Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: landing accidents

  1. #1

    landing accidents

    Kevin-
    Your questions are good ones and while you may get zesty replies to
    the questions, I don't think anyone here is going to flame you for
    asking.

    I cannot answer your specific quesitons but there are many here that
    can. I know that in general the "baby Beeches" have a reputation for
    being difficult to land. I personally own a Sierra (C24R) and while I
    have had a few less than squeaker landings, I have never felt in
    trouble with the plane.

    Like all planes, speed and configuration management are key but
    perhaps a bit moreso in certain baby Beech models. There are, of
    course, different opinions on the "right speeds" and "right
    configurations." I try to fly the plane like the factory specified
    and have so far avoided any real problems.

    If you are asking these questions as you do your pre-purchase
    comparison shopping, I say good for you but don't get too concerned.
    If you do buy a Sundowner or other baby Beech, get an instructor with
    time in them so you can get started in the right way.

    Good luck,
    Chris L.
    Sierra C24R
    N5106M
    KSLC



    --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Huff <dkh429@...> wrote:
    >
    > I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for sale in Salina Ks
    at the university...I noticed that the newer Sundowners had far more
    landing accidents than the older Sundowners did ...The old verses new
    split being 1980 the newer planes had almost double the damage
    history...Now before you jump all over me this is just a casual
    observation I am not trying to start a fight..Granted I do not know if
    all the planes have spent their entire lives at this flight
    school....But it does beg for me to ask this question...Did Beech
    change something around 1980 that made the "newer" planes more
    unforgiving on final ??? Does anyone in the group have experience with
    several Sundowners of different ages that could maybe shed a little
    light on why the "older" birds seem to have less landing incedents
    than the newer birds??? I can only assume that a university would keep
    good records and I would assume that a university would not buy older
    planes after buying newer ones so without any
    > more information that thier website has I assume that they have had
    the older birds the longest....Just Curious...Kevin Huff
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
    >
    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    >






    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  2. #2

    landing accidents

    Hi all,

    Is the landing record in our planes worse than other
    low wings? I am not what anyone would call a great
    pilot by any stretch of the imagination, but in my
    many landings in the Beeches,(1000+), I just don't see
    the problem. Have I just been lucky?

    Dan Kirby Sierra N9299S

    --- Steve King <sking@lbcc.edu> wrote:

    > In my opinion, there are two primary causes of
    > landing accidents in Baby Beeches:
    >
    > 1. CG too far forward. With just front seat
    > occupants and fuel, most of our planes are outside
    > of the fron CG limit. I carry about 125 pounds of
    > water ballast, and am planning toward installing a
    > ballast weight in the tail (factory done on some
    > other Baby Beeches, but not on Sundowners, so will
    > need a field approval).
    > 2. Excess speed for approach and landing. Fly the
    > POH speeds.
    >
    > Steve King
    > 79 Sundowner N6007Y
    > CFI
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com on behalf of
    > n5106m
    > Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 9:49 AM
    > To: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
    > Subject: [musketeermail] Re: landing accidents
    >
    > Kevin-
    > Your questions are good ones and while you may get
    > zesty replies to
    > the questions, I don't think anyone here is going to
    > flame you for
    > asking.
    >
    > I cannot answer your specific quesitons but there
    > are many here that
    > can. I know that in general the "baby Beeches" have
    > a reputation for
    > being difficult to land. I personally own a Sierra
    > (C24R) and while I
    > have had a few less than squeaker landings, I have
    > never felt in
    > trouble with the plane.
    >
    > Like all planes, speed and configuration management
    > are key but
    > perhaps a bit moreso in certain baby Beech models.
    > There are, of
    > course, different opinions on the "right speeds" and
    > "right
    > configurations." I try to fly the plane like the
    > factory specified
    > and have so far avoided any real problems.
    >
    > If you are asking these questions as you do your
    > pre-purchase
    > comparison shopping, I say good for you but don't
    > get too concerned.
    > If you do buy a Sundowner or other baby Beech, get
    > an instructor with
    > time in them so you can get started in the right
    > way.
    >
    > Good luck,
    > Chris L.
    > Sierra C24R
    > N5106M
    > KSLC
    >
    >
    >
    > --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Huff
    > <dkh429@...> wrote:
    > >
    > > I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for
    > sale in Salina Ks
    > at the university...I noticed that the newer
    > Sundowners had far more
    > landing accidents than the older Sundowners did
    > ...The old verses new
    > split being 1980 the newer planes had almost double
    > the damage
    > history...Now before you jump all over me this is
    > just a casual
    > observation I am not trying to start a
    > fight..Granted I do not know if
    > all the planes have spent their entire lives at this
    > flight
    > school....But it does beg for me to ask this
    > question...Did Beech
    > change something around 1980 that made the "newer"
    > planes more
    > unforgiving on final ??? Does anyone in the group
    > have experience with
    > several Sundowners of different ages that could
    > maybe shed a little
    > light on why the "older" birds seem to have less
    > landing incedents
    > than the newer birds??? I can only assume that a
    > university would keep
    > good records and I would assume that a university
    > would not buy older
    > planes after buying newer ones so without any
    > > more information that thier website has I assume
    > that they have had
    > the older birds the longest....Just Curious...Kevin
    > Huff
    > >
    > > ---------------------------------
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
    > Beta.
    > >
    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
    > removed]
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club
    > for the Musketeer series!
    >
    > www.beechaeroclub.org
    >
    >
    > Yahoo! Groups Links
    >
    >
    > musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com


