Cesna vs. Piper - real question
Josef C. Frisch
a specific question. I am a low time (125 hour) pilot who rents. I like
flying into the mountains (over them actually - that being the point of this post)
and have been flying
172s and Archers. Of the planes available at my FBO which I can fairly easially
check out in, I am trying to decide between a C-182 and a Dakota. I am looking
for something with better climb performance and possibly the ability to
carry 3 people (total) to high airports (8000' density altitude - eg Tahoe).
For this specific application, what to people suggest. (Note - in case
anyone is worried - I have had a full mountain checkout with a qualified CFI.).
Unfortunately I cannot check out in a turbo Centurian, or Mooney with JATO units,
or anything else really fun.
--- Joe Frisch ---
Jer/ Eberhard
> I DO NOT in any way want to start another piper vs cesna debate. I do have
> a specific question. I am a low time (125 hour) pilot who rents. I like
> flying into the mountains (over them actually - that being the point of this post)
> and have been flying
> 172s and Archers. Of the planes available at my FBO which I can fairly easially
> check out in, I am trying to decide between a C-182 and a Dakota. I am looking
> for something with better climb performance and possibly the ability to
> carry 3 people (total) to high airports (8000' density altitude - eg Tahoe).
> For this specific application, what to people suggest. (Note - in case
> anyone is worried - I have had a full mountain checkout with a qualified CFI.).
I do mountain checkouts in the Colorado Rock Pile. It takes me 4.5
hours to complete one. This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
The C-182 is the aircraft of choice.
The Dakota is a close second.
Jer/ "Flys both and has a preferance" Eberhard
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, j...@fc.hp.com, OFFICE 303 229-2861, FAX 303 229-3598
Hewlett-Packard SST, 3404 East Harmony Road MS-74, Ft Collins, CO 80525-9599
N0FZD, Civil Air Patrol, PikesPeak 218, MSN CheckPilot, CFII Airplane & Glider
FAA Aviation Safety Counselor, Denver FSDO, 18 Young Eagles Flown!
Richard Brian Stewart
>--- Joe Frisch ---
Hi, I don't want to appear a total idiot, but what is a Dakota. I'm
assuming you DON'T mean a DC-3/C-47 Dakota. (comparing that to a C182!!!)
I guess it's a Piper (hence, cessna vs piper) but I'd be interested in
a little more info (seats, Horsepower, avg performance etc)
Richard S, PPL (New Zealand)
with a staggering 90hrs!!! :-)
Ken Clark
both to excess.
Rob Strand
>I DO NOT in any way want to start another piper vs cesna debate. I do have
>a specific question. I am a low time (125 hour) pilot who rents. I like
>flying into the mountains (over them actually - that being the point of this post)
>and have been flying
>172s and Archers. Of the planes available at my FBO which I can fairly easially
>check out in, I am trying to decide between a C-182 and a Dakota. I am looking
How about a political reason? It appears that 182s are more likely to
go back into production than Dakotas.
Taking a look at bush flying operators--high wings are overwhelmingly
preferred. I can think of only 1 exception--LAB operating out
of Juneau and Haines, Ak. They told me they used Pipers because
they could dump the flaps instantly when landing in a bad crosswind.
--
-Rob Strand
Mo Brooks
: --- Joe Frisch ---
The 182 has 2 doors, the Dakota has 1.
I took off from SAF a while back with 3 souls on board (beefers) which was
at 10,000 Density Altitude at the time and had no problems. There wasn't
much of anything smaller flying during the day. The Dakota should fare
just as well. I decided on the 182 because of the convienence and problems
with Piper at the time.
Good Luck
Mo
Bruce Bateman
Basic Piper Cherokee airframe, fixed gear, Lyc O540 235HP engine. Has
corresponding improvements in Gross Weight, Cruise, etc from the
Archer. I've recall it being said that its roughly equivalent to
an Arrow in over performance, just that you're trading a retractable
landing gear for 35 extra HP with a corresponding 2 extra GPH in fuel
consumption.
Bruce Bateman
Ron Natalie
How about a political reason? It appears that 182s are more likely to
go back into production than Dakotas.
Dakotas are in production *NOW*. 182's are not. The Sporty's sweepstakes
aircraft is a Dakota this year.
-Ron
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
>This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
>(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
Gee Jer, I do these in the flat land of eastern Maryland at least
once every three months usually at Easton or Bay Bridge. An
amusing side light is that I tried to do one on my commercial
check ride and the 18,000 hour airline pilot DE basically
panic'd when he realized that I was going to do this all the
way to the runway. He insisted that I break it off on downwind.
I had the runway made.
Dave Rogers
Bob Noel
(Bruce Bateman) wrote:
> Basic Piper Cherokee airframe, fixed gear, Lyc O540 235HP engine. Has
> corresponding improvements in Gross Weight, Cruise, etc from the
> Archer. I've recall it being said that its roughly equivalent to
> an Arrow in over performance, just that you're trading a retractable
> landing gear for 35 extra HP with a corresponding 2 extra GPH in fuel
> consumption.
>
The Dakota also has a higher useful load than the arrow, even
after considering full fuel.
--
Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru
My views are my own, not MITRE's
(why use a disclaimer when people are
too ---------- to understand it?)
Reece R. Pollack
In article <3506vs$d...@ccu2.auckland.ac.nz>, rst...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Richard Brian Stewart) writes:
|>Hi, I don't want to appear a total idiot, but what is a Dakota. I'm
|>assuming you DON'T mean a DC-3/C-47 Dakota. (comparing that to a C182!!!)
|>
|>I guess it's a Piper (hence, cessna vs piper) but I'd be interested in
|>a little more info (seats, Horsepower, avg performance etc)
A Piper Dakota is a PA28-236. The 1982 model I fly specs out
something like this:
Wing: "Warrior" tapered wing
Engine: 235hp Lycoming O-540
Prop: Hartzell constant-speed
Fuel: 72gal usable
Seats: 4
Useful load is quite generous (although the number slips my mind).
This particular bird has a bunch of speed mods (gap seals, void
plugs, fairings) so the speed figures aren't typical, but I plan
for about 135kts@65%/11.8gph or 145kts@75%/13.6gph at 8000ft. I've
had this plane up to 10Kft, and it still was climbing well. Rumor
has it that it'll climb into the low flight levels if you give it
time.
This one also has Air Conditioning, which is nice but also means
that it eats alternators and alternator belts. I'm going on a long
trip soon, and along with oil and a spare landing light, I'm taking
a spare alternator belt ($45!!).
If you want the book numbers I can dig out the POH and post them.
--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Curtis Wheeler
>In article <3506vs$d...@ccu2.auckland.ac.nz> rst...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Richard
Brian Stewart) writes:>>
>>
>>Hi, I don't want to appear a total idiot, but what is a Dakota. I'm
>>assuming you DON'T mean a DC-3/C-47 Dakota. (comparing that to a C182!!!)
>Basic Piper Cherokee airframe, fixed gear, Lyc O540 235HP engine. Has
>corresponding improvements in Gross Weight, Cruise, etc from the
>Archer. I've recall it being said that its roughly equivalent to
>an Arrow in over performance, just that you're trading a retractable
>landing gear for 35 extra HP with a corresponding 2 extra GPH in fuel
>consumption.
The airframe looks the same but it is a slightly larger airplane than the
Arrow and has a higher useful load - ?????
Curtis Wheeler CG...@CHEVRON.COM San Ramon, CA
KD6ELA / GROL PG10-25691 / Pvt. Pilot ASEL
Andrew Boyd
>>j...@fc.hp.com writes:
>>
>>This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
>>(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
>
>... the 18,000 hour airline pilot DE basically panic'd when he
>realized that I was going to do this all the way to the runway.
>He insisted that I break it off on downwind.
I have never understood this business of always terminating
a practice forced approach (pfl) at 500 feet agl on final.
Certainly you can't always land out of all pfls, but it seems
peculiar to me to train a student to stop flying a pfl at 500
feet.
Traffic permitting (and it's pretty quiet at CYSH, where I
instruct), I like to pull the throttle overhead the field
and have the student land.
See, you have to transition from flight for best glide
(80 mph in the C-172M) to a soft field landing configuration
(poh sez 40 deg flap + 70 mph, so we use that) since most
times you won't be landing on a hard surface, right?
It requires a substantial lowering of the nose to maintain
70 mph ... and the real trick is that the soft field flare
requires a large pitch change to get the nose way up there.
Inevitably, the student simply raises the nose to a level
attitude, which would likely result in a noseover in a real
soft field landing. On a hard surfaced runway, it merely
abuses the nosewheel.
