Would this plane-concept work/be legal?

[Frank N. O.]

With regards of drag then couldn't one make the cabin lower by not having the folding gear under the cabin, and having a lower instrumentpanel so you sit more like a sporty car? I for one would rather sit reclined (a'la F16 for instance) in a wide cabin where I had shoulder room than sit twisted with room for a 10-gallon hat.

I couldn't help but picture you two crammed into the tight cabin with you trying to catch it with one arm locked behind him, I know it was serious but since it went ok I hope it's ok to laugh at the visual of you trying to work with almost no space, of course I'm not laughing at the crash-risk! Btw, pardon the question, what does DE and W/B mean? W/B = Weight and Balance, used for fuel-calculations for the trip?

I've never heard of anyone using doors for steering, but I did read a review from a real pilot for a FS-add-on C152 where he said it could be steered using just rudder like the real thing since it was so light and slow.

How big/heavy is a 177 vs 152, 172 and 182 btw? As the story goes the Cardinal was supposed to replace the Skyhawk, originally it was designated 172J if I remember correctly, and it was supposed to be more powerful and advanced with a new tail, un-braced wing etc. Speaking of wings, is the 177 wing weaker than the other Cessnas?

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

Yes, technically, you could recline the seats to reduce ceiling height, but you have so many things to consider.  Is the spar going through the cabin, over, under?  If it goes through, where do you position the seats?  In the Columbia, the front seats are on top of the spar.  Most retractable gear end up in the wings (the mains, anyway).  If I remember right, the normal distance between the main gear is about 1/3 the wingspan.  Of course, you could always have fixed gear...Makes the plane lighter, but you have added drag.

DE is short for Designated Examiner.  The FAA choses certain flight instructors to test applicants for certificates and ratings.

W/B is Weight and Balance.  You're right, it is used for fuel calculations, but it's also used for determining if you're under the max gross weight and within the center of gravity envelope of the airplane and in calculating performance.  Pretty much everything your airplane does is affected by weight.

The Cardinal is a little bigger than the 172.  Basically Cessna's answer to Piper's Arrow.  It's got a 200 horse engine and (I believe) a higher gross weight.  The 182 is bigger yet and high performance (more than 200 horse).  The Cardinal wing should be the same strength as the 172.  It'll take 3.8 g's just like the 172.

[Sleek-Jet]

The orginal 177 cardinal (the one that went into production, not the "concept" airplane) was designed as a replacemant for the 172.  The wing was essentially a lightened 210 wing.  However, because of the different wing planform and the fact that the airplane turned out heavier than expected, it was an anemic performer on only 150 horse power.  In fact, the 172 would out perform it in most flight regimes.  After a couple years, Cessna started putting 180 hp engines in the 177 and it wasn't to bad of an airplane.  Later still came the 200 hp Retractable Gear (RG) version.

Also, the 177 was the only Cessna with a stabilator (ala Pipers) and there was a problem with stabilator stalls during the landing flare on the first models.  This was solved by adding a slot along the leading edge of the stabilator and limiting up travel as well... 

In the end, I think Cessna discovered that it was marketing it's version of a Piper Cherokee to Cessna pilots, and the airplane wasn't nearly as popular as what it was slated to replace.  So, the 172 is still here...

Little bit-o-trivia... Cessna actually built and flew a 187, based on the 177 design, but with a slightly large fuselage and 230 hp engine designed to replace the 182... it proved not to perform any better than what it was designed to replace and never went into production. 

Like GD stated, the 177 wing was certified to the same strength limits as the 172... so they are just as safe in any normal flight envelope. 

[fireflyr]

Frank,

What Sleek Jet and Gulfstream said is exactly right and probably put more concisely than what I might have replied with, I only wish to add one thing.

The W&B concern I had with the large student and myself in a 152 when it stalled was that with the center of gravity located so far aft, the aircraft could have gone into a flat spin if not recovered to normal flight soon enough.   A flat spin is one in which the airplane is rotating with the fuselage in a horizontal position, more or less nose level, caused by excess weight in the rear acting on centrifugal force to keep the airplane stabilized in that position.   The problem there is that you need to push the nose down to break the stall before you can stop the spin with rudder and if you can't do that, it will rotate merrily all the way to the ground which will, of course, stop the spin, albeit somewhat abruptly, in what is known in aviation parlance as a "crash", an undesirable consequence.   When this happens it is referred to as "screwing the pooch".   You have to visualize a bunch of other pilots standing round a smoking hole in the ground saying things like "BOY, that idiot really screwed the pooch" and since most pilots are ego maniacs, to be spoken of in such derisive terms is also undesirable.

