WEEK 13 |
---|
Date & Time: Sunday, 27th July, 1997, 16:00 CDT
Where: From SPX, local flight
Instruction: 1.0 hrs (ground) 1.0 hrs (air) total 2.0 hrs. Running logbook total: 37.2 hrs,
9.9 hrs solo
Aircraft: Beechcraft C23 Musketeer, N5977S
Dual instruction with Lee Simmons
Low winger
Why is week 13 unlucky? Well, the 172 is still out
of action. The new factory remanufactured engine is literally in the mail,
but it won't be here until Wednesday, and then it'll be Friday before it's
actually finally hooked up into good old 1219F. I was getting withdrawal
symptoms from lack of flying (expressed in excessive flight simulator hours,
and a few dreams at night...)
When I heard the news on Friday that the 172 would be out for
at least another week, I had to take action. I spoke to Lee, and he said
he'd check me out in the Musketeer, the largest aircraft that I can fly in
the club (the other two are complex/high performance and I need 125 hours
before I can get checked out in either one).
The Beech Musketeer is a genuine 4-place airplane, able to carry
4 FAA-standard (170lbs) persons, plus about 100lbs of luggage with 40 gals
of fuel. Up to 60 gallons of fuel can be taken if you carry less weight in
the cabin. The cabin is a little larger than the 172's. The Beech is a low
wing aircraft, which makes checking the fuel easier, but you have to crawl
around on the ground to check the sump drains and get bits of gravel from
the ramp stuck to your knees. If I have to preflight on a wet ramp, I'm getting
the towbar out to move it! The fuel tanks also have tabs in them, so you
can quickly tell how much fuel you have (the bottom of the tab is 15 gallons,
and the slot is 20 gallons). The Beech also has a stabilator rather than
a horizontal stabilizer/elevator. The whole surface moves when you pull or
push the yoke. On the trailing edge of the stabilator is a trim tab/antiservo
tab. This gives you trim control, as well as giving some feel to the controls.
The antiservo tab moves as the stabilator does, and this is checked on
preflight.
Before we went out, we spent some time discussing the airplane's
characteristics. It tends to be a little nose heavy and runs out of elevator
authority at low speed a bit easily, so you need to be careful to get the
flare right (and not do anything like flare high). A quick squirt of power
helps if things aren't working out quite right. It also has a 200 h.p. Lycoming
fuel injected engine. These engines have a tendency to flood if you overprime
them... in warm weather, it's often enough just to open the throttle a little
and crank it. Fuel management is a little more complex than with the 172
- there's no "both" position, so you need to switch tanks from time to time
(Lee does this about every 1/2 to 3/4 hours), and there's also a boost pump,
which seems a common feature in low wing airplanes I've read about. The landing
gear is also different to Cessna's spring-steel types - it's a trailing link
oleo strut system. It has its advantages - it will turn any reasonable
landing into a greaser, but if you land a little bit too hard, it'll bite
you and you will bounce pretty high! I've seen someone do that in the very
same aircraft - I watched them come in, and they bounced perhaps 5 feet or
more (and they promptly went around for another try, which would be my choice
in the same situation...) The flaps are manual, rather than electric. The
flap lever is very similar to a car handbrake - you just pull it on a ratchet
(with 3 clicks, 15, 25 and 35 degrees), and press the button and release
like a car handbrake. Unlike Cessna flaps, they are simple hinged type, rather
than the Fowler type.
The noticable thing about the instrumentation is that we have
the luxury of GPS, plus the airspeed indicator is primarily in MPH, with
knots in a smaller arc on the instrument.
We went out to do the checkout. I preflighted the airplane,
and we got going. I found it to be a little tighter on space than the 172
as far as knee-room is concerned - I think I'll have to experiment with different
seat positions to give better clearance between the yoke and my
knees!
After taking off, the first thing I noticed was that you have
to really work to fly this aircraft. The control pressures needed on the
rudder are very light, and it feels more like my CH Pro pedals I have for
Flight Simulator. Yoke pressures are also light, mainly due to the stabilator
design, except for the ailerons which are pretty much the same as the 172.