You may pipe up and say "I fly out of LAX - a pfl to landing
is ridiculous there". And you would be correct. But just
as you go to a quieter airport for pattern work, for pfls
go to a quieter airport (or better still, a grass strip).
Lesson: teach for real life, not just the check ride.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
Michael Masterov
>I have never understood this business of always terminating
>a practice forced approach (pfl) at 500 feet agl on final.
I think the answer is simple - it reduces accidents in training. If
you let a student continue a bad approach just so he learns something
and the fan really quits you are hosed. 500 AGL seems safe to most
CFI's (though I defy you to salvage a student's bad pfl if the fan
really does quit at 500) but at that altitude the student can still
be oblivious to what he has done wrong. My CFI let me get to <100
AGL so I could see how I had screwed it up. And over an
airport it was always to a landing if I could make the landing. By
the end of training we were always going almost to the ground on the
off-airport ones because if the fan quit we were always perfectly set
up. The ones over airports always terminated in a landing. He had
me do them in no wind, gusty crosswinds, at night - you name it. You
only get one chance without the engine, so you must be able to do
a pfl right every time to be considered competent. He's a glider
pilot so that was how he saw it.
I was truly amazed when I took my checkride - we've just done the TO/ldg
and flown to the 1st XC checkpoint, diverted to alternate, and all of a
sudden (big surprise) the DE idles the throttle. We're at about 2000
AGL - so I start the spiel. Establish best glide, pick a field (of course
I pick one one the left side of the plane so I can see it perfectly and
the DE can barely see it - in Indiana there's no challenge to picking a
field for pfl) and go through the restart drill as I talk about it.
Meanwhile we're descending to a point abeam the field. And just as I
finish telling him about how I would declare the emergency on 121.5 and
set the Xponder for 7600 if this were real, we're at 1000 AGL with the
field still on the left of the plane. So I then declare "And now
we're on a left downwind."
He's seen me land 2 times and add power on final each time (soft and
short field approaches). What does he know at this stage about my
ability to fly a power-off approach? Nothing. But as soon as I announce
downwind he breaks it off. This is SOP for him; going below 1000 AGL
scares him.
You might argue that my CFI knows me and the DE doesn't - but when I
checked out in a Tomahawk the chief CFI went up with me and had me do
a pfl - which he terminated at about 150 AGL, after I completed a 180
onto final and it became obvious that I had made the field.
When I hear about people flying who have never done a pfl at night, or
to a full stop, I wonder what their CFI's were thinking. Probably
that it was acceptable to produce pilots who were not really ready for
an engine-out because it made the training process safer.
Michael Masterov PP-ASEL, AGI
David Rodenhiser
:PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC) <d...@usna.navy.mil> wrote:
:
:>>j...@fc.hp.com writes:
:>>
:>>This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
:>>(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
:>
:>... the 18,000 hour airline pilot DE basically panic'd when he
:>realized that I was going to do this all the way to the runway.
:>He insisted that I break it off on downwind.
:
:I have never understood this business of always terminating
:a practice forced approach (pfl) at 500 feet agl on final.
:
:Certainly you can't always land out of all pfls, but it seems
:peculiar to me to train a student to stop flying a pfl at 500
:feet.
:
:Traffic permitting (and it's pretty quiet at CYSH, where I
:instruct), I like to pull the throttle overhead the field
:and have the student land.
I'm a pilot in training and recently I have been practicing emergency
engine out procedures. Twice my instructor has required me to
actually land the plane. Once, we were directly over a small, uncontrolled
field at about 2500 feet. My instructor made a radio call to alert local
traffic and then pulled my engine. I spiraled down to just above pattern
altitude and entered the pattern at about where I would normally turn
from downwind to base, then made a normal landing from there. The second
time I was practicing landings at our local field and while I was busy doing
something else my instructor made a call to the tower requesting a short
downwind leg (he made sure I was busy doing something else so I wouldn't
notice him making the call). The tower okayed his request (very quiet
that day) so he pulled the power, again requiring me to make a full
landing.
I'm glad he is doing this because now I have more confidence that I could
make an emergency landing if it were necessary. I feel this way because
I've actually done it. Sure, if things had gotten really bad we could
have added power and saved it, but the practice of making power off
landings forces you to plan your final approach well. You can't add
power to salvage a bad approach when you are below the glidepath or
do a go-around on a bounced landing if your engine is not working!
:
:
:Lesson: teach for real life, not just the check ride.
I'm glad my instructor agrees with you.
Dave
---
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| David Rodenhiser | Sun Microsystems |
|-------------------------+-------------------------------------------|
| Opinions? Me an' Vinny | Yesterday upon the stair, I saw a man who |
| don't got no opinions. | wasn't there. He wasn't there again |
| Yous' gonna have to talk| today, I think he's from the CIA. |
| to 'da Boss 'bout dat. | |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Sam Evett
> PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC) <d...@usna.navy.mil> wrote:
> Lesson: teach for real life, not just the check ride.
Amen. I teach primary students to land without power from day 1, so that
when they have to do it for real, it's a normal landing for them. I lead
them to believe that approaches with power are "specialty" landings.
Roy Smith
> I would declare the emergency on 121.5 and
> set the Xponder for 7600 if this were real
Uh, what good is 121.5 going to do if you've got a radio failure? :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Reece R. Pollack
In article <354sef$5...@scoop.eco.twg.com>, re...@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
|>In article <3506vs$d...@ccu2.auckland.ac.nz>, rst...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Richard Brian Stewart) writes:
|>|>Hi, I don't want to appear a total idiot, but what is a Dakota. I'm
|>|>assuming you DON'T mean a DC-3/C-47 Dakota. (comparing that to a C182!!!)
|>|>
|>|>I guess it's a Piper (hence, cessna vs piper) but I'd be interested in
|>|>a little more info (seats, Horsepower, avg performance etc)
|>
|>A Piper Dakota is a PA28-236. The 1982 model I fly specs out
|>something like this:
|>
|>Wing: "Warrior" tapered wing
|>Engine: 235hp Lycoming O-540
|>Prop: Hartzell constant-speed
|>Fuel: 72gal usable
|>Seats: 4
|>
|>Useful load is quite generous (although the number slips my mind).
Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm following up my own post. So sue me!
N80392 has a basic empty weight of 1835 lbs, and a max takeoff weight
of 3000 lbs. With full fuel, there's more than 700 lbs usable for
passengers and baggage.
Charles R. Garner
David Rodenhiser <da...@penguins.Corp.Sun.COM> wrote:
>In article @qnx.com, ab...@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) writes:
>:>>j...@fc.hp.com writes:
>:>>
>:>>This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
>:>>(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
>:>
>:>... the 18,000 hour airline pilot DE basically panic'd when he
>:>realized that I was going to do this all the way to the runway.
>:>He insisted that I break it off on downwind.
>:
>:I have never understood this business of always terminating
>:a practice forced approach (pfl) at 500 feet agl on final.
>:
>:Certainly you can't always land out of all pfls, but it seems
>:peculiar to me to train a student to stop flying a pfl at 500
>:feet.
>
>engine out procedures. Twice my instructor has required me to
>actually land the plane. Once, we were directly over a small, uncontrolled
>:Lesson: teach for real life, not just the check ride.
>
>I'm glad my instructor agrees with you.
As a recent ASEL, I have something to add to this. I had trained for the
"pull power in the middle of nowhere and set up for a landing in the
middle of a field" type emergency. Did this bunches of times with no
problem. (Mississippi has lots of BIG fields!) Checkride time my DE
decides to try it out. Pull at 3000 ft. (Never did it that high
before!) Find field, head for field. Then he points out a small private
field (about 2000ft long, he knew the owner) and says "There's a
perfectly good runway! So I change, blow my approach to the field to
make this runway, and try to salvage a good "approach". (Alt about 1300
now) About the time I turn base, I realize that he expects me to land.
I freak out. Cold sweat, hot face, short breaths, the works. High and
hot. Go around. Climb back up and head back for hood work. Little
while later he tries it again, on an even shorter field (about 1300 ft)
Well, I'm still shook up, realize he'll flunk me if I don't make this
one, and blow it high and hot again! He flunks me. I go practice REAL
emergency to landings with my instructor and pass with flying colors the
next day. Wished I'd really landed during engine outs to avoid
embarrassment (and possibly more). Now I practice at least once every
five landings. Just FYI. Later
--
Ron Garner Aerospace Eng. If I were in my Cessna 172, I'd be
Raspet Flight Research Lab home by now. GO DAWGS!
