Going for my Multiengine rating

[Kobra]

Flyers,

For absolutely no reason, except that I want it, I have been taking
Multiengine lessons (including Multi-Instrument and Commercial). The flight
school has a Piper Seneca I (PA34-200) circa 1973.

It fly's like a flying Bulldozer on Codeine (sp?). It's a beast...really.
The controls are so stiff my left wrist and both knees ache after a one hour
lesson. Is this normal for a Seneca or any twin? Are there docile twins
out there?

During pre-flight when I have to check the control surfaces for free
movement, the ailerons feel like the hinges are rusted solid and it's like
lifting a fifty pound weight when try and move the stabilator. I always
hesitate to declare them "free".

I have to use two hands to flare and there's a fine, very fine line between
a nose landing and a balloon. Some where in the middle of this micron sized
line is a good landing flare.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

BTW if anyone is interested in the Sporty's DVD - So You Want to Fly Twins.
I have it on eBay:

http://tinyurl.com/36mp5y

Kobra
(apologizing for the cross post)

[BT]

I fly the Seneca II, any move "up" in size and performance will seem like a
beast until you get used to it. Fly with finesse and trim, guide the
airplane to where you want it to go.

I am surprised that you say the controls seem to drag during preflight. And
yes.. the nose is heavy.. but properly trimmed and on proper speed on final
and it lands easily.

I enjoy flying the Seneca II, I think the twin is very docile.
BT


"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Flyers,
>
> For absolutely no reason, except that I want it, I have been taking
> Multiengine lessons (including Multi-Instrument and Commercial). The
> flight school has a Piper Seneca I (PA34-200) circa 1973.
>
> It fly's like a flying Bulldozer on Codeine (sp?). It's a beast...really.
> The controls are so stiff my left wrist and both knees ache after a one
> hour lesson. Is this normal for a Seneca or any twin? Are there docile
> twins out there?
>
> During pre-flight when I have to check the control surfaces for free
> movement, the ailerons feel like the hinges are rusted solid and it's like
> lifting a fifty pound weight when try and move the stabilator. I always
> hesitate to declare them "free".
>
> I have to use two hands to flare and there's a fine, very fine line
> between a nose landing and a balloon. Some where in the middle of this
> micron sized line is a good landing flare.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> BTW if anyone is interested in the Sporty's DVD - So You Want to Fly
> Twins. I have it on eBay:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36mp5y
>
> Kobra
> (apologizing for the cross post)
>

[tom418]

I ownned a Seneca 1 for around 13 yrs (and 1100 hours). The ailerons are
hard to move becasue they're interconnected with the rudder. The stabilator
has a spring mechanism. That's why it is hard to move up.

During the flare, you might want trim "up" SLIGHTLY" ; this will assist with
the flare. (Some people keep a case of oil in the baggage area also) Pull
back SLOWLY, so as not to jerk the nose up. And please do learn to flare. I
had to replace my landing gear trunions around 10 years ago, because they
were the subject of an AD caused by carcks. (IMHO, this was caused by pilots
who never learned how to flare, and "dropped the plane in" all the time)

At least you're flying a 1973 model. So to drain the crossfeed lines during
the preflight, you pulll a knob behind the right seat. On mine, I had to
crawl underneath the wing :-) Good luck.
"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Flyers,
>
> For absolutely no reason, except that I want it, I have been taking
> Multiengine lessons (including Multi-Instrument and Commercial). The
flight
> school has a Piper Seneca I (PA34-200) circa 1973.
>
> It fly's like a flying Bulldozer on Codeine (sp?). It's a beast...really.
> The controls are so stiff my left wrist and both knees ache after a one
hour
> lesson. Is this normal for a Seneca or any twin? Are there docile twins
> out there?
>
> During pre-flight when I have to check the control surfaces for free
> movement, the ailerons feel like the hinges are rusted solid and it's like
> lifting a fifty pound weight when try and move the stabilator. I always
> hesitate to declare them "free".
>
> I have to use two hands to flare and there's a fine, very fine line
between
> a nose landing and a balloon. Some where in the middle of this micron
sized
> line is a good landing flare.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> BTW if anyone is interested in the Sporty's DVD - So You Want to Fly
Twins.
> I have it on eBay:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36mp5y
>
> Kobra
> (apologizing for the cross post)
>
>

[Allen[_1_]]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Flyers,
>
> For absolutely no reason, except that I want it, I have been taking
> Multiengine lessons (including Multi-Instrument and Commercial). The
> flight school has a Piper Seneca I (PA34-200) circa 1973.
>
> It fly's like a flying Bulldozer on Codeine (sp?). It's a beast...really.
> The controls are so stiff my left wrist and both knees ache after a one
> hour lesson. Is this normal for a Seneca or any twin? Are there docile
> twins out there?
>
> During pre-flight when I have to check the control surfaces for free
> movement, the ailerons feel like the hinges are rusted solid and it's like
> lifting a fifty pound weight when try and move the stabilator. I always
> hesitate to declare them "free".
>
> I have to use two hands to flare and there's a fine, very fine line
> between a nose landing and a balloon. Some where in the middle of this
> micron sized line is a good landing flare.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> BTW if anyone is interested in the Sporty's DVD - So You Want to Fly
> Twins. I have it on eBay:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36mp5y
>
> Kobra
> (apologizing for the cross post)

Make sure the shaft the yoke connects to is clean and lightly lubed (I used
silicone spray). Every Piper I have ever flown had old dried lube on it and
would bind or drag, especially in stabilator travel. Cleaning the shafts
would make a big improvement in my landings. : )

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Michelle P]

Kobra wrote:
> Flyers,
>
> For absolutely no reason, except that I want it, I have been taking
> Multiengine lessons (including Multi-Instrument and Commercial). The flight
> school has a Piper Seneca I (PA34-200) circa 1973.
>
> It fly's like a flying Bulldozer on Codeine (sp?). It's a beast...really.
> The controls are so stiff my left wrist and both knees ache after a one hour
> lesson. Is this normal for a Seneca or any twin? Are there docile twins
> out there?
>
> During pre-flight when I have to check the control surfaces for free
> movement, the ailerons feel like the hinges are rusted solid and it's like
> lifting a fifty pound weight when try and move the stabilator. I always
> hesitate to declare them "free".
>
> I have to use two hands to flare and there's a fine, very fine line between
> a nose landing and a balloon. Some where in the middle of this micron sized
> line is a good landing flare.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> BTW if anyone is interested in the Sporty's DVD - So You Want to Fly Twins.
> I have it on eBay:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36mp5y
>
> Kobra
> (apologizing for the cross post)
>
>
Congrats. Flaring: if the plane has electric trim use it. I fly a twin
that weights 4800 lbs when I land without the trim I have to use two
hands to flare....

Michelle

[Jim Macklin]

Be careful with using the electric trim to flare. Assuming
that the airplane is properly loaded with the CG within the
range, the elevator forces required between an approach
speed of 1.3 Vso and the flare should be slight. Do a W&B
for your landing configuration, be sure to check for an
items stowed in a forward baggage area and for fuel.

The problem that WILL happen is at some point you will gave
to go-around, that means you will need a hand on the power
and you will REALLY need two hands on the elevator because
the electric trim isn't fast enough, you will have a sudden
need to hold the nose down, will loose A/S, perhaps even
stall, then the real bad thing can happen, en engine
failure, Vmc and spin at 100 AGL.

Do some exercise with weights, it is safer.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Michelle P" >
wrote in message ...
| Kobra wrote:
| > Flyers,
| >
| > For absolutely no reason, except that I want it, I have
been taking
| > Multiengine lessons (including Multi-Instrument and
Commercial). The flight
| > school has a Piper Seneca I (PA34-200) circa 1973.
| >
| > It fly's like a flying Bulldozer on Codeine (sp?). It's
a beast...really.
| > The controls are so stiff my left wrist and both knees
ache after a one hour
| > lesson. Is this normal for a Seneca or any twin? Are
there docile twins
| > out there?
| >
| > During pre-flight when I have to check the control
surfaces for free
| > movement, the ailerons feel like the hinges are rusted
solid and it's like
| > lifting a fifty pound weight when try and move the
stabilator. I always
| > hesitate to declare them "free".
| >
| > I have to use two hands to flare and there's a fine,
very fine line between
| > a nose landing and a balloon. Some where in the middle
of this micron sized
| > line is a good landing flare.
| >
| > Any thoughts would be appreciated.
| >
| > BTW if anyone is interested in the Sporty's DVD - So You
Want to Fly Twins.
| > I have it on eBay:
| >
| > http://tinyurl.com/36mp5y
| >
| > Kobra
| > (apologizing for the cross post)
| >
| >
| Congrats. Flaring: if the plane has electric trim use it.
I fly a twin
| that weights 4800 lbs when I land without the trim I have
to use two
| hands to flare....
|
| Michelle

[Michelle P]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Be careful with using the electric trim to flare. Assuming
> that the airplane is properly loaded with the CG within the
> range, the elevator forces required between an approach
> speed of 1.3 Vso and the flare should be slight. Do a W&B
> for your landing configuration, be sure to check for an
> items stowed in a forward baggage area and for fuel.
>
> The problem that WILL happen is at some point you will gave
> to go-around, that means you will need a hand on the power
> and you will REALLY need two hands on the elevator because
> the electric trim isn't fast enough, you will have a sudden
> need to hold the nose down, will loose A/S, perhaps even
> stall, then the real bad thing can happen, en engine
> failure, Vmc and spin at 100 AGL.
>
> Do some exercise with weights, it is safer.
>
there are some planes that are just nose heavy.

[Jim Macklin]

There are some airplanes that are easy to load outside the
flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are designed to
carry passengers and baggage. With only the front seats
occupied, some ballast in the rear can be essential.

You should read some FAR 23 on flight control forces
allowed.

I have a few thousand hours teaching in multiengine aircraft
and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper Aztecs,
Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90, 200 and 300.
Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your life can
depend on your being able to push and pull the controls to
the limit with one leg or one hand.



"Michelle P" >
wrote in message ...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Be careful with using the electric trim to flare.
Assuming
| > that the airplane is properly loaded with the CG within
the
| > range, the elevator forces required between an approach
| > speed of 1.3 Vso and the flare should be slight. Do a
W&B
| > for your landing configuration, be sure to check for an
| > items stowed in a forward baggage area and for fuel.
| >
| > The problem that WILL happen is at some point you will
gave
| > to go-around, that means you will need a hand on the
power
| > and you will REALLY need two hands on the elevator
because
| > the electric trim isn't fast enough, you will have a
sudden
| > need to hold the nose down, will loose A/S, perhaps even
| > stall, then the real bad thing can happen, en engine
| > failure, Vmc and spin at 100 AGL.
| >
| > Do some exercise with weights, it is safer.
| >
| there are some planes that are just nose heavy.

[Michelle P]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> There are some airplanes that are easy to load outside the
> flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are designed to
> carry passengers and baggage. With only the front seats
> occupied, some ballast in the rear can be essential.
>
> You should read some FAR 23 on flight control forces
> allowed.
>
> I have a few thousand hours teaching in multiengine aircraft
> and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper Aztecs,
> Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90, 200 and 300.
> Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your life can
> depend on your being able to push and pull the controls to
> the limit with one leg or one hand.

I bow to your godliness..almighty one.
Michelle

[Jim Macklin]

Live long and prosper. There are a number of NTSB reports
that involve female pilots involved in fatal accidents in
various makes and models. Often these involve Vmc
demonstrations and other operations such as engine out
go-around [not required in light twins, but a required
maneuver in transport category/jets.]


"Michelle P" >
wrote in message ...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > There are some airplanes that are easy to load outside
the
| > flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are
designed to
| > carry passengers and baggage. With only the front seats
| > occupied, some ballast in the rear can be essential.
| >
| > You should read some FAR 23 on flight control forces
| > allowed.
| >
| > I have a few thousand hours teaching in multiengine
aircraft
| > and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper Aztecs,
| > Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90, 200 and
300.
| > Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your life can
| > depend on your being able to push and pull the controls
to
| > the limit with one leg or one hand.
|
| I bow to your godliness..almighty one.
| Michelle

[john hawkins]

I'm not sure what gender has to do with it. I know that my daugher, who is a
competion horse rider can toss hay bales around a whole lot better than I
can. and i can flare and land a nose heavy A36 just fine.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Live long and prosper. There are a number of NTSB reports
> that involve female pilots involved in fatal accidents in
> various makes and models. Often these involve Vmc
> demonstrations and other operations such as engine out
> go-around [not required in light twins, but a required
> maneuver in transport category/jets.]
>
>
> "Michelle P" >
> wrote in message ...
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > There are some airplanes that are easy to load outside
> the
> | > flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are
> designed to
> | > carry passengers and baggage. With only the front seats
> | > occupied, some ballast in the rear can be essential.
> | >
> | > You should read some FAR 23 on flight control forces
> | > allowed.
> | >
> | > I have a few thousand hours teaching in multiengine
> aircraft
> | > and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper Aztecs,
> | > Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90, 200 and
> 300.
> | > Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your life can
> | > depend on your being able to push and pull the controls
> to
> | > the limit with one leg or one hand.
> |
> | I bow to your godliness..almighty one.
> | Michelle
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

Gender has nothing that must cause the problem, but a 102
pound female has to work harder to push the 150 pounds on
the rudder pedal that is what is required to match the Vmc
numbers, or to pull or push the elevator when the trim is
run-away or just miss-set. And the typical two place
trainer has a narrow CH envelope and most multiengine
airplanes have a wide CG range, when only the front seats
are occupied, elevator forces will be greater.

Lots of farms girls and city raised girls who get into
horses, learn very quickly that a 70# hay bale can be moved,
with effort. Then they learn that the exercise makes them
stronger and the bales seem easier to move.

I was just telling the young lady, that using the trim for
the flare, below 1.3 Vso may get her killed and it won't
increase her upper body strength.

There are males with low strength and there are females with
high strength. But the aerodynamic facts are gender
neutral, if you trim right down to stall speed and have to
do a go-around, you are asking to die if you don't have the
strength.

There is a maneuver that can be done safely at altitude in
most airplanes, a trim stall.



"john hawkins" > wrote in message
et...
| I'm not sure what gender has to do with it. I know that my
daugher, who is a
| competion horse rider can toss hay bales around a whole
lot better than I
| can. and i can flare and land a nose heavy A36 just fine.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Live long and prosper. There are a number of NTSB
reports
| > that involve female pilots involved in fatal accidents
in
| > various makes and models. Often these involve Vmc
| > demonstrations and other operations such as engine out
| > go-around [not required in light twins, but a required
| > maneuver in transport category/jets.]
| >
| >
| > "Michelle P" >
| > wrote in message
...
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > There are some airplanes that are easy to load
outside
| > the
| > | > flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are
| > designed to
| > | > carry passengers and baggage. With only the front
seats
| > | > occupied, some ballast in the rear can be essential.
| > | >
| > | > You should read some FAR 23 on flight control forces
| > | > allowed.
| > | >
| > | > I have a few thousand hours teaching in multiengine
| > aircraft
| > | > and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper
Aztecs,
| > | > Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90, 200
and
| > 300.
| > | > Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your life
can
| > | > depend on your being able to push and pull the
controls
| > to
| > | > the limit with one leg or one hand.
| > |
| > | I bow to your godliness..almighty one.
| > | Michelle
| >
| >
|
|

[The Visitor[_2_]]

My Seneca is. So I don't use full flaps unless there is some aft weight.
Without anything in the back, the cg is almost at the front limit. Just
"two notches". To flare nice with full flaps invites a tail stall. Very
common and I was taught, that is why there is the abundance of nose gear
collapses in the type. Because the pounding the nose gear is given.
Rolling in nose up trim makes things easier. It is just done when over
the numbers, entering a flare.

John

Michelle P wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Be careful with using the electric trim to flare. Assuming
>> that the airplane is properly loaded with the CG within the
>> range, the elevator forces required between an approach
>> speed of 1.3 Vso and the flare should be slight. Do a W&B
>> for your landing configuration, be sure to check for an
>> items stowed in a forward baggage area and for fuel.
>>
>> The problem that WILL happen is at some point you will gave
>> to go-around, that means you will need a hand on the power
>> and you will REALLY need two hands on the elevator because
>> the electric trim isn't fast enough, you will have a sudden
>> need to hold the nose down, will loose A/S, perhaps even
>> stall, then the real bad thing can happen, en engine
>> failure, Vmc and spin at 100 AGL.
>>
>> Do some exercise with weights, it is safer.
>>
> there are some planes that are just nose heavy.

[Margy Natalie]

IMHO it's not only the weight but the height, there's a big difference
between pulling the yoke back when you are 20 inches away and 10 inches
away. I know.

Margy

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Gender has nothing that must cause the problem, but a 102
> pound female has to work harder to push the 150 pounds on
> the rudder pedal that is what is required to match the Vmc
> numbers, or to pull or push the elevator when the trim is
> run-away or just miss-set. And the typical two place
> trainer has a narrow CH envelope and most multiengine
> airplanes have a wide CG range, when only the front seats
> are occupied, elevator forces will be greater.
>
> Lots of farms girls and city raised girls who get into
> horses, learn very quickly that a 70# hay bale can be moved,
> with effort. Then they learn that the exercise makes them
> stronger and the bales seem easier to move.
>
> I was just telling the young lady, that using the trim for
> the flare, below 1.3 Vso may get her killed and it won't
> increase her upper body strength.
>
> There are males with low strength and there are females with
> high strength. But the aerodynamic facts are gender
> neutral, if you trim right down to stall speed and have to
> do a go-around, you are asking to die if you don't have the
> strength.
>
> There is a maneuver that can be done safely at altitude in
> most airplanes, a trim stall.
>
>
>
> "john hawkins" > wrote in message
> et...
> | I'm not sure what gender has to do with it. I know that my
> daugher, who is a
> | competion horse rider can toss hay bales around a whole
> lot better than I
> | can. and i can flare and land a nose heavy A36 just fine.
> |
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > Live long and prosper. There are a number of NTSB
> reports
> | > that involve female pilots involved in fatal accidents
> in
> | > various makes and models. Often these involve Vmc
> | > demonstrations and other operations such as engine out
> | > go-around [not required in light twins, but a required
> | > maneuver in transport category/jets.]
> | >
> | >
> | > "Michelle P" >
> | > wrote in message
> ...
> | > | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > | > There are some airplanes that are easy to load
> outside
> | > the
> | > | > flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are
> | > designed to
> | > | > carry passengers and baggage. With only the front
> seats
> | > | > occupied, some ballast in the rear can be essential.
> | > | >
> | > | > You should read some FAR 23 on flight control forces
> | > | > allowed.
> | > | >
> | > | > I have a few thousand hours teaching in multiengine
> | > aircraft
> | > | > and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper
> Aztecs,
> | > | > Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90, 200
> and
> | > 300.
> | > | > Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your life
> can
> | > | > depend on your being able to push and pull the
> controls
> | > to
> | > | > the limit with one leg or one hand.
> | > |
> | > | I bow to your godliness..almighty one.
> | > | Michelle
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Margy Natalie" <> wrote

> IMHO it's not only the weight but the height, there's a big difference
> between pulling the yoke back when you are 20 inches away and 10 inches
> away. I know.

I think I am following your thought, but I'm not sure.

Are you saying your height (or lack of it ;-) puts you so close to the yoke
(10 inches) that the closeness makes it much more difficult to pull hard on
the yoke?

I'm assuming that the pedals on the Navion are not adjustable, and that is
what puts you so close to the yoke?
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

Very true, full travel is required. That can be difficult
with short legs and arms.


"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
| IMHO it's not only the weight but the height, there's a
big difference
| between pulling the yoke back when you are 20 inches away
and 10 inches
| away. I know.
|
| Margy
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Gender has nothing that must cause the problem, but a
102
| > pound female has to work harder to push the 150 pounds
on
| > the rudder pedal that is what is required to match the
Vmc
| > numbers, or to pull or push the elevator when the trim
is
| > run-away or just miss-set. And the typical two place
| > trainer has a narrow CH envelope and most multiengine
| > airplanes have a wide CG range, when only the front
seats
| > are occupied, elevator forces will be greater.
| >
| > Lots of farms girls and city raised girls who get into
| > horses, learn very quickly that a 70# hay bale can be
moved,
| > with effort. Then they learn that the exercise makes
them
| > stronger and the bales seem easier to move.
| >
| > I was just telling the young lady, that using the trim
for
| > the flare, below 1.3 Vso may get her killed and it won't
| > increase her upper body strength.
| >
| > There are males with low strength and there are females
with
| > high strength. But the aerodynamic facts are gender
| > neutral, if you trim right down to stall speed and have
to
| > do a go-around, you are asking to die if you don't have
the
| > strength.
| >
| > There is a maneuver that can be done safely at altitude
in
| > most airplanes, a trim stall.
| >
| >
| >
| > "john hawkins" > wrote in
message
| > et...
| > | I'm not sure what gender has to do with it. I know
that my
| > daugher, who is a
| > | competion horse rider can toss hay bales around a
whole
| > lot better than I
| > | can. and i can flare and land a nose heavy A36 just
fine.
| > |
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | ...
| > | > Live long and prosper. There are a number of NTSB
| > reports
| > | > that involve female pilots involved in fatal
accidents
| > in
| > | > various makes and models. Often these involve Vmc
| > | > demonstrations and other operations such as engine
out
| > | > go-around [not required in light twins, but a
required
| > | > maneuver in transport category/jets.]
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "Michelle P"
>
| > | > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > | > There are some airplanes that are easy to load
| > outside
| > | > the
| > | > | > flight envelope. Many multiengine airplanes are
| > | > designed to
| > | > | > carry passengers and baggage. With only the
front
| > seats
| > | > | > occupied, some ballast in the rear can be
essential.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You should read some FAR 23 on flight control
forces
| > | > | > allowed.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I have a few thousand hours teaching in
multiengine
| > | > aircraft
| > | > | > and just flying charter and delivery, from Piper
| > Aztecs,
| > | > | > Beech Duchess and Barons, Dukes, King Ai r 90,
200
| > and
| > | > 300.
| > | > | > Jet time is in the Beechjet 400, trust me, your
life
| > can
| > | > | > depend on your being able to push and pull the
| > controls
| > | > to
| > | > | > the limit with one leg or one hand.
| > | > |
| > | > | I bow to your godliness..almighty one.
| > | > | Michelle
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
>> IMHO it's not only the weight but the height, there's a big difference
>> between pulling the yoke back when you are 20 inches away and 10 inches
>> away. I know.

> I think I am following your thought, but I'm not sure.
>
> Are you saying your height (or lack of it ;-) puts you so close to the
> yoke (10 inches) that the closeness makes it much more difficult to pull
> hard on the yoke?


I think she's saying ....she never had any problems getting dates in H.S. or
college, and that Ron is one lucky fella, IYKWIM. <g>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uWynkMaVno
"She's an Eagle When She Flies" - Dolly


Montblack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgOBzs4UP-Y
Ok, this one was for me :-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" <> wrote

> I think she's saying ....she never had any problems getting dates in H.S.
> or college, and that Ron is one lucky fella, IYKWIM. <g>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uWynkMaVno
> "She's an Eagle When She Flies" - Dolly

I musta' been using the wrong key, decoding the last message. You obviously
have the right key! ;-)

And she is pretty "spunky", for a 5' nothing, too!

I heard she always flys IFR, 'cause she can't see over the glareshield! <g>

Kidding, of course. I'm sure there are no short jokes Margy hasn't heard,
before! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "Margy Natalie" <> wrote
>
>
>>IMHO it's not only the weight but the height, there's a big difference
>>between pulling the yoke back when you are 20 inches away and 10 inches
>>away. I know.
>
>
> I think I am following your thought, but I'm not sure.
>
> Are you saying your height (or lack of it ;-) puts you so close to the yoke
> (10 inches) that the closeness makes it much more difficult to pull hard on
> the yoke?
>
> I'm assuming that the pedals on the Navion are not adjustable, and that is
> what puts you so close to the yoke?
You hit the nail on the head. It's not bad in the Navion, but a 182 is a
****er for me. It's one reason we have a Navion, but yes, I still sit
rather close.

Margy

[Greg Esres[_2_]]

The Visitor wrote:

<<To flare nice with full flaps invites a tail stall. >>

Not likely. You will lose elevator authority, but the AOA gets
smaller as the tail moves down.

<<why there is the abundance of nose gear collapses in the type. >>

Actually, there is an AD out on the Seneca nose gear. The collapses
are generally due to misrigging of the airplane. Friend of mine has a
nosewheel collapse after a full stall, nose high landing.

[The Visitor[_2_]]

No, and with full flaps it pull an greater aoa for the same
authority(down force). It stalls. And the nose can drop real hard. As
the stab moves into ground effect the aoa increases also. The Cessna
Cardinal had this problem, which later got addressed with slots in the
stabilator.

Greg Esres wrote:
> The Visitor wrote:
>
> <<To flare nice with full flaps invites a tail stall. >>
>
> Not likely. You will lose elevator authority, but the AOA gets
> smaller as the tail moves down.
>




> <<why there is the abundance of nose gear collapses in the type. >>
>
> Actually, there is an AD out on the Seneca nose gear. The collapses
> are generally due to misrigging of the airplane. Friend of mine has a
> nosewheel collapse after a full stall, nose high landing.
>
>

Generally? I'm sorry about your friend and a misrigged gear on anything
is a hazard. And the pa34 nose gear (like any) can be mis-rigged.But the
seneca nose gears take a pounding because of the way they are flown. It
leads to failures.

John

[The Visitor[_2_]]

By way of an addition....

if somebody is in the back it is very easy to rotate for a nice flare
without getting close to a tail stall. Even with full flaps. Tlhere is
probably only one knot difference in stall speed between two notches and
three(full). Fuel and row one passengers only, the cg is very near it's
forward limit. A local flying school that also rents out it's Seneca has
some weight strapped down in the back area, I think 75 pounds. I think
they had three collapses over the last 15 years and none were due to
mis-rigging. And it is checked every 50 hours and also they hold an stc
for putting a window in so it can be inspected through the nose baggage
area each flight.

