New to Pprune
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lancashire & Florida
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Savas and a warm welcome from me too.
I see you are from Benoni, I used to stay quite close to there when I lived in SA, Norkem Park near Kempton Park, right on the flight path for Jan Smuts....Oh sorry can't call it that these days.
Spent 8 yrs in your lovely country during the eighties looking after cars for one of the best rally car drivers your country produced.
Enjoyed the country especially out in the veld over in the Eastern Transvaal or down on the Cape coastline.
Did consider settling permanently after my contracts finished, but some not very nice things I witnessed made me decide to move my family back to the UK.
I see you are from Benoni, I used to stay quite close to there when I lived in SA, Norkem Park near Kempton Park, right on the flight path for Jan Smuts....Oh sorry can't call it that these days.
Spent 8 yrs in your lovely country during the eighties looking after cars for one of the best rally car drivers your country produced.
Enjoyed the country especially out in the veld over in the Eastern Transvaal or down on the Cape coastline.
Did consider settling permanently after my contracts finished, but some not very nice things I witnessed made me decide to move my family back to the UK.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: antarctica
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by 'one of the best rally drivers south Africa ever produced' you mean francis tucker, because he was the only one. not the best south African rally driver, but in fact the only south African rally driver.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Allan, yep I stay opposite end of ORTambo, I think it's called today.
Yep we do have a scenic countryside to fly around, great Wx , cheap red meat with really only one negative
Wrong about " only one rally driver" , there is the legendary " Sarel van Der Merwe" , which is off the top of my head.
Yep we do have a scenic countryside to fly around, great Wx , cheap red meat with really only one negative
Wrong about " only one rally driver" , there is the legendary " Sarel van Der Merwe" , which is off the top of my head.
Lay off the 172 you lot. It's a very capable aircraft. Unfortunately it's often flown by 'book' pilots who have no idea how to get the best out of it.
Many moons ago in southern Africa, I landed one that had been hit by some AK47 ground fire. Not discovered 'til after shutdown. Too low, too slow in the wrong place. (I didn't mourn the recent passing of Nelson M).
I own a taildragger, but also fly a 172. Horses for courses.
Many moons ago in southern Africa, I landed one that had been hit by some AK47 ground fire. Not discovered 'til after shutdown. Too low, too slow in the wrong place. (I didn't mourn the recent passing of Nelson M).
I own a taildragger, but also fly a 172. Horses for courses.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep Chuck had a few chats with Glen, a BIG loss for SA aviation and the world I assume. Questions have been raised whether he would of survived if fire trucks got there sooner and acted quicker, but if you look at You Tubes , they looked pathetic, just like all our services in this country , it's pathetic how this great new government is messing up everything they touch .
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen was a real nice guy and a pleasure to fly with Savas, the lack of effectiveness by the fire crew was classic for the culture.
I have done a lot of flying all over Africa ( about 25 different countries ) and sadly South Africa is going the way of every other African country, back to the stone age.
Looking at the video he almost made it and I can imagine the feelings going through his mind just before impact as I also flew for years in the air show business and have came real close to the same outcome and the adrelinin takes a long time to burn off.
Chuck E.
I have done a lot of flying all over Africa ( about 25 different countries ) and sadly South Africa is going the way of every other African country, back to the stone age.
Looking at the video he almost made it and I can imagine the feelings going through his mind just before impact as I also flew for years in the air show business and have came real close to the same outcome and the adrelinin takes a long time to burn off.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go Flyingmac, right from Cessna's own advertising, the perfect airplane to dumb down learning how to fly...in fact you don't even have to know how to fly you just drive it.
And they were successful in their campaign.
http://i.imgur.com/Zr6AT8s.jpg
And they were successful in their campaign.
http://i.imgur.com/Zr6AT8s.jpg
Chuck. Nobody said it was difficult to fly. It's simply very good at what it was designed to do. It's also good at some things it was never designed to do.
I've sat in a fully loaded 172 while the PIC declared that due to the runway length and the temperature we were far too heavy to get off the ground.
We swapped seats and magically took off and flew home.
Not sure about the Land-O-Matic description though. Judging by the number of noselegs people have managed to wipe off.
It's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.
I've sat in a fully loaded 172 while the PIC declared that due to the runway length and the temperature we were far too heavy to get off the ground.
We swapped seats and magically took off and flew home.
Not sure about the Land-O-Matic description though. Judging by the number of noselegs people have managed to wipe off.
It's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.
For the purpose of flight training to teach aircraft handling skills the Cessna 170B is superior to any model of Cessna 172.
