flight planning over tiger country?

[naremman]

15 hours ago, facthunter said:

"We" had to chose as to it's suitability as a club trainer at a location where hot days and sudden wind changes happened... Nor would I say a C-172 is a four person plane to put on line as such. I'd had plenty of "hot and high" experience. It's not really whether I or "special" pilots CAN fly it. The 115 was more acceptable for the purpose. Henry was a bit precious about his BABY The "other two" gave him a hard time and eventually it went to NZ. so perhaps he was Justified. Nev

Sadly   it was our Kiwi cousins who gave us a lesson on what the Airtourer, and it's big brother the Aircruiser, could have become it had been retained in Australia.

 

The T5 and T6 variants balanced performance and handling. Interestingly many 100 hp Airtourers bingled in NZ resurfaced as T3s, with the Rolls Royce 0-240 130 hp, retaining the balance of the 100, yet with a bit more grunt. I did have the pleasure of flying PMC before it was parked in a Jarrah forest East of Perth, and considered it retained the 100s handling, but was on a substantial dose of steroids!

 

I have heard a number of  very experienced pilots state that the 100 is the nicest variant to fly, yet poorly equipped to take advantage of its characteristics. John O'Halloran, as a then RAAF ARDU Test Pilot flew my 100 34 years ago and stated that he appreciated and enjoyed flying an Airtourer in Henry's original guise. Now retired from RAAF and Cathay Pacific Test Pilot roles he still enjoys flying his aeroplane of choice,  an AESL Super Airtourer .

 

As Australians probably one of our most lamentable experiences was to buy CT4s, developed from the Aircruiser, as a trainer for the RAAF. How did we let that one go?

 

The Aircruiser did return to Australia in 1978, into the hands of then Airtourer Association President Sonny Rankin. Macarthur Job flew and reviewed the aircraft after it returned and postulated what it's potential might have been as a four seater in parallel  with the Airtourer.

 

In aircraft production the Airtourer represents less than a decade in over a century of Australian  aviation activity, yet briefly demonstrated some of our potential, probably highlights some shortcomings of developing potential, yet still has around 90 airwothy aircraft providing joy to those that fly them.

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

"We" had to chose as to it's suitability as a club trainer at a location where hot days and sudden wind changes happened... Nor would I say a C-172 is a four person plane to put on line as such. I'd had plenty of "hot and high" experience. It's not really whether I or "special" pilots CAN fly it. The 115 was more acceptable for the purpose. Henry was a bit precious about his BABY The "other two" gave him a hard time and eventually it went to NZ. so perhaps he was Justified. 

 

[Bosi72]

Choosing an emergency landing spot is always a challenge and whilst survival chances may be greater when landing on some flat farmland, there were a number of occasions when I have been surprised with powerlines, large rocks or other obstacles suddenly appearing in front of me during simulated engine failure into an otherwise "perfect" landing spot.

 

Regarding tiger country, there are plenty  4wd tracks are on the ground. Choosing between treetops (or fallen snow gums) and a 4wd track, I would choose a 4wd track. The chances of avoiding direct hit into a tree are higher, ie. wings would absorb most of impact energy, as opposed to a direct nose hit. This also makes rescue ops much easier.

 

If you are licenced/recent/IMSAFE, your aircraft cleared/checked/MR, all you can do is do your best with planning, preparations and flight will be enjoyable.

 

[skippydiesel]

Glen: Don't forget lower optimum glide speed (good glide ratio) usually equates to a lower stall speed.

In my opinion a low stall speed is possibly the best safety feature an RAA class aircraft can have. You will probably walk away from a 30 knot landing stall, survive a 45 knot and could easily have wings on your back for anything above.

Further a good glide ration gives you time. Time to trouble shoot that engine problem, turn off all the electrics, make that MayDay, tighten your harness, brief your passenger, unlock the canopy,trigger the PLB,  select your best option for a landing may be even make it to an open area/paddock.

If she glides like a brick she probably crash lands like one too.

[RFguy]

Hi Sean
ahhh : you said " turn off all the electrics, make that MayDay"

maybe the other way around :-) :-) ???

otherwise the radio will be off :-) 

 

regardless of best glide speed, alot of it depends on behaviour in ground effect, low, high aspect ratio wings etc. Jab with high aspect wings and long ones gets into ground effect quickly, and wing stays good with low induced drag all the way to the very last bit of airspeed- BUT IE harder to get it down.  Now, a deep chord,short,  low aspect wing will enter ground effect later and the loss of lift with decreasing airspeed due to rapidly increasing induced drag will tend to enable the aircraft to be pull into into a high drag configuration (low speed, high AoA) and put down exactly where you want to. 

