For the Pilots NGC

[Huzo]

     I beg to differ. The tripacer was a good airplane as far as hauling a load and good control authority and feel, light years ahead of a 172 in those areas.  But was an airport airplane with it's higher approach speeds, 80mph was a number to remember. Basicly it was a pa15, pa17 vagabond that weighed 400 lbs too much and had a nose wheel. Short farm strips were a bit of a challenge, but could be handled with experience, and best avoided by low time city slickers. As others said a 172 is a boring thing.

Did you adhere to an approach speed of 80 mph ?
That's not much under twice stall speed..!
Was there a reason for the excessive speed ?

[Huzo]

Anybody�s got stick time on the
�fork-tailed doctor killer�
I�d like to know how that felt.

What's the fork tailed doctor killer ?

[Gliderjohn]

The fork tailed doctor killer was the early V-tailed Beach Bonanza. It got IMHO a reputation for the V-Tail configurations failing way out of proportion to actual problems. For years now it has had a conventional tail. The V-tail was known for it's speed, handling and looks. The actual Bonanza series has been in production for 70 years. Imagine a 70 year old motorcycle or car with improvements that still looks the same and is still in production. Okay, I guess some H-D models come close.
GliderJohn

[oldbike54]

 Hate flying , can't just stop and get off . However , if it became necessary to fly somewhere , like from here to Cedar Vale , a 172 with Chuckie or Kirby at the stick would be the only way to go .

 OK , you also Peter 

 None of those fancy planes , and absolutely no helicopters , choppers don't fly , the ground just rejects them 

 Dusty

[Shorty]

Flying in and out of West Virginia airstrips, (maybe 15 feet wide in the snow drifts) you want high  wings, solid landing gear, and a means to land slowly. The 150 and 172 variants fill the bill. As a low time pilot, (I'm dumb, I paid for my own time) I have flown the little Cessnas, Cherokees, and a Colt (Tri Pacer lite ;) ). Not much experience, but I'll take the Cessnas every time. The Colt seating was even tighter than the Cessnas. I  also did not care for the extra approach speed needed on the Flying Milk Stool....   I would like to try my hand at a Citabria. That looks like big fun.

In this youtube clip, a guy in a rental flies over my home field, but cannot land because he rented in a big airport and is not permitted to land on a short field, so he flies over, lol:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHlo1Oi2wM  Yep, that is a county road crossing the runway.

[Gliderjohn]

None of those fancy planes , and absolutely no helicopters , choppers don't fly , the ground just rejects them 

 Dusty

Would you try a glider with me or cloudbase at the controls? At least you know you are out of gas when you take off. If it looks at all reasonably safe I will fly it or fly in it. Probably the most out there for me has been a side x side two seater ultralight. Like flying in a lawn chair. It also gets kind of exciting when you forget the roll rate is much quicker than a glider.
GliderJohn

[oldbike54]

Would you try a glider with me or cloudbase at the controls? At least you know you are out of gas when you take off. If it looks at all reasonably safe I will fly it or fly in it. Probably the most out there for me has been a side x side two seater ultralight. Like flying in a lawn chair. It also gets kind of exciting when you forget the roll rate is much quicker than a glider.
GliderJohn

 Well sure John , gliders I understand , they at least look like they should fly . However , those lawn chairs with motors are too much like helicopters , have I mentioned how much I despise helicopters and parachutes ?

 Dusty

[Huzo]

Well sure John , gliders I understand , they at least look like they should fly . However , those lawn chairs with motors are too much like helicopters , have I mentioned how much I despise helicopters and parachutes ?

 Dusty

I don't have the level of licence that Kirby has Dusty.
I made it as far as a 172 RG with CSU and retract. Apart from that, it's almost all Pawnees and Super Cubs towing and ferrying Gliders cross country.  You'd be better off with Kirby or Chuck.
My gliding history is more extensive. Couple of thousand hours and instructor for 10 years.
Just like bikes, they're all good on a lovely day...

[fossil]

"Neat planes.  Ask your friends why their airplane was made by a company called Waggon- und. Maschinenbau GmbH     

(the name means a company that makes railroad boxcars and machinery)"

In fact, that is an error. Before WWII there was the "Hanns Klemm Leichtflugzeugbau", they made the prototypes and a few serial models of the 107 up to 1941, until the cruel and stupid was stopped all that. From 1958 a revamped version (KL107 A and later the "B") was build by Bölkow Flugzeugbau. Later on the successor BO 207 followed.

The waggon works made completely different warplanes, as did the shipyard Blohm & Voss.

The planes in my club: http://www.flugplatz-uelzen.de/motorflug

[Chuck in Indiana]

Just to be clear, did you drain the fuel ?
And...
If not, what did you learn ?

No. There were only the two of us on the check ride. I learned many things on the flight. One of the biggest was after we had been doing unusual attitudes under the hood for a while. Needless to say, I was lost by then. He said, "Ok take off the hood and tell me where we are." I had a general idea of where we were.. we had been going generally South for a half hour or so. Looked down and there was an interstate underneath us. Looked and looked on my chart (this was well before GPS)  No interstate anywhere. He asked, "What would you do?" I said, "See that little town? I'd buzz that water tower and see what it says."  He just laughed and said, "They're just building that interstate, it's not on the charts, yet. That's Spiceland. Take us home."

[acogoff]

Did you adhere to an approach speed of 80 mph ?
That's not much under twice stall speed..!
Was there a reason for the excessive speed ?

     Yes, 80 was the best speed for approach to a real city folks airport as any thing below that and it has a sink rate similar to a brick. 70 worked for farm strips with added power, but not fun.  As you say you have flown a Pawnee, it would be similar if you had to land with some load in the spray tank-- not recommended. Heavy airplane, short wings need airspeed. The Pawneee flys great empty, but with a load of spray, not so much. Better keep the airspeed up. Kind of an extreeme example, but that is the situation with the PA-22. This thread about the 172 seems to have strayed a bit, sorry Dusty.

[Chuck in Indiana]

You never have to worry about floating off the end of the runway with a Tri Pacer. 
What it *will* do, however, is a great short field landing. Drag it over the threshold with full flaps and power at 60. Cross the threshold, pull power, flare, and thump you're there with a very short roll out.

[Tusayan]

"Neat planes.  Ask your friends why their airplane was made by a company called Waggon- und. Maschinenbau GmbH     

(the name means a company that makes railroad boxcars and machinery)"

In fact, that is an error. Before WWII there was the "Hanns Klemm Leichtflugzeugbau", they made the prototypes and a few serial models of the 107 up to 1941, until the cruel and stupid was stopped all that. From 1958 a revamped version (KL107 A and later the "B") was build by B�lkow Flugzeugbau. Later on the successor BO 207 followed.

The waggon works made completely different warplanes, as did the shipyard Blohm & Voss.

The postwar KL107s were made in Laupheim by Bolkow, and the subsidiary of Bolkow in Laupheim (and also Donauworth) was called what I mentioned during that period, WMD was the short version of that subsidiary name.  The same factory was before Bolkow where Focke Angelis helicopters were built and today makes composite airliner cabin interiors for Airbus - they stopped building Bolkow aircraft at Laupheim in 1972 but had by then learned composite fabrication building Bolkow Phoebus sailplanes.  See page 6 of this link for the history from then to now, including the period during which WMD was the name:

http://www.altairatc.com/europe/EHTC2011-Abstracts/EHTC-Presentations-2011/Keynotes_Tuesday/Vortrag%20HTC%202011%20DAc%20Kuhnla%2020110613.pdf

A Laupheim built 1969 Bolkow Phoebus aircraft data plate, showing the WMD manufacturer name if you look closely:

https://victoriancollections.net.au/media/collectors/4f729f8097f83e0308601955/items/510864832162ef0e30380f35/item-media/510868382162ef0e303810e5/VictorianCollections-large.jpg

https://victoriancollections.net.au/items/510864832162ef0e30380f35

You never have to worry about floating off the end of the runway with a Tri Pacer. 
What it *will* do, however, is a great short field landing. Drag it over the threshold with full flaps and power at 60. Cross the threshold, pull power, flare, and thump you're there with a very short roll out.

Just hope the engine doesn't quit on short final when dragging it in like that, or your Tri-Rock will live up to its nickname 

[Chuck in Indiana]

Just hope the engine doesn't quit on short final when dragging it in like that, or your Tri-Rock will live up to its nickname 

Yep.
As much as I hate it, the FAA is now teaching maintaining power on all approaches. Their reasoning is the short landing because of engine failure is much less common than floating off the end of the runway. <shrug>
Tommy always taught me power off landings.. except for the occasional need to get in to a short field. He said, "If you always land power off from the first power reduction, you'll always know where you can land if the engine quits." That has served me well on 3 different occasions.

[Testarossa]

I learned landing at "idle."  Actually, I first soloed in gliders so I was taught precision dead-stick approaches. My power instructor started with pulling the throttle on downwind opposite the numbers and no flaps -- basically a glider landing.

[cloudbase]

Propellers are only there to keep the pilot cool, because they really begin to sweat when it stops in the air.

[Shorty]

I learned landing at "idle."  Actually, I first soloed in gliders so I was taught precision dead-stick approaches. My power instructor started with pulling the throttle on downwind opposite the numbers and no flaps -- basically a glider landing.

