Off-airport landing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2016, 10:01 AM
RE: Off-airport landing
(17-09-2016 09:00 AM)skyking Wrote:  I disagree wholeheartedly on the Baron Vs 310. Here's my list of what I recall flying both planes.
Baron:
Great flying qualities, and behave similar to the whole line from the Bonanza on up.
Fuel sensitive. tank location is behind the CG, and you can fly it into less desirable landing states.
Narrow up front. A big guy like me is rubbing shoulders up there.
310:
fast roll acceleration. This can be fun at manuevering speeds.
fuel sits on the CG. Doing weight and balance is relatively boring. Both planes will take off with two big brutes in the front seat and nothing in the back, but the baron will fly out of CG.
The 310 is decidedly wedge shaped to a wide spot over the front spar. We regularly change seats in flight so somebody else can get the front seat. Not even a thought in the baron.

On my commercial pilot test, we had a broken layer at 3500 that prevented safe engine shutdowns. The FAA had killed many a pilot with real engine shutdowns and mandated a minimum altitude for it.
No problem, we punched up on top and shut down an engine at 7500 MSL. The check pilot wanted to have a learning moment so we did commercial step turns with one engine feathered. Turning into the inoperative engine Smile
The plane had sufficient performance to fly at 150 MPH on one with less than full RPM and throttle.
I Suspect your instructor had a bad experience with the 310, which is entirely possible. It could get ahead of you, and a neophyte in the plane could get it doing these sickening roll oscillations on final. A tap of the rudder stopped them, but wagging the ailerons made it worse Tongue

I have to say, I have always liked the 310/320/340's alot better than Barons, but then I've never been a huge fan of it's little brother, the fork-tailed doctor killer, either. Dunno why, I love King Airs, but most of the smaller Beech stuff just doesn't appeal to me. I owned a Duke and a Queen air, each for a few years, and loved them both...but Bonanzas and Barons just never fit me.

I will occasionally cuss the tip tank slosh on short final though! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:12 AM
RE: Off-airport landing
Quote: mostly retired Vietnam-era USAF pilots, would often reference the term "Doctor killers" when talking about the light twins,

Actually that term was created for the Bonanza, the "Fork-tailed doctor killer". They are considered "prestigious" for some reason, and are extremely expensive new...so only Doctors and their ilk can usually afford them, But the Doctors- as you say, being the arrogant type- usually dove right into a new Bonanza straight from the Cessna 150 they took their checkride in, with nothing more than a rushed and impatient "Complex High performance" sign off... Well, the Bonanza has some quirks, and is nowhere near as forgiving as the little Cessna, so...Doctor stew, right off the departure end of the runway. Too many times.
I had a good friend who was head of aeromedicine over at Brooks AFB. He owned a Duke and a P-Navajo. He flew constantly, to lectures and vacations and all sorts of stuff. But he had a buddy who was a CFI who just signed off his BFR's and ICOMP's, no actual flight. I was constantly bugging him to go fly with me, free of charge, just to do some engine out work. Nope. Didn't need it. He flew all the time. I told him, "Yeah, Doc, but you don't lose an engine all the time!" No dice.

One Saturday we were having a BBQ out at the airport. I was standing between two of his 3 daughters when he took off in the Navajo, lost an engine, and VMC'ed it into the ground 1500 feet from us.

Nothing but mush.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 06:47 PM
RE: Off-airport landing
I liked the older Bonanzas, and had a soft spot for the Travel Air. the light twin version.
The early light bonanza was a really decent short field performer. I remember flying with an older pilot up to Boeing to get some parts. On the way back he offered me the yoke and I hid the whole runway behind the cowl in a classic full stall grease job. He just about panicked. He had flown it on up at BFI like some glorified airliner, touching down at 60 knots or so. I don't think he's seen that landing attitude before Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 05:23 AM
RE: Off-airport landing
Now, I did have a part time corporate job for this little bitty company, back when I was a newly-rated commercial pilot, flying a twin bonanza...I liked that plane, giant flip-over yoke and all, lol

