Daunting Types?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowtimer,
I didn't mean you in particular; sorry if it sounded like I did. It was just my impression of the whole tone of this thread, and a number of others...often implying that those who only fly PA38s and C152s somehow are lesser beings than those who fly more challenging aircraft.
I didn't mean you in particular; sorry if it sounded like I did. It was just my impression of the whole tone of this thread, and a number of others...often implying that those who only fly PA38s and C152s somehow are lesser beings than those who fly more challenging aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who says that flying has to be challenging? What is wrong with relaxing after a hard week, on the odd occasions one can afford it, by boring holes in the sky in your local area?
But a thread entitled "daunting types" is going to attract comments about flying aircraft that you don't normally find in flying club fleets, and those comments will often be that the exciting super-plane was a bit more fun than the Cessnas, Pipers, Robins etc. that most of us spend most of our time flying.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was just my impression of the whole tone of this thread, and a number of others...often implying that those who only fly PA38s and C152s somehow are lesser beings than those who fly more challenging aircraft
QDM
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a low hours PPL I have as much yearning to fly 'interesting' types as the others on this thread. The thing that puts me off is the thought that I'd just be laughed at if I asked someone to let me fly somthing much more challenging. I know this probably wouldn't be the case but I just have visions of calling up and them saying "how many hours?!! - come back in a few years sonny!"
When I have the money (soon, I hope) I'd like to buy a share in somthing interesting, but how many groups honestly want a 70hr tyro like me flying their pride and joy? I guess all the 'spam can driver' comments, although probably mostly said in jest, get into the subconcious more than we realise.
I suppose I just don't want to be embarrassed by being rejected. Perhaps I'd be pleasantly surprised if I just asked...
When I have the money (soon, I hope) I'd like to buy a share in somthing interesting, but how many groups honestly want a 70hr tyro like me flying their pride and joy? I guess all the 'spam can driver' comments, although probably mostly said in jest, get into the subconcious more than we realise.
I suppose I just don't want to be embarrassed by being rejected. Perhaps I'd be pleasantly surprised if I just asked...
High Flying Bird
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Old Sarum ish
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might well find that your low hours count for a lot. Rather than being a stuck-in-a-rut PA28 fan, you are keen to try new things and are still relatively flexible about your flying. 300 hours down the line people might wonder why you suddenly want to try something with the third contact point at the right end (exemptions include Yak-52s...) for example. If someone laughs at you, laugh back as you know you're the better person.
I'm another who loves C152s. Depends on how you fly them. My instructor delights in getting the most out of the machine, which results in incredibly fun lessons.
I'm another who loves C152s. Depends on how you fly them. My instructor delights in getting the most out of the machine, which results in incredibly fun lessons.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knobby,
I think you're probably at just the right time to start looking into it. My PPrune name means what it says. I only have 120 hrs of Group A time logged in the two and a quarter years since I started my PPL course (on a Piper Warrior), and had 60 hrswhen I started on the Cub, about 85 when I started on the Yak. Must admit to about 40 hours of gliding in a previous life plus some highly informal unlogged time with some very good ex RAF / airline instructors in various types during the 80s, but it's not a tremendous amount.
Don't be afraid that people will reject you for lack of hours. Everywhere I've talked to about flying different types, the attitude has been "We'd love you to have a go, don't worry, we won't send you off solo until you're good and ready". What counts is attitude and aptitude more than hours. Where they might express a view is in encouraging you to take things a step at a time, e.g. C152 to Cub, Cub to Tiger, Tiger to Pitts, not straight there in one fell swoop. But I've heard of that being done too, by the truly determined, though I reckon it often costs more and takes longer than going via intermediate steps. In any case, many schools with more exotic types are just as happy for you to have an hour or two's dual taster of a type, even if you don't want to solo it.
What really, really helps you be accepted as serious about learning to fly a type, in my experience, is reading absolutely everything you can about it. Get the pilots notes or flight manual and learn it off by heart. Understand the engineering and the systems. e.g. learn how a CS prop works, and why (for example) a lot of aerobatic types and twins have a type of CS prop that works in a different way to an SEP tourer. Read lots of books by other pilots who can communicate well, especially (if you can get them) the 70s and 80s writings of Neil Williams, Brian Lecomber, Bernard Chabbert etc. These days I find Andy Sephton and Maxi Gainza to be among the best writers about the foibles of various types. And ask your instructors, and people whose flying you respect if they've ever flown a Type X, adn what they thought about it. Often the quiet softly-spoken guy who does a bit of weekend instructing turns out to be a former Lightning or Harrier man who flies corporate turboprops during the week and displays a Stearman (or something) when he can.
