FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 1021.PDF
18 April 1952 457 AUSTER AIGLET TRAINER 130 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Major I; Fairey Reed two-bladed metal airscrew Dimensions and Weights Span Length ... Maximum weight authorized (normal) Maximum weight authorized (aerobatic) ... Empty weight (approx.) Performance (with pupil and instructor) Maximum speed Cruising speed ... Stalling speed (engine off, full flap) Take-off run Rate of climb at S.L Range (one 16-gal tank, cruising speed) ... Range (two 16-gal tanks, cruising speed) Approximate safe duration for training (16-gal. tank) 32ft 23ft 2iin 2,200 lb 1,950 1b 1,320 1b 132 m.p.h. 112 m.p.h. 33 m.p.h. I.A.S. 188 yd 710 ft/min 270 miles 500 miles Hhr Freighter reviewed in the April 4th issue (my views on flap operation were also expressed at that time). The springing is stiff, but it is suitable for the normal duties of the aircraft. An electric starter can be provided to order for the Gipsy Major I engine, and a wind-driven generator can be installed in the starboard wing, but why these proprietary units are such expensive extras—£91 10s and £105 respec tively—I don't know. The Fairey metal airscrew, which is a standard fitting, helps towards a smooth tick-over, apart from being efficient and looking smart. The Major I engine, itjwill be recalled, has a 1,500-hr overhaul period. "The cockpit and its fittings are plain but satisfactory and, closely resembling those of other Austers, call for no particu lar remarks. As mentioned earlier, a two-place, rear bench- seat may be fitted; the width across the front seats is 42m at elbow level. A simple check—the fuel cock, of twist-selector type, is mounted on the floor—and the lowering of a notch of flap completes the pre-flight preparation, and after a specially careful look-round necessitated by the small blind-spots caused by the wing roots, I felt ready to take off. Flying solo or dual the run is short and the climb-away rapid. There is no appreciable tendency to swing, and one feels confident of the directional control as soon as the throttle is opened. It seemed to me that the Trainer gives more choice of attitude on the take-off run than, say, the Autocrat, for in spite of the rather bumpy field there was no tendency to pitch or leap off prematurely; but when the stick was eased back at about 50 m.p.h. I.A.S., the unstick was positive. I did not attempt to time the climb, but can believe the 800 ft/min or so claimed for solo flying. I was carrying an almost full fuel tank (16 gallons in the starboard wing root— a second tank can be fitted in the port wing and a i3f-gallon overload tank externally under the belly), and electrical and blind-flying equipment, so the weight was probably about 1,750 lb, or 200 lb below the maximum authorized for aero batics. Since it first flew, the Aiglet Trainer has had its ailerons heavied-up a little by altering the gearing. I am not convinced that this is a good thing. They are said now to be better harmonized, but one can push or pull a stick and move a rudder bar with less conscious effort than one can press and hold a stick sideways to roll. While there is even now no great load to overcome (and, in fact, the force may be more representative for military training requirements) I personally like light ailerons with, of course good crisp response and adequate effectiveness. However, these points do not con stitute a complaint, for the controls are pleasant enough to operate and, as I subsequently discovered, a good rate of roll can be obtained. According to the figures, the maximum rate is almost 60 deg/sec—a high figure for the type—and this, with full aileron, requires a stick force of 22 lb. By comparison the stick force per g is a little over 6 lb, at cruising speed and under the load conditions already mentioned. The stick force per applied g usually falls between 5 lb and 10 lb for initial trainers. . The Aiglet Trainer is stable and trims well fore and art. Inverted it is unstable, but plenty of elevator and enough ailer- ron control are available to fly (or, more accurately, glide) that way up. . , , , As with other Austers, the stall is straight and gentle, and in saying that it seemed a little more positive or pronounced, I don't think I am imagining a clipped-wing effect which is not there. With the flaps up and power off, the indicated speed of "Flight" photograph Neat, even to the absence of all markings, is this Aiglet Trainer seen here on test over Rearsby. The 130 h.p. D.H. Gipsy Major I psrmits a shapely nose, the lines marred only by the bulky but welcome silencer. stall was 40-42 m.p.h.; there was no appreciable warning; recovery was instantaneous. With flap progressively lowered the stalling speed gets less, the minimum being 32-34 m.p.h. I.A.S., but otherwise there is little difference, and on no occasion need much height be lost. If the aircraft is held in the stall, with rudder and ailerons central, it will probably give some signs of starting to spiral or spin to the left, as likely as not only to make a partial recovery on its own. With power on and flaps down, the nose must be extremely high to stall, and then it totters down to the level altitude without discernible height-loss. I thought the spin was quite like that of the Tiger Moth and very suitable for a trainer. To come out quickly, how ever, full correct recovery procedure is required, and it is not enough just to centralize controls. All Aerobatics are On I admit that I felt slightly guilty about up-ending an Auster in various forms of aerobatics. In the case of the Aiglet Trainer, however, this is no crime; and starting with loops at about 120 m.p.h., and going on to slow rolls at 130 m.p.h. and rolls-off a little faster still-, I tried them all. The machine takes them willingly in its stride and, moreover, there is no need to lose height during such evolutions. The loops calls for no comment. For rolls it is desirable to start with nose fairly high, and one notes how much rudder control is available on the way out. Another point that was brought home to me was my ham-left-handedness. With a central throttle lever (not push-pull) it is, of course, necessary to roll with the left hand, or cross hands to close the throttle. Left-hand loops I could cope with but the rolls were shaky. The engine did not seem to mind if the throttle remained open, and it was left to cut out and in again; but obviously this is a bad practice. When I began to feel that the meal waiting below would be unwelcome, I gave up aerobatics and attempted the down wind leg of the circuit, inverted. The aircraft kept steady when flown with my right hand, but again my left failed me; I was also surprised at the power of the elevators, up or down, at speeds as low as 70 m.p.h. Next flight, perhaps, I'll try a bunt. Of the approach and landing it may be said that they are in conformity with the well-known Auster characteristics. The speed of approach should be, perhaps, 5 m.p.h. faster than with the Autocrat, and the rate of descent is slightly more rapid. About 65 m.p.h. I.A.S. seemed a comfortable glide speed, although it would be quite safe to use less, and 50 m.p.h. is enough for the round-out. I liked the feel of the hold-off and touch-down very well, and they should be very suitable for those learning to fly. The final turn-in is, how ever, rather blind, except downwards, as with any high- winged aircraft, and it is necessary to look before the turn and later to do some rubbernecking if other aircraft on the circuit are to be kept in view. In conclusion, I may add that I would expect Aiglet- trained pilots, either in military or civil schools, to compare well at 50 hours with those instructed on any other type— and, moreover, the pockets of the operators would be more likely to carry a worthwhile payload.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