>>>>>>>>>
Note:
The above is my personal opinion from having instructed on both types.
A little bit of history Chuck.
Despite the spreading belief that tricycle gear was the wave of the future, Cessna apparently had its doubts about prospects for the new model, however, as the original 172 was certified under the 170’s type certificate. Only later did the 172 earn its own production authority.
In total, Cessna constructed just over 5,000 Model 170s, not bad for only eight years of production, especially by today’s standards when some manufacturers celebrate producing 100 of a given type a year. Slightly less than half of those 5,000 Model 170s are still on the aircraft registry today. In contrast, Cessna’s 172 was even more widely accepted by the pilot public. That original Skyhawk has spawned something like 40,000 copies over the last 54 years of discontinuous production.
It should come as no great surprise that the 170 and 172 shared equivalent performance, since both airplanes operated with essentially the same wing and the same engine. Standard power for both models was a Continental 145-hp mill that was allegedly up to the task of transporting four folks.
In fact, the more common payload was 2+2 – Mom and Dad up front and two kids in back. Using the comparative numbers for a typical 170B and an early 172, gross weight of both airplanes was 2,200 pounds, and empty weight on the 170B and 172 was 1,205 pounds and 1,260 pounds, respectively. The difference was, obviously, in the additional weight of the nosewheel on the Skyhawk, since hardly anything else changed.
Despite the spreading belief that tricycle gear was the wave of the future, Cessna apparently had its doubts about prospects for the new model, however, as the original 172 was certified under the 170’s type certificate. Only later did the 172 earn its own production authority.
In total, Cessna constructed just over 5,000 Model 170s, not bad for only eight years of production, especially by today’s standards when some manufacturers celebrate producing 100 of a given type a year. Slightly less than half of those 5,000 Model 170s are still on the aircraft registry today. In contrast, Cessna’s 172 was even more widely accepted by the pilot public. That original Skyhawk has spawned something like 40,000 copies over the last 54 years of discontinuous production.
It should come as no great surprise that the 170 and 172 shared equivalent performance, since both airplanes operated with essentially the same wing and the same engine. Standard power for both models was a Continental 145-hp mill that was allegedly up to the task of transporting four folks.
In fact, the more common payload was 2+2 – Mom and Dad up front and two kids in back. Using the comparative numbers for a typical 170B and an early 172, gross weight of both airplanes was 2,200 pounds, and empty weight on the 170B and 172 was 1,205 pounds and 1,260 pounds, respectively. The difference was, obviously, in the additional weight of the nosewheel on the Skyhawk, since hardly anything else changed.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the history lesson Flyingmac.
I don't think you understand my comments on the 172, my comments were that the Cessna 172 was the start of the dumbing down of flight training.
The Cessna advertising link I posted here for the Cessna 172 clearly states that they designed the 172 to dumb down training.
My opinion is objective not subjective having worked as a flying instructor in the 1950's before the 172 was produced...the 170 B produces a superior airplane handling skills pilot...period.
Here is a comparison test you can carry out.
Train two pilots from zero hours to PPL, one on the 170 the other on the 172.
To make this test fair to both pilots we will assume they each received their PPL in 45 hours of flying.
The day they get their licenses have them switch airplanes with no flight check out.....all they have is the airplane and the POH.
Just to make this test more conclusive there has to be a X/wind on that day that is at the X/wind limits they were trained to.
Oh and by the way you own both airplanes and they have no hull insurance.
See any problem with this?
I don't think you understand my comments on the 172, my comments were that the Cessna 172 was the start of the dumbing down of flight training.
The Cessna advertising link I posted here for the Cessna 172 clearly states that they designed the 172 to dumb down training.
My opinion is objective not subjective having worked as a flying instructor in the 1950's before the 172 was produced...the 170 B produces a superior airplane handling skills pilot...period.
Here is a comparison test you can carry out.
Train two pilots from zero hours to PPL, one on the 170 the other on the 172.
To make this test fair to both pilots we will assume they each received their PPL in 45 hours of flying.
The day they get their licenses have them switch airplanes with no flight check out.....all they have is the airplane and the POH.
Just to make this test more conclusive there has to be a X/wind on that day that is at the X/wind limits they were trained to.
Oh and by the way you own both airplanes and they have no hull insurance.
See any problem with this?
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 1st Feb 2014 at 22:21.
See any problem with this?
I would expect a higher workload with any tailwheel type in a Xwind, but that's the norm. Not specific to the 170/172.
I regularly fly both.
Last edited by Flyingmac; 2nd Feb 2014 at 08:12.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer.
So once again Flyingmac, if the 172 is as good a flying skills trainer as the 170, would you answer my question regarding the two new PPL,s I asked.
Would you switch the two students with no further flight training, under the conditions I outlined?
So once again Flyingmac, if the 172 is as good a flying skills trainer as the 170, would you answer my question regarding the two new PPL,s I asked.
Would you switch the two students with no further flight training, under the conditions I outlined?
"This is like pulling teeth"
dogged persistence there Chuck . . . . .. . a dentist I know with a C170
says that's all he can afford to run .. . . blames his hand to mouth existence
p.s. . . . you know your hypothetical match is just that and will never be put to the test. . .. . . . still, if someone did line it up and opened a book . .. I'd put money on your man proving the point.
if the trial were run with a 182 and a one-eighty . . now that would separate
the men from the boys . . .. . x/w minimum 20 kts
p.p.s. ,. .. interesting .. init. .. that a Dak in a big x/w is no where near as challenging as a one-eighty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh and by the way you own both airplanes and they have no hull insurance."
That of course is the ultimate test as to confidence, sincerity and . . . .. and bloody mindedness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owned a Blanton Wichawk once. First ten landings were exciting . . and exiting too .. . . as she wanted to segue rapidly 90 degrees to the right every time the tail came down..... until it was discovered some fool had strung the tailwheel cables wrong way round.
dogged persistence there Chuck . . . . .. . a dentist I know with a C170
says that's all he can afford to run .. . . blames his hand to mouth existence
p.s. . . . you know your hypothetical match is just that and will never be put to the test. . .. . . . still, if someone did line it up and opened a book . .. I'd put money on your man proving the point.
if the trial were run with a 182 and a one-eighty . . now that would separate
the men from the boys . . .. . x/w minimum 20 kts
p.p.s. ,. .. interesting .. init. .. that a Dak in a big x/w is no where near as challenging as a one-eighty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh and by the way you own both airplanes and they have no hull insurance."
That of course is the ultimate test as to confidence, sincerity and . . . .. and bloody mindedness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owned a Blanton Wichawk once. First ten landings were exciting . . and exiting too .. . . as she wanted to segue rapidly 90 degrees to the right every time the tail came down..... until it was discovered some fool had strung the tailwheel cables wrong way round.
Last edited by Fantome; 2nd Feb 2014 at 15:51.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pps interesting .. init. .. that a Dak in a big x/w is no where near as challenging as a one-eighty
The DC3 is a real pussycat compared to a 180 in a X/wind landing.
Welcome. Check your thin skin at the door. This group can be a tough one
R & N and Rotorheads are frequented by some tough nuts. Particularly so over the years. There have been some memorable slanging matches, slanderings and merciless character assassinations . Also permanent departures in high dudgeon, voluntarily and by dint of being banned. People still talk of Rainboe who finally took his marbles and cleared out. He knew his stuff . Inside out. . He didn't mince his words.. But in the end decided the game was not worth the candle.
On Rotorheads there have been recent charges of stalking laid, resulting in a highly respected gentleman also packing it in.
So tread softly . . . lest they tread on your jokes.
The late Duke Elegant... . ( An Australian, LM was a highly experienced military and then civilian pilot) .. . . . he posted many brilliant stories, which together read like an EK Gann classic... Well worth digging them out. Someone collated Les's stories and put them together in one place. Will try to find where. Que hombre!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R & N and Rotorheads are frequented by some tough nuts. Particularly so over the years. There have been some memorable slanging matches, slanderings and merciless character assassinations . Also permanent departures in high dudgeon, voluntarily and by dint of being banned. People still talk of Rainboe who finally took his marbles and cleared out. He knew his stuff . Inside out. . He didn't mince his words.. But in the end decided the game was not worth the candle.
On Rotorheads there have been recent charges of stalking laid, resulting in a highly respected gentleman also packing it in.
So tread softly . . . lest they tread on your jokes.
On Rotorheads there have been recent charges of stalking laid, resulting in a highly respected gentleman also packing it in.
So tread softly . . . lest they tread on your jokes.
For sure Duke Elegant wrote awesome stories.
The Dukes real name was Les Maike and we were real good friends, in fact he came to me for his differences training from the DC3 to the C117 a few years before he passed away from cancer.....
He was a true aviator.
Controversial is good as it often leads to some very interesting threads, a few of which have forced me to re-evaluate the way I think about things.
It is the folks that lean toward the confrontational on a regular basis, that get a bit wearying.
It is the folks that lean toward the confrontational on a regular basis, that get a bit wearying.