Jim

[Ted_Stryker]

With regards of drag then couldn't one make the cabin lower by not having the folding gear under the cabin, and having a lower instrumentpanel so you sit more like a sporty car? I for one would rather sit reclined (a'la F16 for instance) in a wide cabin where I had shoulder room than sit twisted with room for a 10-gallon hat.

I couldn't help but picture you two crammed into the tight cabin with you trying to catch it with one arm locked behind him, I know it was serious but since it went ok I hope it's ok to laugh at the visual of you trying to work with almost no space, of course I'm not laughing at the crash-risk! Btw, pardon the question, what does DE and W/B mean? W/B = Weight and Balance, used for fuel-calculations for the trip?

I've never heard of anyone using doors for steering, but I did read a review from a real pilot for a FS-add-on C152 where he said it could be steered using just rudder like the real thing since it was so light and slow.

How big/heavy is a 177 vs 152, 172 and 182 btw? As the story goes the Cardinal was supposed to replace the Skyhawk, originally it was designated 172J if I remember correctly, and it was supposed to be more powerful and advanced with a new tail, un-braced wing etc. Speaking of wings, is the 177 wing weaker than the other Cessnas?

Frank

As the other points about the 177, 182, 172, have been addressed quite well, my only other thing to add here is that yes, you can do a rudder-only turn in a C-152.  In fact, it helped me out one day when I had a bad load of fuel and had to make a turn back to the airport after the engine started to go on me when I was only 300 ft AGL on a long solo at Lee C. Fine Memorial airport here in Missouri.  You know all the AD's they have out now that make us deal with all those extra sump points?  Guess what?  If I had had that on the C-152 I was training in back then, I would have found that water in the tanks on pre-flight inspection!  Instead, after liftoff, it jostled the water that was in the tank and got it to the fuel line.  I couldn't have detected it ahead of time without the "wing shake - wait 20 minutes - sump" procedure that was put into effect about two months after my incident.  For all I know, it was my incident that caused all those extra sumps and the new procedure that came about...  ugh!  Well... to make a long story short, the engine RPM was beginning to drop, and I was getting rough running after I was at about 300 FT AGL.  I had a tree covered mountainous region all around, with a lake straight ahead where people were powerboating.  My only choices were, 1) Try to make it back to the airport, 2) land into the trees and probably die but not take anyone else with me, or 3) ditch in the lake and probably drown as the plane sank, and possibly take some poor powerboater with me.  I opted for #1.  I used rudder-only, to avoid as much loss of lift in the turns as possible, trimmed, and then made it to the numbers just as the engine was about to completely fail.  I made it off the runway to the ramp area.  Turns out they had just refueled the fuel truck they had used to fuel my plane, and they had not sumped the truck properly (if at all).

Now, I always get fuel before I preflight if I need it, and sump last.  That way if there is any water in suspension, or in other areas of the wing, it has time to settle out and be sumpable. 

So, the short and sweet of it is, not only can you steer with the doors on a C-152, so can you steer/turn with rudder only.   I trained in both techniques as part of my initial training.  Both techniques work quite well

[Sleek-Jet]

You can steer/turn with the rudder in any airplane. 

[fireflyr]

Good way to practice spin enties also-----be careful with airspeed if you're gonna be doin' that!!!

[Frank N. O.]

Sleek, I thought generally it was hard to do in larger planes which is why you use banking instead?

Thanks for the info on the 177, so overall it's still a nice plane after it's updates I wonder if it's possible to update the engine with a fuel-injected one from a later model 182 perhaps. And speaking of 182 and 177 I've actually thought about a 187 on several occasions but I'm surprised to hear a prototype was made. Does anyone have any pictures of it? I tried searching but couldn't find anything, even if one picture caption said a person and his Cessna 187 but it was identical to a 182 so it was probably an error.

Fadec, I saw that on the A Helicopter Is Born show with that english vet. Is it some kind of dual redundancy electronic engine control system?

Thank you for the replies
Frank

[fireflyr]

Full Authority Digital Engine Control is the much touted new power control system that I was hoping someone out there had flown and would report on.
It is a system that uses a single lever, through computers, to control mixture and RPM relative to the power setting selected.
Has anyone flown one yet---I would be interested in hearing your impression of it?

[Gulfstream Driver]

Sleek, I thought generally it was hard to do in larger planes which is why you use banking instead?

It's more efficient to bank through a turn.  The rudder is generally used to remain coordinated throughout the turn.  However, the rudder is also used for uncoordinated flight whenever it's needed (slips, etc.) and I usually use it to level the wings in normal cruise flight rather than adjusting the ailerons.  It's a lot less fatiguing to fly hands-off as much as you can.