The Visitor wrote:

> No, and with full flaps it pull an greater aoa for the same
> authority(down force). It stalls. And the nose can drop real hard. As
> the stab moves into ground effect the aoa increases also. The Cessna
> Cardinal had this problem, which later got addressed with slots in the
> stabilator.
>
> Greg Esres wrote:
>
>> The Visitor wrote:
>>
>> <<To flare nice with full flaps invites a tail stall. >>
>>
>> Not likely. You will lose elevator authority, but the AOA gets
>> smaller as the tail moves down.
>>
>
>
>
>
>> <<why there is the abundance of nose gear collapses in the type. >>
>>
>> Actually, there is an AD out on the Seneca nose gear. The collapses
>> are generally due to misrigging of the airplane. Friend of mine has a
>> nosewheel collapse after a full stall, nose high landing.
>>
>>
>
> Generally? I'm sorry about your friend and a misrigged gear on anything
> is a hazard. And the pa34 nose gear (like any) can be mis-rigged.But the
> seneca nose gears take a pounding because of the way they are flown. It
> leads to failures.
>
> John
>

[Greg Esres[_2_]]

<<No, and with full flaps it pull an greater aoa for the same
authority(down force). It stalls. And the nose can drop real hard. As
the stab moves into ground effect the aoa increases also. >>

Sorry, I was thinking of a horizontal stabilizer/elevator combo.
Still, the lift coefficient of the horizontal tail most likely doesn't
get near Clmax. I regularly make full stall landings with the Seneca
using 40 degree flaps.The tail doesn't stall. If the nose drops, it's
a physical strength issue.

<<But the seneca nose gears take a pounding because of the way they
are flown. It
leads to failures.>>

The British did a very elaborate analysis of the nose gear on the
Seneca and didn't think that was a factor. The gear is designed to
withstand vertical loads. It's front to back loads that are a
problem.

[Greg Esres[_2_]]

<<I think they had three collapses over the last 15 years and none
were due to
mis-rigging. >>

And how do you know? Our mechanics said the same thing, but it struck
me as a cover-your-ass sort of defense.

<<And it is checked every 50 hours and also they hold an stc for
putting a window in so it can be inspected through the nose baggage
area each flight.>>

They've had the window in for 15 years? The problem only came to
light in the past few years. Our mechanics also put in a window.

[Greg Esres[_2_]]

This is from "Cessna Wings for the World", by William D. Thompson,
regarding the C-177:

==================================<snip>=======================
The pitch-down motion in flaps-down sideslips was a more serious
problem, however. Production test pilots became aware of a more
noticeable waviness in some of the leading-edges of the wing, and
occasionally, a 2-foot length of paint overspray that caused wing-
dropping tendencies at the stall. This had to be corrected by
applying body filler material on the leading-edge or rubbing compound
to remove the almost invisible overspray. There was also questionable
uniformity of the stabilators, giving as much as 15-mph deviations in
minimum trim speeds. On some airplanes they reworked or actually
replaced the stabilator with some improvement. This led to the
decision to incorporate slots into the stabilators' leading edges so
that they could tolerate a steeper downflow of air without stalling
the under-surface of the stabilator. This solved the problem, and a
fleetwide "Cardinal Rule" retrofit was planned at no cost to the
customer. In the meantime, a service bulletin called for a temporary
installation of a simple sheet metal plate that would limit the
maximum flap deflection to 15 degrees. We were paying the price for
these thin skins.
==================================<snip>=======================

So this was more than just a stabilator stalling; it had more to do
with production problems than an inherent design problem. A tail-
stalling airplane wouldn't pass certification tests.

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Oh I know. I can imagine how it strikes you, but that is it. I think
they also hold some stc for some kind of mod in there also.



Greg Esres wrote:
> <<I think they had three collapses over the last 15 years and none
> were due to
> mis-rigging. >>
>
> And how do you know? Our mechanics said the same thing, but it struck
> me as a cover-your-ass sort of defense.
>
> <<And it is checked every 50 hours and also they hold an stc for
> putting a window in so it can be inspected through the nose baggage
> area each flight.>>
>
> They've had the window in for 15 years? The problem only came to
> light in the past few years. Our mechanics also put in a window.
>
>

[The Visitor[_2_]]

To borrow your phrase, it strikes me more as a cya thing because it did
get out to the market place.

Greg Esres wrote:

> This is from "Cessna Wings for the World", by William D. Thompson,
> regarding the C-177:
>
> ==================================<snip>=======================
> The pitch-down motion in flaps-down sideslips was a more serious
> problem, however. Production test pilots became aware of a more
> noticeable waviness in some of the leading-edges of the wing, and
> occasionally, a 2-foot length of paint overspray that caused wing-
> dropping tendencies at the stall. This had to be corrected by
> applying body filler material on the leading-edge or rubbing compound
> to remove the almost invisible overspray. There was also questionable
> uniformity of the stabilators, giving as much as 15-mph deviations in
> minimum trim speeds. On some airplanes they reworked or actually
> replaced the stabilator with some improvement. This led to the
> decision to incorporate slots into the stabilators' leading edges so
> that they could tolerate a steeper downflow of air without stalling
> the under-surface of the stabilator. This solved the problem, and a
> fleetwide "Cardinal Rule" retrofit was planned at no cost to the
> customer. In the meantime, a service bulletin called for a temporary
> installation of a simple sheet metal plate that would limit the
> maximum flap deflection to 15 degrees. We were paying the price for
> these thin skins.
> ==================================<snip>=======================
>
> So this was more than just a stabilator stalling; it had more to do
> with production problems than an inherent design problem. A tail-
> stalling airplane wouldn't pass certification tests.
>

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Well I have tail stalled it, twice, 18 years ago when learning. CG at
the forward limit(not close, _at_), full flaps, wing in ground effect,
stabilitor moving into it's own ground effect, and don't use nose up
trim. Thinking about your other post with the claim that some overspray
created such problems, I should also point out the aircraft had the
known icing package. Looking at the boot on the stabilator it surely
must be the culprit as it is far worse than overspray or a wavy edge. As
far as I know there is no change in a sabilator that is going to be
booted or not.

Was it the wing that stalled? Back then I was taught it was the tail.
I was also warned if carrying ice to be _very_ wary of a tail stall (no
flaps). As for the cardinal, pilots at the time told me the slots came
out because some people were managing to stall the stabilator. It must
have a very forward center of gravity, but to me that is the way it
should be to make loading easier.

I have stalled the wing in the flare and that was different. I am sure I
could try to do it again but I will pass on that. Yes I trained doing
all manner of stalls, well not all, not single engine stalls. I suspect
newer Senecas go out the door with the cg farther aft as they have
gotten very heavy compared to the III's. Thinking back to the times I
did it, I still believe it was the tail that gave out. Even though it
goes against popular thinking. But nobody would believe me if I claimed
to see a flying saucer either. It's just my personal expierience,
nothing quoted from books. And like anybodies I could be wrong, but I
lived it so that is what I thought.

But your right, it doesn't make sense, they wouldn't certify the
airplane it there was any chance of the tail ever stalling under any
possible condition. I didn't know that about certification requirements.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies and setting me straight.

John



Greg Esres wrote:

> <<No, and with full flaps it pull an greater aoa for the same
> authority(down force). It stalls. And the nose can drop real hard. As
> the stab moves into ground effect the aoa increases also. >>
>
> Sorry, I was thinking of a horizontal stabilizer/elevator combo.
> Still, the lift coefficient of the horizontal tail most likely doesn't
> get near Clmax. I regularly make full stall landings with the Seneca
> using 40 degree flaps.The tail doesn't stall. If the nose drops, it's
> a physical strength issue.
>
> <<But the seneca nose gears take a pounding because of the way they
> are flown. It
> leads to failures.>>
>
> The British did a very elaborate analysis of the nose gear on the
> Seneca and didn't think that was a factor. The gear is designed to
> withstand vertical loads. It's front to back loads that are a
> problem.
>
>

[Greg Esres[_2_]]

The Visitor wrote

<<Was it the wing that stalled? Back then I was taught it was the
tail.
I was also warned if carrying ice to be _very_ wary of a tail stall
(no
flaps). As for the cardinal, pilots at the time told me the slots came
out because some people were managing to stall the stabilator. It must
have a very forward center of gravity, but to me that is the way it
should be to make loading easier. >>

Yes, I'm aware of the icing issue. When I first posted, I was
mentally referencing a NASA tail plane report that I had been reading.
They did extensive tests and showed that an a/c is most vulnerable at
the MAXIMUM speed for a given flap setting. Each flap setting
increases the negative AOA for a particular airspeed, due to the
downwash of the wing into the horizontal stabilizer. However, as the
a/c slows, the AOA of the horizontal stabilizer becomes less negative,
because the tail rotates down; the increased downward lift is provided
by the elevator deflection, rather than increasing the AOA. I didn't
stop to think how the report would differ if they were discussing
stabilators.

One possibility for the effect you noticed is that as the main wing
stalls, there may be a decreased downwash over the horizontal
stabilizer, which would produce a downward pitching motion.

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> One possibility for the effect you noticed is that as the main wing
> stalls,

Just that will nose it down. But it was different than the wing stalling
in ground effect.


there may be a decreased downwash over the horizontal
> stabilizer, which would produce a downward pitching motion.
>
>
I can't see it in a downwash while flaring. It's pretty close to the
ground. Reduced airflow I could buy but in that situation it would still
be firm and responsive to input.

Ah well....