Questions from someone who knows very little about RA

[andy310r]

Hey guys, I have a few random questions that I'm hoping someone can help with. I'm not new to flying but I am new to RA.

 

1. To fly an RA-Aus registered aircraft I need to have an RPC, which I don't have. As I have a CPL, is this a case of 5 hours minimum with 1 hour solo (competency-permitting)?
   
2. When I get the RPC will I automatically get controlled airspace and pax endorsements on the back of my CPL?
   
3. Is it permitted to fly a suitably-equipped RAAus aircraft under the IFR?
   
4. Finally, and probably most importantly, I've never flown anything this light before. I trained on C172 and usually fly 182/206/210/310… and the lightest I've flown is probably the Citabria. I'm expecting this to be somewhat different - any tips on what's likely to be challenging? Maybe also what you've experienced (good and bad!) when transitioning from heavier to light?
   

 

Thinking of getting my first taste next week. Maybe in a Sling :)

 

Thanks!

[kgwilson]

1. Yes
   
2. Yes
   
3. No
   
4. It is certainly different. RA aircraft are in general harder to fly well than GA aircraft. When you transition to RA the most noticeable difference is the reduced inertia due to the much lower weight. You will feel a lot more of the turbulence for this reason also. On landing approach when you cross the threshold you continue to fly the aircraft down to the ground and flare much lower that say a C172 or PA 28 when you would begin to round out and let the aircraft settle and it almost lands itself. I'd flown hang gliders for 20 years before I got my PPL & thought I'd transition easily & actually did with a Skyfox Gazelle where I did a number of solo flights. A couple of years later in a Jabiru 170 my first few attempts at landing were pretty ordinary but I didn't break anything. The Jab and the Sling are pretty slippery compared to the Gazelle and approach speeds are not much different than a C172. After I built my Sierra and test flew it I took a fairly long time to learn to land it elegantly. As a low wing it is affected more by ground effect than a Jabiru which is what I converted in and I did a lot of floating after flying to the ground a bit too fast. Now though landing is so easy once I mastered the technique including crosswinds of 15 knots. I don't really even think about it any more I just do it.
   

I've never flown a Sling but love my Jab 6 powered Sierra. Faster than a 172 or Archer (high cruise 130 knots) high roll rate, high rate of climb, feather light controls. The Sling probably will have similar attributes.

[Flightrite]

I didn't find any issues from the usual spam cans to RA stuff, pilots are about adapting, don't let the boogeyman get you?? Seeing as you have flown A/C that require flying by the numbers (C310 etc) then you should have no issues with that level of experience, enjoy?

[danny_galaga]

You can enjoy NOT flying by the numbers and just fly by feel!

 

Although sometimes my own flying feels a bit ordinary ?

[marshallarts]

...built my Sierra and test flew it ...

 

Hi kgwilson. You say you BUILT your Sierra - so I take it that is NOT the Tecnam P2002 Sierra? Where can I find some info about your Sierra type? When I search all I find is the Tecnam.

[facthunter]

The "numbers" for some U/L's won't be so "on the mark" as with the usual GA types so if it doesn't feel right, do something about it without much delay. The low inertia stuff is only a small % these days. ALL 3 axis planes fly by much the same Laws. Nev

[RossK]

Hi kgwilson. You say you BUILT your Sierra - so I take it that is NOT the Tecnam P2002 Sierra? Where can I find some info about your Sierra type? When I search all I find is the Tecnam.

kgwilsons is a Morgan Sierra.

Morgan Aeroworks - Cheetah Sierra 200

[marshallarts]

Ah thanks.

[andy310r]

Thanks guys for all your insights. It'll be nice flying something with more 'feel' again... I noticed when I flew the Citabria and Decathlon that you just feel more like an extension of the plane (or the other way around??)... definitely fly them more by feel than your average 182

[Downunder]

Heavy GA to RAA = truck to motorcycle.......

[kgwilson]

Hi kgwilson. You say you BUILT your Sierra - so I take it that is NOT the Tecnam P2002 Sierra? Where can I find some info about your Sierra type? When I search all I find is the Tecnam.