I think you're probably at just the right time to start looking into it. My PPrune name means what it says. I only have 120 hrs of Group A time logged in the two and a quarter years since I started my PPL course (on a Piper Warrior), and had 60 hrswhen I started on the Cub, about 85 when I started on the Yak. Must admit to about 40 hours of gliding in a previous life plus some highly informal unlogged time with some very good ex RAF / airline instructors in various types during the 80s, but it's not a tremendous amount.
Don't be afraid that people will reject you for lack of hours. Everywhere I've talked to about flying different types, the attitude has been "We'd love you to have a go, don't worry, we won't send you off solo until you're good and ready". What counts is attitude and aptitude more than hours. Where they might express a view is in encouraging you to take things a step at a time, e.g. C152 to Cub, Cub to Tiger, Tiger to Pitts, not straight there in one fell swoop. But I've heard of that being done too, by the truly determined, though I reckon it often costs more and takes longer than going via intermediate steps. In any case, many schools with more exotic types are just as happy for you to have an hour or two's dual taster of a type, even if you don't want to solo it.
What really, really helps you be accepted as serious about learning to fly a type, in my experience, is reading absolutely everything you can about it. Get the pilots notes or flight manual and learn it off by heart. Understand the engineering and the systems. e.g. learn how a CS prop works, and why (for example) a lot of aerobatic types and twins have a type of CS prop that works in a different way to an SEP tourer. Read lots of books by other pilots who can communicate well, especially (if you can get them) the 70s and 80s writings of Neil Williams, Brian Lecomber, Bernard Chabbert etc. These days I find Andy Sephton and Maxi Gainza to be among the best writers about the foibles of various types. And ask your instructors, and people whose flying you respect if they've ever flown a Type X, adn what they thought about it. Often the quiet softly-spoken guy who does a bit of weekend instructing turns out to be a former Lightning or Harrier man who flies corporate turboprops during the week and displays a Stearman (or something) when he can.
In my experience, most of these "unusual" aeroplanes aren't at-all dangerous, just different. They can all be flown safely, what's important is to have enough knowledge of what you are flying.
There are ways and means to do this, they are taught to test pilots, they were also taught to the ATA delivery pilots during WW2. It is a subject I'm also trying to write a book on which I hope you'll all buy if it gets published (shameless plug, but what the heck).
If you go to a syndicate with such an odd type, asking lots of questions along the lines of "where's the manual", "how does this work then" and particularly "how much time will somebody else spend flying with me so that I can come to terms with it" then you'll find that you don't get put out on your ear.
A few points..
- If there aren't pilots notes, ask lots of questions and formulate your own.
- Get all the really key points on your kneeboard.
- Spend as much time as you can going through where controls are, procedures, limits, dials, etc. sat on the ground.
- Obviously not viable in a single seater, but if possible fly first with somebody experienced who knows the type. Don't let them do anything if possible, just get them to talk through doing everything.
For the record, I've 80 types in the logbook. Least favourite were Hunter T7 and C152, favourites are Hawk and Southdown Raven. Unusually, I also quite like the PA38.
G
There are ways and means to do this, they are taught to test pilots, they were also taught to the ATA delivery pilots during WW2. It is a subject I'm also trying to write a book on which I hope you'll all buy if it gets published (shameless plug, but what the heck).
If you go to a syndicate with such an odd type, asking lots of questions along the lines of "where's the manual", "how does this work then" and particularly "how much time will somebody else spend flying with me so that I can come to terms with it" then you'll find that you don't get put out on your ear.
A few points..
- If there aren't pilots notes, ask lots of questions and formulate your own.
- Get all the really key points on your kneeboard.
- Spend as much time as you can going through where controls are, procedures, limits, dials, etc. sat on the ground.
- Obviously not viable in a single seater, but if possible fly first with somebody experienced who knows the type. Don't let them do anything if possible, just get them to talk through doing everything.
