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.

[Back to Private Training]  [Back to Flying]  [Home Page]
[Next Week] [Last Week]