[Inept]

Has anyone flown or have any opinions on centerline thrust, push-pull twins?   In a push-pull, does the tail engine need to be a standard engine, or one that rotates the shaft the other way, or does it matter, since it can be geared to work whichever way it needs to (at a loss of power, of course)?

[fireflyr]

Has anyone flown or have any opinions on centerline thrust, push-pull twins? In a push-pull, does the tail engine need to be a standard engine, or one that rotates the shaft the other way, or does it matter, since it can be geared to work whichever way it needs to (at a loss of power, of course)?

I've flown  Skymasters the last four years on government contracts and have accrued about 750 hours in them.
The engines are identical but since the rear engine is pointed backwards in a pusher configuration it counter-rotates thereby eliminating any torque or P-factor.  The turbocharged engines in mine put out 225 HP and in our pressurized model, they are boosted to 235 HP which is a lot for a 360 ci 6 cylinder and makes them rather heat sensitive, especially the rear one.

Overall, the push-pull concept is a good one and eliminates the critical engine problem inherent in most twins.   Unfortunately, the 337 series has a high accident rate BECAUSE it's so easy to fly single engine and the reason for that is many pilots become complacent about practicing engine out procedures.    They tend to forget that in the average light twin, when you lose 50% of your power you also lose about 85% of your performance, that equation stays the same regardless of where the engines are mounted so you need to practice single engine procedures on a regular basis.   The turbo'd Skymaster has a single engine ceiling of 13,500 with the rear one feathered and 15'000 with the front engine caged (or about that--I need to check the manual) which illustrates the efficiency of a pusher configuration.  Most accidents occur when an engine is lost on takeoff and the pilot does not adhere to airspeed discipline.  For example, if either engine quits at or below rotation you WILL retard both throttles and continue straight ahead on the runway regardless of how little distance is remaining.  Many accidents happen in this airplane because pilots don't recognize a failed engine immediately and try to fly away with a severe performance impairment.   Sounds stupid but it has happened a lot.

In addition, the Skymasters are noisy inside and have a small payload when carrying full fuel.   The government uses them because of a contract requirement calling for high wing multi engine aircraft.   

To sum it all up, I fly one because I'm paid to do it---If I were buying an airplane for my own use it would not be a Skymaster!
Jim

[Frank N. O.]

Dornier made such a plane during WW2 for Germany too, it was said to be very fast, and looks quite stunning but it didn't make it in big service I believe. A former payware version was recently released for MS FS2004 if anyone's interested in that.

I'd prefer counter rotating co-axial props but I guess the trasnmission system is a bit complicated but it has been done, also for WW2 fighters like a Corsair and Spitfire I think, special versions only though. Btw, speaking of turboprop's, would it be possible to convert a Commander or Cardinal to turboprop configuration if a small engine with the same power even exists that is? And how does a small turboprop engine compare with a fuel-injected piston-engine with the same power output? (circa 200-250hp)

Frank

[Sleek-Jet]

Dornier made such a plane during WW2 for Germany too, it was said to be very fast, and looks quite stunning but it didn't make it in big service I believe. A former payware version was recently released for MS FS2004 if anyone's interested in that.

I'd prefer counter rotating co-axial props but I guess the trasnmission system is a bit complicated but it has been done, also for WW2 fighters like a Corsair and Spitfire I think, special versions only though. Btw, speaking of turboprop's, would it be possible to convert a Commander or Cardinal to turboprop configuration if a small engine with the same power even exists that is? And how does a small turboprop engine compare with a fuel-injected piston-engine with the same power output? (circa 200-250hp)

Frank

The big deal with small turbines is the cost.... there are a few small gas turbines out in the homebuilt market, but not many of them (if any) have flown.  But, back to the cost, a gas tubine is about 4 times the cost of a comparable piston engine.  Also, another thing to keep in mind, gas turbines use alot of fuel at lower altitudes (where you would most likely fly something like a cardinal or commander), so your range ends up shortened quite a bit. 

There are a few STC conversions using the RR 250 (i.e. Allison) turbo shaft engine.  But, those are for the Cessna 206/210 and Bonanza airframes.  A company called Soloy does most of them. 

[Frank N. O.]

Strange, I've heard gasturbines are the most efficient combustion engines there are, so why do they lose to the pistoin engine at low altitde?
Another reason for the idea is also that besides not needing a manual mixture to adjust then a gt can run on several different types of fuel and that might be practical in the near future.

Frank