FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 0257.PDF
170 FLIGHT Internationa/, 30 January 1964 Composite view of the definitive aircraft, with aft-fan engines, radar nose and dual-wheel undercarriage rocker trim switch on the aileron wheel. I found I wanted to fiddle a little with aileron and rudder trim to line the aircraft up, but this was probably a visual impression rather than attitude. Pressur- ization was operative and produced no sharp pressure changes. At 9,000ft I levelled off and Bigand progressively lowered leading- edge, flap and gear as I reduced speed towards lOOkt. Each con- figuration change produced a slight trim change, and the nose was well up by the time the warning horn blew at llOkt. Continuing to slow down in level flight, I noticed that one or other wing was tending to drop very slightly, but could be definitely held with rudder, by virtue of the natural roll-coupling of the swept wing. At lOOkt a very strong, high-frequency aerodynamic buffet set in, without further phenomena, and Bigand eased the stick forward into a gentle dive. He then made one stall, again with this extremely hard buffet, followed by an absolutely straight nose-drop and recovery, without power. The Mystere 20 has been taken back to 86kt for CEV tests, but the buffeting was so strong that structural " damage was feared if repeated tests continued. The wings really thrash up and down and the test-instrument rack spring-mounted in the rear of the cabin has to be forcibly restrained. Hardly any risk of stalling inadvertently therefore; and the fence and leading- edge droop have vastly improved what was already adequate handling with the earlier plain washed-out wing. Next I descended and increased speed to 36Okt, which produced no apparent change in handling. Spring feel is a great leveller. Extension of the airbrake at the hitherto cleared maximum of 300kt caused remarkably little buffet, a very slight nose-down trim change—unusual—and reasonable deceleration. Finally I approached Merignac on a radio compass heading at 2,000ft, holding 200kt with 74 per cent power, broke on to the downwind leg, pipped the leading-edge, lowered 20° flap at 160kt, gear at 150kt and turned on to base leg with 80 per cent r.p.m. and 150kt. I was told to hold 130kt on finals with 75 per cent, because we were still above the prototype's landing weight. Throttle response was very good, the speed perfectly easy to hold and visi- bility excellent despite the now considerable angle of attack. Passing the threshold, I throttled right back and made one quite small check. With the cockpit still high in the air, I managed to wipe the mainwheels smoothly on to the runway and lowered the nose immediately. Bigand retracted half the flap, I attempted to set the tailplane to the —44° take-off angle and full power was applied to send us roaring off again into that steep initial climb. The Mystere 20 feels right. It is smooth, comfortable and in my view very easy to fly, with good visibility and control layout and an apparently unmistakeable, well-warned stall. My main reaction, apart from the pleasure of having flown it, is surprise at how right it feels after so few flights, so high a proportion of which have been devoted to demonstration rather than development. Most of the other pilots who flew the aircraft appeared to react in the same way to both piloting and passenger flying. Economic factors being equal, the Mystere 20 deserves a wide market. MARK LAMBERT DASSAULT MYSTERE 20 (Two GE CF700 aft-Tan turbojet* giving 4,2001b thrust each) Span, 50ft 6in; length, 56ft 3 n; wing area, 438sq ft; sweep, 30°; cabin height, width and length, 5ft 3in, 6ft 2in aid 23ft 2jin; baggage capacity, 53 cu ft; guaranteed tankage, 1,165 US gal. Max gross weight, 23,2601b; max landing weight, 21,9001b; max zero fuel weight. 16,3001b; APS weight, 13,8401b. This includes sound-proofing, furnishing, eight seats and passenger oxygen, 7101b; duplicated full instrumentation, 1021b; standard radio, 2951b; flight recorder, 331b; optional equipment, 3901b; crew and baggage, 3971b; oil, water and miscellaneous, 131b. Performance VNO, 37Oict; VMO 0.85 above 23,500ft; cruise, 470kt at max cruise thrust in ISA -rl5°C at 30,000ft at 18,0001b gross; range, 1,390 n.m. with l,600lb payload at 4O5kt with 2,1001b reserve; take-off runway (CAR.CMb), 5,500ft at max weight in ISA + I5C; landing runway (CAR.04b), 4,500ft at 17,0001b; maximum altitude, 42,000ft; stalling speed, 86kt at 16,5001b; en route terrain altitude, 18,000ft in ISA +I5°C at 17,5001b gross. HUGHES 300 in the Air (continued from page 166) Mr C. A. Volgers, Hughes European sales and service agent, based in Holland worry us. Neither was wind unduly simplifying the transition or hover. If the correct pre-take-ofF r.p.m. were set with the twist-grip on the ground, virtually no adjustment was needed to prevent overspeeding when coming to a hover after lift-off, but a good pull-back was needed to counter a nose-down tendency as the skids left the ground. The transition was extremely easy, with a run of about 100yd to gain the 50 m.p.h. climbing speed. My main impression was that rudder was the key control; it was the most sensitive to power and speed changes (though it is a rather easier control to master in any helicopter, because the visual stimulus of change of direction is strong and the feet can be well damped with the heels on the floor). From an approach at 50 m.p.h. the flare could be started quite early. The machine slowed down promptly and the extra power for the hover could be easily applied simply by raising the collective lever. I used the twist-grip during my first approach, but only succeeded in producing a succession of free-wheel disengagements. Co-ordination was perfectly adequate. There was quite sharp, but brief rotor vibration as hovering power was applied. During turns on the spot there was more than enough rudder power to hold the quite distinct change of feel as the tail came round into wind, and the machine had to be tilted noticeably tail-into-wind. Normal engine r.p.m. were placarded as 2,900 below 500ft, but could be reduced to 2,700 in the cruise. Permitted rotor r.p.m. range was marked from 400 to 500. Noise change with r.p.m. alteration was distinctly audible and response to twist-grip prompt, so that maintenance of r.p.m. was no problem at all. Mr Volgers reduced to 2,500 r.p.m. in a slow cruise and increased to maximum again on the twist grip without any difficulty. He also closed the throttle suddenly while hovering about 6ft off the ground and made a gentle touch-down with a remarkably small upward movement of the lever. About a year ago, the Hughes was critical in autorotation, but all that is now past. The forbidden height versus speed band is reasonable, the limits being determined by forward stick travel available to hold the nose down if the engine fails at high forward speed—hence the limit of 86 m.p.h.—and height from which a stable descent and flare can be achieved. During all my flying, I did not need to use the trimmer, though I felt the need to hold some right rudder in the cruise. The machine flew slightly left-side low at or near the hover. Weather and dusk prevented any investigation of a full auto- rotation or any attempt at maximum-rate climbs, free-air hovering and so on; but from what I was able to see and feel for myself, the Hughes comes as close as anything I have met to being a helicopter a businessman could manage without a great deal of skill—though this still does not put it into the same category of flying simplicity as a light aircraft. No helicopter without artificial stabilization is quite as simple as that yet.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