    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  3. #3
    Guest
    Guest

    landing accidents

    --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, Ann and Dan Kirby <abk100@...>
    wrote:
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Is the landing record in our planes worse than other
    > low wings? I am not what anyone would call a great
    > pilot by any stretch of the imagination, but in my
    > many landings in the Beeches,(1000+), I just don't see
    > the problem. Have I just been lucky?

    I'd bet you fly your plane by the numbers for your successful outcome.

    Probably goes for any plane, fly it by the POH and you will have a
    higher success rate.

    I have 539.4 hours in my Sundowner and 682 take offs and landings.

    Only once did I have a landing where I got an unexpected hard landing
    and that was because I was on the backside of the curve and lost lift
    about 1 foot off the ground. Plane dropped like a manhole cover.

    My brother in law learned real quick that speed is your enemy as he
    thought 80 knots on final would help grease the landing. Needless to
    say on a 3000 foot runway, skipping down the runway ended pretty much
    ended up being a touch and go after the second touch down.

    That was the first and only time I have ever encountered a porpoised
    landing.

    Allen






    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  4. #4
    Guest
    Guest

    landing accidents

    I recall that statics for landing accidents show Baby Beech substantially worse than for other similar airplanes, but substantially lower fatal accident rate.

    Steve King


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ann and Dan Kirby [mailto:abk100@yahoo.com]
    Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 2:44 PM
    To: Steve King; n5106m; musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: RE: [musketeermail] Re: landing accidents

    Hi all,

    Is the landing record in our planes worse than other
    low wings? I am not what anyone would call a great
    pilot by any stretch of the imagination, but in my
    many landings in the Beeches,(1000+), I just don't see
    the problem. Have I just been lucky?

    Dan Kirby Sierra N9299S

    --- Steve King <sking@lbcc.edu> wrote:

    > In my opinion, there are two primary causes of
    > landing accidents in Baby Beeches:
    >
    > 1. CG too far forward. With just front seat
    > occupants and fuel, most of our planes are outside
    > of the fron CG limit. I carry about 125 pounds of
    > water ballast, and am planning toward installing a
    > ballast weight in the tail (factory done on some
    > other Baby Beeches, but not on Sundowners, so will
    > need a field approval).
    > 2. Excess speed for approach and landing. Fly the
    > POH speeds.
    >
    > Steve King
    > 79 Sundowner N6007Y
    > CFI
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com on behalf of
    > n5106m
    > Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 9:49 AM
    > To: musketeermail@yahoogroups.com
    > Subject: [musketeermail] Re: landing accidents
    >
    > Kevin-
    > Your questions are good ones and while you may get
    > zesty replies to
    > the questions, I don't think anyone here is going to
    > flame you for
    > asking.
    >
    > I cannot answer your specific quesitons but there
    > are many here that
    > can. I know that in general the "baby Beeches" have
    > a reputation for
    > being difficult to land. I personally own a Sierra
    > (C24R) and while I
    > have had a few less than squeaker landings, I have
    > never felt in
    > trouble with the plane.
    >
    > Like all planes, speed and configuration management
    > are key but
    > perhaps a bit moreso in certain baby Beech models.
    > There are, of
    > course, different opinions on the "right speeds" and
    > "right
    > configurations." I try to fly the plane like the
    > factory specified
    > and have so far avoided any real problems.
    >
    > If you are asking these questions as you do your
    > pre-purchase
    > comparison shopping, I say good for you but don't
    > get too concerned.
    > If you do buy a Sundowner or other baby Beech, get
    > an instructor with
    > time in them so you can get started in the right
    > way.
    >
    > Good luck,
    > Chris L.
    > Sierra C24R
    > N5106M
    > KSLC
    >
    >
    >
    > --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Huff
    > <dkh429@...> wrote:
    > >
    > > I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for
    > sale in Salina Ks
    > at the university...I noticed that the newer
    > Sundowners had far more
    > landing accidents than the older Sundowners did
    > ...The old verses new
    > split being 1980 the newer planes had almost double
    > the damage
    > history...Now before you jump all over me this is
    > just a casual
    > observation I am not trying to start a
    > fight..Granted I do not know if
    > all the planes have spent their entire lives at this
    > flight
    > school....But it does beg for me to ask this
    > question...Did Beech
    > change something around 1980 that made the "newer"
    > planes more
    > unforgiving on final ??? Does anyone in the group
    > have experience with
    > several Sundowners of different ages that could
    > maybe shed a little
    > light on why the "older" birds seem to have less
    > landing incedents
    > than the newer birds??? I can only assume that a
    > university would keep
    > good records and I would assume that a university
    > would not buy older
    > planes after buying newer ones so without any
    > > more information that thier website has I assume
    > that they have had
    > the older birds the longest....Just Curious...Kevin
    > Huff
    > >
    > > ---------------------------------
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
    > Beta.
    > >
    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
    > removed]
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club
    > for the Musketeer series!
    >
    > www.beechaeroclub.org
    >
    >
    > Yahoo! Groups Links
    >
    >
    > musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com



    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  5. #5

    Landing Accidents

    Although my A23 certainly isn't considered new, I have owned it since
    the early 80's and have never had anything close to a scary landing
    but not all are "beautiful." These planes are certainly no more
    difficult to land than an empty Cherokee 6 with no seats, skydivers
    out, low fuel and crosswind. I would recommend follow the book and
    enjoy a great airplane.

    Chuck Brown






    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  6. #6
    Guest
    Guest

    Landing accidents

    Kevin:

    One thing you might compare would be which ones were IFR certified. The
    Musketeers and Sundowners were often used for IFR training rather than Primary
    training. Perhaps at some point the flight school started using the newer
    models (which probably had better avionics) for IFR training.

    Why, you ask would that make any difference. Well having bought a Musketeer
    and upgraded it in 2000 so I could do my IFR training and test in it I found
    there is a potential problem there. I got my rating in 2001 but with
    difficulty because I had to switch instructors to someone else. Learning IFR is
    supposed to be rules of flying and calculation of intersepts, etc. But in
    reality the instructor may add a practicality to it also.

    I had two ground school instructors and one flight instructor tell me since
    IFR (at least in actual IMF) the plane is going to be coming into a Class D, C
    or B field. Entry to a Class C or B the controller wants the plane to come
    in as fast as it can - the instructor said it would be best to enter the ILS
    pattern as a category B plane (min 90 Kt speed) rather than category A (60 Kt
    speed) because it helps the controller speed things thru. This is true and
    if you are going to do repeated ILS approach and landing the controller may
    wave you off if your plane is slow. As a result, some instructors teach
    instrument approach at speeds in the 90 kt range for landing - that causes the
    plane to float and take a lot longer to touch down. Now the IFR student is
    concentrating on following IFR procedures and doesn't expect to have to relearn
    the basics of landing the plane. Until a student gets the hang of flare at
    30 Kts over stall speed and hover until you loose that extra lift - it can be
    confusing to the student. One thing I know is - confuse a student and your
    asking (or looking) for problems. This certainly could contribute to landing
    gear accidents.

    Just a thought. You have the data .. see if it corrolates.
    Paul Kennedy
    N66303 at Pearland Regional - clover field KLVJ
    Houston Tx

    In a message dated 7/31/2006 5:17:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
    musketeermail@yahoogroups.com writes:

    _landing accidents _
    (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musket...3BJZAMxNjAwMDY
    1NjE4BG1zZ0lkAzMwNTU2BHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0a W1lAzExNTQzNDEwMzI-)
    Posted by: "Kevin Huff" _dkh429@yahoo.com _
    (mailto:dkh429@yahoo.com?Subject=Re: landing%20accidents) _dkh429 _ (http://profiles.yahoo.com/dkh429)
    Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:23 pm (PST)
    I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for sale in Salina Ks at the
    university..I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for sale in Salina Ks
    at the university..<WBR>.I noticed that the newer Sundowners had far more
    landing accidents than the older Sundowners did ...The old verses new split
    being 1980 the newer planes had almost double the damage history...Now before you
    jump all over me this is just a casual observation I am not trying to start
    a fight..Granted I do not know if all the planes have spent their entire
    lives at this flight school....But it does beg for me to ask this question...Did
    Beech change something around 1980 that made the "newer" planes more
    unforgiving on final ??? Does anyone in the group have experience with several
    Sundowners of different ages that could maybe shed a little light on why the
    "older" birds seem to have less landing incedents than the newer birds??? I can
    only assume that a university would keep good records and I would
    more information that thier website has I assume that they have had the
    older birds the longest....Just Curious...Kevin Huff









    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  7. #7

    Categories

    Maybe just a little clarification first. Category for the purposes of an approach is defined as 1.3 times the stall speed at maximum landing weight. The "assigned" category for your aircraft does not change. You can't become a Category B just because you decide to fly faster than 90 knots anymore than you can lower yourself to a Category B from C by slowing down on the approach.

    Having said that, you are right, controllers would prefer that you not loiter along down the approach, and it does make sense to alter minimums based on the speeds that you might be using. I fly approaches at 100 knots in my Duchess. It is a comfortable airspeed for the approach, allows gear out and approach flaps.

    However, I slow that speed to approach speed at some point prior to flare, depending upon the circumstances. I can't figure out why you would flare 30 knots fast and float down the runway. Seems downright unsafe in that the potential exists for landing long and off the runway or causing the initiation of a go-around well past the DA/MDA, which could be even more disatrous than running off the runway.

    On an ILS, I will generally start slowing towards 90 knots as soon as visual contact is made. I can kill the final 20 knots in the last 200 feet. On higher minimum approaches there is plenty of time to lose the 20 knots. It is unreasonable, and unlikely that any controller is going to expect you to maintain 90-100 knots all the way to the flare in an aircarft that touches down under 70 knots.

    Now I know we are going to get into that whole "stabilized" approach issue, and it is a valid discussion. I consider gear out, 100 knots and approach flaps at the FAF as "stabilized". I don't change that configuration or airspeed until I'm getting pretty close to minimums and that change would be very nominal as I want 95-100 knots commencing any missed approach.

    I also use Category B minimums, even though the Duchess just makes Category A, because I approach faster (I can use Category B minimums without the aircraft "becoming" a Category B aircraft), it just provides me with some additional space, particularly for circle to land minimums where the issue is more critical (this is obvious if yo study the charts). But actually, in a circle to land situation, I'm still circling at my normal pattern speed (which happens to be 110 knots slowing to 80 knots over the numbers).