This. I noticed that people trained at  large airfields seem to do what I call "airline" landings, long gradual approaches. I guess it's because they plan to move up the training ladder to flying IFR approaches, or their instructors were city boys....   I don't think they do a whole lot of full stall slipped landings.

[Testarossa]

Shorty, for what it's worth most of my early training -- gliders and power -- was in narrow valleys with no room for an extended final.

The only thing I've flown that required power on approach and touchdown was the C172 float plane. Oh, and the 747 simulator.

[Huzo]

This. I noticed that people trained at  large airfields seem to do what I call "airline" landings, long gradual approaches. I guess it's because they plan to move up the training ladder to flying IFR approaches, or their instructors were city boys....   I don't think they do a whole lot of full stall slipped landings.

Of course, there's the school of thought that says, with some power set, you can deal with overshoot/undershoot situations by application or removal of power.
For instance, if you are conducting a power off approach, you don't have as many answers for a gross overshoot. Being an old glider pilot, I know that ideally you should be within the approach envelope to adjust for overshoot/undershoot by manipulation of air brake ( or slipping) if you must.
There should be scope for manipulation of power to achieve your intended touchdown point.

[Huzo]

I don't think they do a whole lot of full stall slipped landings.

Just for us budding Charles Lindberghs, what's a "full stalled" landing ?

[Testarossa]

Full stall landing = landing at slowest possible airspeed. In theory the wing quits flying just as the wheels touch. Could be a three-point landing in a taildragger. Obviously not recommended in jet aircraft.

[Huzo]

Full stall landing = landing at slowest possible airspeed. In theory the wing quits flying just as the wheels touch. Could be a three-point landing in a taildragger. Obviously not recommended in jet aircraft.

Ideally, every landing should be fully stalled at 1" off the deck.
In a fully held off landing in a tail wheel aircraft the wing will be at or close to it's critical angle, (around 16 degrees). In the likes of a Cub or similar, if you don't touch down in a stalled condition, you will start a PIO that can end in tears.
Carrying airspeed above the stall means that if you touch down on the mains, the C of G will bring the tail down because it's aft of the wheels and increase the angle of attack and you will leave the ground again, the induced drag will then slow you to the point where you'll drop and  hit the mains and if you've still got speed above the stall, it'll hapoen again..and again..and...
A trike aircraft won't do this as readily 'cos as the mains touch, the C of G being forward of the mains, reduces the Angle of Attack and you'll be stuck to the ground like shit to a blanket ! 

[fossil]

"The postwar KL107s were made in Laupheim by Bolkow, and the subsidiary of Bolkow in Laupheim (and also Donauworth) was called what I mentioned during that period, WMD was the short version of that subsidiary name."

The company is the same, but the Klemm 107 was built in the subsidiary "Bölkow Apparatebau" in Nabern / Teck, about 25 km southeast from Stuttgart. This can even be seen on the nameplates and the paperwork of the airplanes (all is complete on both airplanes I know) The same applies to the Bölkow 207, which we have as basket case on the airfield since summer.

[Tusayan]

"The postwar KL107s were made in Laupheim by Bolkow, and the subsidiary of Bolkow in Laupheim (and also Donauworth) was called what I mentioned during that period, WMD was the short version of that subsidiary name."

The company is the same, but the Klemm 107 was built in the subsidiary "B�lkow Apparatebau" in Nabern / Teck, about 25 km southeast from Stuttgart. This can even be seen on the nameplates and the paperwork of the airplanes (all is complete on both airplanes I know) The same applies to the B�lkow 207, which we have as basket case on the airfield since summer.

Edited post after more research   

This Wiki link explains it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6lkow_Bo_207 

The earlier Kl 107s like your friend's B and C built at Nabern before they opened the Laupheim plant in 1961. The Kl 107Ds and all the B207 were built at Laupheim.

I'm actually interested in this stuff    Did you go to the Bolkow Treffen at Genderkingen and Manching in September?

Best of luck rebuilding the B207.

[fossil]

"I'm actually interested in this stuff    Did you go to the Bolkow Treffen at Genderkingen and Manching in September?"

No, I did not. Very interesting each year is the "Klemm-Treffen" (Klemm meeting) at Kirchheim / Teck, mere kilometres from the yard.
Beside, the Kl107D IS the Bölkow 207. A nice, capable aeroplane, more modern than the 107, pilots that flew both models prefer the 107. But 4 seats are better than 3. But I can assure you the place in the rear in the 107 is fantastic! On long flights sleeping there goes well....

[drbone641]

The 172 is a simple, not really that fun, Gateway drug.