Mississippi State University ASEL and AOPA
Jim Hanrahan
1) Practice simulated engine out (idle) to full stop at an airport. These
should include initiation from the down wind leg and from altitude within
gliding distance.
2) Practice simulated engine out (idle) to 500 AGL when the selected landing
site is not an airport.
3) Remember to clear the engine periodically (increase throttle momentarily)
to avoid the engine from really quitting, faultering, or causing damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hanrahan, COM-IA Naval Surface Warfare Center
hanr...@oasys.dt.navy.mil Code 822, Annapolis, Maryland
Michael Masterov
>Sam Evett <ev...@tailspin.cen.encompass.com> wrote:
>|> Amen. I teach primary students to land without power from day 1, so that
>|> when they have to do it for real, it's a normal landing for them. I lead
>|> them to believe that approaches with power are "specialty" landings.
>
>allowed to do "throttle-at-idle" landings for the first few
>lessons. For the very reason cited above -- they are HARDER to do
>safely.
No. I know one CFI who teaches out of a Class-D field who has you fly a
pattern that puts you on a 1 mile final, where you intercept the VASI and
use 30 degrees of flaps and 1800 RPM (on a C-150) to stay on the 3 degree
glideslope all the way into the flare. You then pull back the power, and
do a sort of long, floaty flare to a soft touchdown.
Of course this is the same guy who considers straining a fuel sample
from the wing tanks after refueling an optional part of the checklist
because he "trusts the line guys there."
Michael Masterov, PP-ASEL, AGI
John Stephens
Charles R. Garner <cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
|> As a recent ASEL, I have something to add to this. I had trained for the
|> "pull power in the middle of nowhere and set up for a landing in the
|> middle of a field" type emergency. Did this bunches of times with no
|> problem. (Mississippi has lots of BIG fields!) Checkride time my DE
|> decides to try it out. Pull at 3000 ft. (Never did it that high
|> before!) Find field, head for field. Then he points out a small private
|> field (about 2000ft long, he knew the owner) and says "There's a
|> perfectly good runway! So I change, blow my approach to the field to
|> make this runway, and try to salvage a good "approach". (Alt about 1300
|> now) About the time I turn base, I realize that he expects me to land.
|> I freak out. Cold sweat, hot face, short breaths, the works. High and
|> hot. Go around. Climb back up and head back for hood work. Little
|> while later he tries it again, on an even shorter field (about 1300 ft)
|> Well, I'm still shook up, realize he'll flunk me if I don't make this
|> one, and blow it high and hot again! He flunks me. I go practice REAL
|> emergency to landings with my instructor and pass with flying colors the
|> next day. Wished I'd really landed during engine outs to avoid
|> embarrassment (and possibly more). Now I practice at least once every
|> five landings. Just FYI. Later
Right on! It certainly does look different when you are facing a
really short field, and take the plane down to treetop level, or
below. If you have never done this, get an instructor who knows a
SHORT grass field somewhere, and get some "real life" practice,
with and without the engine. :-)
Nature has a way a keeping a few tricks up her sleeve -- how many
real engine failures just "happen" over a long, wide paved
runway?
********************************************************************
* . *
* John Stephens ._______|_______. Montgomery County Airpark *
* COMM-ASEL \(*)/ ( GAI ) *
* C-172P N51078 o/ \o Gaithersburg, Maryland *
* *
********************************************************************
John Stephens
Don't all instructors do this? Where I learned, you were ONLY
allowed to do "throttle-at-idle" landings for the first few
lessons. For the very reason cited above -- they are HARDER to do
safely.
********************************************************************
Oliver Spatscheck
fly over the threshold in 2000ft set the engine to idle and land after a short pattern
on the airport. You have to do this with instructor, solo and usually at your practical test.
Also your instructor will a couple of times set the engine to idle and tell you you have an
engine failure. Then you have to look for a spot and fly an approach until about 20 ft above
ground. Since in Germany the 500ft above ground are usually also required the flight
school has some designated areas for this part of the training which reduces the surprise.
Oliver
coun...@seattle.com
IF>I DO NOT in any way want to start another piper vs cesna debate. I do have
IF>a specific question. I am a low time (125 hour) pilot who rents. I like
IF>flying into the mountains (over them actually - that being the point of this
IF>post)
IF>and have been flying
IF>172s and Archers. Of the planes available at my FBO which I can fairly
IF>easially
IF>check out in, I am trying to decide between a C-182 and a Dakota. I am looki
IF>for something with better climb performance and possibly the ability to
IF>carry 3 people (total) to high airports (8000' density altitude - eg Tahoe).
IF>For this specific application, what to people suggest. (Note - in case
IF>anyone is worried - I have had a full mountain checkout with a qualified
IF>CFI.).
IF>Unfortunately I cannot check out in a turbo Centurian, or Mooney with JATO
IF>units,
IF>or anything else really fun.
IF>--- Joe Frisch ---
Both planes you mention are excellant choices!! Personally,even though
my favorites are the PA28 series,I'd advise you go with the Cessna 182
for a couple of reasons. First,you may find it easier to upgrade to a
Ce182 turbo if you have time in the non turbo version. Insurance and
checkout requirements can become very confusing at times especially
concerning time in type. As a CFI(ASE),I would be much less concerned
transitioning a pilot from a CE182 non turbo to a Turbo 182..than from a
PA28 series (non turbo) because you're already pretty aware of the
aircraft and have experience flying something very similar. Yes,you
would need time to learn about the turbo and it's performance
limitations but probably your airwork and "flying" skills would transfer
very easily. The second point about the Cessna is the gear tends to be
more rugged for landings at marginal airports. Most Pipers have
hydraulic struts which can blow on a hard landing or hitting a rock,the
Cessna's gear is much more rugged.(I'm NOT advocating hard landings,just
saying if you get in a bad situation the chances of damaging the Cessna
are a lot less!!!) The last reason is availablity,generally
speaking,you'll have an easier time finding 182's in the rental fleet
because they are more common aircraft. Another point to consider,what
about the 200 series Cessnas?? They would make a strong option for
upgrading and usually are reasonably plentiful in rental here in the
western U.S.
Best of luck,and SAFE FLYING!!
CFI
Ralph Finch
> (Never did it that high before!) Find field, head for field. Then
> he points out a small private field (about 2000ft long, he knew the
> owner) and says "There's a perfectly good runway!
This expresses very well why I think most Practice Forced Landings are
not that at all. In a real engine-out, frankly who cares about a
small runway? I'd be nervous as hell about saving my a-double. I'd
go for the biggest field around. I'd stay away from roads. I
wouldn't try for that small private field even if I did know the
owner. I wouldn't care about saving the plane. I'd be happy to
'land' in controlled flight, generally level attitude, speed 65-75
knots, field as flat and level as possible.
I wonder if the DE would have flunked you if you had stuck to your
original choice. Would have been kinda fun: "There's a perfectly good
runway!" "Yep, I'm still heading for that perfectly good field". If
so he's a jerk, more interested in testing your ability to find small
private runways where he knows the owner than seeing if you can save
your butt in a real emergency.
And, yeah, I've thought about 'but what if you're over mountains and
the only emergency field is the small private strip'. That's a
legitimate test, but that should be made clear some time before the
PFL, not after one has already made a choice assuming *all* fields are
fair game.
--
--
Ralph Finch 916-653-8268 voice
rfi...@dop.water.ca.gov 916-653-6077 fax
Any opinions expressed are my own; they do not represent the DWR
Randy Stockberger
: Uh, what good is 121.5 going to do if you've got a radio failure? :-)
--
Roy:
When I was in primary training I argued about this with my instructor,
words to the effect of 'What good is that gonna do, is the guy on the
other end gonna crawl through the speaker and land the plane for me?'
In reality, it is important. If you don't notify anyone you will have
to wait until someone notices that you are overdue, which will take
several hours. Don't depend on them to pick up your ELT, they work less
than 10% of the time in real accidents. If it does work it will take at
least 4 hours before the searchers are in the field - two satalite
orbits to get a rough location, then an hour or two while the CAP guys
call each other up and find out who wants to do a search, go to the
gathering point, then get to the search area. Also, correct me if I'm
wrong, but I don't think the CAP will do an air search at night, if it
runs into dusk they will use their cars and wait until daylight before
flying.
So, calling someone on the way down is important. Who to call? The
current frequency is good *if* you are tuned to ATC or FSS somewhere.
Don't call a unicom, our unicom is manned (peopled?) by the secratary -
mean time of employment is always less than a month. Some of them are
pretty sharp, some aren't. None of them have used a radio or flown in
a light plane before they were hired.