We went out and did the usual checkout things - simple turns, slow flight,
turns in slow flight, stalls with power on and off in different configurations.
Altitude control needed a bit of getting used to in turns and slow flight,
so that will need working on. However, it did stay within the PTS checkride
limits (just) on all the manoevers. I do want to practise altitude control
more, because if I go for no tolerance, it will make the checkride much easier
when that day dawns.
The Beech is pretty docile in stalls. During power-off stalls,
it tends to mush as the stall is approached, and then nose down fairly gently
when the wing completely stalls. With power on stalls, it buffets quite
noticeably before the stall, and then the stall breaks and there's more nosing
down. However, it's not even as sudden as in the 172, which is pretty docile
anyway, and nothing like the 150/152 which was pretty squirrely in a power
on stall.
Soon it was time to do some pattern work. I thought that this
was going to be hard work, judging by how much it took to keep it going straight
and level. However, it wasn't too bad, but I did need quite a bit more
concentration and made fewer radio calls because of this (I'm a strong believer
in flying the airplane first!) On my first landing, I touched down smoothly
enough but my directional control was just diabolical, and I let it drift
way off the centerline. I still hadn't quite got the feel of the rudder yet
(and "more right rudder" became a little mantra on the next three landings!)
I also touched down a little early since I wasn't used to the slightly higher
cabin that this aircraft has, since it was my first landing in it. The next
one turned into a go-around because I poorly planned the amount of flaps
I would need - I was late on the flaps and pulling the power back. In the
Cessna, it wouldn't have been too much of a problem - I would have just dumped
40 degrees of flaps and glided in and cursed myself for bad planning, but
you don't have as much drag available in this airplane. It was soon clear
that I would be landing past halfway down the runway, so I pushed the power
in, and we went around for another go.
Having learned my lesson from that one, on the next landings,
I got the power back earlier and used more flaps earlier, but my directional
control during the flare was a bit lackluster. On our final full-stop landing,
I made the best one. Once again, it looked as though it would be off centerline,
but this time, I managed to ease the airplane over the centerline with a
surprisingly small amount of aileron, and carefully worked the rudder until
I had it going straight down the runway. We touched down with the stall horn
going off pretty smoothly!
Conclusion.
Well, it was certainly different having the wings below
rather than above! For one, common to most low wing aircraft, you need to
switch tanks at regular intervals due to the lack of a 'both'
position.
The change of view was interesting. Visibility was better in
the pattern due to the wing being below, and not blocking the view. This
I found very helpful! However, the wing now blocks some of your view of down
below, making it easier to miss visual checkpoints whilst navigating by pilotage.
Preflighting was spent mainly on hands-and-knees too because of the low wing
design. I think high-wingers are more civilized when it comes to the
preflight!
Preferences? Well, I'm not sure I can decide whether I prefer
high wing airplanes or low-wingers. I'll have to see how it goes on the cross
country, but I really appreciated the better view in the traffic
pattern.
I'll certainly be flying both airplanes - the variety will do
me good, and will hopefully make me a better pilot. For now I'll probably
be in the Beech because it's only flown 25-30 hours a month, wheras the 172
logged 70 hours last month! With my solo cross countries to be done, I have
a better chance of getting to my checkride by the end of the summer, so an
airplane with slots available for cross countries will certainly help.
What was learned
Fuel management is a more complex job in most low wingers.
You need to change tanks periodically to keep the airplane balanced (as well
as you don't want to run a tank dry, since it can pull air into the fuel
system and make the engine quit...).
This airplane doesn't fly hands off so easily and doesn't have
much feel to the rudder. However, minor turbulence prevailed, and this could
have been what was having the biggest effect on how much the airplane needed
to be actively flown all the time. I'll see what happens when I get higher
on a cross country.
What I do need to learn is the GPS on this - although my intentions
are to do my VFR navigation using dead reckoning and pilotage because amongst
other things they are fun to do, the GPS will make a very nice cross check,
and if I learn it, I'll have no trouble in getting un-lost if I do get lost...
Experienced pilots I've spoken to have all said that you should use everything
you can on the panel for navigation, since then you've always got a cross-check
if you ever do become unsure of your position.