GO/NO GO decision point

[trey kule]

An exta 1300 feet!!! I guess you must have seen me land a cub

[niss]

This is in the aviation video forum as well but some may not have seen it. I figured this might be relevant to the thread.

I think that all the horseshoes this guy has up his ass might have pushed him past max gross.

[Grantmac]

We got this one on another forum and someone got the skinny right from the horses mouth:

Oh dear... Have to 'fess up. Things do come back to haunt one, don't they? This was me, Selina, in GYYF. Of course I have already received this video a few times in the last couple of days. I think it was 1999 or 2000.

What can I say? It was hot, I had 2 passengers and thought I knew more than I did about short field takeoffs. This little field is just outside of Victoria B.C. and once we were in the air we headed straight to Nanaimo's LONG runway to land and assess damages. The only victims, other than my pride, were the gear fairings as I did a bit of landscaping on the way out.

What was I thinking? I sure didn't use correct short field procedures and quickly ran out of room. I knew I was in trouble and also knew I was committed to the takeoff. As we lifted off my right seat passenger, a more experienced pilot (as was the second passenger in the back), was quick enough to yell at me to push the nose down and was ready to do so himself if I didn't. That instinct to pull up is strong especially with the tops of the trees coming at you.

Just about the best learning experience I've every had... And probably the scariest.

Coincidentally I met the owner of this little field this past weekend at a fly-in and we had a little reminisce about my "incident". The field is still in use although I think they have removed a few more of the trees at the end. I don't think I'll be tackling it again although a little voice inside says perhaps I should go back without passengers and do it properly!

I know where that field is and its about 130asl at most, its also pretty smooth and a good 1500 feet long; one way though. The DA might have been 3000 because it just doesn't get that hot here. However a Stinson 108 at gross is not exactly a rocket ship.

Reality check for sure.

-Grant

[SuperchargedRS]

Hey lets not be knocking Stinsons

[iflyforpie]

I love Stinsons if they have 470 cubic inches of Continental goodness up front....


According to the CAWIS site, GYYF is still powered by a Franklin 165.

[SuperchargedRS]

I love Stinsons if they have 470 cubic inches of Continental goodness up front....


According to the CAWIS site, GYYF is still powered by a Franklin 165.

Ahh pie, it's not the size of the Stinsons engine that matters, its how you use it...



The one in my pic has a F150 and as no trouble with d/a high altitude work.

[Grantmac]

Stinsons are a fine plane, its just too bad they went and wrecked them but putting in yokes

Everyone knows that rag and tube taildraggers must have sticks, nothing else will do.

-Grant

[iflyforpie]

[
Ahh pie, it's not the size of the Stinsons engine that matters, its how you use it...

Actually, I take our 150HP 172, load it to just below gross (three people, half tanks), and take of from 5000' DA and go up to 10000' as just another day at the office. Makes you really good at finding thermals.

That's a really nice one RS. I like the look of the 108-3 a bit better though.

Stinsons are a fine plane, its just too bad they went and wrecked them but putting in yokes

Everyone knows that rag and tube taildraggers must have sticks, nothing else will do.

-Grant

Classic tandem taildragger = stick. Classic side by side taildragger = wheel. Stinson 108, Aeronca Chief, Aeronca Sedan, Taylorcraft BC12D, Piper PA20 Pacer, DHC Beaver, Otter, Noorduyn Norseman: all of thems had wheels....

[Grantmac]

Classic side by side taildragger = wheel. Stinson 108, Aeronca Chief, Aeronca Sedan, Taylorcraft BC12D, Piper PA20 Pacer, DHC Beaver, Otter, Noorduyn Norseman: all of thems had wheels....

Bugger that, modernist junk. Right up there with that land-o-matic tricycle gear garbage. PA-14, 15, 16, 17 and Luscombes were all side by side with sticks, a few Chiefs (VERY rare) too.
Larger taildraggers get a pass on needing sticks, but not the little ones. You don't see anyone converting sticks into yokes, but you definitely see it the other way.

-Grant

P.S. I'm now not going to mention how much of a bitch the sticks make getting into any of those planes from the pretty much exclusive right side door. Good thing I've got brakes on both sides in mine.

[iflyforpie]

Well, it is funny that many modern planes have gone back to sticks, like the Cirrus, Diamonds, Airbus, RVs, Kitfox, and most of the Rutan plastic planes.

I found the Aeronca products not too bad to get my bigger frame in and out of around the sticks, but Cubs were not so good. I did fly a Taylorcraft that was converted to sticks and that was a contortionists nightmare to get in and out of....

[Grantmac]

Well, it is funny that many modern planes have gone back to sticks, like the Cirrus, Diamonds, Airbus, RVs, Kitfox, and most of the Rutan plastic planes.

I found the Aeronca products not too bad to get my bigger frame in and out of around the sticks, but Cubs were not so good. I did fly a Taylorcraft that was converted to sticks and that was a contortionists nightmare to get in and out of....

I think they are more ergonomically correct myself. But my good friend who drives DHC2s thinks the exact opposite.
I'm not sure I've EVER seen a kitplane with yokes, even the big ones like the Moose use stick. The structure and linkage for sticks is definitely simpler and therefore lighter as well.

I think for light aviation the yoke was an attempt to help new pilots feel more familiar with aircraft by making them resemble automobiles, hence why we got 1-piece peddles in place of heel brakes (that could have also been progress) and peddles with the brake lever on top like ragwing Pipers.

-Grant

[nutbutter]

If not at 75% of Vr by 50% of available runway length then abort.

I don't like this one, it might work under normal conditions but that last two knots to get the airplane flying can take up well over half the available distance given high density altitude, overweight conditions (you don't always know if you are overweight prior to take off), soft field conditions (wet grass, mud, bumps, water, snow, etc). Screaming down the runway at 53kts not flying yet can have a very detrimental effect on your take off roll. I've always found the key is to know your conditions and your load, and if unfamiliar ask someone more experienced before you try it. An experienced eyeball and good hands and feet seem to be the key, not sure any rule of thumb applies in every situation.