121.5 is always good. If you are high enough to have the time to tune
the radio you are probably high enough to reach someone on 121.5 who is
trained to help you. This may not be true in Eastern Oregon or Nevada,
but I'm sure it's true in the North East. Also, a lot of private pilots
keep COM-2 tuned to 121.5. Help will consist of finding out who you
are, where you are, what the emergency is, souls on board, etc. But
they won't help you land the plane. :-) If you don't have the bandwidth
to keep talking with them then drop the mike and fly the plane. At the
very least they will know someone, somewhere is in trouble.
--
Randy Stockberger
ran...@cv.hp.com
Corvallis, OR
503-750-3589
--
Joshua Groupp
>When I hear about people flying who have never done a pfl at night, or
>to a full stop, I wonder what their CFI's were thinking. Probably
>that it was acceptable to produce pilots who were not really ready for
>an engine-out because it made the training process safer.
>
>Michael Masterov PP-ASEL, AGI
Reminds me of what my instructor told me during night engine out
practice. I asked what about when there's no runway available?
(dumb question) his answer:
He said that I should pick a spot with no lights, (less chance of
power lines), establish where you are going to land, turn downwind,
base, final, just as if this were your friendly home airport.
at about 100 AGL turn on your landing lights.
If you like what you see, land.
If you don't like what you see, turn out the landing lights...
Jer/ Eberhard
> In article <34qplu$3...@tadpole.fc.hp.com> j...@fc.hp.com writes:
> >This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
> >(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
> Gee Jer/, I do these in the flat land of eastern Maryland at least
> once every three months usually at Easton or Bay Bridge.
It is much more "exciting" in the mountains. :-) The purpose is to
drive home the point that you "always need an out" and this includes a
place to land.
> An amusing side light is that I tried to do one on my commercial
> check ride and the 18,000 hour airline pilot DE basically
> panic'd when he realized that I was going to do this all the
> way to the runway. He insisted that I break it off on downwind.
> I had the runway made.
I have been known to "lose power" < 10 miles away from the runway at
14,000 MSL and request the other pilot to glide to and land at Grandby
at 8203 MSL. I make sure that this is within easy glide distance and I
only do this after cooling the engine for the long glide. (~5280 feet
to lose in 10 miles gives approximately 10:1 glide ratio). In aircraft
with lesser glide ratios, I begin the maneuver closer.
On the flats, I maneuver at 3000 AGL over the airport and "lose power",
again requesting the other pilot to glide to and land at the airport.
Note that 9 out of 10 pilots that I've done either of these with would
not have landed on the Airport, much less the runway!
50% try to fly a normal pattern and run out of energy (read altitude,
airspeed and ideas) 1/2 mile from the runway, on final.
50% try to fly a severely abbreviated pattern and fly over the runway
and depart the far end of the runway with over 100 knots of
airspeed, still over 100 AGL!
Note also that in an aircraft with a Constant Speed prop, putting the
prop in "high pitch / low speed" will dramatically improve your glide
ratio. To the Net: "Try it before responding"!
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, j...@fc.hp.com, OFFICE 303 229-2861, FAX 303 229-3598
Hewlett-Packard SST, 3404 East Harmony Road MS-74, Ft Collins, CO 80525-9599
N0FZD, Civil Air Patrol, PikesPeak 218, MSN CheckPilot, CFII Airplane & Glider
FAA Aviation Safety Counselor, Denver FSDO, 18 Young Eagles Flown!
John Grayson
|> PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC) <d...@usna.navy.mil> wrote:
|>
|> >>j...@fc.hp.com writes:
|> >>
|> >>This includes at least 2 Emergency Engine Out
|> >>(EOE) practices, to a full stop on the ground (airport runway).
|> >
|> >... the 18,000 hour airline pilot DE basically panic'd when he
|> >realized that I was going to do this all the way to the runway.
|> >He insisted that I break it off on downwind.
After several 500 foot aborts, my instructor had me do a pfl at TF Green
(PVD) pre-solo, along with a no lights (panel and exterior), no power,
no flaps (my call) during one of the night flights and a downwind pfl
at a local state airport.
I'm certain that completing the landing is important to ensure that a
student KNOWS what a C-172 (or any other plane) is capable of doing, to
prevent panic situations when the occasion to do it for real comes along.
Ed Wisch
jo...@astro.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John Grayson) writes:
>After several 500 foot aborts, my instructor had me do a pfl at TF Green
(PVD) pre-solo, along with a no lights (panel and exterior), no power,
no flaps (my call) during one of the night flights and a downwind pfl
at a local state airport.
>I'm certain that completing the landing is important to ensure that a
student KNOWS what a C-172 (or any other plane) is capable of doing, to
prevent panic situations when the occasion to do it for real comes along.
I've always taught students to do no power approaches as the "normal"
approach. Before I solo them, I make them do a full hour of takeoffs and
landings with the airspeeed covered. It's really not that hard, and really
improves their performance and confidence.
Ed Wischmeyer
Diana L. Carlson
>Also, correct me if I'm
>wrong, but I don't think the CAP will do an air search at night, if it
>runs into dusk they will use their cars and wait until daylight before
>flying.
Ok, you're wrong. MOST of CAP searches start at night. Of the umptiump
times I've been called, about 75% were between the hours of 11pm and 3am.
ELT searches are very easy to do at night: There's NO traffic to contend
with, and you don't have to see the ground to search for an ELT (although
it's much nicer when you CAN see the ground!). Even the Boston TCA is
open game at 3am in the morning!!! "You want to enter the TCA at 3am,
sure, do what you like, just don't wake me too much."
:-)
--
->Diana L. Carlson d...@genrad.com Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea) <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING! P-ASEL, INST CAP: CPT, NHWG, Profile 176 <-
->GenRad, 300 Baker Ave MS/1, Concord, MA 01742 (508)369-4400 x2459 <-
Heiremans Tom
[ ... ]
|> I've always taught students to do no power approaches as the "normal"
|> approach. Before I solo them, I make them do a full hour of takeoffs and
|> landings with the airspeeed covered. It's really not that hard, and really
|> improves their performance and confidence.
|>
|> Ed Wischmeyer
"... no power approaches ..."
From what point do you close the trottle completely ?
(final, base, end of downwind ...)
Tom Heiremans
thei...@vub.ac.be
Trip Farmer
>
>step...@access1.digex.net (John Stephens) writes:
>>Sam Evett <ev...@tailspin.cen.encompass.com> wrote:
>>|> Amen. I teach primary students to land without power from day 1, so that
>>|> when they have to do it for real, it's a normal landing for them. I lead
>>|> them to believe that approaches with power are "specialty" landings.
>>
>>
After a 7 year layoff from flying, I am flying again. This summer I got
some instruction from a 25 yr old (I'm 39) from one of those Florida
flying schools. One day we were to fly into Birmingham, Alabama (class c)
but ceilings got too low as we approached so we did a 180 and decided to
shoot a few landings when we got back. Was I in for a surprise. I knew
it would happen sooner or later but didn't know when. He pulled the plug(s)
on me 6 times:
1.on cross country @ 2,500
2.on cross wind
3.on takeoff @ 50' agl
4.on takeoff at 300' agl
5. on downwind
6.on base
I blew one (cross wind). Didn't judge my altitude well enough and would
have made a field I was shooting for. On all others he had me go down
to approximately 20-50 agl. One was right thru this farmer's front yard.
I was glad he tested me in each of the areas of the pattern since each
area presents its own problems. It also taught me the necessity of
flying "best rate of climb" as exact as I can. I want all the altitude
I can get as quickly as I can get it.
Oh yea, on crosswind or just after turning downwind, I won't think twice
about landing in the opposite direction. You may not agree with me but
that's what I would do.
Trip Farmer
Anton Verhulst
>areas for this part of the training which reduces the surprise.
>
>Oliver
That's the truth. After a long absence at a particular FBO, I was getting
checked out in a Warrior. We'd completed most of the maneuvers and the CFI
said "well, we've covered everything". My reply was "all except simulated
engine failures and I see that we're approaching the golf course".
He was not amused.
Tony V.
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
>In article <xx49mn#@qnx.com> ab...@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) writes:
>> PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC) <d...@usna.navy.mil> wrote:
>> Lesson: teach for real life, not just the check ride.
Ah... did I say this? I don't think I said this. It's good,
so I'll be happy to take credit if REALLY necessary.
Dave Rogers
Dave Mould
rfi...@venice.water.ca.gov "Ralph Finch" writes:
> > Checkride time my DE decides to try it out. Pull at 3000 ft.