For the record, I've 80 types in the logbook. Least favourite were Hunter T7 and C152, favourites are Hawk and Southdown Raven. Unusually, I also quite like the PA38.
G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry about low hours. I got my PPL on C150s in 1979, and immediately converted onto the Chipmunk with less than 50 hours total in my logbook. Like Lowtimer, I did have some gliding experience under my belt before I'd started the PPL, but I actually think there are advantages in gaining those extra skills as early in your flying career as you can.
After the Chippy (which is still my main type), I flew a lot of types including many taildraggers (Cubs, Moths, Citabrias, Stearman etc - even a Waco) - and my early Chippy experiences made it all realtively drama-free.
It was not until many years later (the late 90s) that I bought a share in a Yak 52. It isn't a taildragger (but it has the character of one!) but was my first 'complex' type. First VP prop, first retractable, first with cowl flaps (that you have to vary in flight or you cook the engine), and far more powerful than anything else I'd flown to date. As a result, I think it took me longer to check out in it than if I'd met some of these 'complexities' earlier in my flying career.
IMHO it is better to start getting as much diverse experience as soon as you can. It also makes for interesting flying.
SSD
After the Chippy (which is still my main type), I flew a lot of types including many taildraggers (Cubs, Moths, Citabrias, Stearman etc - even a Waco) - and my early Chippy experiences made it all realtively drama-free.
It was not until many years later (the late 90s) that I bought a share in a Yak 52. It isn't a taildragger (but it has the character of one!) but was my first 'complex' type. First VP prop, first retractable, first with cowl flaps (that you have to vary in flight or you cook the engine), and far more powerful than anything else I'd flown to date. As a result, I think it took me longer to check out in it than if I'd met some of these 'complexities' earlier in my flying career.
IMHO it is better to start getting as much diverse experience as soon as you can. It also makes for interesting flying.
SSD
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In mentioning authors whose published works I find helpful, I strongly suspect that Ghenghis would be on the list if I knew his list of pen names! BBeagle has also written some fascinating stuff on PPrune - his account of the Buccaneer was most interesting.
Go on, Ghenghis, what didn't you like about the Hunter?
Go on, Ghenghis, what didn't you like about the Hunter?
So far as pen-names are concerned, I've not yet published any books, but you've probably read some of my stuff in various flying / engineering periodicals published in the UK and US. None of the editors have ever relayed any letters of complaint about any of it, so I assume people like my writing.
The book is actually an attempt to replicate the "ATA blue book" which was a series of "type-cards" used by wartime ferry pilots giving them enough data to operate each type safely. I've in draft two versions, one for microlights and one for light aircraft - the first is pretty much ready to go in first edition form, the second probably needs another 6-12 months work. Bob Pooley seemed fairly keen when I talked over the drafts with him in December and I need to go and see him about it again sometime soon. If he changes his mind, I'll hawk it around the bazaars and see if there are any other takers.
I did have an early draft of some of my cards that I showed a few people at the Sywell fly-in last year so others may like to comment on it as they saw it then.
Re: the Hunter, the thing is an ergonomic nightmare, whoever designed that cockpit so far as I could tell took a box of instruments, emptied them onto his drawing board at random and said "we'll do it in that order". To make life even harder, all the dials are the same size, shape and colouring. Add in to that that as a shortarse I couldn't see over the coaming of the ones we had at ETPS which had extra flight-test instrumentation. I'm told the single seaters are much nicer but I'm not a jet pilot and only ever flew right-hand-seat as an observer so can only take that as hearsay. Handling was very crisp and light but I prefer the slightly heavier controls of the Hawk which personally I find easier to fly precisely and gives you better natural warning of the risk of overstress.
G
The book is actually an attempt to replicate the "ATA blue book" which was a series of "type-cards" used by wartime ferry pilots giving them enough data to operate each type safely. I've in draft two versions, one for microlights and one for light aircraft - the first is pretty much ready to go in first edition form, the second probably needs another 6-12 months work. Bob Pooley seemed fairly keen when I talked over the drafts with him in December and I need to go and see him about it again sometime soon. If he changes his mind, I'll hawk it around the bazaars and see if there are any other takers.
I did have an early draft of some of my cards that I showed a few people at the Sywell fly-in last year so others may like to comment on it as they saw it then.
