Why Cessnas not Biplanes

[XBe02Drvr]

Having flown in a Fairchild 24 and a few cabin Wacos, their short take-off distances and general "field performance" came as

I got a ride in a R985 powered PT17 with less than half tanks and a 150 lb pilot. Felt like a catapult launch, and it flew off in 3 point attitude without raising the tail in about two runway stripes distance. When the throttle hit the stops, the rudder was near full deflection.
The one that really amazed me was the Collings B24. It was a repo ferry flight with just the two pilots and me, and she lifted off in a level attitude at what looked and felt like an impossibly low speed and distance. I wasn't in the cockpit and couldn't see the gages, but it just seemed SO slow.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[gumbyk]

Also, having flown two of the first Traumahawks off the line, at 16 years old I was unimpressed and would have preferred just about anything else. Never flew a Skipper, but......to your earlier post is was pretty sad to watch the malaise-era airplanes get slower and lose useful load. (I'd take a 1964-1965 150 over any other year 150.)

I did most of my training in either a Tomahawk, or Cherokee.
I far preferred to Tomahawk over the 150 for training; the 150 was too stable, and I found produced lazy pilots. The Tomahawk actually required attention to keep it on track.

That, and it had a larger cabin...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I far preferred to Tomahawk over the 150 for training; the 150 was too stable, and I found produced lazy pilots.

Cherokee 150, or Cessna 150? A lot of 150HP Cherokee 140s were marketed overseas as Cherokee 150s.
I thought the Cessna 150 was an excellent trainer and the Traumahawk was dangerous, but then I've never been much of a fan of T tails and their handling traits (most Beechcraft products excepted). A couple of cases of T-hawks coming unglued in flight kind of prejudiced me.
The Cessna 150 was just stable enough to keep a ham fisted beginner mostly out of trouble, but not so stable as to mask basic aerodynamic characteristics such as adverse yaw, torque and P factor, my main gripe with Hersey bar Cherokees.
(Sidebar) When I stepped up from the C182 to the T34 with the same engine, I was amazed at the lack of torque and P factor effects. My instructor, a former Naval Aviator, said: "Hey, the Teenie was designed to train future jet pilots, so they tried to make it handle as much like a jet as possible. Did you notice the offset thrust line, down and to the left, and the aileron rudder interconnect? You can drive this thing around all day with stick and throttle, feet flat on the floor. But don't let me catch you doing it! We fly this one like a proper recip." And so began the most fun 150 hours of my flying days.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[gumbyk]

Cherokee 150, or Cessna 150? A lot of 150HP Cherokee 140s were marketed overseas as Cherokee 150s.
I thought the Cessna 150 was an excellent trainer and the Traumahawk was dangerous, but then I've never been much of a fan of T tails and their handling traits (most Beechcraft products excepted). A couple of cases of T-hawks coming unglued in flight kind of prejudiced me.
The Cessna 150 was just stable enough to keep a ham fisted beginner mostly out of trouble, but not so stable as to mask basic aerodynamic characteristics such as adverse yaw, torque and P factor, my main gripe with Hersey bar Cherokees.
(Sidebar) When I stepped up from the C182 to the T34 with the same engine, I was amazed at the lack of torque and P factor effects. My instructor, a former Naval Aviator, said: "Hey, the Teenie was designed to train future jet pilots, so they tried to make it handle as much like a jet as possible. Did you notice the offset thrust line, down and to the left, and the aileron rudder interconnect? You can drive this thing around all day with stick and throttle, feet flat on the floor. But don't let me catch you doing it! We fly this one like a proper recip." And so began the most fun 150 hours of my flying days.
Cheers,
Wes

My training was in a Cherokee 161 (taper-wing). I've flown the slab-wing Cherokees a bit, and besides the glide ratio of a streamlined brick, didn't have a problem with them. The 235 Hp powered on was great to fly 1-up.

I hated instructing in the C-150. You could tell those who had learnt on a C-150 and then moved to the Tomahawk. They'd tend to 'parachute' down to the runway, with no flare at the end. Nice stable approach though.

 

[MIflyer]

The Cessna 150 is just safe enough to be a trainer and just hazardous enough to be a good trainer. It reacts sharply in pitch to adding or subtracting flap, has significant P-Factor, does both power on and power off stalls with a high chance of occupant survival, spins readily (and very nose down, to horrifying effect) but comes out of it easily, needs rudder at high power and low speed, can be slipped safely, has narrow enough gear to make sideways hopping not uncommon, and due to the high wing you'll never think you're in a fighter plane. In addition, trying to maintain level flight with all 40 deg of flap down may be the most educational experience possible.

I recall arriving at the airfield where I kept my Ercoupe in Maryland and noting right away there was not much flying going on for a nice Saturday morning, In fact there was NO flying going on. I looked around and found out why. A student in a Cessna 152 on his first solo had not corrected for P-factor, ran off the runway at full power, and hit (1) a partially dismantled Ercoupe, (2) a dismantled Republic Seabee, (3) a Meyers 200 under restoration, (4) a boat on a trailer. If anyone wants to go looking for the Seabee I'll tell y'all where they threw the carcass.

I moved to Florida, flew my Ercoupe down, and the next day decided to go look around the local area. I taxied out to Runway 29, did my run-up, and then waited as a nice looking Cessna 140 came down final. I checked the pattern for other traffic, looked down the runway to see if it was clear, and was shocked to see the Cessna standing on its nose. I taxied down, asked the pilot of he was Okay and when he explained he could not get the tail down, taxied down to park and help him with that task.

There is something odd about an Ercoupe getting destroyed and another being first on the scene for mishaps that were exactly the kind that the airplane was designed to avoid.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I love the Cherokee. My only gripe with the Hershey bar wing was that it tended to want to "glide" down the runway and never land. Otherwise, I found it a great plane to learn in.

 

[GrauGeist]

We owned a Cherokee Warrior back in the 70's. I loved that crate.

 

[gumbyk]

I love the Cherokee. My only gripe with the Hershey bar wing was that it tended to want to "glide" down the runway and never land. Otherwise, I found it a great plane to learn in.

The taper wing was really bad for that if you were only a couple of knots too fast crossing the threshold. I didn't find the slab-wing one did.

 

[jetcal1]

I did most of my training in either a Tomahawk, or Cherokee.
I far preferred to Tomahawk over the 150 for training; the 150 was too stable, and I found produced lazy pilots. The Tomahawk actually required attention to keep it on track.

That, and it had a larger cabin...

I've been told that after the new stall strips and a few other changes the airplane was a little nicer. Our initial introduction with the mag problems, yokes, rudder binding, etc, etc, made for a stigma that has not washed away in my mind.

 

[jetcal1]

Funny thing is, (Aside from the first 18 months of the Tomahawk.) all of these aircraft if flown diligently within their limitations make for acceptable training or 200-300 NM leg X-country aircraft.

From a training aspect? Depends on the flight instructors. Although "full flap landing" was de rigor, my instructor(s) made me land with with partial, no flap and encouraged me to play the configuration when doing my pattern work. The CFI should (In my opinion) develop a curriculum that will demonstrate to the student the skills he wants them to learn. In my case, full flap landings and long drawn-out finals drew the ire of the Instructors at the FBO where I worked.

 

[gumbyk]

I've been told that after the new stall strips and a few other changes the airplane was a little nicer. Our initial introduction with the mag problems, yokes, rudder binding, etc, etc, made for a stigma that has not washed away in my mind.

The flight school I worked for had 15 PA-28's (both Tomahawk 1 and 2's), doing just under 1,000 hrs p.a. each, and never experienced any of those airframe problems. About the only recurring problem we had was the trim cable binding on the drum, but it wasn't often enough that it was really too much of an issue, and if they didn't force it too far, the pilot could work it out in flight.
Mags are still a weak point for any Lycoming or Continental, which is why Lycoming are about to do away with them and go electronic. The 500 hour inspections took care of most of the issues, and we ran our engines 'on condition' out to 3-3,500 hours.

 

[gumbyk]

Funny thing is, (Aside from the first 18 months of the Tomahawk.) all of these aircraft if flown diligently within their limitations make for acceptable training or 200-300 NM leg X-country aircraft.

From a training aspect? Depends on the flight instructors. Although "full flap landing" was de rigor, my instructor(s) made me land with with partial, no flap and encouraged me to play the configuration when doing my pattern work. The CFI should (In my opinion) develop a curriculum that will demonstrate to the student the skills he wants them to learn. In my case, full flap landings and long drawn-out finals drew the ire of the Instructors at the FBO where I worked.

Yep, completely agree, there were guys on the airfield who hated the Tomahawk, but loved the C-150.
Not sure why you'd routinely land with less than full flap though. I do remember doing a few '3-mile finals' calls while doing circuits, unfortunately, that comment goes over hte head of someone who flies that sort of circuit.

 

[jetcal1]

I got a ride in a R985 powered PT17 with less than half tanks and a 150 lb pilot. Felt like a catapult launch, and it flew off in 3 point attitude without raising the tail in about two runway stripes distance. When the throttle hit the stops, the rudder was near full deflection.
The one that really amazed me was the Collings B24. It was a repo ferry flight with just the two pilots and me, and she lifted off in a level attitude at what looked and felt like an impossibly low speed and distance. I wasn't in the cockpit and couldn't see the gages, but it just seemed SO slow.
Cheers,
Wes

Lot's wing and no weight? That's the recipe when HP is expensive and heavy. (Lloyd Stearman "grew up" with the Pietenpol/Model A engine generation.)
Funny how concrete made airplanes like AA-1 and the Aerostar possible ain't it?
We had a gentleman that did the 150HP, STOL and taildragger conversions to his 150 on my field. You would not believe the the takeoff distance when there was any kind of wind.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The taper wing was really bad for that if you were only a couple of knots too fast crossing the threshold. I didn't find the slab-wing one did.

I really did. I had a problem just hovering over the runway it seemed. I learned how to overcome it though.

 

[gumbyk]

I really did. I had a problem just hovering over the runway it seemed. I learned how to overcome it though.

Yeah, I found it quite satisfying when I could shut a Cessna piot up by landing the Cherokee in the same distance they could land a 172 in!
Once you get it sorted you can get it into a runway you can't get out of unfortunately.
It's funny how some pilots have difficulties others never do...

 

[jetcal1]

Yep, completely agree, there were guys on the airfield who hated the Tomahawk, but loved the C-150.
Not sure why you'd routinely land with less than full flap though. I do remember doing a few '3-mile finals' calls while doing circuits, unfortunately, that comment goes over hte head of someone who flies that sort of circuit.

My instructors were all either trained missionary pilots or old timers that had been flying since the 30's. I was taught to keep patterns really tight, use minimal flap and slip to control airspeed and approach. The reasons given were;
You can make the field if you lose an engine.
If you miss your approach/go around the airplane will climb better with partial flap rather than full flap while you clean it up.
Full flap is only really good for when you're doing a short field approach and always carry power. (Who cares what the FAA says!)
I was also taught that since our runway was very long at 3K FT, turn base as the end of the runway comes even with your stab and don't worry about using the 1st third of it in a 150 (Or a Luscombe).

 

[XBe02Drvr]

My only gripe with the Hershey bar wing was that it tended to want to "glide" down the runway and never land.

The taper wing was really bad for that if you were only a couple of knots too fast crossing the threshold.

"Low wing float", the bane of high wing pilots transitioning into a larger, heavier, underwing bird. That's one of the reasons I used to advocate that primary students with professional aspirations finish their private in the Sundowner. You think a Warrior is a floater, try a Twin Comanche, Seneca, or Seminole. Or even worse, a Mooney or Comanche.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[gumbyk]

"Low wing float", the bane of high wing pilots transitioning into a larger, heavier, underwing bird. That's one of the reasons I used to advocate that primary students with professional aspirations finish their private in the Sundowner. You think a Warrior is a floater, try a Twin Comanche, Seneca, or Seminole. Or even worse, a Mooney or Comanche.
Cheers,
Wes

I just found that they were more critical on target threshold speed.
I did a couple of flights in a Comanche with a stol kit fitted. If the stall warning wasn't going, you weren't going to get it on the ground.
The twins weren't so bad, a bit higher wing loading. But again, target threshold speed was key.

Cessna's you seem to be able to get away with an unstable approach and land, but a low wing wasn't quite so easy.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Not sure why you'd routinely land with less than full flap though.

To full flap or not to full flap, that is the question.
I spent several years as chief instructor at our local FAR 141 flight school, and we got jerked around by the Feds over full flap landings. The FSDO inspector who supervised our administrative and curriculum documentation was a follower of FAA dogma that all standard routine landings be full flap in all aircraft at all times. Our ops inspector, OTOH, felt that light, low powered aircraft like C150/152/172 didn't have adequate performance to consistently make safe go-arounds in a full flap situation from low altitude. We were stuck in the middle with conflicting written directives from two different offices in the FSDO. My boss (the owner) presented these literary masterpieces to the chief inspector/facility manager, who chose to err on the side of safety and cancelled the full flap requirement.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[The Basket]

Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?