> > (Never did it that high before!) Find field, head for field. Then
> > he points out a small private field (about 2000ft long, he knew the
> > owner) and says "There's a perfectly good runway!
>
> This expresses very well why I think most Practice Forced Landings are
> not that at all. In a real engine-out, frankly who cares about a
> small runway? I'd be nervous as hell about saving my a-double. I'd
> go for the biggest field around. I'd stay away from roads. I
I disagree on 2 counts. Firstly, you miss the point as to why the
examiner pointed out the strip - it was so that the aircraft could
do an *actual landing* to test the pilot's skills. This is obviously
not an option for the original field, but could be legally & safely
done on a strip. The examiner would need the permission of the owner
of the strip - hence the reference to "knowing the owner". The poster
was *not* flunked because he did not spot the airstrip, but because
he messed up the approach & landing. I did not get the impression
from his post that the switch in fields was "last minute" or contributed
to the messed-up approach.
Secondly, in a real situation, if I spotted a small airstrip *after*
having already picked a big field, I would consider altering to that
strip, if I was still in a reasonable position to reach it. My
reasoning is that there are *many* obsticles which might be present in
the biggest of fields, not visible from the air. Furrows, very soft
ground, low fences, irrigation pipes, rabbit holes etc. On an airstrip,
the approach is not going to be suddenly terminated by telephone lines.
The only reason for me choosing the big field instead is if I were not
skilled enough to judge the approach to a short strip. The best
plan in that case would be to practise those skills *now*, before I need
to use them for real.
--
Dave Mould
>>>>>>>> Sig space for rent. Apply within.
Steve Mansfield
while but then - after about an hour - managed to pick out a field that I
thought would be suitable. I started to set up for it when I happened to
look down. "Bugger me," I thought, "that looks like an aeroplane in that
field."
Of course, it was. It was a private grass strip that Dale knew was there.
When I turned to look at him he was grinning from ear to ear because he
knew he'd got me. The thing is, when I came back to training after a
break of a few months, he pulled the same stunt again.
Came the day of my checkride, the examiner had me under the hood, doing
turns and stalls and stuff. He then got me to take the hood off, at which
point he instantly pulled the throttle and declared an engine failure.
The first thing I did was look for that grass strip! It cost me a few
seconds before I realised it wasn't there.
I think I handled the engine failure okay. However, having demonstrated
my last touch & go on 09L at Melbourne Regional, get got me to cut across
the airfield at low level (with ATC permission) and set up a low and
tight right-hand pattern for 04, which we intersected halfway along.
Then, just as we were abeam the numbers, he cut the power again! I guess
I must have handled the subsequent arrival adequately because I got the
ticket.
_____________________________________________
Steve Mansfield st...@syntax.demon.co.uk
Syntax Editorial rot...@cix.compulink.co.uk
AA-5 G-BBDM EGSG CAA PPL(A) FAA PP-SEL
Ralph Finch
> effectively as a "you need binoculars to see him on downwind" type
> of pattern.
> Sure, engine failures are rare, but a wider than necessary pattern
> merely increases the risk needlessly, IMHO.
Perhaps we need to "tighten" our definitions ;-)
By "normal" pattern (perhaps called "wide"?) I am referring to the
pattern created by flying a Cessna 172 at 1900-2100 rpm on downwind,
runway about 1/2 up the wing strut, then abeam the numbers reduce
power to 1400-1500 rpm through most of the rest of the pattern.
By "tight" pattern, I am referring to abruptly cutting the power to
idle abeam the numbers on the downwind and leaving it there.
It is saying (if anybody is) that this latter pattern should be the
norm that I disagree with. Its only advantage that I can see is in
the unlikely engine-out scenario. Its disadvantage is engine shock,
too unusual a pattern, not enough time for proper setup.
John Prickett
John Stephens <step...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>
> Try as I might,
>I can find few reasons why a "wide" pattern has advantages over a
>reasonably close-in one.
mostly i agree with the "tight pattern" philosophy. however
please keep in mind that high performance singles/twins are
out there, too, and be flexible enough to widen your pattern
(and your scanning) to allow for these guys. in my 210, i
fly the pattern at ~100 kias, necessitating a wider pattern
than the one i fly in my 150 at ~70-80 kias. sometimes i
have trouble "squeezing in" a group of 5 150's doing t & g's.
other times, i have been cut off by a champ or pitts flying
inside my pattern, not looking for faster/wider aircraft.
y'all be keerful now, y'heah?
john prickett, cfii
Michael Masterov
>
>By "tight" pattern, I am referring to abruptly cutting the power to
>idle abeam the numbers on the downwind and leaving it there.
>
>It is saying (if anybody is) that this latter pattern should be the
>norm that I disagree with. Its only advantage that I can see is in
>the unlikely engine-out scenario. Its disadvantage is engine shock,
>too unusual a pattern, not enough time for proper setup.
Engine shock? On a C-172? Maybe if you pulled out the throttle all
at once, going from 2300 RPM to idle in the space of 2 seconds (and
I'll grant you this is how I was taught to land a C150) but if you
make your power reduction smoothly, beginning with the 45 or turn from
crosswind and timing it to hit idle at the numbers, I have a hard time
believing it will damage that engine.
But yes - I'll buy any pattern that can be flown with the engine idle
on downwind abeam the numbers as plenty tight enough (and if you are
putting flaps down on downwind, tighter than necessary for safety).
Don't discount the engine-out-in-the-pattern. I know of at least
one incident where a GA airplane lost the fan in the pattern at Terry
Airport (5I2) which has a beautiful 5000x80 runway. They flew a
wide pattern and couldn't make the runway; the plane was totalled
when they put it down in trees. Every airport has a story like that.
Too unusual a pattern? Where do you fly? I trained at an uncontrolled
field that had a fair amount of multi traffic hauling cargo for the
surrounding airports; they didn't fly 1/2 mile patterns but everyone
else there did.
Not enough time for a proper setup? What are you going to do in a real
engine-out? If you haven't the skills to land your plane nicely
without power under good conditions, how badly are you going to wreck
in an emergency? There's plenty of time to do everything while landing
a C172 without power if you don't waste time. There's another point
in favour of the tight pattern - sharpens your skills.
Besides, the guy behind you can't cut you off when you fly a tight
pattern (he shouldn't anyway but if you are far enough out he may
never see you) thus creating a hazardous condition. Of course the
guy ahead of you may be flying a wide pattern - in which case you
haven't any choice but to retain power and extend your downwind.
Michael Masterov, PP-ASEL, AGI
land in trees.)
Randy Stockberger
: By "tight" pattern, I am referring to abruptly cutting the power to
: idle abeam the numbers on the downwind and leaving it there.
: It is saying (if anybody is) that this latter pattern should be the
: norm that I disagree with. Its only advantage that I can see is in
: the unlikely engine-out scenario. Its disadvantage is engine shock,
: too unusual a pattern, not enough time for proper setup.
And a relatively steep descent on short final, making it difficult to
flare to a smooth landing. The temptation is to keep extra airspeed to
provide enough energy for a more gradual flare. This leaves the pilot
set up for a PIO. I suppose PIOs are OK in a rental, but I don't rent.
Dave Mould
rfi...@water.ca.gov "Ralph Finch" writes:
> > I disagree on 2 counts. Firstly, you miss the point as to why the
> > examiner pointed out the strip - it was so that the aircraft could
> > do an *actual landing* to test the pilot's skills.
>
> I didn't miss the point, in fact, you are making my point that PFLs
> are not that at all. The example cited by the original writer is in
> fact a test of his ability to land at a small field; NOT a practice
> forced landing.
But part of the required skill to be demonstrated in a *practice* is
surely the ability to judge the unpowered approach well enough to land
close to a spot. If there were miles of flatland available, a forced
landing would require little skill. By the same token, I would expect
to hand-fly the aircraft for any IFR examination, even though
there is a perfectly servicable autopilot in the a/c. The only available
landing site in a real situation could easily be a tiny field, so it
makes sense to me to practice (and be examined) for this eventuality.
> > I did not get the impression
> > from his post that the switch in fields was "last minute" or contributed
> > to the messed-up approach.
>
> But that was the impression I got. Would it not have been different
> if the examiner had pointed out the field, said "Make a practice
> engine-out on that airfield all the way to landing"? It's quite
> disconcerting to switch landing areas after having already made the
> mental calculations needed to get into one's first choice.
Agreed. Maybe the original poster can comment. If the enforced switch was
indeed a factor, then yes, it was an unrealistic test.