 

Certainly with skill and practice, I think you may be able to time the big wing jab (170, 230) onto a spot. So far the best I could do in on short strip landing practice (only a couple of goes at it ) was to fly it onto the ground, but a bounce is a hazard if you time that wrong....I dont have enough experience yet with getting the airspeed right down so it drops out of the sky and stops flying when I want it to .......

 

The Brumby will drop where I want it-with  low airspeed, and pull on enough AoA and the drag increases fast enough it just kills and bleeds the airspeed  very quickly without a balloon. well it would balloon if the airspeed was too high of course (IE lots of AoA and it takes takeoff - momentarily....) .

 

glen

[skippydiesel]

I am very far from an instructor but it would seem that much of what you are trying to achieve can only be done consistently by practice and more practice.  A single short field "greaser" doeth not a pilot make.

 

I am a big believer in making imaginary landings at a safe altitude - this way you can explore the low speed handling/energy management of your aircraft, with sufficient space to recover should you require it.

 

I dont  follow your ground effect theory/observations. All aircraft will have some ground effect characteristics - Along with other peculiarities this must be managed. In my case, my long high lift wing seems to float for ever, so getting the approach numbers spot on is vital for a short field landing and as a further aid I have long practised raising flap, at or even just befor, my mains make contact. The effect is to "dump" lift, get weight onto the mains and if required, start braking.

 

The numbers in your POH are a great staring point but if you want to walk away from a possible future "out-landing" you must explore managing the aircrafts energy so as to arrive at the point of touch down with the least forward momentum/lift. I have always thought some glider lessons would be a valuable introduction to managing an engine out scenario - may be one day.

 

When I trained in GA it was with power on and used to adjust the "glide slope". Power was "cut" at or just before touch down. This is not the way I fly my Zephyr. Almost all approaches are power off - the occasional undershoot requiring power on, to restore the approach. The effect seems to be to make steeper approaches (than the flat GA ones) so that energy can be "wasted" at will (more/less flap, side/forward slips if required) so as to arrive over the threshold with minimum speed , round out/flair to loose that last bit of energy,flaps up and if all goes to plan, power on to make that first (only) taxi way turn - otherwise roll all the way to the end, as if you meant to do that all the time and make the long taxi back.

[facthunter]

If you are landing in timber there won't be any ground effect and you may be very hard to find , You are also very likely to be injured.. The existing wind has a major effect on which way you glide at height especially for a low cruise speed plane. Increase your TAS into wind and reduce it for downwind situations to adapt to the wind for best range. Try to have a plan "B" if you end up undershooting or the field becomes unsuitable with closer viewing. Resist having your back to the field and don't get too far downwind. Plan to land about 1/3 rd in, till you are sure of making it. (better to hit the far fence at walking speed than the near one at flying speed.) If you are going to hit a fence at any speed with a pusher ground loop it in to wind  just short of the fence. If you are going to hit trees, try to hit TWO at the same time, one with each wing.. Have your seat belt fastened  so there's no slack. Makes sure you know how to unbuckle it and pre release the door catch if appropriate for the plane. You also don't know you height above the ground often if it's unfamiliar terrain so practice with altimeter covered sometimes, to get better at judging it by what you see outside..  Nev

Edited November 12, 2020 by facthunter
expand

[Student Pilot]

Nev, you have a choice with a forced landing between (All things being equal) water or timber. Where do you go?

[facthunter]

Mostly the dividing range south of the Tweed to Morwell. On the steep slopes the mountain ash is so high you'd be lucky to be found if you didn't have a  working  beacon. I've also had a few icing incidents over the years  so you can't go high sometimes (or you have to descend and /or divert if you do). This is for under 10,000 feet stuff. Nev

[RFguy]

I think I'd just plan to be able to glide and wind up the altimeter before crossing.  I know the east coast on NSW well, there are few locations that are friendly getting from east to west , when the weather is sub optimal. As you say Nev, icing is a definite issue.  A colleague of mine had an icing issue as he crossed the range going into Moruya, and fortunately, he had just got over the high bits when his wings started not to work....he was scared .

