whole speed vs. attitude debate, and which is the most important factor for getting right in the landing it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with arriving fast provided one has enough runway to lose the speed and then select the right attitude. I mean one flies an ILS down to 200ft faster normally than one would if approaching in visually (or at least that is what I was taught...) with the assumption being that a runway with an ILS will be so long for a light aircraft that it doesn't matter. Similarly it is quite correct to land well beyond the threshold at a busy airport with a 3000m runway if that means you minimise your occupancy time by getting closer to an exit.
The nose wheels get broken when people arrive too fast at short runways and rather than go around try and force the aircraft to land in a flatter attitude than is correct.