>
> > Secondly, in a real situation, if I spotted a small airstrip *after*
> > having already picked a big field, I would consider altering to that
> > strip, if I was still in a reasonable position to reach it.
>
> I would *consider* it also; but not automatically try for it.
^^^^^^^^
Good, this is exactly what I meant (and wrote) as well.
> > reasoning is that there are *many* obsticles which might be present in
> > the biggest of fields, not visible from the air. Furrows, very soft
> > ground, low fences, irrigation pipes, rabbit holes etc.
>
> Maybe I'm ignorant; but of the above obstacles, I don't think any are
> capable of causing fatalities.
You are sooo wrong. Most people would consider a collision with a solid object
in a *car* travelling at 90MPH to be very capable of causing a fatality.
Beware of the mentality in an aircraft that once "stuck" to the ground after
landing, any accident will cause minor injuries. A telephone wire is made
of "copperweld". This is a *steel* wire with an outer copper sheath. It
will cut through the windshield of the aircraft, through the dural doorposts
and decapitate both pilot & passenger. Telephone lines can cross a field
at any point, in any direction, and are notoriously difficult to spot
on the approach. I have had personal involvement with two fatal accidents
where the aircraft "tripped up" and was flipped on it's back after landing.
Quite small irregularities in the field can cause this. Try spotting an
"ideal" large field from the air, then drive to it & examine its surface.
Do not underestimate the value of the guaranteed clear approach & good
surface of a small strip when evaluating the merits of trying for it rather
than the inviting "big" agricultural field, with all its unknowns.
> > The only reason for me choosing the big field instead is if I were not
> > skilled enough to judge the approach to a short strip.
>
> I believe this attitude can be fatal. Now, even if the big field
> really is the better choice, you are reluctant to choose it because
> that would be an admission that "I [am] not skilled enough to judge
> the approach to a short strip".
You put words into my posting that I did not write. A *realistic* assessment
of one's own skills is very important. I stand by what I wrote - if
I did not consider that I were skilled enough to make a good approach
to the short but IMO safer strip, I would opt for the field instead. This is
not to imply that I would attempt something I was not skilled enough to
achieve. The point is that with repeated practice in such approaches, our
skill will improve, and thus the number of *achievable* options increase.
If our *only* practices have been to do PFL approaches to big fields, breaking
off at 500 feet, then we will never know what our limitations are.
> What I am trying to say is, so often these choices of emergency
> landing sites are done on the basis of ego and reluctance to truly
> assess one's skills in a real emergency.
Fortunately, I have been in truly life-threatening situations on very
few occasions. On those occasions, my only concern was self-preservation.
I think this would be the case with most people. Ego and "How
other people will assess my performance afterwards" were not even
considered till days after those events. I would doubt that they
have been a factor in any real emergency. Most actions in such situations
are, I believe, largely automatic and non-rational (not the same as
irrational!). The automatic reactions, and "quick" decisions are very much
related to practised manoevours. This is why I feel that recent PFL
experience is all important. As skill improves, the chosen PFL approach
may be "artificially" increased in difficulty, so that ability, and
self-confidence in that ability, improves with time.
>
> > The best
> > plan in that case would be to practise those skills *now*, before I need
> > to use them for real.
>
> Yes, but maybe easier said than done.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why?
> "Know thyself." I fly out of a 30' wide crappy asphalt strip
So what? You are surely not implying that a PFL is not possible into
a small strip? IMO you have a far better situation than if you were
flying from an international airport - your PFLs will be more difficult
and therefore build better skills. How many PFL approaches have you given
yourself into this strip? You don't need to have an instructor in the
right-hand seat to do these - simply call the tower (if there is one), or
wait for a quiet traffic pattern, and pull the throttle on yourself.
Here is where the *real* ego problem often arises - after announcing your
intentions on the radio, the whole world will know if you don't make a good
job of it. Far better perhaps to postpone the practise for another day?
> Why? Because I realize
> I'm just an average Cessna driver.
Perhaps this is the difference. I am striving to be a good general
aviation *pilot*.
Michael Friedman
|> How about a political reason? It appears that 182s are more likely to
|> go back into production than Dakotas.
If it's politics you want - Piper never abandoned the piston
aircraft market and it's customers even when things were tough
going! The Dakota has been and still is in production, as are
the Archer and Warrior. Even the Cub managed to avoid cancelation
until just this year. Piper deserves your support.
(There, that should anger someone!-)
****************************************************************************
** Mike Friedman, WB2WNX AOPA, EAA, SSA **
** Commercial Glider **
** Instrument Pvt ASEL **
** PA-28-160 N5540W "The Hershey Warrior" **
****************************************************************************
Michael Friedman
|>
|> Hi, I don't want to appear a total idiot, but what is a Dakota. I'm
|> assuming you DON'T mean a DC-3/C-47 Dakota. (comparing that to a C182!!!)
The Dakota, formally known as the Cherokee 235, is a made by
Piper. It is a four passenger, fixed gear aircraft powered by
a six cylinder, 235 hp engine. It is the highest performing
Cherokee around, and I would gladly trade my Cherokee 160 for one.
(And I wouldn't trade it for many others!) The plane has the
reputation of being able to take off with just about any load
that you can close the doors on. (DISCLAIMER- Never overload
any aircraft, they ALL have their limits) From memory, the
cruise speed is on the order of 145 knots and the useful load
capacity is around 1400 pounds.
Ralph Finch
: idle abeam the numbers on the downwind and leaving it there.
: It is saying (if anybody is) that this latter pattern should be the
: norm that I disagree with. Its only advantage that I can see is in
: the unlikely engine-out scenario. Its disadvantage is engine shock,
: too unusual a pattern, not enough time for proper setup.
> And a relatively steep descent on short final, making it difficult to
> flare to a smooth landing. The temptation is to keep extra airspeed to
> provide enough energy for a more gradual flare. This leaves the pilot
> set up for a PIO. I suppose PIOs are OK in a rental, but I don't rent.
There are numbers of mountain airports (Placerville and Blue Canyon in
No. Calif. come readily to mind) where the steep descent is desirable.
The approach which resembles the engine-out can get you into trouble.
There seems to be a fixation that only one kind of pattern and
approach is acceptable, and that others are inferior at all times. My
point is that the many kinds of approaches have their advantages and
disadvantages, and they all have their appropriate time to use them,
much like a collection of tools in a mechanic's toolbox.
If you avoid steep approaches regardless, you are denying yourself an
important tool in flying. Learn to resist the temptation of extra
airspeed; learn how to handle pilot-induced-oscillations. I find
recognizing and overcoming my own shortcomings to be some of the most
fun in flying.
Steven H Philipson
Bruce Bateman <st...@microunity.com> wrote:
re: Piper Cherokee-235/Dakota
>[...] I've recall it being said that its roughly equivalent to
>an Arrow in over performance, just that you're trading a retractable
>landing gear for 35 extra HP with a corresponding 2 extra GPH in fuel
>consumption.
It's more like 3 GPH more per hour, and the Cherokee 235 is a bit
slower than the Arrow (about 5 knots). On the other hand, the 235
has a *huge* useful load -- one belonging to a friend of mine has
a useful load of 1350 pounds. That's 400 pounds more than my Arrow
of similar vintage. On short trips where the extra fuel consumption
doesn't amount to much he blows me away in payload capability. The
235 also has great range because of its large tanks. It's an excellent
long range cruiser.
I prefer my Arrow because of it's high fuel efficiency and lower
purchase/operating costs, but I do envy the load carrying capability
and range of my friend's 235.
Steve
(the certified flying fanatic)
ste...@shell.portal.com
Julian Scarfe
Philipson) wrote:
>
> I prefer my Arrow because of it's high fuel efficiency and lower
> purchase/operating costs, but I do envy the load carrying capability
> and range of my friend's 235.
>
[Sniggers from the Mooney corner]
"high fuel efficiency" is 20 miles per gallon at 150 mph.
but
"load carrying capability" is not having to frown when your back seat
passenger turns up with one more toothbrush than he said he would be
bringing.
:-)
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Steven H Philipson
Julian Scarfe <ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>[Sniggers from the Mooney corner]
>"high fuel efficiency" is 20 miles per gallon at 150 mph.
No doubt -- the Mooney 201 blows the doors off my Arrow in speed
and fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, it's purchase price follows the
$1000 per knot faster rule, and it's 20 knots faster. My quest for
efficiency couldn't afford that price, and I console myself with the
knowledge of how far I can fly with $20,000 in fuel (130,000 nm).
Yes, I'd rather have a 201 (or an MSE). Too expensive for me though.
