The "Am I Full of It?" Sanity Check

Jonathan Baron

Jonathan Baron

New member
Kindred Spirits,

In the latest issue of our Newsletter, I asserted that upgrading a Cruisair or Cruisemaster to IFR standards was a fool's errand. In retrospect, though, I never asked how many of you with conventional landing gear Bellancas fly IFR or if any of you fly "hard" IFR. Do you use normal IFR gear or do you employ GPS certified big money boxes?

I simply took a look at the numbers to upgrade. Vic Steelhammer managed a nifty upgrade to his 14-19, somehow managing a clean installation of a Garmin 430 into that mail slot of panel space we have. We'll probably never know if his subsequent death flying IFR a year ago had anything whatsoever to do with either his aircraft or his IFR equipment. Besides, I very much doubt any of us has learned instrument flying with such technology aboard.

In short, do you fly IFR in your Cruisair or tail wheel 'Master? Did you purchase your bird with the necessary gear installed? Did you upgrade? Are you willing to share some numbers involved?

Jonathan
 
I just finished putting a Garmin 420 (430 without VOR) plus a KX197A King radio. Have Narco transponder and stanalone vor/ils/marker beacon receiver. Since I have the basic 6, I could theoretically fly IFR. Don't think I would do hard IFR, but would have no problem descending through a thin cloud layer (when I become IFR certified again)
 
Thanks Peter,

That brings up another thing I speculated on in the piece: most triple tail pilots I know are not current even if they got their IFR rating at some point.

Objectively you'd think these aircraft, although not conforming to the cliche' "good IFR platform" meaning "boring handling" would nonetheless be good IFR airplanes. Vikings are and they're just Bellanca Heavy.

I guess my question really is, are owners of tail wheel triple tails the sort who fly IFR?

Jonathan
 
I am current, I have flown it IFR. It is not a "serious" IFR plane because of the venturi, but certainly can do climb outs, approaches, and even enroute, DEPENDING ON THE WX. The venturi seriously limits its capabilities, but I moved it so that it is in back of the rt. exhaust stack. Now it is one more thing to clean after each flight.
I have a KX-155 w/GS and marker beacon. It is more radio than I used to get my rating in, back in 1925...or was it '65? Anyway it was a long time ago.
 
Oh, and Jonathan...I did think you were full of it after reading your article...but that's what makes this all so much fun. KEEP THOSE ARTICLES COMING!
 
Hey Larry!

I didn't think I was full of it, per se, but I like to sanity check what I *think* is going on....usually *before* I start typing for print :)

The venturi issue is interesting. At first I found them quaint little twin trumpets: announcing my arrival in front, and my departure from the rear. One fine old mechanic nearly disabled himself trying to straighten out all the hoses, junctions and such while trying to balance the flow (put those regulator where they actually belonged) and find the damned filter. Now I take immense pride in my vaccum system. Plus, I never have to worry about a pump failure.

But my adventure with the vaccum system - most of my Bellanca experience has been adventures with ship systems - took me to the dark side I refer to in the article. I could not have flown the airplane at the time, for other reasons. Thus I was not making unneccessary improvements during flying season. HOWEVER, instead of having the mechanic rip that old, inop wing leveler system OUT OF THERE, I dumped dough - lots of it - having it fixed. And THEN I toyed with the notion of installing one of those Track-O-Matic, or whatever the heck they're called, for directional guidance. All of it is powered by those twin, honking venturis on my airplane.

I came to my senses before doing that last step, but the wing leveler is a real hoot. Yes, it works great. Yes it's fun to watch the invisible hands tweak with my control yokes. I, at first, thought of them as wise old Bellanca pilots - long ago gone west - taking over for me...sometimes kindly and sometimes with disdain, as if to say, "Oh, goodness...we can't let *this* guy fly this great old airplane."

Yet when I'd shut the wing leveler off I noticed something. It's a totally unneccessary device in a triple tail. At cruise these airplanes fly as if on rails. That's why the word "Cruise" is in the bleeping name of the airplanes. And those little adjustments are more due to the sensitivity of the device than due to any true need for corrections. If actual ghost pilots had been flying, they would have been sipping coffee or smoking a cigarette during those times. And if the air gets real bumpy you're supposed to shut off the wing leveler anyway.

I think it was Cy who advised me to place the venturis where yours are, Larry. This makes for one dependable system...well...except for really low ceiling take-offs into IFR. It's funny that one of the vacuum pump failure back-up systems available today is a heated venturi :)

I came to my senses before any further alleged upgrades when it appeared that my hydraulic system was finally fixed. It wasn't. It still isn't. Russell is rebuilding it from scratch. Meanwhile I've put all notions of UPgrades out of my mind. I just want to fly my baby. Okay, so there's a Narco Nav 122 with marker beacon built in (the earlier style). And yes, during my dark side days I had it sent to Narco for an overhaul. But, hey, it was in the panel when I got the airplane...along with the oven timer and the electric switch that's attached to nothing :wink:

Jonathan
 
Regarding TO in IFR...I have talked to people who use the Precise Flight system taking vacuum off the intake manifold to get the gyros up to speed before they take off. One more gadget to add later on. At the rate I am going, I will have to call my plane a 14-13-RV-3, 'cept it won't fly as fast, but will take about the same amount of souls on board.
 
That NAV 122 is a wonderful unit. The best ILS system made. I had one in my Cherokee and used it for hundreds of trouble free hours, Did serious scud running in Cruisemaster back from OSH sure wish I had that 122 in the crate :shock: :shock: Lynn N9818B
 
Having been an instrument Instructor for many year's, forty I think, I have flown a fair amount of IFR aircraft. My Cruiseair has two extremly accurate Vor's with Glideslope, and I have a Garmin 196 for situational awareness that I consider to be far easier to use than the 430 or the 530. ( I already know how to enter hold's, miss an approach, and enter course's) It's also easier to program and is far more flexible than the INS equiptment that we used to fly all over the world in our company aircraft. The Garmin 92 is in the envelope behind my seat in case the 196 goes tit's up. The aircraft is stable, so why not fly IFR? For one thing it doesn't climb all that fast so you have to tell ATC "I'm doing my best " from time to time, and you can't fly in the cloud's in freezing temp's...Freezing temps have nothing at all to do with the thousand of fatality's that have occured in the Los Angeles area by people attempting to get out of or into the basin...One trip across this area when it's cloudy is enough to tell you ..never never never to try it no matter how many war story's you've heard. Would I fly a Bellanca that wasn't IFR equipted...no!
Mike
 
Wow, Mike, that's rather definative.

One of these days they'll view glass-free instrument approaches as emergency procedures, much the way they do now when the AI goes - despite the fact that a generation of pilots employed the Howard Stark method to earn their tickets (needle, ball, and airspeed).

I trained in my Luscombe. It has a Nav 12 (that still works with perfection and precision), Terra marker beacon receiver, the regular array of gyros (my C85 has an accessory pad originally employed to run an Excellcio (sp?) fuel injection system on a Culver V) and the usual transponder and com. Made an interesting trainer <cough> and I gave up on the idea of using it for genuine IFR flight. However, the guy who ferried my Luscombe from Washington State to Virginia (an airline pilot for a day job) filed twice during the trip. Both times he flew actual. He praised the airplane's stability.

I guess it's a matter of perspective,

Jonathan
 
My conclusion based on evidence posted here, and from personal contacts is, yes, I was full of it.

First off, nobody in a public forum is going to say, "Yeah, I flew my Cruisair to minimums." Nobody in their right mind is going to say in public, "I have a good VOR/Glideslope but I use my handheld for IFR." And nobody is willing to say, again in public, "There comes a time where tweaking my panel is as much fun as flying."

Nonetheless I believe that new owners should simply fly, fly, fly. If you've flown tricky tail draggers as much as I have, the sheer joy of conventional gear Bellancas is simply too filled with sheer joy to waste a MINUTE on the ground. Oh, how I love the confidence I feel flying an approach in my Bellanca compared to the watch-this-watch-that-stay-straight-straight, straight, straight- straight...goddamn you, make sure your butt is alligned with your tail experience of the Luscombe. Not that it's not the same in Bellancas - except for those Viking people - but somehow it feels different.

Fact is the 14 series flies like a Starduster when slow, but flies like a C210 when on approach. No aircraft - not a one - goes from from flying like a butterfly to flying on rails the way the 14 series can. Yeah, the Vikings are more suited to this mission. Ah, but they stall at the legal minimum of 70mph. I don't want that on my mind when I'm flying an approach....not that I would...no way...not in my Bellanca....:)

Jonathan

The real difference is flying IFR.
 
...er I meant that Vikings fly with the legal certificated MAXIMUM stall speed. That might mean nothing at all, especially in this "Keep your speed up" world. :)
 
I am writing to all woodbe IFR guys out there my thougth is you can fly ifr in any aircraft that has basic equipment and the 1413 is a stable platform; But and a big But it is old and single engine and I would ask how are your skills in the clouds under stressfull condiditions with multiple failures. If you are a professional poficient pilot that can handle the worst then fly IFR. I am a comericial multi engine IFR certed pilot I will tell you a engine loss in VFR several years ago was stressful enough that I won't even fly Night VFR in a Single without a full moon. If you Fly IFR engough that you are confident under any malfuction in the plane when you are the most tired Then it is fine however I don't think more than a light IFR departure to a VFR destination is a very good Idea. fly safe fly long and fly often
thanks
kgs
 
KGS:

This single versus multiengine IFR or Night debate is like many in aviation: there's no right or wrong to it, but plenty to argue about. Goodness when I recall the three point versus wheel landing debates on the Luscombe list those memories come with the smell of popcorn :)

In the upcoming newsletter I discuss this matter yet again, though not from a platform point of view. Lately I've been more keenly aware of the meaning of aviation apart from utility, skill, ratings, or mission. Although I want to fly with guile, cunning, and at least a bit of intelligence, I don't think so much anymore about the myriad fresh devices and alleged aids to safety.

I don't fly to be safe. More and more I fly to escape a culture of obsession with safety. I don't wish to hang onto life too tightly, for the notion of doing so feels worse than death.

It's just another alleged argument, like wheelies or three pointers.

Jonathan
 
If I wanted to be safe I would sell all three planes, The motorcycles and stay home all day. For me it is the rush of speed and chance. I have had a few engine outs in my short flying life ( VW engines and Subaru's) 9 engine out so far. My wife and I fly at night almost every trip we do. I have explaned what will probably happen if the engine quits at night and when I fly at night I almost always do flight following. That way if the worst happens they will know where to find us. We all have to make our own decession on what are limits are. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Okay, Randy, once again I have to marvel at your matrimonial luck. SHE made you buy the Viking....SHE knows you've suffered engine failures, and SHE flies with you...often at night.

Neither God, nor faith, nor any debt owned by the almighty to an old soul betrayed by same for deep devotion a thousand years ago, incarnated again and anew in the present, can explain what more rational men could only call INCREDIBLE LUCK :)

Uh...sorry...that prose of mind turns shades of purple at times. You chose well, you old Texan, and so did she :lol:

Jonathan
 
you should recall the advice as to what to do if you have an engine out at night. Keep the landing light off until the altimeter shows you are at 50 foot AGL. Then flick it on and if you don't like what you see--turn the light off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top