FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1445.PDF
FLIGHT. 5 October 1961 549 A close-up view in a turn shows the sharp taper of the outer wing panels The wing of " Flight's " Gemini is in the foreground coaming to adjust it. Four vernier plungers controlled, from left to right, fuel pressure, throttle, propeller pitch and cooling gills. I tended to move fuel pressure control instead of throttle. The throttle was jerky and it was difficult to make fine adjustments at low powers, either by screwing the vernier or pushing for direct control. The r.p.m. gauge, unusually, read anti-clockwise. Excessive springi- ness in the plastic aileron wheels gave a spongy feel if the wheels were held by their upper rims. Seat adjustment was easy. Ventilation was limited for tropical conditions, but is to be increased. These are small points of criticism and only the sticky throttle would affect handling The pilots sit close to the leading-edge of the wing and the highwindscreen gives good visibility. On the ground, I found the field of view excellent: the nose was indeed so low that it seemed the pro-peller must strike the ground. Suspension and steering were very good. Take-off checks were normal. When I opened up we surgedforward with boost pressure rising to 35in as we got airborne. The wheels, being set well aft, dragged the nose down as they caughtthe last few bumps in the Panshanger turf. I reduced power and r.p.m. slightly and pulled fuel pressure back below its maximumpermissible of 18lb/sq in as 1 climbed away at 85 m.p.h., making close to l,000ft/min. The ailerons immediately proved very powerful, but there wasmoderate adverse yaw. The rudder was light and click-centred by springs so that co-ordination of turns was quite easy. This aircraftwas a freighter and had no cabin sound-proofing. Noise level was understandably high, but a fully furnished interior is available forthe passenger version. Just above 5,OOOft, in smooth air above the haze-top, 1 levelled off,set 2,400 r.p.m., 27in and 8.31b/sq in fuel pressure to give 75 per cent power, and i.a.s. soon increased to 125 m..p.h. Incidentally. Ilater found exactly the same i.a.s. at the same power at 2.000ft, giving a measure of the value of theTSIO engine. m.p.h., the elevator ceased to bile and we mushed down in a semi-stalled state with full control. To check tailplane effect, 1 wound the trim wheel back, finding very little aft trim left. This time I wasable to get back below 60 m.p.h. i.a.s. before elevator once again ran out. Holding the wheel fully back, we went down-hill with aslight tendency to develop progressive upward swoops towards a real stall. Though the stall warning hooter blared and a mild buffetappeared once, we did not stall properly. 1 now realized that the Santa Maria is built to fly with a load andthat we were at fully forward e.g. with no payload, two pilots and about two-thirds fuel. A stall was therefore \irtually unobtainable.I made a note to approach at a reasonable speed, just in case ele- vator ran short for the round-out. Fully aft trim would not quitehold an approach speed of 85 m.p.h. at this e.g. 1 applied full power in this condition and the speed settled at 90 m.p.h. withoutretrimming after a \ery slow nose-up attitude change— a good omen for the overshoot case. Next 1 set 100 m.p.h. in level flight and lowered flap. The effortrequired was surprisingly light, but the nose went quite sharply up. There was a continuous nosc-up change throughout the flap exten-sion range. Drag was reasonable and we went down at 1,000ft min at 85 m.p.h. with power off—a fairly steep angle. I jerked thenose up several times and there was no sign of a g-stall. All three controls remained light and powerful. 1 came as near to a stall aselevator power would allow at below 50 m.p.h. Application of full power produced a good, gentle nose-up change and an acceptablerate of climb. Retraction of flap seemed to cause virtually no sensa- tion of sink. I must admit that I expect to find something odd in the handlingof any aircraft of this kind, but the Santa Maria came out extremely well with no more quirky manifestation than nose-up trim changewith flaps. A forward e.g. is kind to handling on the whole, but I have the feeling that the Santa Maria would retain the efficientdecency of its handling at high loadings and reasonably aft e.g. positions. I would like to have confirmed this in practice, but therewas not time. I was now ready to "shoot a few landings,'" as the Americanswould say. The approach, at 85 m.p.h., was straightforward, but the low nose gave the impression that the descent was steeper thanit in fact was. Round-out was simple, but we floated for a long way before touching down. I made a take-off with 15° flap, whichworked well and then a second glide approach at 70 m.p.h. Again iht Soruu Mono peeis u/j at mt cno o\ the photographic flight At 125 m.p.h. and 5,000ft the Santa Maria was steady and smooth,a very pleasant if slightly heavy aeroplane to handle. Accurate turns could be made with only very small use of the light rudder.Decent turns were possible with rudder or aileron alone. Maximum manoeuvre speed, at 133 m.p.h., was above cruising speed—apleasant exception to the American custom. If left in a gentle turn, the Santa Maria tended to tighten very slowly into a spiral to theright, but stayed virtually steady to the left, although the nose slowly dropped and speed increased. Application and suddenrelease of rudder produced firm return to straight flight aftei two oscillations. Jerks on the elevator showed a crisp return towardstrimmed attitude, followed by shallow phugoids and good return to neutral. All this made for a civilized, pleasant aeroplane. I took aliking to it very soon. Closing the throttle produced noticeable propeller drag and adeep dipping of the nose. Without trimming, the speed would have settled well above 140 m.p.h., but I kept it out of the yellow zone onthe a.s.i., which began at that speed. I levelled off without power and pulled hard back on the wheel until, at between 60 and 70 MACCHI SANTA MARIA (Continental TSIO-470 or 10-470 engine giving 260 h.p.) Span, 39ft 4in; length, 28ft I in.; wing area, 210 sq ft; cabin volume, 120 cu ft; cabin length, I Ift lOin; fuel capacity, 50 Imp gal. Empty weight, 2,0241b; useful load, 1,5081b; normal gross weight, 3,5321b; gross weight. CAR part 8. 3,7521b. Performance (with TSIO-470 engine): maximum speed at sea-level, 150 m.p.h.; maximum speed at 12,000ft, 168 m.p.h.; stalling speed, 53 m.p.h.; initial rate of climb, 950ft/min; rate of climb at 10,000ft, 83Oft/min; service ceiling, 25,000ft; range with reserves, 550 miles; take-off distance to 50ft, 1,050ft; landing distance over 50ft, 1,050ft. there was a longish float. The undercarriage absorbed the bumps extremely well. Landing and take-off were very easy, but I gained no particular impressions from them. Performance would be far more definite with a representative load and a e.g. further aft. Apart from the "squawks" I mentioned earlier on, which are relatively minor, I liked the Santa Maria very much. It has turned out exceptionally well and will prove a fine work-horse aeroplane. With the TSIO engine it should do a specially good job for the hot and high operator.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