Re: the Hunter, the thing is an ergonomic nightmare, whoever designed that cockpit so far as I could tell took a box of instruments, emptied them onto his drawing board at random and said "we'll do it in that order". To make life even harder, all the dials are the same size, shape and colouring. Add in to that that as a shortarse I couldn't see over the coaming of the ones we had at ETPS which had extra flight-test instrumentation. I'm told the single seaters are much nicer but I'm not a jet pilot and only ever flew right-hand-seat as an observer so can only take that as hearsay. Handling was very crisp and light but I prefer the slightly heavier controls of the Hawk which personally I find easier to fly precisely and gives you better natural warning of the risk of overstress.
G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of us who fly and love the Yak52 have to admit it's a bit of an ergonomic nightmare. The flap lever and undercarriage lever look and feel identical. The undercarriage lever has next to it the flap position indicator lights labelled UP/DOWN. And there are no squat switches or gear unsafe warning system - so Yaks sometimes get landed gear-up, or have the gear retracted when on the ground.
The '52 also has some idiosyncrasies: ASIs in KPH and metric altimeters are common, manifold pressure is shown in mm Hg, while the engine speed is shown in percent RPM rather than actual RPM, following jet convention (military Yak pilots go on to the Delphin jet after the '52).
But none of this matters (except maybe the lack of gear safety features) - it just adds to the character of a very exciting machine.
SSD
The '52 also has some idiosyncrasies: ASIs in KPH and metric altimeters are common, manifold pressure is shown in mm Hg, while the engine speed is shown in percent RPM rather than actual RPM, following jet convention (military Yak pilots go on to the Delphin jet after the '52).
But none of this matters (except maybe the lack of gear safety features) - it just adds to the character of a very exciting machine.
SSD
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onan,
All generalisations are dangerous, but the average SEP tourer CS prop is set up so that in the event of the failure of the oil pressure to the hub, the centrifugal forces will push the prop to fine pitch. In prop shorthand, this is an "oil to increase pitch" prop. On the average twin, it's set up the other way, "oil to decrease pitch", so that oil pressure failure takes the prop to coarse pitch and it can be feathered. Some of the more advanced aerobatic types take into account the possibility of oil pressure fluctuations due to extreme manouevring at high indicated air speed and redline RPM - and therefore go for and "oil to decrease" prop to reduce the risk of the engine blowing up through over-revving at the moment of the oil pressure faltering.
All generalisations are dangerous, but the average SEP tourer CS prop is set up so that in the event of the failure of the oil pressure to the hub, the centrifugal forces will push the prop to fine pitch. In prop shorthand, this is an "oil to increase pitch" prop. On the average twin, it's set up the other way, "oil to decrease pitch", so that oil pressure failure takes the prop to coarse pitch and it can be feathered. Some of the more advanced aerobatic types take into account the possibility of oil pressure fluctuations due to extreme manouevring at high indicated air speed and redline RPM - and therefore go for and "oil to decrease" prop to reduce the risk of the engine blowing up through over-revving at the moment of the oil pressure faltering.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the advice. As a newbie I see my future flying panning out somthing like this:
70 hrs in a Pa28 - Done.
Conversion to Robin 2160 - Just done (today) - much nicer to fly than the Warrior - has a stick and you actually need to use the rudder! Also, it stalls!
Fly the Robin until it starts to get boring - do some basic aeros.
Basic taildragging in the clubs C140 or perhaps a Cub.
More advanced taildragging in the clubs Cap10b.
Hopefully by about 200 hours end up flying somthing like a Chipmunk - ideally in a 2 aircraft group - chippie and also a fast 4 seat tourer.
SSD, your Chippie is beautiful (was parked next to you at Duxford) - and I only live 25 minutes from Barton. Must come and have a look sometime. Don't suppose any of your group have instructors licenses do they?
PS. Just looking at a Yak makes me very nervous.
70 hrs in a Pa28 - Done.
Conversion to Robin 2160 - Just done (today) - much nicer to fly than the Warrior - has a stick and you actually need to use the rudder! Also, it stalls!
Fly the Robin until it starts to get boring - do some basic aeros.
Basic taildragging in the clubs C140 or perhaps a Cub.
More advanced taildragging in the clubs Cap10b.