 

and if the weather is less than CAVOK, there *should* be some good information able to be computed from history of met data on where the lowest probability of low cloud bases may be. There can be very specific local effects that make some areas safer  (and others problematic) .

Most of the newer machine learning and correlation data that can find needles in haystacks might work for this. It's a matter of getting the data into the algorithm effectively.

 

 

[facthunter]

Relative humidity will determine cloud base. in an area in a general sense. Closeness of the wet and dry bulb temps at a destination give FOG or low cloud possibility. Fog in valleys and cloud on top of the ridges are features of highland weather. Frontal activity is reinforced by rising topography and wind over ridges is a real trap. Air mass analysis is important in stream weather. and you can "read'  many clouds. If you are doing contact flying you can't know too much about weather. Most of what I learned was obtained from Gliding related material which goes into it far more than the cursory treatment in most powered  related  weather sources. Nev

[facthunter]

SP. I  misread your question. I'd tend to the water especially if there's a bit of sand at the edge. In timbered Country often above the snowline it's pretty bare (watch out for rocks) and I even consider the tracks under powerlines where tree growth is suppressed as a possibility depending on how steep the track gets. There are some kinds of forested areas where a tree canopy landing might be attempted but you might fall through it in a heavier type of aircraft. Results from that situation are mixed The speed at which you hit is a big factor in your survival possibilities.  Landing on a deep lake with a fixed U/c Highwing may not work out well either.. especially if it's choppy but it's better than open sea with swells. Nev 

[RFguy]

My GUESSES  in a lake...

In the high wing , I think you'd have to assume the cabin,  fuselage and  empenage is going to fill with water immediately,  and depending on the  fuel level in the wings, it might or might not hold the thing from sinking to the bottom , (not forgetting the vents- but the rate of water in the vents would be slow) . so you'd be assuming an underwater exit from the airplane (sunken to wings on the top of the water. Tail might hold the rear up, nose tilted down in the water. 

I have done simulated get out of sunken things.... Getting the door open is impossible until the cabin is completely filled with water  I found.  so you want the doors off  etc like Mike said

 

You can do a James Bond and get air from the tyre valves (like he did when the Rolls got sunk in A View to A  Kill ) .

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by RFguy

[KRviator]

If you are going to routinely do over-water flights, I would recommend something like the HEED/SpareAir tiny SCBA systems. They're fairly cheap, relatively small, and could probably be mounted under your knees in most planes and would give you enough time to calm down after the initial oh-shyte moments and avoid the panic of knowing you only have a few seconds to get out before you need to breathe.

 

I've seriously considered getting one for the RV, as if I put it in the water, being a bubble canopy it'd be hard to open if it flipped over in the time I'd likely have available.

[facthunter]

It's not so much the cabin filling with water as flipping over violently or the kiss and plough in type of arrival. You are usually better of with retracted low wing unless you get one wingtip in first and it acts like a boomerang spinning flat.(briefly)  Never inflate any flotation device until you are out of the plane and clear. Nev

Edited November 13, 2020 by facthunter
expand

[RFguy]

Hi Rob. as a Scuba diver, although not for 15 years , that idea has appeal. 15 breaths  is probably enough, depends if you had to unbuckle an injured passenger.

 

and you would do ALOT of coastal flying.

 

Nev, yeah the flip over  seems likely . putting the high-wings on the water, for a short time.  depends if something broke when it flipped or spun I guess.  There would be videos and writeups of such incidents, worth studying .....

-glen

[facthunter]

Not many instances of spinning involved except where seaplanes are manouvering on base etc. Lots of ferry flight s end up ditching. Many pilots are trained in ditching procedures and techniques who fly to islands . Nev

[RFguy]

*maybe* harder to accidently dig in a wing tip on a high-wing. (low wing more probable) . and also, if the low wing's wing is in the water, that would make the wing try and submerge. Flaps might make that worse.

 

If the REAR of the airplane is well sealed and it goes in nose first, the trapped air in the empenage might stay there , keeping the airplane rear afloat, wings out of the water and nose down  in the water.. maybe.

 

[facthunter]

Great deal of speculation really.  The best flotation "parts" are [probably} part full tanks. Water can be HARD if you hit it incorrectly,  like nose into a wave.  You can have swell, wave direction and wind direction to contend with  Nev