28 Mar 2024, 06:21 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 14:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/15 Posts: 1697 Post Likes: +1712 Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
|
|
Being such an Experienced Aerostar pilot now, having a whopping 62.3145926535 hours in type I pulled left engine to 12" on takeoff Wednesday. No, I do not have an I'm a great pilot complex nor a death wish....I waited till 1500 AGL Bit of right rudder and bank. Dang airplane wuud only climb at 600-700 feet per minute on just the right engine. AND I was climbing at 125-130 instead of VYSE of 117 Aboard was about 100 gallons of fuel and my 200 pound self. So far I'd say a proper and fitting upgrade from my Columbia.... Which I just put up for sale
_________________ I wanna go phastR.....and slowR
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 15:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5519 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Yes, it's total myth that Aerostars are a handful on one engine. They're benign. If you look from the front (due to small cross section) those engines do not sit very far apart at all, creating minimal arm for yaw. And the rudder is far back, giving good lever. Most other twins have engines much further apart, short lever and try to compensate with having either big rudder or big deflection, both creating drag and unwanted flying characteristics. Ted got it right with the design of the Aerostar aerodynamically. Mid-wings also create less drag and that's one of the reasons it's so efficient. It's prob no coincidence that another mid-wing design, the Piaggio P180, is also fastest in its class.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Last edited on 06 Oct 2017, 15:38, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 15:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/28/13 Posts: 6037 Post Likes: +3998 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: C195, D17S, M20TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Being such an Experienced Aerostar pilot now, having a whopping 62.3145926535 hours in type I pulled left engine to 12" on takeoff Wednesday. Dang airplane wuud only climb[/color] at 600-700 feet per minute on just the right engine. So far I'd say a proper and fitting upgrade from my Columbia.... Which I just put up for sale So Brad I was wondering, based on your green musings, how many feet per minute did your Columbia climb at with one engine caged?
_________________ Chuck KEVV
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 16:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/08 Posts: 2824 Post Likes: +432 Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1979 Baron 58P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yes, it's total myth that Aerostars are a handful on one engine. They're benign. If you look from the front (due to small cross section) those engines do not sit very far apart at all, creating minimal arm for yaw. And the rudder is far back, giving good lever. Most other twins have engines much further apart, short lever and try to compensate with having either big rudder or big deflection, both creating drag and unwanted flying characteristics. Ted got it right with the design of the Aerostar aerodynamically. Mid-wings also create less drag and that's one of the reasons it's so efficient. It's prob no coincidence that another mid-wing design, the Piaggio P180, is also fastest in its class. As best as I can measure it on an Aerostar drawing I found the engine-to-engine spacing on the Aerostar is 14'5". The spacing on my 58P is 11'7". The distance from the props to more or less the center of the rudder is about 19'4". On my 58P it is about 23'8". That latter measurement might be better taken from the CG rather than from the props. Making an estimate of the CG locations, the 58P still comes out about 2' longer than the Aerostar. Conclusion: While the Aerostar my have excellent single engine performance it is not for the reasons stated.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 17:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/15 Posts: 1697 Post Likes: +1712 Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Being such an Experienced Aerostar pilot now, having a whopping 62.3145926535 hours in type I pulled left engine to 12" on takeoff Wednesday. Dang airplane wuud only climb[/color] at 600-700 feet per minute on just the right engine. So far I'd say a proper and fitting upgrade from my Columbia.... Which I just put up for sale So Brad I was wondering, based on your green musings, how many feet per minute did your Columbia climb at with one engine caged?
Well........IFIN I wuzza descending at 220 knots then pulled the engine me tinks she would climb round 2000 feet per minute.....fer bout 10 seconds......before becoming a glider
_________________ I wanna go phastR.....and slowR
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 19:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5519 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As best as I can measure it on an Aerostar drawing I found the engine-to-engine spacing on the Aerostar is 14'5". The spacing on my 58P is 11'7". The distance from the props to more or less the center of the rudder is about 19'4". On my 58P it is about 23'8". That latter measurement might be better taken from the CG rather than from the props. Making an estimate of the CG locations, the 58P still comes out about 2' longer than the Aerostar.