Garry Morgan sold the business to Ray Tolhurst 2 or 3 years ago & went to NZ. They are now supplied by Rays business,Wedgetail Aircraft Web site here

[marshallarts]

Thanks for that, the Wedgetail website is much better than the old (still there) Morgan one.

[Peter RV8]

Something I'd like to share with my transition experience ... Beechcraft Skipper/C150/Piper Warrior to Drifter (RAAus). In the VH aircraft I was always taught that if you have an engine failure and you have sufficient airspeed, convert the airspeed to altitude until you reach best glide speed. Not so in a Drifter (or any low mass RA aircraft) ... upon engine failure point nose down to maintain safe airspeed. This was drummed into me during transition training HOWEVER when after many hours of the blah-blah-blah (point nose down) we were doing a touch and go at Lismore Airport when the instructor in the back seat of the Drifter cut the power to idle when I was 20 feet off the ground on climb-out... and what did I do, I pulled the stick back (from instinct of VH flying days)... the instructor freaked out screaming "do you want to kill us?" and forced the stick/nose down before we stalled. I have not made the same mistake since then.

[kgwilson]

Yes a great way to make sure your instructor needed a change of underwear and done by mistake as well. The GA way works too with modern slippery RA aircraft, not so with draggy ultralights.

[Roundsounds]

Yes a great way to make sure your instructor needed a change of underwear and done by mistake as well. The GA way works too with modern slippery RA aircraft, not so with draggy ultralights.

Or tiger moths, Austers, Champs or Cubs.

[facthunter]

20 feet on climb out in a drifter is a bit low to cut power if you weren't carrying a few extra knots. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have to admit, I don't get the convert excess speed to height- maybe at low altitude and fast speeds.. but if I am crusing at even, say 5k' and I gain an extra 200' or even 500 - so what? I hae lost that time climbing and keeping an eye on the airspeed and then pushing over the nose, rather than looking for a good landing site (if I didn't already have one in mnd). If fact, over here, they teach just trim for best glide.. Obviosuly in a low mass RA, it is nose down ASAP.. but for your average GA even at 2,000', trimming for best speed while finding a good field sooner is better than pointing the nose up as you will get time at that height and not looking at the sky. . Also, imagine if you had an EFATO - habit to pull the nose up will kill you.. no worries, there.

[Thruster88]

When I transitioned from Thrusters into the 172 I was chipped for not pulling the nose up when the instructor failed the engine, it just felt so wrong. As Dan Gryder points out in his very commendable crusade to make GA flying safer, pilots die simply because they fail to lower the nose following engine failure. On climb out the aircraft is already at best glide speed. At altitude one has plenty of time to trim for best glide speed.

[Roundsounds]

I have to admit, I don't get the convert excess speed to height- maybe at low altitude and fast speeds.. but if I am crusing at even, say 5k' and I gain an extra 200' or even 500 - so what? I hae lost that time climbing and keeping an eye on the airspeed and then pushing over the nose, rather than looking for a good landing site (if I didn't already have one in mnd). If fact, over here, they teach just trim for best glide.. Obviosuly in a low mass RA, it is nose down ASAP.. but for your average GA even at 2,000', trimming for best speed while finding a good field sooner is better than pointing the nose up as you will get time at that height and not looking at the sky. . Also, imagine if you had an EFATO - habit to pull the nose up will kill you.. no worries, there.

It’s not too hard really, set the glide attitude and trim. power + attitude = performance, no power means attitude = performance. If at higher than cruise speed when the failure occurs you’ll gradually start losing altitude until stable in the glide, if you’re slower than best glide you’ll have a higher rate of descent until stable in the glide. This whole ram the nose down is not safe nor required unless you’ve not acted promptly when the engine failure occurred.

[facthunter]

It's essential to do something quickly in a draggy plane as the speed washes off instantly (almost). RAAus has fewer and fewer of these flying and they are a special case and do require the stick goes forward as the engine dies . With them it has to be an automatic action. You never really have a real excess of speed with these unless you do a near vertical dive.