    Dan Jonas
    Napa Valley

  8. #8

    Landing accidents

    In my IFR training, my instructor had me do a power on ILS at 130 MPH
    then pull the power off and start the pitching to reduce airspeed at
    the decision altitude (200 agl). My airplane shed the excess speed
    by the touchdown zone. There wasn't anything difficult about the
    landing nor did it float anymore than normal. All of this was under
    the hood until the DA. Next week we were followed by a biz jet to
    the same airport and we did one for real. The controller said for me
    to keep my speed up because of the jet, so I powered down at 130 and
    never lost the needles. We landed at the touchdown zone and were off
    before the jet called the outer marker.

    I'm just waiting for a jet to be told to keep his speed up for a
    musketeer!!

    --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, pjkennedy@... wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Kevin:
    >
    > One thing you might compare would be which ones were IFR
    certified. The
    > Musketeers and Sundowners were often used for IFR training rather
    than Primary
    > training. Perhaps at some point the flight school started using
    the newer
    > models (which probably had better avionics) for IFR training.
    >
    > Why, you ask would that make any difference. Well having bought a
    Musketeer
    > and upgraded it in 2000 so I could do my IFR training and test in
    it I found
    > there is a potential problem there. I got my rating in 2001 but
    with
    > difficulty because I had to switch instructors to someone else.
    Learning IFR is
    > supposed to be rules of flying and calculation of intersepts,
    etc. But in
    > reality the instructor may add a practicality to it also.
    >
    > I had two ground school instructors and one flight instructor tell
    me since
    > IFR (at least in actual IMF) the plane is going to be coming into a
    Class D, C
    > or B field. Entry to a Class C or B the controller wants the
    plane to come
    > in as fast as it can - the instructor said it would be best to
    enter the ILS
    > pattern as a category B plane (min 90 Kt speed) rather than
    category A (60 Kt
    > speed) because it helps the controller speed things thru. This is
    true and
    > if you are going to do repeated ILS approach and landing the
    controller may
    > wave you off if your plane is slow. As a result, some instructors
    teach
    > instrument approach at speeds in the 90 kt range for landing - that
    causes the
    > plane to float and take a lot longer to touch down. Now the IFR
    student is
    > concentrating on following IFR procedures and doesn't expect to
    have to relearn
    > the basics of landing the plane. Until a student gets the hang of
    flare at
    > 30 Kts over stall speed and hover until you loose that extra lift -
    it can be
    > confusing to the student. One thing I know is - confuse a student
    and your
    > asking (or looking) for problems. This certainly could contribute
    to landing
    > gear accidents.
    >
    > Just a thought. You have the data .. see if it corrolates.
    > Paul Kennedy
    > N66303 at Pearland Regional - clover field KLVJ
    > Houston Tx
    >
    > In a message dated 7/31/2006 5:17:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
    > musketeermail@yahoogroups.com writes:
    >
    > _landing accidents _
    >
    (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musket...56;_ylc=X3oDMT
    JyaTZuMDdtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEwNzMzNjMEZ3Jw c3BJZAMxNjAwMDY
    >
    1NjE4BG1zZ0lkAzMwNTU2BHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0a W1lAzExNTQzNDEwMzI-
    )
    > Posted by: "Kevin Huff" _dkh429@... _
    > (mailto:dkh429@...?Subject=Re: landing%20accidents) _dkh429 _
    (http://profiles.yahoo.com/dkh429)
    > Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:23 pm (PST)
    > I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for sale in Salina Ks
    at the
    > university..I was just looking at the list of Sundowners for sale
    in Salina Ks
    > at the university..<WBR>.I noticed that the newer Sundowners had
    far more
    > landing accidents than the older Sundowners did ...The old verses
    new split
    > being 1980 the newer planes had almost double the damage
    history...Now before you
    > jump all over me this is just a casual observation I am not trying
    to start
    > a fight..Granted I do not know if all the planes have spent their
    entire
    > lives at this flight school....But it does beg for me to ask this
    question...Did
    > Beech change something around 1980 that made the "newer" planes
    more
    > unforgiving on final ??? Does anyone in the group have experience
    with several
    > Sundowners of different ages that could maybe shed a little light
    on why the
    > "older" birds seem to have less landing incedents than the newer
    birds??? I can
    > only assume that a university would keep good records and I would
    > more information that thier website has I assume that they have
    had the
    > older birds the longest....Just Curious...Kevin Huff
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    >