Conclusion: While the Aerostar my have excellent single engine performance it is not for the reasons stated.
Well, then the Baron must be even better on one engine. But look at 414's, 421's etc - they sit quite far apart.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 20:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/07/08 Posts: 2824 Post Likes: +432 Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1979 Baron 58P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As best as I can measure it on an Aerostar drawing I found the engine-to-engine spacing on the Aerostar is 14'5". The spacing on my 58P is 11'7". The distance from the props to more or less the center of the rudder is about 19'4". On my 58P it is about 23'8". That latter measurement might be better taken from the CG rather than from the props. Making an estimate of the CG locations, the 58P still comes out about 2' longer than the Aerostar.
Conclusion: While the Aerostar my have excellent single engine performance it is not for the reasons stated.
Well, then the Baron must be even better on one engine. But look at 414's, 421's etc - they sit quite far apart.
The 58P is pretty poor on one engine. It will only do about 200 fpm at sea level under standard conditions at gross weight.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 11 Oct 2017, 07:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6052 Post Likes: +12331 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yes, it's total myth that Aerostars are a handful on one engine. They're benign. If you look from the front (due to small cross section) those engines do not sit very far apart at all, creating minimal arm for yaw. And the rudder is far back, giving good lever. Most other twins have engines much further apart, short lever and try to compensate with having either big rudder or big deflection, both creating drag and unwanted flying characteristics. Ted got it right with the design of the Aerostar aerodynamically. Mid-wings also create less drag and that's one of the reasons it's so efficient. It's prob no coincidence that another mid-wing design, the Piaggio P180, is also fastest in its class. It is not that the Aerostar handles poorly with OEI. The issue is, it's unforgiving. If start to get slow, it becomes a big handful, very quickly.... And the only fix for that is lots of altitude. The reason is small wings and small vertical stab. As you slow down the drag curve gets very steep... Any airspeed excursion on the low side must be fixed instantly or it can become unrecoverable without pushing the nose way down... The bottom of the drag bucket on a fat wing Seneca, Seminole, or Duchess is pretty flat. Less so on a Baron, but much more forgiving than the A-star.
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 11 Oct 2017, 07:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/30/15 Posts: 1697 Post Likes: +1712 Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
|
|
I think one of the best thoughts I have had in a while was to ask this group for a slowest acceptable speed (besides short final) which can be reviewed on pages 66-67 in this thread. I chose 120 knots and this never slower speed has served me well. Several times I have noticed speed decaying below 120 in base to final and either lowered the nose or added a bit of power or both. If I did not have 120 knots seared into me small brain then 116 might not register. I am not afraid of 116 but If I do not notice 116 then how about 109...... Slow flight at 12,000 feet and 74 knots with shallow turns seems pretty docile. She is even docile in the stall, JUST NEEDED 300 FEET TO RECOVER Time for a longer trip, Back an forth from Charlotte to Raleigh, while fun, has me looking forward to New Orleans next month
_________________ I wanna go phastR.....and slowR
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 11 Oct 2017, 10:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5519 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is not that the Aerostar handles poorly with OEI. The issue is, it's unforgiving. If start to get slow, it becomes a big handful, very quickly.... And the only fix for that is lots of altitude.
The reason is small wings and small vertical stab. As you slow down the drag curve gets very steep... Any airspeed excursion on the low side must be fixed instantly or it can become unrecoverable without pushing the nose way down...
The bottom of the drag bucket on a fat wing Seneca, Seminole, or Duchess is pretty flat. Less so on a Baron, but much more forgiving than the A-star.
That is true, but it also gives ample warning by buffeting heavily. It's hard to miss an impeding stall in an Aerostar. It saved me twice during my emergency when the door flew open in stressful situation - I was not paying attention and got slow twice and both times the buffeting made me do the right thing. Not saying a stall warner wouldn't have accomplished the same thing, but the tactile feedback really gets your attention.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 11 Oct 2017, 13:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/18/11 Posts: 320 Post Likes: +288 Company: American Aviation, Inc. Location: Hayden Lake, ID
Aircraft: C90,340,PA31T,PC-12
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is not that the Aerostar handles poorly with OEI. The issue is, it's unforgiving. If start to get slow, it becomes a big handful, very quickly.... And the only fix for that is lots of altitude.
Whenever you make a modification to an airplane, you are likely going to have to do the same flight testing that was required when the airplane was certified. Aerostar Aircraft (where I am a shareholder) recently certified a gross wt. increase and also certified blended winglets on the airplane. We were required to show compliance with the FAR’s with regard to stability and control, stalling speeds, aft CG stall characteristics during both normal and accelerated stalls, straight and turning stalls, VMC etc. There were other tests like trimming for a one hundred knot full power climb, then with hands off the controls and feet on the floor cutting one mixture control and counting one thousand one, one thousand two and one thousand three before touching the controls. I was surprised how docile the airplane was given those conditions. The FAA test pilots had heard the rumors about the Aerostar and were cautious at first, but after flight testing the airplane one commented, “This is a Grand Airplane.” And, the other after three days of flying said in a surprised tone, “This is a really, really nice airplane.” During power on stalls in the landing configuration, the indicated airspeed was down to fifty two knots before we reached aft stick limit which defined the stall. The pilots could then control the airplane with ailerons and rudder with the airplane fully stalled. These test airplanes were equipped with three hundred fifty horse power engines and therefore, also had the low speed flight control enhancement package which consisted of numerous vortex generators and other subtle changes that made the airplane far better than the original airplane at slow speed. Nearly all Aerostars now have this same system. While the Aerostar may not be as docile as a twin trainer, I believe it is more controllable at low speed than any other twin considered to be in the same class.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 11 Oct 2017, 13:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6052 Post Likes: +12331 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is not that the Aerostar handles poorly with OEI. The issue is, it's unforgiving. If start to get slow, it becomes a big handful, very quickly.... And the only fix for that is lots of altitude.
Whenever you make a modification to an airplane, you are likely going to have to do the same flight testing that was required when the airplane was certified. Aerostar Aircraft (where I am a shareholder) recently certified a gross wt. increase and also certified blended winglets on the airplane. We were required to show compliance with the FAR’s with regard to stability and control, stalling speeds, aft CG stall characteristics during both normal and accelerated stalls, straight and turning stalls, VMC etc. There were other tests like trimming for a one hundred knot full power climb, then with hands off the controls and feet on the floor cutting one mixture control and counting one thousand one, one thousand two and one thousand three before touching the controls. I was surprised how docile the airplane was given those conditions. The FAA test pilots had heard the rumors about the Aerostar and were cautious at first, but after flight testing the airplane one commented, “This is a Grand Airplane.” And, the other after three days of flying said in a surprised tone, “This is a really, really nice airplane.” During power on stalls in the landing configuration, the indicated airspeed was down to fifty two knots before we reached aft stick limit which defined the stall. The pilots could then control the airplane with ailerons and rudder with the airplane fully stalled. These test airplanes were equipped with three hundred fifty horse power engines and therefore, also had the low speed flight control enhancement package which consisted of numerous vortex generators and other subtle changes that made the airplane far better than the original airplane at slow speed. Nearly all Aerostars now have this same system. While the Aerostar may not be as docile as a twin trainer, I believe it is more controllable at low speed than any other twin considered to be in the same class.
Jim,
I agree with everything you say here. It is a wonderful handling airplane. My point was only with OEI, if you get slow and try to recover with power, an Aerostar is not terribly forgiving in that regime.
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Aerostars Posted: 24 Oct 2017, 15:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/08/13 Posts: 1913 Post Likes: +1167 Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
|
|
Attachment: IMG_20171012_184237.jpg New personal best.... Descending into Denver...
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|