Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-01-2015, 08:58 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
danderer's Avatar
 
City: Newark, DE
Country: US
Vessel Name: Sojourner
Vessel Model: 2006 Mainship 34T
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codger2 View Post
My partner and I owned a 336 SkyMaster & replaced it with a 337P, which is my all time favorite.
As a kid I was a Cessna-kid with the 336/337 being at the top of my list. Once I started flying I found a really good mechanic - well, he was a Piper guy.

I went with Piper and never looked back. Never, ever give up a good mechanic.
__________________
Advertisement

danderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 08:59 AM   #22
Guru
 
No Mast's Avatar
 
City: Atlantic Highlands, NJ
Country: US
Vessel Name: Moana Huaka'i
Vessel Model: Selene 53
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 816
What's wrong with Cessnas?

I was just going to let let mechanic I have locked up in the basement go, I mean we don't have a plane right now anyways. Oh well, guess he'll stay there.
__________________

No Mast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 11:23 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Jim Gandee's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Fire Escape
Vessel Model: Bayliner 3888
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post
Wow guys! I feel bad

I flew a Taylorcraft BC12D4-85 on factory EDO 1320 floats out of my home in Alaska for a solid decade!

That little plane saved me, my family and my house during the 1996 Millers Reach forest fire.

Ever do a night landing on floats, in a plane with no electrical system?

That'll put hair on your chest!
Ever do a night landing on floats, in a plane with no electrical system?

Nope, and I hope I never have to! Yikes!!!
Jim Gandee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 12:04 PM   #24
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,178
No, but I landed at night at a small private field in eastern PA surrounded by trees with no runway lights. Talk about a black hole approach! The subsequent takeoff was a piece of cake in comparison.

Good thing I was young and invincible back then!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I liked all of them although the earlier versions of the Cherokee (like the ones I flew) make a poor choice as a trainer because of the interconnected rudder and differential ailerons. I had to learn to use a rudder properly when I moved over to flying Cessnas for my Commercial and other ratings.
I don't remember any interconnect on the PA28-140 or 180. The Ercoupe had one which I never flew, but I thought all Cherokees were free rudder and aileron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueYonder View Post
FlyWright, I was at the Air Force Flight Standards Agency in the late 90s. We worked with you flight check guys a lot.
Were you out of Scott AFB? I guess you were more focused on pilot standards and skills, right? Can't remember exactly when, but the Air Force Flight Checkers were merged into the FAA operation in Oklahoma City during budget cuts. Back then, they were flying Hawkers and brought them into OKC. They were later sold and horse traded for new Challengers with real world wide range capability.

They now have a strong contingent of active duty and reservists to fly the Challengers with defensive systems into war zones around the world. They can tell some harrowing stories about the comings and goings in places like Baghdad and Afghanistan.

Being based in Sacramento, I had limited encounters with the AF crews but we dealt a lot with all the military branches to inspect their military base nav systems. It was always interesting to a guy like me with no military time. Our security clearances gave us pretty good access to some very interesting ops. One of my favorites was Edwards AFB....especially during a Space Shuttle recovery there.
__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 02:29 AM   #25
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWright View Post
I don't remember any interconnect on the PA28-140 or 180. The Ercoupe had one which I never flew, but I thought all Cherokees were free rudder and and aileron.
From an instruction manual on flying the PA-28...


"In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centred and a semblance of coordination."
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 05:49 AM   #26
Guru
 
Rustybarge's Avatar
 
City: I need a bigger boat!
Country: Ireland
Vessel Model: Cheetah 25' Powercat.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
From an instruction manual on flying the PA-28...


"In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centred and a semblance of coordination."
Now I know why the pipers wander all over the sky in the cruise.
__________________
Peter.
Rustybarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 12:18 PM   #27
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
From an instruction manual on flying the PA-28...


"In the PA28 series you cannot use ailerons normally without automatic rudder being applied. There is a linkage between the ailerons and the rudder that tends to keep the ball centred and a semblance of coordination."
Thanks for that. I suppose it's something that could be overridden with rudder pressure for a crosswind landing in a slip since anyone who's flown a Cherokee has probably done that once or twice.

I flew the Cherokee 140, 180, 300 and Arrow. Don't remember that 'feature' in them...but that was a looong time ago. My last Cherokee flight was probably in the late 1970s.
__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 12:47 PM   #28
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Al-- Your memory is better than mine on this. The quote from the PA-28 instruction manual I posted is wrong. Something was bothering me about my original statement. I know the PA-28 series has differential ailerons which pretty much eliminates the need for rudder in normal turns because they eliminate or greatly reduce adverse yaw.

But the interconnect thing didn't seem quite right. So last night I dug out my owner manuals for the PA-28 Cherokee C and the PA-28 Cherokee 180 F. Under controls they both say the same thing. Differential ailerons, yes, but no mention of a mechanical interlock between the ailerons and rudder.

Reading more brought me to the interlock description I had remembered incorrectly. There is a mechanical, spring-centered interlock between the rudder pedals, rudder, and nosewheel. Which means that when a rudder pedal is pushed the rudder moves one direction while the nose-wheel pivots in the opposite direction. In the air or on the ground.

Where this can be problematic is doing a cross-controlled cross-wind landing. If the nosewheel touches the ground while the controls are still crossed it will cause the plane to immediately and sometimes rather violently slew off toward the side of the runway because the nosewheel will not be aligned with the runway even though the plane is.

A co-worker in Hawaii who was also a pilot sheared the nose strut off a Cherokee 140 when he had been a student and had done a crosswind landing on a grass strip and had touched down hard on the down-wing main gear and the nosewheel at the same time.

A Cessna- at least the fixed gear models I flew- lets the nosewheel drop down a bit when the weight is off it at which point IIRC it disconnects from the nosewheel steering mechanism and aligns itself with the slipstream.

Which means in a cross-controlled crosswind landing the nosewheel is aligned with the direction of flight, not with the rudder position as with the Cherokee. So accidentally touching the nosewheel to the runway with the controls still crossed does not send the plane slewing off toward the side of the runway.

The Cessna's nosewheel steering is also spring-loaded so there is a degree of shock absorbing in the side-to-side rotation.

I stopped flying landplanes in 1980 when I got my seaplane rating and have never flown a landplane since except one time when I flew a Cessna Caravan from Cour d'Alene, Idaho to Boeing Field in Seattle. So I'm not totally sure I'm remembering Cessna's steering system correctly, but I do know the nosewheel aligned itself with the slipstream when there was no weight on it as opposed to the Cherokee's hard interlock between the rudder pedals and the nosewheel steering.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 12:58 PM   #29
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,178
To the best of my recollection, the Cessna nose gears did not turn in flight. There was a shimmy dampener mounted to control the nose wheel shimmy at speed. Landed many a Cessna in 30-40 kt direct crosswinds and never had a problem when the nose wheel touched down unless the student relaxed the controls...but that had nothing to do with the nose wheel system.
__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 08:08 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Panope's Avatar
 
City: Port Townsend WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Panope
Vessel Model: Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 286
Current picture of my hangar.

Nothing wrong with Cessna. In fact, out of all the planes that I have owned or operated, The C-150 has been the overall "best" airplane. Nice to fly, safe, easy to work on, not one ornery trait.

The Bonanza has fantastic build quality and has wonderful cruise performance/comfort. It does not slow down/maneuver well for scud running. A crash into the trees will be very,very painful. Maintenance is strait forward but there is more complexity than is needed (for my mission).

The Pitts has absolutely fantastic flying qualities but is useless for anything but sport/aerobatic flying. High fatal accident rate (spinning in).

The Float plane is a Fisher Super Koala. It was my first airplane. I built it from a kit (full size prints and a big box of spruce sticks). The Floats are my own design (Okume plywood). It will fly two (smallish) adults off glassy water. 46 horsepower. Endless wonderful memories with this plane. I will never sell it (knock on wood).

For 10 years, I owned a Piper Apache (light twin) that I had a deep love/hate relationship with. Loved flying it. Hated working on it.

Had a Cessna 172 for 5 years. Worked it flying charters day in and day out. Never let me down. Was a great money maker. For some reason, I did not grow to love that plane.

Steve

__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 09:32 PM   #31
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panope View Post
Had a Cessna 172 for 5 years. ..... For some reason, I did not grow to love that plane.
I flew a C172 a fair amount in Hawaii. It was okay but not great. I also flew a C182 a bit over there and didn't care for it at all. However I loved the C206 which I flew a lot on wheels (they're dogs on floats).

My wife and I took our honeymoon up the Inside Passage into SE Alaska and the Coast Range of BC in a C180 on floats. However, it was a C180 as re-engined by Kenmore Air Harbor. For reasons too lengthy to go into here, they wanted to be rid of the 0-470U engine (230hp) in all their C180s so they took the Continental IO-520 engine that was used in the 185 and 206, removed the fuel injection system, installed a modified carburetor from the 0-470 (fuel injection can be a pain in the a$s in float flying) and created a 270 hp (constant rating) engine that was given the designation 0-520KAH.

A forty-horsepower increase may not sound like much, but with seaplanes there's no such thing as too much power and any increase, even a small one, is a Good Thing.

For a small plane, that re-engined C180 is really a great machine.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 09:56 PM   #32
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,178
What a great looking hangar! Plenty there to keep your attention!!
__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2015, 01:27 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Panope's Avatar
 
City: Port Townsend WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Panope
Vessel Model: Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWright View Post
What a great looking hangar! Plenty there to keep your attention!!
Thanks, FlyWright.

At the peak of my motorized contraption addiction no amount of planes were enough.

Times have changed and my recovery is progressing nicely one step at a time. Wanna buy a Pitts? Or an old Chivvy?

Steve
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2015, 03:40 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Bill Ranson's Avatar
 
City: Deltaville, VA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cork
Vessel Model: Halvorsen GC32
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 116
My Dad owned a C150 that my brother and I used for our flight training. Once we got certified he would let us use the plane anytime he wasn't using (which now that I look back is amazing). We kept it on a 1800 foot sod private strip with trees on three sides and power line on one approach. My brother and I would fly touch and goes at night and leave our car parked at one end of the runway with headlights on for guidance. We got to be really good at short field TOs and landings......mostly in daytime after Dad caught us doing the night stuff.
Bill Ranson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2015, 03:49 PM   #35
Guru
 
Rustybarge's Avatar
 
City: I need a bigger boat!
Country: Ireland
Vessel Model: Cheetah 25' Powercat.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 925
What's wrong with Cessnas?

When you do a turn the bloody wing blocks your view.

Whereas the fantastic Pipers give you a glorious view of your beautiful riveted white gleaming low drag tapered wing!
__________________
Peter.
Rustybarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2015, 03:52 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Bill Ranson's Avatar
 
City: Deltaville, VA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cork
Vessel Model: Halvorsen GC32
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 116
You never need to pump fuel from a high wing plane.
Bill Ranson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 01:19 AM   #37
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,363
Steve

I note the nice looking V tail. Having spent CP time in both T and V tails what are your thoughts on flight characteristics of each?
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 02:48 AM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Brian Harward's Avatar
 
City: Sydney
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Tranquility Base
Vessel Model: Kadey Krogen 48 North Sea
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 51
Real men fly taildraggers, I owned five Maules of various models, not all at once of course, great machines. Much cheaper than owning a boat.
Brian Harward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 12:52 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Panope's Avatar
 
City: Port Townsend WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Panope
Vessel Model: Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Steve

I note the nice looking V tail. Having spent CP time in both T and V tails what are your thoughts on flight characteristics of each?
Sunchaser,

I have never flown a T tail aircraft so no comment on flight characteristics. I believe the T tail configuration on small, piston airplanes gained popularity (in the 70s and 80s) simply because it emulated the appearance of the tails of many Jet aircraft (that actually benefited functionally from this structurally disadvantaged arrangement).

I know it sounds unbelievable that plane manufacturers would make such a drastic design descision based entirely on aesthetics or some imagined functional improvement. However, the precedent for this type of action had been set by the nearly universal adaptation (and fantastic sales success) of swept vertical stabilizers (vertical part of tail). Swept tails have absolutely no functional benefit on an aircraft that cruise less than say, mach .6 or .7 (about 500 mph). The numerous small functional disadvantages of the swept tail were not enough to overcome the awesome power of human emotion - people thought those swept tails looked hot shit!!!

The V tail bonnaza is infamous for its marginal longitudinal stability (bonanza boogie). My belief is that this has little or nothing to do with the tail being V configured and everything to do with the tail being a bit too small (plane was designed for speed).

Steve
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 05:23 PM   #40
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panope View Post
Sunchaser,

I have never flown a T tail aircraft so no comment on flight characteristics. I believe the T tail configuration on small, piston airplanes gained popularity (in the 70s and 80s) simply because it emulated the appearance of the tails of many Jet aircraft (that actually benefited functionally from this structurally disadvantaged arrangement).

I know it sounds unbelievable that plane manufacturers would make such a drastic design descision based entirely on aesthetics or some imagined functional improvement. However, the precedent for this type of action had been set by the nearly universal adaptation (and fantastic sales success) of swept vertical stabilizers (vertical part of tail). Swept tails have absolutely no functional benefit on an aircraft that cruise less than say, mach .6 or .7 (about 500 mph). The numerous small functional disadvantages of the swept tail were not enough to overcome the awesome power of human emotion - people thought those swept tails looked hot shit!!!

The V tail bonnaza is infamous for its marginal longitudinal stability (bonanza boogie). My belief is that this has little or nothing to do with the tail being V configured and everything to do with the tail being a bit too small (plane was designed for speed).

Steve
Thanks Steve, my information other than short seat time, is based upon BIL who had both T and V tail Bs. His take is the V tail had a narrower CG than say the A36 T tail so passenger and baggage loading had to be carefully watched. Beechcraft's product manager, Larry Ball wrote several books detailing the Bonanzas and Barons. Lots of B data and every few years it seemed there was a small change in something whether engine size or baggage compartment.

My father had a late 50s V tail which we flew all over the place until he got "modern" and went with an RG (I believe it had the Robertson wing if that makes sense).
__________________

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012