    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  9. #9

    landing accidents

    > --- Steve King <sking@...> wrote:
    >
    > > In my opinion, there are two primary causes of
    > > landing accidents in Baby Beeches:
    > >
    > > 1. CG too far forward. With just front seat
    > > occupants and fuel, most of our planes are outside
    > > of the fron CG limit. I carry about 125 pounds of
    > > water ballast, and am planning toward installing a
    > > ballast weight in the tail (factory done on some
    > > other Baby Beeches, but not on Sundowners, so will
    > > need a field approval).

    *** Why carry useless weight? Carry USEFUL weight instead!
    I carry a full tool kit in a Korean-war era cooks bag. Literally
    every tool that I use for routine maintenance is in that bag, which
    lives at the rear of the baggage compartment. I also have a
    cardboard box with a tire pump, a second fire extinguisher, paper
    towels, an "oil add kit" consisting of a funnel and some paper towels
    tightly wrapped in a plastic bag, a survival kit, some rope, and
    two quarts of oil.

    I do carry a gallon of distilled water, but that's in the left
    rear seat. Along with some paper towels stuffed into the
    back of the copilot seat, this is my emergency eyewash - in
    case my eyes start to sting & tear from sweat - because I've been
    flying into some hot places.

    I just got one of those battery boxes with the little jumper
    cables attached. One of the smallest ones, it only weighs 10
    pounds. The plan was to get it for one of my airport cars which
    has a weak electrical system, but it may well find a home in the
    airplane. The idea of having a "reserve tank" of electricity
    is very appealing to me.

    Having learned to fly in tailwheel airplanes, I find the Sundowner
    an absolute piece of cake to land.

    - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry@tr2.com )







    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  10. #10

    landing accidents

    > --- Steve King <sking@...> wrote:
    >
    > > In my opinion, there are two primary causes of
    > > landing accidents in Baby Beeches:
    > >
    > > 1. CG too far forward. With just front seat
    > > occupants and fuel, most of our planes are outside
    > > of the fron CG limit. I carry about 125 pounds of
    > > water ballast, and am planning toward installing a
    > > ballast weight in the tail (factory done on some
    > > other Baby Beeches, but not on Sundowners, so will
    > > need a field approval).

    *** Why carry useless weight? Carry USEFUL weight instead!
    I carry a full tool kit in a Korean-war era cooks bag. Literally
    every tool that I use for routine maintenance is in that bag, which
    lives at the rear of the baggage compartment. I also have a
    cardboard box with a tire pump, a second fire extinguisher, paper
    towels, an "oil add kit" consisting of a funnel and some paper towels
    tightly wrapped in a plastic bag, a survival kit, some rope, and
    two quarts of oil.

    I do carry a gallon of distilled water, but that's in the left
    rear seat. Along with some paper towels stuffed into the
    back of the copilot seat, this is my emergency eyewash - in
    case my eyes start to sting & tear from sweat - because I've been
    flying into some hot places.

    I just got one of those battery boxes with the little jumper
    cables attached. One of the smallest ones, it only weighs 10
    pounds. The plan was to get it for one of my airport cars which
    has a weak electrical system, but it may well find a home in the
    airplane. The idea of having a "reserve tank" of electricity
    is very appealing to me.

    Having learned to fly in tailwheel airplanes, I find the Sundowner
    an absolute piece of cake to land.

    - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry@tr2.com )






    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Similar Threads

  1. A Rash of Accidents in the Erie Region
    By N2388Z in forum Musketeer-Mail Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-30-2005, 07:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO