PING! Mike Rapoport

[jsmith]

Mike, how about another update on flying the Courier?

[Mike Rapoport]

I haven't flown it for a few weeks due to weather and being out of town but
I am basically at the point where I don't have to think about "dancing on
the pedals" and that sort of stuff but I can't say that I have "mastered"
the airplane yet either. My efforts to date have been aimed at mastering
STOL landings. I can now reliably land and stop in 300" but I wouldn't be
confident landing on a 400' strip yet. On the most recent flight I managed
to stop before rolling off the numbers(!!!) with 6kts of headwind but this
was my best to date My goal is now to be able to land softly *and* short.
This is really challenging because there is no energy availible for flare at
under 50mph. The next step after that will be (short, soft) crosswind
landings which are tough because of the low approach speeds and the large
vertical stabilizer with small rudder. After that there will be sloped and
curved runways...

The Helio is like an onion in that there are layers of performance which
make it rewarding to fly. Each time you master one layer, you find another.
It is easy to get better performance than is even possible with other planes
like C182 or C185 but that is very different than being able to use all the
capability that is built into the airplane.

I am looking forward to having the backcountry strips dry out and the
beginning of fishing season!

Mike

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> Mike, how about another update on flying the Courier?
>

[jsmith]

Why do you need to flare?
Will this work?
Hold a nose high pitch attitude with power to control the descent rate
(and keep from stalling). Allow the tailwheel to contact first and the
mains will follow as you reduce power. You should be able to fly below
50 mph indicated.

[Montblack]

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
<snip>
> The Helio is like an onion in that there are layers of performance which
> make it rewarding to fly. Each time you master one layer, you find
> another. It is easy to get better performance than is even possible with
> other planes like C182 or C185 but that is very different than being able
> to use all the capability that is built into the airplane.


If you'd like to talk some more about your plane... :-)

What missions are you looking forward to with your Helio Courier? Missions
that might be out of reach for a C182 or C185?

Are most of the Helio's advantages over the 182/185 STOL, or is there more?

What's your breakdown of the plane's attributes? Thanks.


Montblack

[Dick Meade]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I can now reliably land and stop in 300" but I wouldn't be
> confident landing on a 400' strip yet.

Why not? You've got 375' left in case you screw up.

(I know, I know. I just couldn't help myself)

[Mike Rapoport]

If the plane was that nose high on a normal descent you would be at full
power already with little of no power to arrest the descent. As you go
slower and lower your options decrease. I suppose it would be different if
there were a 450hp turbine up front :-).. When you are down around 50mph,
very small changes in airspeed result in large changes in vertical speed and
the the only way to reduce your (downward) vertical speed is to push the
nose over and accellerate. Since we are talking about flying in and around
mountains, there is always some variation in wind.

In theory you are right but, in the real world I an unwilling to risk
totalling the airplane because the wind decreased 5kts at 100agl.

Mike
MU-2


"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> Why do you need to flare?
> Will this work?
> Hold a nose high pitch attitude with power to control the descent rate
> (and keep from stalling). Allow the tailwheel to contact first and the
> mains will follow as you reduce power. You should be able to fly below 50
> mph indicated.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
> <snip>
>> The Helio is like an onion in that there are layers of performance which
>> make it rewarding to fly. Each time you master one layer, you find
>> another. It is easy to get better performance than is even possible with
>> other planes like C182 or C185 but that is very different than being able
>> to use all the capability that is built into the airplane.
>
>
> If you'd like to talk some more about your plane... :-)
>
> What missions are you looking forward to with your Helio Courier? Missions
> that might be out of reach for a C182 or C185?

I am going to be flying into more of the backcountry strips here in ID. I
went to a few of the easier ones last fall to go fishing but the practical
season ended just as I was getting competent.. I would also like to go to
Alaska on an extended trip.

The advantages that I think the Helio has over the competition are that it
will fly much slower while retaining very positive control (it has spoilers
in addition to ailerons) and it doesn't stall so you can fly closer to the
limits. At the other end of the spectum, it will cruise about 140kts which
is a reasonable speed for getting places.

> Are most of the Helio's advantages over the 182/185 STOL, or is there
> more?
>
> What's your breakdown of the plane's attributes? Thanks.
>

Everything on a Helio is designed for STOL. Low wing loading, fowler
flaps, slats, spoilers, very forward gear location, reasonably powerful ect.
All of this complexity was probably very expensive to build and that
probably led to the company's demise but it makes for a great special
purpose machine. The only negative is that it bounces around a lot in even
minor turbulence because of the low wing loading. The ultimate STOL machine
(excluding harriers and gyroplanes) is a Helio with an Allison turbine. I
met a guy that just bought back the only one in existance (he also did the
conversion) and he claims that it will get airborn in 80' and climb over
3000fpm.

Mike
Helio Courier H295

[jsmith]

Thanks Mike.
Us/We "flatlanders" have a tendency not to think about such
considerations. :-))

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> In theory you are right but, in the real world I an unwilling to risk
> totalling the airplane because the wind decreased 5kts at 100agl.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Helio 123X, Cleared To Land Runway 9, Exit At Alpha if able.:"
"123X, cleared to land."
<screech!>
<silence...>
"Showoff 123X, turn left at the runway threshold and contact ground. Next
time you can use the hover pad, sir."
"123X, rog' that." <chuckle>

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I haven't flown it for a few weeks due to weather and being out of town but
>I am basically at the point where I don't have to think about "dancing on
>the pedals" and that sort of stuff but I can't say that I have "mastered"
>the airplane yet either. My efforts to date have been aimed at mastering
>STOL landings. I can now reliably land and stop in 300" but I wouldn't be
>confident landing on a 400' strip yet. On the most recent flight I managed
>to stop before rolling off the numbers(!!!) with 6kts of headwind but this
>was my best to date My goal is now to be able to land softly *and* short.
>This is really challenging because there is no energy availible for flare
>at under 50mph. The next step after that will be (short, soft) crosswind
>landings which are tough because of the low approach speeds and the large
>vertical stabilizer with small rudder. After that there will be sloped and
>curved runways...
>
> The Helio is like an onion in that there are layers of performance which
> make it rewarding to fly. Each time you master one layer, you find
> another. It is easy to get better performance than is even possible with
> other planes like C182 or C185 but that is very different than being able
> to use all the capability that is built into the airplane.
>
> I am looking forward to having the backcountry strips dry out and the
> beginning of fishing season!
>
> Mike
>
> "jsmith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike, how about another update on flying the Courier?
>>
>
>

[George Patterson]

jsmith wrote:
> Thanks Mike.
> Us/We "flatlanders" have a tendency not to think about such
> considerations. :-))

Maule pilots do, flat land or not.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[jsmith]

I can get my 65hp Champ down to 45 mph no wind, with power and the nose
high. I thought the Courier with all it's high lift devices and
horsepower per weight would do better.

George Patterson wrote:
> jsmith wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mike.
>> Us/We "flatlanders" have a tendency not to think about such
>> considerations. :-))
>
>
> Maule pilots do, flat land or not.
>
> George Patterson
> Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[Mike Rapoport]

The Courier can get down to 28mph in level flight at sea level at max
continous power. This minimium speed goes up with density altitude because
power goes down. The problem with using these extremely low speeds for
approach and landing is that there is no way to slow the descent except by
lowering the nose, so once you get close to the ground, you are a passenger.
My approaches at 50mph use about 12" of MP so I still have a meaningful
amound of power left if I need it. There is also the issue of taking off
again.

As I said earlier, the Couriers capibilities are like layers on an onion. I
am still in the first few layers. The JAARS pilots that demonstrate Helios
at OSH and elsewhere can do amazing things with the airplane but they have
thousands of hours flying Helios in and out of very challenging places.

Mike
MU-2
H295

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
>I can get my 65hp Champ down to 45 mph no wind, with power and the nose
>high. I thought the Courier with all it's high lift devices and horsepower
>per weight would do better.
>
> George Patterson wrote:
>> jsmith wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mike.
>>> Us/We "flatlanders" have a tendency not to think about such
>>> considerations. :-))
>>
>>
>> Maule pilots do, flat land or not.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.
>

[jsmith]

Is there a Vietnam Veterans Courier Pilots group?
That's a source of information you might tap into.
Does JAARS offer Courier pilot training courses?

jsmith wrote:
> I can get my 65hp Champ down to 45 mph no wind, with power and the nose
> high. I thought the Courier with all it's high lift devices and
> horsepower per weight would do better.
>
> George Patterson wrote:
>
>> jsmith wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mike.
>>> Us/We "flatlanders" have a tendency not to think about such
>>> considerations. :-))
>>
>>
>>
>> Maule pilots do, flat land or not.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a Vietnam Veterans Courier Pilots group?
> That's a source of information you might tap into.
> Does JAARS offer Courier pilot training courses?
>

No and no. It isn't really a training issueanway. Anybody can see what
needs to be done (land slower) and how to do it, it is just a matter of
getting comfortable and proficient at the low speed end of the envelope. It
is the same as bush pilots in AK flying final at 1.1Vso plus or minus one
knot. It just takes a lot of time and practice to get to that level of
precision and you have to approach the limits slowly since a being a few
knots fast or slow could result in a crash.. The fact that there are a lot
of crashes in these types of operations demonstrates this.

Mike
MU-2

[Fisherman]

Mike,

Do you have a website? I sure would like to read some of your experiences with the Courier. I've read all about them and seen a lot of photos but only saw one in person once. Even so, it's one of my favorite planes.

We're moving to Montana this year so I'll be taking some mountain lessons. I'll bet even if I found a Courier for rent, it would cose a jillion dollars per hour. I'm not rated for anything close to it anyway. Some day! :D

I'd also like to hear about how your skills and confidence progress with it.

Thanks

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't have a website. There is some information here:
http://www.stolaircraft.com/index.html#header There are not very many
Couriers around so there is not a great deal of info availible.

I don't yet have much experience in the Courier yet. I bought the airplane
last August and by the time I had the tailwheel endorsement and was
reasonably proficient, most of the season for backcountry flying had
passed. I have been to a few places so far this year including the McCall
Mountain Flying course but I still only have about 100hrs in the airplane.

The Courier is a pretty amazing airplane. It employs all the STOL
"tricks", low wing loading, slats, large fowler flaps, spoilers and long
travel landing gear. The Courier's performance is like an onion, there are
layers and layers of performance requiring more and more skill to peel back
the layers. I am pretty comfortable flying into 7-900' strips but not
350-500' ones. I have made many landings and not rolled past the numbers
but in the backcountry I am aiming to land about 1/4 down the runway to
allow for unexpected sink or misjudgement on my part. Most of the
backcountry strips in ID are comfortably long (900' or more) for a Courier.

The nice thing about the Courier is that you can land anywhere
*comfortably*. In a lot of other airplanes there is no margin for error on
some of these strips but with a Courier they are relatively easy. It is
also much faster in cruise and can carry more than the Husky/Super Cub or
Maule classes of airplanes.

After you move to MT, you might want to go the school in McCall. Central ID
has some of the most technically challenging airstrips in the US. They are
down in deep canyons often with blind approaches. Once you can fly in and
out of these places you will feel pretty confident just about anywhere else.
The school is also a lot of fun.

Mike
MU-2
ATP


"Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mike,
>
> Do you have a website? I sure would like to read some of your
> experiences with the Courier. I've read all about them and seen a lot
> of photos but only saw one in person once. Even so, it's one of my
> favorite planes.
>
> We're moving to Montana this year so I'll be taking some mountain
> lessons. I'll bet even if I found a Courier for rent, it would cose a
> jillion dollars per hour. I'm not rated for anything close to it
> anyway. Some day! :D
>
> I'd also like to hear about how your skills and confidence progress
> with it.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Fisherman

[john smith]

Do you have a contact number or URL for a website?

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> After you move to MT, you might want to go the school in McCall. Central ID
> has some of the most technically challenging airstrips in the US. They are
> down in deep canyons often with blind approaches. Once you can fly in and
> out of these places you will feel pretty confident just about anywhere else.
> The school is also a lot of fun.

[Mike Rapoport]

Try: http://mountaincanyonflying.com/index.html


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Do you have a contact number or URL for a website?
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> After you move to MT, you might want to go the school in McCall. Central
>> ID has some of the most technically challenging airstrips in the US.
>> They are down in deep canyons often with blind approaches. Once you can
>> fly in and out of these places you will feel pretty confident just about
>> anywhere else. The school is also a lot of fun.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Try: http://mountaincanyonflying.com/index.html
>
>

http://www.flyidaho.org/old/scenes/idapts_c.html

We're going to Smiley Creek around Labor Day.


> > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> After you move to MT, you might want to go the school in McCall.
Central
> >> ID has some of the most technically challenging airstrips in the US.
> >> They are down in deep canyons often with blind approaches. Once you
can
> >> fly in and out of these places you will feel pretty confident just
about
> >> anywhere else. The school is also a lot of fun.
>
>

[Doug]

Just a comment on really short landings. I have a Husky and it lands
about as short as anything. Short landings tend to be rough. This is
because your forward speed is low compared to your vertical speed.
Also, a vertical bounce uses up energy. So don't be afraid to "bounce
it in". If you look at the videos of the short landing contests in
Alaska, those guys just plop on, hard, and usually bounce.

The Idaho strips are very challenging. The key in Idaho is don't fly in
the afternoon. Mornings and after 6 pm are much better. For charted
strips, Idaho actually has more challenging stuff than Alaska.

My Husky is for sale, btw. Contact me at
anothername(at)comcast(dot)net. Make the @ and . substitutions.

Doug

[john smith]

Thanks!

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Try: http://mountaincanyonflying.com/index.html

> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>Do you have a contact number or URL for a website?

[Mike Rapoport]

I haven't been to Smiley Creek but it is supposed to be one of the nicest
with the most facilities. If you are going Labor Day weekend itself get
there early!

Mike
MU-2

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Try: http://mountaincanyonflying.com/index.html
>>
>>
>
> http://www.flyidaho.org/old/scenes/idapts_c.html
>
> We're going to Smiley Creek around Labor Day.
>
>
>> > Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >> After you move to MT, you might want to go the school in McCall.
> Central
>> >> ID has some of the most technically challenging airstrips in the US.
>> >> They are down in deep canyons often with blind approaches. Once you
> can
>> >> fly in and out of these places you will feel pretty confident just
> about
>> >> anywhere else. The school is also a lot of fun.
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

A firm landing (or a bounce) is better than running off the end but it is
better yet to manage power and energy to land smoothly at minimium speed
both forward and vertical. This is easier said than done however!

Rules for flying in ID

"Go flying at 7" (either "7")
"Tie down by 10"

Mike
MU-2

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just a comment on really short landings. I have a Husky and it lands
> about as short as anything. Short landings tend to be rough. This is
> because your forward speed is low compared to your vertical speed.
> Also, a vertical bounce uses up energy. So don't be afraid to "bounce
> it in". If you look at the videos of the short landing contests in
> Alaska, those guys just plop on, hard, and usually bounce.
>
> The Idaho strips are very challenging. The key in Idaho is don't fly in
> the afternoon. Mornings and after 6 pm are much better. For charted
> strips, Idaho actually has more challenging stuff than Alaska.
>
> My Husky is for sale, btw. Contact me at
> anothername(at)comcast(dot)net. Make the @ and . substitutions.
>
> Doug
>

[Matt Barrow]

No, the weekend before, thanks. ( I learned LONGGG ago not to travel around
a major holiday)

I'm really looking forward to the trip. This will be my birds first landing
(at least since I've had it) off pavement.

Matt


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I haven't been to Smiley Creek but it is supposed to be one of the nicest
> with the most facilities. If you are going Labor Day weekend itself get
> there early!
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> >> Try: http://mountaincanyonflying.com/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> > http://www.flyidaho.org/old/scenes/idapts_c.html
> >
> > We're going to Smiley Creek around Labor Day.
> >

[Doug]

One thing that works on my Husky is to drag it in, cut the power and
retract the flaps at the point of desired landing from a foot or so off
the ground. This plants me firmly. Then it is a braking contest. How
hard can I brake without nosing over? If the tail comes up during
braking, back off.

There really are two different short field techniques. One where there
is an obstacle, and one with a clear, no obstacle approach. If there is
an obstacle, drag it in along the tops of the trees, cut the power and
come down as steep as possible and get it planted as soon as possible
and on the brakes. You slow down faster on the ground than in the air.
This is where it is good to have a plane with a steep decent
capability.

The other is where you drag it in only a few feet up and flare and dump
the flaps and brake as described.

I really only like to land if I have a times two margin. My Husky can
usually get down in 400' once it touches, at the Idaho 7000' density
altitudes. So I need 900' to be comfortable. Most of those Idaho strips
are long enough. I need less if the landing is uphill. The times two
margin gives me some room for error. I am most nervous on the ones with
no go around.

Biggest problem is winds. If theres much disagreeable wind or
turbulence, just don't do it.

It's nerve wracking to fly around that Idaho wilderness. There are so
many trees, if you lost an engine, not many options. I did a lot of
strips out there on two visits. But I don't go there much anymore. I
guess I think its a little hazardous. Well, more than a little. Some of
those strips, the trees have gotten taller and taller every year. That
and there have been so many fires, the place isn't all that attractive.


But its the place to go for real world small strip experience. If you
can handle those strips, you can handle just about any.

The Alaska stuff is another story. Need inside information to operate
up there. They aren't charted. Nor are they maintained.

[Mike Rapoport]

What I have found to be the best technique in the Helio at about 3100lbs is
to slow way down to about 45kts. This will yeild about 500fpm with 11"MP
which is a steep descent. When I am about 200AGL, I increase speed to 55kts
to provide energy for the flair. You can brake as hard as possible with the
Helio and there is no chance of it nosing over because the gear is so far
forward.

What I found last week is that these speeds and power setting do not work
well at 3400lb. I need quite a bit more speed. I will have to figure out
what the numbers should be. I was quite surprised at the difference.

I agree that there arn't too many options if you have to land but if you hit
the trees at 50-60mph you will live unless you center puntch a large tree.

Mike
MU-2



"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One thing that works on my Husky is to drag it in, cut the power and
> retract the flaps at the point of desired landing from a foot or so off
> the ground. This plants me firmly. Then it is a braking contest. How
> hard can I brake without nosing over? If the tail comes up during
> braking, back off.
>
> There really are two different short field techniques. One where there
> is an obstacle, and one with a clear, no obstacle approach. If there is
> an obstacle, drag it in along the tops of the trees, cut the power and
> come down as steep as possible and get it planted as soon as possible
> and on the brakes. You slow down faster on the ground than in the air.
> This is where it is good to have a plane with a steep decent
> capability.
>
> The other is where you drag it in only a few feet up and flare and dump
> the flaps and brake as described.
>
> I really only like to land if I have a times two margin. My Husky can
> usually get down in 400' once it touches, at the Idaho 7000' density
> altitudes. So I need 900' to be comfortable. Most of those Idaho strips
> are long enough. I need less if the landing is uphill. The times two
> margin gives me some room for error. I am most nervous on the ones with
> no go around.
>
> Biggest problem is winds. If theres much disagreeable wind or
> turbulence, just don't do it.
>
> It's nerve wracking to fly around that Idaho wilderness. There are so
> many trees, if you lost an engine, not many options. I did a lot of
> strips out there on two visits. But I don't go there much anymore. I
> guess I think its a little hazardous. Well, more than a little. Some of
> those strips, the trees have gotten taller and taller every year. That
> and there have been so many fires, the place isn't all that attractive.
>
>
> But its the place to go for real world small strip experience. If you
> can handle those strips, you can handle just about any.
>
> The Alaska stuff is another story. Need inside information to operate
> up there. They aren't charted. Nor are they maintained.
>

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> What I have found to be the best technique in the Helio at about 3100lbs is
> to slow way down to about 45kts. This will yeild about 500fpm with 11"MP
> which is a steep descent. When I am about 200AGL, I increase speed to 55kts
> to provide energy for the flair. You can brake as hard as possible with the
> Helio and there is no chance of it nosing over because the gear is so far
> forward.

If you're going to end up at 55 on the bottom end why slow to 45?

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[john smith]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> What I have found to be the best technique in the Helio at about 3100lbs is
> to slow way down to about 45kts. This will yeild about 500fpm with 11"MP
> which is a steep descent. When I am about 200AGL, I increase speed to 55kts
> to provide energy for the flair. You can brake as hard as possible with the
> Helio and there is no chance of it nosing over because the gear is so far
> forward.
>
> What I found last week is that these speeds and power setting do not work
> well at 3400lb. I need quite a bit more speed. I will have to figure out
> what the numbers should be. I was quite surprised at the difference.

Try 50 initial, accelerate to 60 at 3400 lbs.
(that's a guess using math formula based on what you posted)

To be accurate, I need max gross weight and stall speed at max gross.

[Mike Rapoport]

Because the descent angle is too low at 55, it just doesn't want to come
down.

Mike
MU-2


"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> What I have found to be the best technique in the Helio at about 3100lbs
>> is
>> to slow way down to about 45kts. This will yeild about 500fpm with 11"MP
>> which is a steep descent. When I am about 200AGL, I increase speed to
>> 55kts
>> to provide energy for the flair. You can brake as hard as possible with
>> the
>> Helio and there is no chance of it nosing over because the gear is so far
>> forward.
>
> If you're going to end up at 55 on the bottom end why slow to 45?
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Mike Rapoport]

Thanks. There is no stall speed on a Helio.

Mike
MU-2

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> What I have found to be the best technique in the Helio at about 3100lbs
>> is to slow way down to about 45kts. This will yeild about 500fpm with
>> 11"MP which is a steep descent. When I am about 200AGL, I increase speed
>> to 55kts to provide energy for the flair. You can brake as hard as
>> possible with the Helio and there is no chance of it nosing over because
>> the gear is so far forward.
>>
>> What I found last week is that these speeds and power setting do not work
>> well at 3400lb. I need quite a bit more speed. I will have to figure
>> out what the numbers should be. I was quite surprised at the difference.
>
> Try 50 initial, accelerate to 60 at 3400 lbs.
> (that's a guess using math formula based on what you posted)
>
> To be accurate, I need max gross weight and stall speed at max gross.