I used to instruct in an old Bonanza that belonged (leaseback) to a flight school I worked for with the two-position electric prop and manual landing gear, lol...sure threw alot of pilots! The gear was supposed to be electric, but the gear motor had died years before and the IA owner had removed the motor and modified it to be a fully manual system, like early Mooneys had, except a crank instead of a bar. I'm not sure this would pass muster today, but it was the early 80's and he WAS an IA...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: Off-airport landing
My first complex time was in a Beech Sierra. Still have a soft spot for that plane. The owner of the Sierra was an airline pilot, and he helped me buy an ErCoupe that we and his A&P mechanic boyfriend fixed up together... even modified it to have operable rudder pedals, because no one could stand having nothing but a brake on the floorboard! They were good dudes.

However, my "dream" plane was/is the Scaled Composites Long-EZ. I got to ride in one, once, and have lusted for one ever since. Have no desire to build one myself, but I think it's one of the most beautiful planes ever built, and embodies everything that private aviation is supposed to be... plus it gets nearly 50% more performance and range of a Cessna 152 on the same engine! Plus, I love the fact that they park with the nosegear retracted:

[Image: 2213861.jpg]

One could argue that the Bede BD-5 is even moreso (made famous by a James Bond movie) the embodiment of pure flight, though:

[Image: 9db0f0f88d7335a703e21eddd4795fc3.jpg]

Another plane I have some interest in flying/owning someday, if I'm ever filthy rich, is the Dyke Delta JD-2:

[Image: 2135819.jpg?v=v20]

It's a delta wing and lifting body design, all in one, carries four at nearly 200 knots on a 180 HP engine, and it has detachable wings that make it able to be parked in the same area as a Vokswagen Beetle! From an aerospace engineering POV, that thing's pretty sexy! And John Dyke did all this with a slide-rule, in the 1960s, mounting models on the hood of his car to conduct aerodynamic testing of his design. What a badass!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
18-09-2016, 07:57 PM
RE: Off-airport landing
Ooooh, since we were discussing twins...

I found something while looking for pics of the Long-EZ, and I think there exists something even sexier than the above.

Apparently, a Brit science teacher named Shaw turned an original model Vari-EZ (Rutan's first kitplane sold) into a Long-EZ, then added two small rotary engines to save weight for retractable gear, winding up with a plane that would do 280mph. He called it the "Twin-EZ".

This is a sexy motherfucker! Sadly, it was damaged and no longer flies. Sad

[Image: Shaw-Ivan.jpg]

http://all-aero.com/index.php/54-planes-...aw-twin-ez

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
18-09-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Off-airport landing
This is my (reachable) dream single RV8
https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv8.htm

It has a 4 to 1 speed ratio, flying as slow as 51 MPH and faster than 220!
At solo weight, it is off the ground in 250 feet.
It is capable of +6/-3 G aerobatics at a reduced weight.

[Image: Scan64.jpg]

My "money is no object" general purpose mover is the PC12
[Image: p18j15qu801f6iaua1khf35ov07.jpg]
I don't need the fastest bizjet for flying around the US, when having the PC12 doubles the available runways. 2600 feet is a relatively short strip for a performer like this.
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/turbop...rsus-world
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
19-09-2016, 04:27 AM
RE: Off-airport landing
I still remember the relative controversy when the Pilatus came out, since the FAA at the time required all turbine powered aircraft to have two engines for safety-redundancy. The European equivalent agency didn't have an issue with it, and the PT-6 engine (same used in the King Air and most turboprops) is ridiculously reliable, so the FAA relented. Everyone I know who has flown one loves it. Never had a chance to do so, though.

The same company that owned the Baron my friend flew also had a King Air, which my A&P mechanic buddy worked on. I was lucky enough to be invited along (in the back seats) for the test ride after they had installed a new PT-6... the pilot idled the engines, slowed the plane until we were nose-up, riding the buffet-edge of a stall with both engines idle, then increased the throttle on the new engine to climb out of the stall (instead of lowering the nose and gaining speed through altitude loss, as is the usual method)... the new engine roared and the plane accelerated and climbed up, then leveled out, smooth as you please, with barely a wiggle. Never even took the other engine out of idle. I wouldn't have believed it was possible, let alone safe or routine for a huge twin-turboprop to pull a maneuver like that. The King Air is a badass.

We didn't have any RV-8s based at our field, but I do remember a guy who flew in from Colorado with one of the Vans kitplanes (at least, I think it was an RV) that was super-high-performance (he called it the "rocket") with side-by-side seating and which he had further modified to carry two rear-seat passengers by facing the rear seats backward in the plane. It wasn't much bigger than the Decathlon we had at the field, which was owned by a friend of his and was why he was visiting.

For a hand-built plane, he had the best fit-and-finish I'd ever seen in a non-factory aircraft... and he said he wasn't half done modifying it! That guy was a master craftsman. Wish I could give you more details, but it was nearly 20 years ago, and I didn't think I'd need to be mentally recording details for a conversation I'd later have about it! Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2016, 01:02 AM
RE: Off-airport landing
I love the Vari-eze and long-eze. I know the Rutans very well, particularly Burt. I have alot of time in long-eze's. A good friend of mine in Dallas has a turbine long-eze that he made using an APU. It isn't particularly faster, but it is unbelievably smooth in flight- and very quiet in motion and airborne..annoyingly loud on the ground.

Oddly, I have about 40 hours in a BD-5J but have never flown a standard BD-5. I met Jim several times and think he was a lunatic, though. I went to his funeral last year. Sad times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2016, 01:42 AM
RE: Off-airport landing
Quote: since the FAA at the time required all turbine powered aircraft to have two engines for safety-redundancy.

I'm not sure what you mean here...I was flying PC-6's (Pilatus Porters) long before the advent of the PC-12, and these were all "Turbo" porters, although why they call a turbine porter turbo has always escaped me... Smile I heard a line in the movie Air America where Mel Gibson says of the Porter "These planes aren't even legal back in the states" but could never find a time when the Porter wasn't certified in the US. Many jets are single engine, why would the FAA pick on a turbo prop? I'm sure this stems from something, I'm curious to know exactly what it is. I don't remember any particular controversy surrounding the PC-12...I remember acting like a potential buyer and test flying one at San Antonio international shortly after their introduction, and I was very much a fan...that's the only one I've ever flown, in fact.

Quote:The same company that owned the Baron my friend flew also had a King Air, The King Air is a badass.

I've always considered them a little too piggy for the term "badass" but I do like the beasts. I flew them solo overseas, from Texas to Istanbull, and south Africa, for the company I worked for that sold them in those countries, I flew them and others in Australia with the Royal Flying Doctors, I flew them in Alaska as medivac planes, in Costa Rica as airliners...I've encountered them all over the world. Cheap to operate, reliable, and durable. Beech hit it out of the park with the King Air.


Quote:For a hand-built plane, he had the best fit-and-finish I'd ever seen in a non-factory aircraft.

I was a test pilot for EAA members for years- many of these guys decide to build a plane, and spend 5 years doting on this labor of love in their garage or hangar. They build a hotrod, too, 300 hp, turbocharged, taildragger...then, 6 months before completion, they pop on down to Joe's Flight School to get their license. It doesn't take them long to figure out that their baby will eat their lunch, it's alot for a new pilot to handle, even if everything goes right with the testing. So they hired me to fly it, through all of the testing and the local area stuff, then to teach them to fly it. I had a great time, and surprisingly, the aircraft I flew were almost all MUCH better finished and equipped than the latest off of the Cessna or Piper assembly line. I have seen and flown alot of damned impressive homebuilts. One trip to Oshkosh will change anyone's mind about the EAA crowd, for certain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: