FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1382.PDF
204 FLIGHT International, S August 1963 The tidy rear-engine cowling with its cooling fan. The two propellers rotate in opposite directions, cancelling torque. General airframe finish is tidy and clean In the Air . .. only that we touched down with a fairly high angle of attack and that the Land-o-Matic gear absorbed the impact smoothly. Though satisfying and impressive, this flight was only a partial test, because low-speed behaviour remained largely unknown. I therefore proceeded to chase the Skymaster on subsequent de monstration visits to Cessna dealers Westair at Blackpool and Flying Facilities at Bristol/Lulsgate, before finally cornering it again on its return to Cranfield. This time we had a roughish day, with a turbulent 16kt wind some 20° off the active runway. There was an adequate ceiling and smooth air at above 2,500ft. After the almost uncannily smooth air of the first trip I was most keen to see how the aircraft behaved in rough conditions. Because we were chasing the low-speed behaviour, we tried no more engine-out work, but made several short take-offs and landings. Weight this time was again near gross. Empty weight was average 2,3201b to 2,5861b by virtue of almost every optional extra in the book, and we added two people (Ellsworth and myself) full, long- range fuel, and 1001b of baggage and spares to bring the weight to at least 3,8001b. Starting and taxying were again easy, and again I noticed that the nose gear thumped slightly over rough joints in the tarmac. On undulating ground, the Skymaster sways gently on its undamped spring legs, but absorbs bumps well. I chose to take off first without flap, using the normal technique of rotating at 60 m.p.h. and lifting off around 80. Because the air craft reaches quite accentuated angles of attack at low speeds, this was an uncomfortable experience and 10° of flap would make things more level and positive. In the brisk wind, the aircraft seemed to climb at an extremely steep angle at 95 m.p.h. and we were at 600ft or so when still nearly over the end of the runway, having started the take-off half-way down it. Indicated rate of climb was 1,000ft/ min, which declined to 800ft/min when we reduced to the conserva tive climb power of 25in and 2,500 r.p.m. Normal 195 h.p. continu ous setting is 26iin and 2,800 r.p.m. With the 69 per cent power at 23in and 2,300 r.p.m. normally used by Ellsworth to obtain a flight-planning 140kt TAS, the Sky master settled at 145 m.p.h. i.a.s. at 1,500ft. A return to 25in and 2,500 r.p.m. at a comfortable en route climb speed of 125 m.p.h. produced a rate of climb of 700ft/min at 2,500ft. Settling at 3,000ft I got the speed below 95 m.p.h. for the first time. With no flap and 15in power I slowly reduced speed until the stall warning horn sounded at 80 m.p.h. It was giving rather exces sive warning, as it turned out. The Skymaster continued to main tain height as the speed fell off and a mild g-break with a slow wing- lowering followed at an indicated 65 m.p.h. Recovery without use of power was immediate. Returning to 85 m.p.h. I lowered 20° of flap with virtually no trim change and again found a very mild stall. Full aft trim setting stabilized just over 100 m.p.h. without power and 85 m.p.h. with a little power. At this speed there was still plenty of light and responsive aileron and the aircraft was by no means short of lift or sinking. When I lowered 30° flap the extra trim travel became available and the full tail-heavy setting again stabilized 100 m.p.h. or so, rather indistinctly, with power off. I applied 25in and 2,500 r,p.m. and had to hold a considerable nose-up rotation, but could rapidly apply compensating trim. The control column and wheel were not so squashy as in the smaller Cessnas. Even with full flap we achieved some 700ft/min rate of climb. Next stall was with 30° flap, power-off and trimmed for 100 m.p.h. Flying level, I pulled the nose up until the horn sounded at 70 m.p.h. and the wheel came against the rear stop at 63, where upon the nose simply fell gradually away as the elevator petered out. There was no stall. I allowed speed to increase to 50 m.p.h. and "took a run at the stall," but elevator again petered out without a stall. I dived to 80 and pulled back to a ridiculous nose-up angle and we finally achieved a slow, rolling stall and loss of control at an indicated 45 m.p.h. falling in a wing-down, nose-down attitude, neither rudder nor aileron had much effect in extricating us for some seconds. Final stall trial was clean with 23in and 2,300 r.p.m., starting to pull back from cruising speed. Nose-heavy stick loads in creased steadily, giving a clear indication of reducing speed as we climbed at about 500ft/min. It was really hard work losing speed, but the horn sounded miserably at 80 m.p.h. and a neat little g-break occurred at just over 60 m.p.h. Looking past the wing- tip I estimated that the angle of attack was well over 20° at the stalls—an attitude and a rate of approach which would surely catch no one out during normal flying. It was clear from these tests that the Skymaster is elevator- limited without power, but that a small amount of power makes a big difference to lift and elevator effectiveness. Power-off with full flap at 95 m.p.h. the rate of descent reached a typically high Cessna level of l,200ft/min. A comfortable ILS approach condition of 20° flap and 16in power at 105 m.p.h. gave an easily controlled 500ft/min descent with plenty in hand for steeper descent or single- engined overshoot. Take-offs and Touch-downs We now started a series of landings and take-offs which, in the rough wind—240° 16kt across runway 26—gave me plenty of work. I seemed to have well over 5° of drift, which I cancelled with bank and top rudder, as I made the first approach at 105 m.p.h. with 20° flap and some power. Shortly before touch-down I selected 30°, held the considerable nose-down trim change and set the Sky master down rather fast at 80 m.p.h. Once down it showed no signs of the cross-wind and could be quickly braked. Without completely stopping I wound the trim back to neutral and opened up to full power to try the full-flap take-off. The Skymaster just wafted straight back into the air and I was concerned to see Ellsworth start bleeding off the flaps only 20ft off the ground with the nose well up. I eased off on the angle of attack and we slid forward, but the climb was not interrupted. Round again for a second landing, this time approaching at a much more reasonable 90 m.p.h. and holding off to touch down at 65 m.p.h. with the power off. We floated for a long way and I was obviously still fast. This time, too, I counteracted drift by aiming across wind, which was much more comfortable. Again, the Skymaster gave no sign of being affected on the ground by the cross-wind. It simply sat down and freewheeled along. I now realized that the aircraft is right in the old high-wing tradition and reminds one only of its twin-engined status by weighing 3,9001b instead of about 2,2001b. The increased size and inertia would be noticeable to the novice, but the handling is otherwise remarkably similar to that of the small high-winged Cessnas. Certainly there is absolutely no resemblance to the much hotter and harsher twins. To make the point, Ellsworth demonstrated a final circuit with short take-off and landing. With full flap he roared off and leaped into the air at 70 m.p.h. with a plaint of stall-warning horn, inching up the flaps as soon as he was airborne, and settling into the healthy 95 m.p.h. climb. He then approached with power at 85 m.p.h. and even though he cut the power suddenly at about 10ft the air craft still floated noticeably in the wind before settling onto the runway. The nosewheel was immediately placed on the ground and vigorous braking stopped us in just about 300ft. Ellsworth spent 12 years in the US Navy and knows about carrier landing. Provided power is used to preserve elevator effectiveness—there is enough drag to allow this—the Skymaster can easily be landed in this way, even in rough air. Aileron is amply effective, and longi tudinal stability is just adequate to assist slightly in holding speed and attitude. Rudder control is not over-generous, but neither is it so necessary with this configuration. I feel that the Skymaster does exactly what Cessna claim. If yo« do not require performance at all costs, but do want to carry sis people occasionally, retain docile high-winged handling and real engine-out docility, then this is undoubtedly the aircraft for you. If you must have performance, feel you can live with VI, V2 and VMC, and do not mind the unsafe interlude involved in extreme short- field techniques with side-by-side twins, then stay with them-
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
