Flyaway Auster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I don't remember landing being a problem with the Auster, but I do remember that when I traded it on a Cessna 180, the 180 was a lot harder to land. In fact, the most difficult taildragger I have flown. (not that I have flown many - I think the only others would be C185, Citabria, DH82A)

John

---

The main problem with taildraggers- as I'm sure you know- is maintaining directional control once it is on the ground. The C180 with it's greater weight and narrower track is certainly harder to keep straight than the Auster. But the Auster does not want to stop flying. It has a big wing and a relatively light weight, and our model has bungee suspension with no damping. So, if you drop it onto the ground before it is ready to cease aviating it will rebound nicely, and unless you manage that correctly, it will rebound a few more times to add to your embarrassment! Murphy's law states that the only time you will slide it onto the ground is when no-one is watching....
By comparison I found the Tiger (DH82A) easier as it's suspension does have damping and it gives up flying sooner.
I never had much trouble with the Auster because I'd spent 150 hours towing gliders in a Pawnee, which amounts to about 1500 take-offs and landings. But it gets me every now and then....

C00P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Harding

How embarrassing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ehA...ature=youtu.be

---

just a few holes in the story though Bob - I guess the storyteller has embellished it just a little bit

(I was at school in Sydney at the time)

There were no passenger jets at the time

TEAL were using Solents (flying boats) which took off from Rose Bay,they changed to Electras after

There was no 3 hours of panic - most people didn't know about it until they tuned in to listen to the news on the wireless that evening (no facebook twitter etc, no transistor radios)

The Navy had some of their Sea Furies (at Albatross) which had been undertaking gunnery exs and could be flown with little prep

If you've spent any time in any of the services you can imagine what went on at RIC, drawing the Bren and getting the ammo (whose got the keys?).

All a bit keystone cops really

But also in this instance full of over-the-top exaggerations

It's not the first time that an aircraft has been hand started with the throttle too far open. The Gypsy's cold starting process involves priming the carby, pulling it through four blades forward with throttle closed (suck in), then 8 backwards with the throttle wide open (blow out), then the throttle is closed and set for starting (cracked open just a little), the impulse magneto turned on, and the prop flicked through compression. Ours usually starts on the second swing.
Leaving the throttle wide open after the blow out is the sort of mistake than can lead to the pilot being abandoned by his aircraft. A Tiger I had a share in was damaged in just this way, but the pilot grabbed the wingtip and swung it into a hangar so it didn't go far.
If the engine is hot, then it will often start by simply setting the throttle, turning on the magneto, and swinging the prop.
When the Gypsy is switched off, the maggies are turned off and the throttle opened wide as the engine winds down. If the pilot gets distracted and forgets to close it, and then goes for a hot start a few minutes later without checking the throttle, once again, it can spoil your whole day.
One of these scenarios must have occurred for the Auster to have had enough power to get airborne after escaping from the pilot.

C00P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C00P

The main problem with taildraggers- as I'm sure you know- is maintaining directional control once it is on the ground. The C180 with it's greater weight and narrower track is certainly harder to keep straight than the Auster. But the Auster does not want to stop flying. It has a big wing and a relatively light weight, and our model has bungee suspension with no damping. So, if you drop it onto the ground before it is ready to cease aviating it will rebound nicely, and unless you manage that correctly, it will rebound a few more times to add to your embarrassment! Murphy's law states that the only time you will slide it onto the ground is when no-one is watching....
By comparison I found the Tiger (DH82A) easier as it's suspension does have damping and it gives up flying sooner.
I never had much trouble with the Auster because I'd spent 150 hours towing gliders in a Pawnee, which amounts to about 1500 take-offs and landings. But it gets me every now and then....

C00P

---

My Auster experience is probably a little different from yours in that the J/5F has a higher wing loading than yours due to a shorter wingspan and greater weight. It also has a larger rudder, which probably helps.

As far as I know, all Austers had undamped bungee suspension. But of course, the C180 (and every other modern Cessna single) has probably even less damping from its single leaf spring steel struts.

My take is that the C180 is more difficult than the Auster primarily because the wheels are further forward of the c of g. The C185 is a little better than the C180 because it has a heavier engine and a bigger dorsal fin and different control rigging, despite being almost an identical airframe.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

My Auster experience is probably a little different from yours in that the J/5F has a higher wing loading than yours due to a shorter wingspan and greater weight. It also has a larger rudder, which probably helps.

As far as I know, all Austers had undamped bungee suspension. But of course, the C180 (and every other modern Cessna single) has probably even less damping from its single leaf spring steel struts.

My take is that the C180 is more difficult than the Auster primarily because the wheels are further forward of the c of g. The C185 is a little better than the C180 because it has a heavier engine and a bigger dorsal fin and different control rigging, despite being almost an identical airframe.

John

---

uummm. i would say its the difference between main wing loading and tail loading, most pommy stuff has higher loading tail feathers ( of that vintage) which always helps with 3 pointing.

other factors, wing shape better angle of attack etc. and lastly a bit of old knowledge. fabric wings. close to stall you can see the fabric billow out. changing profile and maintaining laminar flow. add to that that fabric wings are usually not and even profile, ribs, tight slack fabric, the weather etc.

and any way no one ever stuck plastic bits on the wings of pommy aircraft, plenty of 180s have though

Yes, in the old days when endorsements were given for specific aircraft rather than classes of aircraft (as now) I was endorsed on the J/5 with the exception of the J5/F, so I guess in those days they thought it was sufficiently different from the other models to require a separate endorsement.
I've flown both 180 and 185 and didn't pick a lot of difference between them, but they were both very different from the Auster (ie more sensitive) in terms of directional control on the ground.
Our J/5 had a rearward C of G when we acquired it. It had a huge chunk of steel about the size of a brick bolted into the tail- standard fitment to counter the fact that the Gypsy engine sticks out the front further than the flat 4 they were originally designed for. They also had a huge 4 into 1 exhaust system which was quite heavy, and some also had a metal prop which added further weight forward of the C of G compared to a wooden one.
Ours has straight pipes, a wooden prop, a belly tank, a rear seat, and an automotive-size battery behind the rear seat. The result was a very rearward C of G. I had the machine weighed and we found we could remove the steel block, saving about 12kg of payload and bringing the C of G forward to a more reasonable position.

Coop

PS: Our Series III is fitted with an old auxillary intercom box and a couple of spare headsets so the Navigator and I can talk to each other on the highway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C00P

Yes, in the old days when endorsements were given for specific aircraft rather than classes of aircraft (as now) I was endorsed on the J/5 with the exception of the J5/F, so I guess in those days they thought it was sufficiently different from the other models to require a separate endorsement.
I've flown both 180 and 185 and didn't pick a lot of difference between them, but they were both very different from the Auster (ie more sensitive) in terms of directional control on the ground.
Our J/5 had a rearward C of G when we acquired it. It had a huge chunk of steel about the size of a brick bolted into the tail- standard fitment to counter the fact that the Gypsy engine sticks out the front further than the flat 4 they were originally designed for. They also had a huge 4 into 1 exhaust system which was quite heavy, and some also had a metal prop which added further weight forward of the C of G compared to a wooden one.
Ours has straight pipes, a wooden prop, a belly tank, a rear seat, and an automotive-size battery behind the rear seat. The result was a very rearward C of G. I had the machine weighed and we found we could remove the steel block, saving about 12kg of payload and bringing the C of G forward to a more reasonable position.

Coop

PS: Our Series III is fitted with an old auxillary intercom box and a couple of spare headsets so the Navigator and I can talk to each other on the highway!

---

My Auster endorsement was for all models, seeing I did it on the J/5F, suggesting that they thought it was more difficult. Actually, I think the real reason for it being not covered by the general Auster endorsement was probably the higher stall speed of the J/5F - a landing approach in a J/5F at the approach speed of any other Auster is more likely to end up badly than vice versa; stalling on short final is going to spoil your day more than floating half the length of the runway.

My J/5F (VH-ADT - I wonder if it is still about?) had a wooden prop. I never had any problems with C of G with it - but then I rarely carried more than one passenger. Although it was a four seater, maximum load aft of the front seats was 211lbs (with about 15lbs of that spare oil!). Just as well - with the high back seats, getting into the back seats was not easy.

John

VH-ADT is still on the register, Current owner lives in Sandy Bay, Tasmania.

Coop