With other more slippery types, as well as making the best of your situation and converting the energy to height, perhaps if you are that low or critical with getting to a suitable place you might be considering turning towards it without wasting time and then you need the extra speed to safely do the turn and be heading towards where you want to be. You need to be aware of where the wind is coming from also as ,IF it's significant you don't really want to be landing down wind if you can avoid it .Nev

[andy310r]

I've never been taught (in GA) to gain altitude if I have excess speed. Just trim for best glide... that'll mean you maintain altitude as the speed washes off... after which you'll be trimmed for a steady hands-off descent. Gives time to figure out what you did wrong and/or eyeball a field.

In a C206 I've flown it was pretty much "nose down right now" cos it was so draggy (underbelly baggage pod!).

Pulling the prop to full coarse can significantly reduce drag and increase glide range. Especially noticeable in a 206 and 210 that I've flown.

In an EFATO situation the first thing I do is push the nose over. I'm just not fast enough to care about further climb. By the time I've got the nose in a glide attitude I'll be pretty close to best glide speed anyway.

 

Tangent... one examiner I had (I think it was my RPL test) showed me an interesting technique for forced landings. Lose power - trim for best glide. Hands off... steer with your feet. His rationale - as soon as you turn with the yoke/stick you'll inadvertently push or pull and vary from your glide speed. Turn with the rudder and this won't happen. Got to admit I wasn't fully comfortable with that but it's an interesting take on it. A rudder turn isn't as 'efficient' so I'd think that any benefit is scrubbed off anyway. Just my opinion... and I'm not an instructor or examiner!

[Flightrite]

I've never been taught (in GA) to gain altitude if I have excess speed. Just trim for best glide... that'll mean you maintain altitude as the speed washes off... after which you'll be trimmed for a steady hands-off descent. Gives time to figure out what you did wrong and/or eyeball a field.

In a C206 I've flown it was pretty much "nose down right now" cos it was so draggy (underbelly baggage pod!).

Pulling the prop to full coarse can significantly reduce drag and increase glide range. Especially noticeable in a 206 and 210 that I've flown.

In an EFATO situation the first thing I do is push the nose over. I'm just not fast enough to care about further climb. By the time I've got the nose in a glide attitude I'll be pretty close to best glide speed anyway.

 

Tangent... one examiner I had (I think it was my RPL test) showed me an interesting technique for forced landings. Lose power - trim for best glide. Hands off... steer with your feet. His rationale - as soon as you turn with the yoke/stick you'll inadvertently push or pull and vary from your glide speed. Turn with the rudder and this won't happen. Got to admit I wasn't fully comfortable with that but it's an interesting take on it. A rudder turn isn't as 'efficient' so I'd think that any benefit is scrubbed off anyway. Just my opinion... and I'm not an instructor or examiner!

 

I wouldn't fly the plane unbalanced like that guy mentioned, that's an unbalanced thought pattern and just plain wrong, it's not a Std flight manuver, could be dangerous in its own right! That's not a time to become a test pilot!

I've always converted excess speed with Alt whenever handling simulated engine failures. Sometimes best glide speed isn't the ideal speed.

[kgwilson]

During training I was always told to "convert speed to altitude" on engine failure. When the instructor pulled the throttle I slowed to best glide which gained 5/8 of F/A altitude and happened in a few seconds anyway. Never did work out why as I simultaneously started looking for a landing paddock.

[Yenn]

What you should be looking for is not altitude but best lift / drag ratio, which is best glide speed. Say for example you are doing 100 kts, engine fails. then pull the stick back to get best lift drag ratio or glide which is say 70 kts. You are probably there already. It is all very well to theorise, but in emergency situations it is best to be able to make a decision quickly, rather than have to make one decision to climb and then another to glide.

[facthunter]

Glide/fly faster when you are into wind. The longer you are in the air the more you get blown away. This is more marked when your plane has a low TAS. When you have a good tailwind, slow down and get the benefit longer if you want best range. IF there's a strong wind don't get too far downwind or turn your back on the field or you may not make it in with no motor .Nev