Hopefully by about 200 hours end up flying somthing like a Chipmunk - ideally in a 2 aircraft group - chippie and also a fast 4 seat tourer.
SSD, your Chippie is beautiful (was parked next to you at Duxford) - and I only live 25 minutes from Barton. Must come and have a look sometime. Don't suppose any of your group have instructors licenses do they?
PS. Just looking at a Yak makes me very nervous.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD, your Chippie is beautiful (was parked next to you at Duxford)
You were in the B17, then!! (or Whirley's Robbo!)
Don't suppose any of your group have instructors licenses do they?
No, but we use Martin Rushbroke or Bob Knight, both Barton instructors and both very good. Martin is 'Mr Yak', as well.
PS. Just looking at a Yak makes me very nervous.
It shouldn't. They can look a bit intimidating, and they are fast and furious, but nothing to worry about - a very 'honest' aeroplane - slighly demanding but no nasty vices.
25 mins from BTN and you have access to a Cap 10? Where is that based?
SSD
You were in the B17, then!! (or Whirley's Robbo!)
Don't suppose any of your group have instructors licenses do they?
No, but we use Martin Rushbroke or Bob Knight, both Barton instructors and both very good. Martin is 'Mr Yak', as well.
PS. Just looking at a Yak makes me very nervous.
It shouldn't. They can look a bit intimidating, and they are fast and furious, but nothing to worry about - a very 'honest' aeroplane - slighly demanding but no nasty vices.
25 mins from BTN and you have access to a Cap 10? Where is that based?
SSD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conversion to Robin 2160 - Just done (today) - much nicer to fly than the Warrior - has a stick and you actually need to use the rudder! Also, it stalls!
Next step for me (@65-ish hours) is the Citabria that we've (hopefully) got arriving shortly. It's daunting for me anyway
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD - must be getting a bit mixed up - definatley wasn't in the B17 - think I might have been behind you at departure time or somthing - definatley remember seeing a chippie though.
YAK's - no reason why I'm nervous really - bad choice of words on my part - they just look a bit intimidating as you say.
The Cap 10 I (theoretically) have access to is at Sherburn - from where I live its one hour the other way from Barton (but usually easier with the M60 traffic). Only £95/hr, by the way, if anyone's interested.
Evo, not manged upside down yet - nearly did today but felt a bit queasy after 30 mins of stalls and 75 deg steep turns under a very bumpy, thundery sky. Love the aircraft though - come to the Sherburn fly-in in June and we can go for a jolly - I have a Robin booked for the whole day.
YAK's - no reason why I'm nervous really - bad choice of words on my part - they just look a bit intimidating as you say.
The Cap 10 I (theoretically) have access to is at Sherburn - from where I live its one hour the other way from Barton (but usually easier with the M60 traffic). Only £95/hr, by the way, if anyone's interested.
Evo, not manged upside down yet - nearly did today but felt a bit queasy after 30 mins of stalls and 75 deg steep turns under a very bumpy, thundery sky. Love the aircraft though - come to the Sherburn fly-in in June and we can go for a jolly - I have a Robin booked for the whole day.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knobbygb
The Robin is a lot of fun, and a nice type in which to learn basic aerobatics. It will build up your biceps, though.... you'd need to be Arnold Schwarzenegger to overstress one.
The Cap 10 for £95/hr is even better! Much lighter to fly, and more precise. The difference in handling between the Cap and the Robin is a bit like the difference between the Robin and the PA28. And as taildraggers go, they're not too bad - very good view over the nose, flaps to help with the approach, and good control authority.
Take advantage of it while it's cheap! Just be careful not to pull the stick as hard as you will learn to in the Robin, unless you're nice and high and wearing a parachute!
The Robin is a lot of fun, and a nice type in which to learn basic aerobatics. It will build up your biceps, though.... you'd need to be Arnold Schwarzenegger to overstress one.
The Cap 10 for £95/hr is even better! Much lighter to fly, and more precise. The difference in handling between the Cap and the Robin is a bit like the difference between the Robin and the PA28. And as taildraggers go, they're not too bad - very good view over the nose, flaps to help with the approach, and good control authority.
Take advantage of it while it's cheap! Just be careful not to pull the stick as hard as you will learn to in the Robin, unless you're nice and high and wearing a parachute!