FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0537.PDF
FLIGHT, 15 April 1960 537 The 2W undercarriage on the way up gives the impression of the results of an extremely heavy landing. Retraction is very quick he had to break off and settle down into the instrument climb.Although blind-flying instruments are sometimes poorly arranged in American business aircraft, those in all the Cessnatypes follow a reasonably standard pattern, conforming to the American practice of putting a.s.i., directional gyro and horizonon the same level. This is, of course, contrary to long-established RAF practice and Lambert found it necessary to concentrate hardtc keep up an effective general scan. Soon after entering cloud it was noticeable that a good deal ofriaht rudder was required to keep straight. The rudder trimmer was effective in correcting this, but rather insensitive. At climbpower we forged upwards at a good rate, soon turning northwards to avoid the London Control Zone. All the time, that convenientADF needle pointed to the locator beacon. The windscreen became covered with dense moisture and we emerged from anindistinct cloud top at about 6,000ft into an intense glare from reflected sunlight. After crossing the beacon Lambert tried aseries of turns and then set about a stall with undercarriage and 20° of flap down. The speed dropped off steadily and the nosecame well up, but adequate aileron control remained until the last moment. No sink built up short of the stall, as it had doneon the 175, and we eventually mushed gently into a straight stall with the nose well up and the stick just reaching the aft limit.The stalling speed was below 50 m.p.h. i.a.s. Approaching the stall the wing-mounted warner peeped plain-tively and a slight judder announced the onset. So far the 210's behaviour was impeccable, but Lambert, having some height tospare,, continued to hold the stick hard back and after a second or so the left wing dropped sharply and we entered a steep dive.Recovery from this was immediate with the controls centred and he could then apply power to level off again. There is thereforea slight bite to the 210's stall, but a pilot would have to push it to get that far and should then be able to recover without difficulty. Again we flew back to the beacon and followed a race-trackholding pattern while a DC-3 climbed out below us. We then began the let-down on the westerly leg, lowering the under-carriage and 10° of flap at 160 m.p.h. With some power we went downhill at 140 m.p.h. and l,000ft/min. Some 10° of flap may belowered at such relatively high speeds so that plenty of drag is available to make a steep let-down without throttling right back. Under instructions from Joe Tyszko (who was also working outthe fuel-pressure settings that this up-and-down flight entailed) we then made the procedure turn to the inbound leg and, as adreary gloom closed about us, levelled off at 2,000ft. With virtually no change of power setting the 140 m.p.h. let-down turnedsmoothly into level flight at 100 m.p.h. and by simply increasing speed to 140 m.p.h. we were able to continue down to 700ft, atwhich point we again made contact with the ground. Some time after passing the beacon we saw the high-intensity approach lightsand applied three-quarter flap and motored down on to the run- way. During the final approach power was adjusted' only withthe vernier control which gave a steady approach gradient. Even after sitting in the rear seats while Lambert was perform-ing these exercises, Pugh was a bit taken aback at the apparent fierceness with which the 210 accelerated down the runway andrushed into the climb. It will not fly off by itself and it is easy to reach climbing speed with the wheels still on the ground. As this was the last sortie of the day (time and weather werepressing) Pugh stayed at about 600ft and within sight of the airfield perimeter. These were narrowish margins in which tosample the urgent 210 and the temptation to treat it like the big aeroplane it feels was considerable. But while the acceleration was very marked it was equally easy to shed speed when necessary,because of sensibly high lowering speeds for wheels and flaps and the constant-speed propeller. At the forward e.g. position at whichPugh was flying the ability to hold a trimmed speed made the approach very reassuring. As flap was progressively lowered untilthe 210 seemed almost to be standing on its nose, this charac- teristic increased, so that an approach at a steady 80 m.p.h. wasreally no sweat at all and Pugh gradually became used to the idea that this was quite a little aeroplane after all. That 40° of Fowler-type flap was too entertaining not to use,but the flare-out is then considerable and—as the 210 sat low on the ground—both pilots found a tendency to level off a bit high. In the 30° cross-wind the touch-down, at about 65 m.p.h., waslike that of the other Cessnas, with plenty of control and no tendency at all to bounce or swing.The British pilot is, we think, taught about perfect flying characteristics in very imperfect aircraft. In American businessmachines he is liable to find handling characteri sties which fall short of ideal but an exceptional standard of comfort and ease ofoperation. Real snags in American light aircraft—and there are very few—are shown up only when they are used for other thanA to B travelling. Lambert said that he was quite happy to put up with most of the apparent imperfections if only he couldguarantee to be able to climb in, press the starter, light a cigarette and take part in the gracious airborne living of the American salesbrochures. Pugh likes his creature comforts too, but what an opportunity is being missed (he remarked) of producing a Britishaeroplane combining the best of both worlds. CESSNA AIRCRAFT DATA Cessna 150 (Continental O-200-A, 100 h.p.) Span, 33ft 4in: length, 21ft 6in; gross weight, 1,5001b; empty weight, 9461b; max recommended cruisina speed, 70% power at 9,000ft, 121 m.p.h.; max range 630 miles; initial climb, 740ft/min; service ceiling, 15,300ft; take-off run, 680ft; price in UK, about £3,600 Cessna 175 (Continental 175 h.p.) Span, 36ft: length, 26ft 4in; oross weiqht, 2,350lb; empty weight, 1,3391b; max recommended cruisina speed, 70% power at 10,000ft, 140 m.p.h.; max range, 755 miles; initial climb, 850ft/min; service ceiling, 15,900ft; take-off run, 735ft; price in UK, about £5,300 Cessna 210 (Continental IO-470-E, 260 h.p.) Span, 36ft 6in; lenqth, 27ft 4in; gross weight, 2,9001b; empty weight, 1,7351b; max recommended cruising speed, 75% power at 7,000ft, 190 m.p.h.; max ranqe, 1,100 miles; initial climb. 1,300ft/ min: service ceiling, 20,700ft; take-off run, 740ft; price in UK, about £9,900 DOWN WITH MACH 3 (continued from page 528) that 20,000hr is most unrealistic. It may be, but the fact is youdo not know, and pretending to plan positively on ignorance gets us no place.In reading the literature, it is clear that most of it is an essay in "One-Upmanship" and much of it tends to be high-gradeadvertising material, which brilliantly hides what is unwritten. Outstanding among the cards held close to the chest is the layoutof the aircraft. It is realized that it is essential to withhold one's good cards from one's competitors, but since you all know thatyou are doing this and the airlines know that many of the proposals must be misleading for this very reason, the validity of theliterature suffers severely. Take, for instance, the aircraft shapes so widely discussed and so unlikely to be real. For M2 to M3the integrated slender-wing configuration is never mentioned. Since it is the only one that happens to be unmentioned, one canassume on the principles of operational research that this is the most likely layout intended. Probably I am underestimating the cunning of the manufac-turers, especially those who talk so easily about M5 to M7. "May not this huge public relations and deceiving-the-enemy battlemean that manufacturers hope to divert the competition into the more impossible Mach numbers, so that they can quietly andquickly produce a satisfactory M2 aircraft in light alloy, with the minimum of extra problems and a life long enough for any airline?You will gather that I suspect that M3 + aircraft will be found unsatisfactory if taken in one jump. So we shouldn't jump. Noneof us can afford to bring any supersonic aircraft into service before the early 1970s, but I suggest that even if you reach no furtherthan M2, airlines should now begin to collaborate with manufac- turers while there is still time for airlines to get what they want,instead of having to take what is available. On the other hand, there won't really be very much available because of the extra-ordinarily high development costs. My guess is that there might be only two-yand at most three-^-alternative aircraft suitable forairline operation in the West. With so little room for manoeuvre, it is the duty of airlines to themselves and to their customersto ensure that the all-round result is the right one. And the right one is the one to keep us in business.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
