MedEwok wrote:
Which probably indicates that planes with a “bad” reputation are often simply planes that need more or specific training to operate safely.
The MU-2 uses spoilers and not ailerons for roll control. I can imagine that leads to rather different procedures in critical situations.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The MU-2 uses spoilers and not ailerons for roll control. I can imagine that leads to rather different procedures in critical situations.
What I’ve heard is more that the reason for the different procedures is that the flaps are very, very effective, which is key to the “high cruise speed and low approach speed” combination.
This is indirectly related to the spoilers for roll control, in that using the spoilers for roll control allows the full-length (and thus effective) flaps. As far as I understand (and I didn’t go through the MU2 pilot training), the main difference with respect to a “standard twin”, is that on a standard trainer twin, you are trained to take a notch of flaps up (from landing configuration) very early in the procedure, to minimise drag and allow the plane to take up speed. On the MU2, this leads to so much (more) loss of lift that one crashes. One absolutely needs to accelerate before reducing flaps.
Peter wrote:
One bad one I know from personal experience is the PA38 Tomahawk,
I was under the impression that actually it was a very good primary trainer as it actually required you to use your feet to keep it in balance.
Ibra wrote:
T67 early models were fully aerobatic but have a dirty spin history in the hands of USAF (new models are ok)
I think you will find you have that the wrong way around. The USAF operated the later built versions, the T67M260/T3A model. Only one of the 4 accident aeroplanes was lost in a spin accident, where the instructor used an incorrect recovery technique for the aeroplane.
Regards, SD..
The Cessna Birdog O-1 had a reputation for ground looping. During my 65 hours on type, and probably 100+ landings, I only nearly lost it once. It was my first landing on a tarmac surface in a stiff crosswind. Other than that, a really enjoyable aeroplane with some real combat history.
The US Army seemed to recognise the problem which led to this training film!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cessna+birdog+training+film&&view=detail&mid=E072ADCD4E2C0D34C
Link is to “Sorry, no longer available”.
Jodel DR1050s have a reputation with new tailwheel pilots on hard surfaces.
I initially learned on taildraggers and never had a problem.
The T67 has quite a precise sequence for spin recovery. Moving the control column forward before applying full opposite rudder, can result in rudder blanking, and potentially also a change over spin. The AFM is quite precise on recovery actions if the spin becomes a high rotational spin, either upright or inverted. (the T67 not being approved for inverted spins, although it recovers from an inverted spin quite straightforwardly). With its roots in a motor glider design, the spin is quite wing loaded.
When used in the RAF the flight instructors had recurrent high rotational spin recovery training, with the added insurance of a parachute. I think they had to trudge up to FL120 to initiate the exercise. A Pitts it definitely is not.
Fortunately, the new ‘advanced’ UPRT no longer requires recovery from a fully developed auto rotation spin (usually three turns to achieve and demonstrate stable autorotation), and the T67 is having a renaissance as a UPRT trainer. As the new course only goes to the incipient spin stage, the T67 is quite benign.
The T67 is a nice trainer that can also tour at 140KTAS in the -260 variant.
Try this one for the Birdog training film…
Marchettiman wrote:
Try this one for the Birdog training film…
They never get crosswind from the left…?
An observation: it may be true that certified aircraft are all fundamentally sound. I don’t think this is necessarily true for experimental or very old designs, some of which are still available.
It’s always interesting to see people try to defend the T67. From what I’ve read about it, and its history with the USAF, I’d be reluctant to get too close to one, never mind trying to fly it. I would argue that any aircraft that requires an exact spin recovery sequence, and becomes totally unrecoverable if you don’t follow it, should never have been certified in the first place.
My friend and aerobatic instructor Rich told me about the first time he saw one, I think at Oshkosh. His comment was, “Every single aerodynamic fixup and hack I’ve ever come across had been applied to it. If there’s a strake or a notch or anything else that anyone has ever used, the T67 had it.”
There again his favourite is the BD5, which is also pretty high up on my list of aircraft to never even think about flying.