And it still doesn't carry nearly as much as a Dakota. One can't have
everything, at least, not in one airplane.
George Norris
Ralph Finch) writes:
>If you avoid steep approaches regardless, you are denying yourself an
>important tool in flying. Learn to resist the temptation of extra
>airspeed; learn how to handle pilot-induced-oscillations. I find
>recognizing and overcoming my own shortcomings to be some of the most
>fun in flying.
Been reading this thread for a while ... had to endorse this response! (my 0.01$
worth!). I routinely fly "steep" final approaches (well above the VASI lights) if
the local traffic allows. This usually takes the form of a close in base leg with
reduced power ("close" means that the threshold is easily attainable from the
downwind to base key position with idle power). This is usually accompanied
by a slightly higher approach speed (target 70KIAS) on short final in my taperwing
Archer II and is undoubtedly more demanding in the flare than a shallower
approach at 65-70kts. >>On the other hand, I want to be proficient in FL's and
that usually means plenty of margin on final (i.e. steep approach with adequate
A/S gust margin above the stall).<< "Normal approaches" (more power, longer
patterns, on the VASI G/S) seem easy if you are used to "steeper" ones, so little
appears to be lost.
Also no flaps approaches seem easier since you are already used to a higher A/S
and touchier handling (although not as much as a no flaps appproach). Would
this also make transitions to higher performance A/C easier? (don't know ... it
doesn't simulate the slower response of such A/C when way behind the power
curve)
N.B.This is NOT a good short field approach ... the flare consumes more runway due
to the greater pitch change and higher A/S. Short field approaches require
modified techniques ... slightly more power, longer downwind, 65KIAS on short
final...
My motto: Fly longer when traffic or ATC requires it, fly close in otherwise to
maintain and improve proficiency!
To paraphrase Ralph above: Many shortcomings still to be overcome ... but having a
great time overcoming them!
IMHO only... your milage may vary... consult your CFI before... etc.
==========================================================
George Norris PP-ASEL Archer II N8765C X = My Opinions
Motorola SPS Phoenix AZ Y = Motorola's
email: rxz...@email.sps.mot.com Note that X<>Y
Bruce Bateman
>...<snip>...
>
>Been reading this thread for a while ... had to endorse this response! (my 0.01$
>worth!). I routinely fly "steep" final approaches (well above the VASI lights) if
>
>... Would
>doesn't simulate the slower response of such A/C when way behind the power
>curve)
>
My limited experience and training (approx 15-20 hrs) in HP aircraft tells me
to be very wary of steep un-powered approaches. In three of the HP aircraft
that I have experience in - Arrow, Saratoga/Cherokee-6, and Mooney M20F -
I was taught to keep some power through the flare. The reason is that these
birds are real draggy at low airspeed and drop out from under you when you
get behind the power curve. Now I'll grant that you could argue that this is
all the more reason to practice this type of approach in order to be better
prepared for a forced landing. But you must also consider that this situation
also makes this kind of landing much more risky in terms of hard landings,
nose wheel first landings, PIO problems, etc, all of which can result in
significant damage to the airframe or worse. This is particularly a problem
in the Mooney where if you land fast (even a couple of knots over the target
approach speed), there's a strong tendancy to touch down nose wheel first.
And this plane has very low prop clearance, where a nose-wheel first
touchdown runs significant risk of a prop strike. This was such a problem
at my FBO/Club, that after multiple incidents of prop strike, the owner
finally removed his plane from the club.
My bottom line is that (particularly in complex airplanes) you need to
be careful about "imposing" a particular practice (such as tight patterns
with steep un-powered approaches) on yourself with the justification
that it will make you better prepared for an emergency, when this same
practice increases your chances of having some other kind of problem.
You need to carefully weight the tradeoffs involved.
In the case of the un-powered steep approach, its been argued that
routinely doing this kind of approach will keep your skills better tuned
and make more "standard" approaches easier. Yes, I agreee, no arguement.
But, these kind of approaches are more difficult and less forgiving. And
lets face it, we all screw up occationally or have bad days. And if this
happens while you're doing one of these "more difficult" approaches, your
chances of bending metal or worse are greater. I think the accident
stat's indicate that the landing phase of flight is the highest risk
period. And these are not "engine out" emergencies, just plain old
botched landings. Why stack the deck futher against you by routinely
using a techique that requires higher skill and precision? Yes,
practice emergency approaches routinely enough to remain proficient.
Fly close patterns if you feel more comfortable. But routine
power-off, dive for the runway, slam-bang approaches? No thanks.
Bruce Bateman
Steven H Philipson
>Both planes you mention are excellant choices!! Personally,even though
>my favorites are the PA28 series,I'd advise you go with the Cessna 182
>for a couple of reasons. First,you may find it easier to upgrade to a
>Ce182 turbo if you have time in the non turbo version.
On the other hand, if one checks out in a Dakota it'd be easier
to check out in a Turbo Dakota. Both turbo types are not terribly
common in rental fleets though.
>[...] Most Pipers have
>hydraulic struts which can blow on a hard landing or hitting a rock,the
>Cessna's gear is much more rugged.
Failure of hydraulic part of the strut on Piper main gear is very rare.
It takes a whole lot more than hitting a rock. I've seen plenty of wrecks
where the main gear were driven *through* the wings or ripped clean off
the airplane but the oleo struts themselves were undamaged and still
functional. The main disadvantage of the oleo struts is higher
maintenance. Even one seal/fluid replacement is expensive, whereas the
tapered Cessna leaf spring or tubular struts are almost maintenance free.
>[...] Another point to consider,what
>about the 200 series Cessnas?? They would make a strong option for
>upgrading and usually are reasonably plentiful in rental here in the
>western U.S.
It all depends on where you are. There are FBOs at some fields
that have Piper-oriented fleets. Cherokee 6's, Lance's and Saratogas
are equivalents to the Cessna 200 line. The jump to twins might be
a little easier in the Pipers though as cockpits in the low-end Piper
twins are very similar to those in the high end singles.
Steven H Philipson
Randy Stockberger <ran...@cv.hp.com> wrote:
[re: use of 121.5]
>In reality, it is important. If you don't notify anyone you will have
>to wait until someone notices that you are overdue, which will take
>several hours. Don't depend on them to pick up your ELT, they work less
>than 10% of the time in real accidents. If it does work it will take at
>least 4 hours before the searchers are in the field - two satalite
>orbits to get a rough location, then an hour or two while the CAP guys
>call each other up and find out who wants to do a search, go to the
>gathering point, then get to the search area.
It often does take several hours for search planes to get into the
air, but sometimes help is available immediately. If I have a spare
radio available it gets tuned to 121.5. As a result, I've assisted
several pilots in distress in flight, and have reported ELTs the
moment they were activated. I've been able to join up on an aircraft
in distress on a few occasions and look them over for possible problems.
It's helpful if some things can be eliminated (like noting that gear
are/are not down, or that the plane is or is not trailing smoke). Other
pilots and ATC can help in coordinating assistance, like calling ahead
to get the runway cleared at the nearest airport, or getting the
emergency equipment on its way. These things don't help you land the
plane, but they do let you concentrate on performing that task.
> Also, correct me if I'm
>wrong, but I don't think the CAP will do an air search at night, if it
>runs into dusk they will use their cars and wait until daylight before
>flying.
You're wrong. Visual search is restricted to day time operations,
but electronic route searches are flown at any time, whenever weather
permits. We even fly in IMC -- it helps a lot to be able to localize
a signal even if you can't track it to its source.
>Don't call a unicom, our unicom is manned (peopled?) by the secratary -
>mean time of employment is always less than a month. Some of them are
>pretty sharp, some aren't. None of them have used a radio or flown in
>a light plane before they were hired.
Sounds like a bit of an over generalization to me. There are plenty
of fields where the person running the radios is a high time pilot or
instructor, or that person can get a hold of another pilot in short
order. ATC or 121.5 are better choices, but if there's no response on
those frequencies, a local UNICOM frequency could be a good source of help.
Steve Philipson
Check Pilot
CA Wing, CAP
Steven H Philipson
Michael Friedman <mi...@ctron.com> wrote:
>The Dakota, formally known as the Cherokee 235, is a made by
>Piper. It is a four passenger, fixed gear aircraft powered by
>a six cylinder, 235 hp engine. It is the highest performing
>Cherokee around, [...]
Nope. It may be the highest performance PA28, but there's
also the Cherokee 6 and Cherokee Lance -- six seaters of up
around 300 hp in later models.
Michael Ely
>>Cherokee around, [...]
> Nope. It may be the highest performance PA28, but there's
>also the Cherokee 6 and Cherokee Lance -- six seaters of up
>around 300 hp in later models.
Cherokee Sixes had either a 260 r 300 hp engine and the Lance only had the
300 hp engines. I'm not sure what all configurations took place after the
Six/Lance gave way to the Saratoga/Saratoga SP series, but I think they
pretty much remained to same. I use to fly cancelled checks in PA-32R
(Lance) Serial #2, which is still flying for Ameriflight out of Burbank.
Serial #1 crashed a long time ago, so this is the oldest Lance flying today.
TTYL
Mike
Curtis Wheeler
>>>The Dakota, formally known as the Cherokee 235, is a made by
>>>a six cylinder, 235 hp engine. It is the highest performing
>>>Cherokee around, [...]
>> Nope. It may be the highest performance PA28, but there's
>>also the Cherokee 6 and Cherokee Lance -- six seaters of up
>>around 300 hp in later models.
I guess if you still want to refer to a Datoka as a Cherokee, you would also
call the Saratoga a Cherokee? I would.
>Cherokee Sixes had either a 260 r 300 hp engine and the Lance only had the
>300 hp engines. I'm not sure what all configurations took place after the
>Six/Lance gave way to the Saratoga/Saratoga SP series, but I think they
>pretty much remained to same. [snip]
I believe the biggest changes when the Six/Lance became the Saratoga was going
back to the conventional tail (the Lance got the T tail it's third or fourth
year - did the Six ever have a T tail?). The other big change was the wing.
The Lances all had Hershey bars. Saratoga has a larger version of the tapered
wing similar to a Warrior.
My father owned a '76 Lance. I think that was last year the painted they name
"Cherokee" on the cowl. Does Piper refer to any of their current production
airplanes as Cherokees?
Curtis Wheeler San Ramon, CA (cg...@chevron.com)
KD6ELA / GROL PG10-25691 / Pvt. Pilot ASEL
Michael Friedman
|> In article <35ul8h...@ctron-news.ctron.com>,
|> Michael Friedman <mi...@ctron.com> wrote:
|>
|> >The Dakota, formally known as the Cherokee 235, is a made by
|> >Piper. It is a four passenger, fixed gear aircraft powered by
|> >a six cylinder, 235 hp engine. It is the highest performing
|> >Cherokee around, [...]
|>
|> Nope. It may be the highest performance PA28, but there's
|> also the Cherokee 6 and Cherokee Lance -- six seaters of up
|> around 300 hp in later models.
Well... Yeah... Your right, I guess... The Cherokee 6 and it's
derivitives are PA-32s rather than PA-28s, and really don't share
much. I really don't know why Piper called them both Cherokees,
but they did. I was referring to PA-28 Cherokees.
Mike
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| For a while there were Cherokee Warriors and Cherokee Archers etc, but
| I don't think they use the Cherokee name on the product any more...
+---------------
But ATC around here still refers to all PA-28's as Cherokees... ;-}
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rp...@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 415-390-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. FAX: 415-967-8496
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
Linwood Ferguson
> Michael Friedman <mi...@ctron.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | For a while there were Cherokee Warriors and Cherokee Archers etc, but
> | I don't think they use the Cherokee name on the product any more...
> +---------------
>
> But ATC around here still refers to all PA-28's as Cherokees... ;-}
Maybe someone from flight service or ATC can comment, but I think this depends
a lot on the "type" you put in on a flight plan (or they put in when they
create a record for you).
If you put in PA28 you're probably going to be a Cherokee. I use PARO for my
Arrow, and they tend to call me an Arrow. I'm not sure if that's an official
code or not, some FSS guy told it to me and it seems to work. Execpt for
once at National I kept getting promoted to Aerostar. :-)
And of course if they are replying to you, they usually call you whatever
you called yourself.
Are there actual type codes that are used as standards in the computers?
Is PA-RO one of them? Are there other PA-xx codes?
- Linwood
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linwood Ferguson E-mail: ferg...@eisner.decus.org
ARAMARK Mag & Book Services Voice: 703/967-0087
Route 3 Box 452
Louisa, VA 23093
Michael Friedman
|>
|> I guess if you still want to refer to a Datoka as a Cherokee, you would also
|> call the Saratoga a Cherokee? I would.
I wouldn't, because the Dakota or Cherokee 235 is the SAME PA-28 airframe
as the other Cherokees with more Unicorns up front. The 6 seat models
really share no common airframe components, thus the designation PA-32
rather than PA-28-Streach. Mine you the Cherokee 6/PA-32 line of aircraft
are also great aircraft, just like their cousins the PA-28.
|> My father owned a '76 Lance. I think that was last year the painted they name
|> "Cherokee" on the cowl. Does Piper refer to any of their current production
|> airplanes as Cherokees?
For a while there were Cherokee Warriors and Cherokee Archers etc, but
I don't think they use the Cherokee name on the product any more...
****************************************************************************
** Mike Friedman, WB2WNX AOPA, EAA, SSA **
** Commercial Glider **
** Instrument Pvt ASEL **
** PA-28-160 N5540W "The Hershey Warrior" **
** Excuse my spelling. English is my second language. Gibberish is native!**
****************************************************************************
Christopher C Stacy
>But ATC around here still refers to all PA-28's as Cherokees... ;-}
Sometimes, they call randomly call any small airplane a "Cherokee"
or a "Cessna", regardless of type. (I assume they're overloaded
or don't care or something.) Mostly they get it right, though.
William W. Plummer
>Michael Friedman <mi...@ctron.com> wrote:
>+---------------
>| For a while there were Cherokee Warriors and Cherokee Archers etc, but
>| I don't think they use the Cherokee name on the product any more...
>+---------------
>
>But ATC around here still refers to all PA-28's as Cherokees... ;-}
>
I always identified myself as "Cherokee 41983". But one day the tower
address a message to "Piper 983" and it took at least one retransmission
before I realized he was talking to *ME*! It never happend again.
--Bill
----
William W. Plummer C, MASM, dBASE to your spec.
7 Country Club Dr. plu...@altamira.theme.com
Chelmsford, MA 01824 PP-ASEL, N1NGK, MA RE Broker
Home: 508-256-9570 (leave msg.) @TALL FASHIONS: 508-251-8844
Gerry VerSchage
>In article <37fil0$b...@tokyo.engr.sgi.com>, rp...@rigden.engr.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:
>> Michael Friedman <mi...@ctron.com> wrote:
>> +---------------
>> | For a while there were Cherokee Warriors and Cherokee Archers etc, but
>> | I don't think they use the Cherokee name on the product any more...
>> +---------------
>>
>> But ATC around here still refers to all PA-28's as Cherokees... ;-}
>
>
>Are there actual type codes that are used as standards in the computers?
>Is PA-RO one of them? Are there other PA-xx codes?
>
> - Linwood
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Linwood Ferguson E-mail: ferg...@eisner.decus.org
>ARAMARK Mag & Book Services Voice: 703/967-0087
>Route 3 Box 452
>Louisa, VA 23093
>
I have always used PARO for my Arrow. PAZT works for an Aztec.
Jerry
STAN MARCH
Turbo Arrow.
I always file PARO rather than PA28. I fly fast with power on decents and
regularly show 140k indicated. Not to enhance the FAA's nomenclature but
it might not be a bad idea to modify our "type" to something like
"PARO/A3" where the last digit might give a performance rating.
Just a thought.
Stan
<=-----------------------=>
BGS...@prodigy.com
<=-----------------------=>
WhiMike
(STAN MARCH ) writes:
>>Don, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not a Controller but I fly a
Turbo Arrow.
I always file PARO rather than PA28. I fly fast with power on decents
I don't want to sound naive, but what sort of type is PARO? PA-28 is the
designation given the Arrow from Piper. How does PARO fit in?
-- Michael
STAN MARCH
I fly a Turbo Arrow and always identify myself that way. Not to beat on
my chest, but rather because the performance of the turbo Arrow is much
different than the normally aspirated one. I can climb easily at 600-700
fpm to 15000 feet or give you almost 1000fpm for a few thousand feet when
needed. My cruise at above 12000 is 155+ knots. Clean, I can easily mix
with jet traffic in Class B airspace. I fly into EWR, BOS, DCA, FLL, etc.
The performance of the non turbo Arrow is much less, especially at
altitude. That's the reason I use "turbo" in the callup. At 9000 feet
I'd much prefer a climb vector around traffic than a 90 degree turn.
That's the point.
Regards,
<=-----------------------=>
BGS...@prodigy.com
Arrow 2719C Islip NY (ISP)
<=-----------------------=>