Skyhawk driver no more!

G

grattonja

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
944
Location
Pennsylvania
Display Name
Display name:
saratoga driver
I'm no longer a renter, and my username has been changed to "Saratoga-Driver". I am now a confirmed, insured, checked out and soloed 1/12th of a 1981 Pa32-301 fixed gear Saratoga. I've joined the local flying club. With my short cross country flight today, from LNS to IPT and back (for lunch of course) I have now soloed the beast. It feels somewhat bigger than the skyhawks, archers and such that have been my bailiwick until now.

8385S will haul my family, including my in-laws, AND their baggage, for at least 4 hours (fuel to the tabs). Just my daughter and wife and I can go anywhere that 102 gallons useable will take us (it will take us way farther than anyone's bladder in the family for sure!). And we can haul enough junk back from vacation with full fuel to be embarrasing. We're back to our vacation baggage limit being what we can pack in a car to get to the airport (actually that plane will probably haul the contents of BOTH cars together, plus all three of us!).

I've put about 20 hours in various Saratogas in the last month, including a long trip down to Charleston SC and back with 5 people total on board (i.e. max gross takeoff). I've shot a number of approaches, including an entire morning of approaches down to mins. Someday I'll even learn not to flare too high!

I guess a flying club this small constitutes ownership. It did require a buy-in and all. Certainly closer to owning than anything I have done so far.

Anyway, thanks to all who contributed with input on the club and the aircraft.

Jim G
 
Last edited:
Every time I hear 'Toga, John Belushi pops into my head.
 
N2212R said:
Every time I hear 'Toga, John Belushi pops into my head.
Click to expand...
It is a great airplane, and I've enjoyed all of my 40 or so hours in it. Looks like CFI will be getting a Lance or Saratoga HP or SP.
 
spiderweb said:
It is a great airplane, and I've enjoyed all of my 40 or so hours in it. Looks like CFI will be getting a Lance or Saratoga HP or SP.
Click to expand...


I've been following your story with interest. It has paralleled my search for something other than renting. Can you get your trio and instruments into a saratoga? Your partners alone I can see, but add in the instruments and I would bet you are talking a tight fit.

So far I love this plane. It is just a big archer. I have to do some work to get as comfortable in it as I have been in the skyhawks, but it will come. I haven't been into any tight places with it alone yet. That is one thing to work on. And I need more time at heavier loads to get used to it with a load on board. It sure does feel different fully loaded than lightly. But it is big and stable and a real pleasure to shoot approaches with. I foresee a long and happy relationship for my family and I and 8385S.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
I've been following your story with interest. It has paralleled my search for something other than renting. Can you get your trio and instruments into a saratoga? Your partners alone I can see, but add in the instruments and I would bet you are talking a tight fit.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Remember, with a piano trio you use the piano at the venue, so you don't take your own. That leaves a cello, which will fit into a seat, belted, and a violin which is really not big at all. We could even go in a C182, but it would be a bit tight.
grattonja said:
So far I love this plane. It is just a big archer. I have to do some work to get as comfortable in it as I have been in the skyhawks, but it will come. I haven't been into any tight places with it alone yet. That is one thing to work on. And I need more time at heavier loads to get used to it with a load on board. It sure does feel different fully loaded than lightly. But it is big and stable and a real pleasure to shoot approaches with. I foresee a long and happy relationship for my family and I and 8385S.
Jim G
Click to expand...

Yes. The big things for me were the load RANGE. When you go practicing on your own with half tanks, you could be 700 or so pounds under gross. The other thing is the sight picture on landing. The nose is so long, that it seems like you have a greater angle than normal in the flare. Two things helped me here--1) the sight picture on takeoff, and 2) peripheral vision to verify how high I am when I'm flaring. The safest way for me was to just make sure I am level a couple of feet above the runway. That way, I know I won't hit the nosewheel first.

I started some controversy with this, but I will just tell you what I do and leave it at that. I fly final at 90 KIAS. Short final is 80 KIAS, and NO SLOWER. Do NOT *suddenly* pull power at any time, really. Instead, keep some power right into the flare. If you pull power when a couple of feet off the ground, in a level attitude, you won't get a butt sink--you'll get a butt drop and you'll end up jerking the nose up and getting a real clunker. Just keep a bit of power in there and be patient, killing all power upon touchdown. This plane must be flown right onto the runway. Oh, and after you touch down and kill the power, the nose is going to want to come down fast--keep that nose up unless it is windy or turbulent, and spare it spinning on the runway until you are much slower.

I don't know why, but the easiest plane for me to land was always the C182. The Trinidad and Zlin are real sweetie-pies, too. The Saratoga, though, is quite capable of making me look like a dolt unless I fly numbers and the above procedure. She makes me look good during instrument approaches, though; and she is the roomiest in her class and looks good, too. I love her.
 
spiderweb said:
I started some controversy with this, but I will just tell you what I do and leave it at that. I fly final at 90 KIAS. Short final is 80 KIAS, and NO SLOWER. Do NOT *suddenly* pull power at any time, really. Instead, keep some power right into the flare. If you pull power when a couple of feet off the ground, in a level attitude, you won't get a butt sink--you'll get a butt drop and you'll end up jerking the nose up and getting a real clunker. Just keep a bit of power in there and be patient, killing all power upon touchdown. This plane must be flown right onto the runway. Oh, and after you touch down and kill the power, the nose is going to want to come down fast--keep that nose up unless it is windy or turbulent, and spare it spinning on the runway until you are much slower.
Click to expand...

My CFI for this bit of training taught me to use 85 knots short final and indeed keep a bit of power down to the flare. Anything about 90 knots is supposed to be good for one of those "float forever" moments. The PIM indicates that 80 is the recommended final/short final approach number for a short field. When I go over to Smoketown, that's what I'll be using, I expect. Anything under 80 and it gets pretty mushy pretty fast. I've already seen what gusty winds can do to a below 80 knot sink rate. That gets scary fast if you're not on top of it.

I like the suggestion on peripheral vision. I think I have been fixating a bit too much on that long/big nose out there when I flare. I've got the flare attitude down pretty well but, particularly on wider runways, I'm flaring too high, possibly out of fear for the nose gear. Must look out the sides more! Thanks.

It is a great aircraft though.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
my username has been changed to "Saratoga-Driver".

I guess a flying club this small constitutes ownership. It did require a buy-in and all. Certainly closer to owning than anything I have done so far.
Click to expand...

Congrats, what a fine family plane that will be. Have fun!
 
The three-stage landing is really important in this plane: begin to level and reduce power a bit -- level a couple of feet above the runway (don't touch power), slow gentle nose up with butt sink until touchdown (when you kill power). With a Cessna 172, you just make sure you are power-off by short final if not initial final. It is easy, because you only need to manage pitch. With the Saratoga, you need numbers, and you need to fly them. Sure, numbers are important in any plane, but with the heavier ones, numbers are your salvation!

People who transition straight from a C172 or similar to a Saratoga want to kill power before at 30 feet , even beginning to transition to level. No, no, no. Bad, bad, bad. Some power can come out, but not much. The next bad no-no is killing power when level two feet above the runway. Ka-blop (mains), ka-PLOW (nosegear)!!!!

Even at 6' (but with a medium-length torso), I can't see the runway over the nose in the landing attitude, so peripheral vision is my only way to refine the final stage of landing.

grattonja said:
My CFI for this bit of training taught me to use 85 knots short final and indeed keep a bit of power down to the flare. Anything about 90 knots is supposed to be good for one of those "float forever" moments. The PIM indicates that 80 is the recommended final/short final approach number for a short field. When I go over to Smoketown, that's what I'll be using, I expect. Anything under 80 and it gets pretty mushy pretty fast. I've already seen what gusty winds can do to a below 80 knot sink rate. That gets scary fast if you're not on top of it.

I like the suggestion on peripheral vision. I think I have been fixating a bit too much on that long/big nose out there when I flare. I've got the flare attitude down pretty well but, particularly on wider runways, I'm flaring too high, possibly out of fear for the nose gear. Must look out the sides more! Thanks.

It is a great aircraft though.

Jim G
Click to expand...
 
spiderweb said:
The three-stage landing is really important in this plane: begin to level and reduce power a bit -- level a couple of feet above the runway (don't touch power), slow gentle nose up with butt sink until touchdown (when you kill power). With a Cessna 172, you just make sure you are power-off by short final if not initial final. It is easy, because you only need to manage pitch. With the Saratoga, you need numbers, and you need to fly them. Sure, numbers are important in any plane, but with the heavier ones, numbers are your salvation!

People who transition straight from a C172 or similar to a Saratoga want to kill power before at 30 feet , even beginning to transition to level. No, no, no. Bad, bad, bad. Some power can come out, but not much. The next bad no-no is killing power when level two feet above the runway. Ka-blop (mains), ka-PLOW (nosegear)!!!!

Even at 6' (but with a medium-length torso), I can't see the runway over the nose in the landing attitude, so peripheral vision is my only way to refine the final stage of landing.
Click to expand...
What you describe is indeed an easier method to get good landings in something heavy like a Saratoga (or a light twin for that matter), but IMO it shouldn't be the only trick in your bag. For most landings in the Baron, I do pretty much as you say, leaving some power in until the wheels touch (or bettery yet when I know I'm only inches above touchdown where wiping off the power will plant the airplane). But I can also (generally) pull off a plausible landing with the power pulled early in the flare or sooner. If you want to bring the minimum energy possible into the touchdown that's pretty much the only way except for dragging it in hanging on the props (bad idea) and definitely the best choice for dropping into a short strip over tall trees. When I hear folks claim that there's not enough elevator to flare properly without caryying power I just cringe, not only wondering how they would land if the engine quit but also thinking that they aren't really running out of elevator, but rather failing to use all the available elevator travel. Perhaps they are running out of arm strength, but IME they just aren't pulling hard enough and/or aren't willing to get the nose up high enough.

Again, I'm not saying that flying it on isn't appropriate for a 'Toga or that it isn't a good way to become acquainted with such a plane, just that when you've had enough time to become familiar with the plane you should be capable of other methods 'cause they might come in handy some day.

And BTW, I think you are exactly right about the wide range of flying weights. I strongly believe that any pilot transitioning to a heavy hauler like a Saratoga should experience slow flight, stalls, and landings at MGW before attempting a flight sans CFI in such a condition. And if you load up with a bunch of friends, and lots of extra heavy baggage, you''d get to experience the double pressure of a heavy landing and one with too many witnesses.
 
Last edited:
lancefisher said:
When I hear folks claim that there's not enough elevator to flare properly without caryying power I just cringe, not only wondering how they would land if the engine quit but also thinking that they aren't really running out of elevator, but rather failing to use all the available elevator travel. Perhaps they are running out of arm strength, but IME they just aren't pulling hard enough and/or aren't willing to get the nose up high enough.
Click to expand...

The issue with the Saratoga isn't having enough elevator, it's the sink rate. In addition to being a good speed for short final, 80 KIAS is best glide speed - so I've spent plenty of time at this speed practicing engine-out. You get about 1,000fpm down with the prop in flat pitch, as it would be (more or less) in a landing scenario. I haven't had a problem being high on final since I started flying the Saratoga <g>. That's a lot of sink rate to take out with flare. It's not at all unusual to run out of flare (stall) before you run out of sink rate. I can only do it properly a small percentage of the time practicing engine-out landings. But it does let me check off the "Go-Around" and "Recovery From Bad Landings" boxes on my proficiency sheet.

On a normal landing I pull power at about 20' AGL and it generally works out. I was eating up way too much runway landing with power on. I'm not as observant and rigororous as Ben so I can't tell you exactly why. I'll have to work on that. I've also found that it doesn't pay to pull the nose all the way up to a full stall. The plane likes it but it buggers up the @#$&*! wheel pants and I've gotten tired of fixing them.

Jim, welcome to the club!

Regards,
Joe
 
I know you are right about all of this. Of course I had to practice power-off landings in the heavy singles. The worst "offenders" are the Saratoga and the TB-20. They are just ridiculous. Just crazy. They drop like WHOA! That's why it is important to practice power-off in them. With both, pulling the prop back is a must, as it will stretch your glide, with the same best glide airspeed. The level-flare-land part is quicker, too. I actually think it is lots of fun and thrills, but my wife told me never to do that again! (Of course, when I've done a power off in a C172, she didn't even notice a difference. Haha--power is a nuisance when landing a C172!)

lancefisher said:
What you describe is indeed an easier method to get good landings in something heavy like a Saratoga (or a light twin for that matter), but IMO it shouldn't be the only trick in your bag. For most landings in the Baron, I do pretty much as you say, leaving some power in until the wheels touch (or bettery yet when I know I'm only inches above touchdown where wiping off the power will plant the airplane). But I can also (generally) pull off a plausible landing with the power pulled early in the flare or sooner. If you want to bring the minimum energy possible into the touchdown that's pretty much the only way except for dragging it in hanging on the props (bad idea) and definitely the best choice for dropping into a short strip over tall trees. When I hear folks claim that there's not enough elevator to flare properly without caryying power I just cringe, not only wondering how they would land if the engine quit but also thinking that they aren't really running out of elevator, but rather failing to use all the available elevator travel. Perhaps they are running out of arm strength, but IME they just aren't pulling hard enough and/or aren't willing to get the nose up high enough.

Again, I'm not saying that flying it on isn't appropriate for a 'Toga or that it isn't a good way to become acquainted with such a plane, just that when you've had enough time to become familiar with the plane you should be capable of other methods 'cause they might come in handy some day.

And BTW, I think you are exactly right about the wide range of flying weights. I strongly believe that any pilot transitioning to a heavy hauler like a Saratoga should experience slow flight, stalls, and landings at MGW before attempting a flight sans CFI in such a condition. And if you load up with a bunch of friends, and lots of extra heavy baggage, you''d get to experience the double pressure of a heavy landing and one with too many witnesses.
Click to expand...
 
Well said Lance.

I have yet to fly any airplane that can't be powered off to a smooth landing. It's just that the margin for error is less and many pilots quite frankly have no idea how to land without float. This really gets them when they get out of a 172 that they are used to floating to a landing and jump into something that just doesn't float. **SMACK** goes the landing gear.

If they would have always practiced landing without power with absolutely no float and learn how to judge their height above the ground combined with the energy they still have available to flare with..This wouldn't ever happen.

It's funny..if you sit and watch people land most airplanes including the 172.. What do you see? You see them come in too fast and get into ground effect. When they get into ground effect they just keep holding the airplane off and holding it and losing airspeed and finally they land. If they would have just not had the airspeed in the first place it would have been a non-issue. This works pretty nice at most airports.

Now you get the pilot that is used to landing like this and they go into an actual short field. Throw an obsticle or two on the end of the runway and watch the disaster unfold. They come in like they always do keeping plenty of height over this obsticle. Now they are too fast and too high. They enter ground effect and keep holding it off like always. All the sudden...Holy ****!! There is no more runway left!

I can accurately judge my distance above the ground to about six inches. I have no problem doing low passes at any airspeed down to about a foot. Because everytime I land I don't let myself float. When I come over the ruwnay I have no more energy left and the airplane is almost done flying. The wheels touch down. The very last bit of energy I have left I use to flare. The airplane is all done flying. I don't bounce.

The issue is the way most flight instructors teach landings. They teach them to come in with all kinds of airspeed and touchdown about where the airliners do. Once again this works great until they kill themselves on something short.

Last weekend I had the opportunity to watch Tony Condon giving instruction to his primary students. Guess what? I didn't see them landing half way down the runway floating all over the place. I was very happy to see that he is teaching them how to actually land the airplane where they want. Much better then teaching them how to get it into ground effect and hold it off for a thousand feet. Infact I am willing to bet that any one of his students could spot land better than most instructors. If anyone is ever in need of a BFR or any type of instruction I would really advise that you give Tony a call.
 
Jim,

Welcome to the club. I've got an '83 FG 'toga, and I love every minute!


James Dean
 

Attachments

  • toga 1.jpg
    toga 1.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 15
  • toga 2.jpg
    toga 2.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 24
  • toga 3.jpg
    toga 3.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 18
Congrats, Jim. Now you've got an a/c with the wings glued on the right place:D

Well almost -- if they don't rotate, low is good! Enjoy!
 
Joe B said:
On a normal landing I pull power at about 20' AGL and it generally works out. I was eating up way too much runway landing with power on. I'm not as observant and rigororous as Ben so I can't tell you exactly why. I'll have to work on that. I've also found that it doesn't pay to pull the nose all the way up to a full stall. The plane likes it but it buggers up the @#$&*! wheel pants and I've gotten tired of fixing them.

Joe
Click to expand...


I intend to do two things with the aircraft that make your recommendations pertinent: 1. Land it regularly at Smoketown, S37, on 2400 feet. 2. Commercial maneuvers, including the precision landing.

So I have some learning to do regarding power off landings.

Thanks to all for the advice WRT landings. I appreciate ALL the input. I'm pretty comfortable with power off and short field landings in a 172, courtesy of training at S37, so I've got a good start.

So far I adore the aircraft. It's solid and fun and just a darned decent flier. I'm looking forward to training in it, and exploring the envelope further.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
So I have some learning to do regarding power off landings.
Click to expand...

Jim, practice them, but don't make them your SOP. Power-off landings in the Saratoga will make your passengers hate you.
 
I do not have a Toga but a Six and what you describe landing the Toga Sounds really similar. I also own a 172 which for me is SO much easier to get good landings. I had to teach my self a new sight picture in landing phase, looking off the left side of the cowl. Approach speed in the Six has to be adjusted for weight. If you try to fly the same speed at gross you use 700lbs lighter you will not make the run way. My approach speed varys from 85 light load to 95 heavy. Dr Bruce (ThankYou) helped me get these Numbers, No I do not have the formula. But it works great.
You can also learn to make power off landings but practice with her loaded. It is an eye opener chop power abeam the numbers you had better get it turned to the runway quick you do not have much time. I use sacks of dog food for my weight Never had a complaint yet ,from the dog food. I normaly cut power at 20 to 50 feet just a matter of the right approach speed and a good sight picture for me.
 
dogman said:
It is an eye opener chop power abeam the numbers you had better get it turned to the runway quick you do not have much time.
Click to expand...


I did that several times during the checkout. The first time, I had flown a too wide pattern (man you gotta turn to downwind SO MUCH FASTER than in a slow old 172) and the CFI pulled the throttle out abeam. Despite heading for the airport directly, we had to add power on short final to get there. Second time out I flew a standard, maybe even slightly tight, pattern and made it down with no problems. A dismal landing, but no problems. I'm hoping that working the commercial maneuvers in this plane will help me to learn more about it's envelope.

Jim G
 
Notme said:
That six inch margin of error must explain the runway end lights you collected at KAUM...
Click to expand...
While I must say that Jesse's claims of piloting prowess are extraordinary, and perhaps exaggerated (I know I'm not that good, and I've been at this longer than Jesse's been breathing), I don't recall ever having heard of Jesse wrecking at KAUM or anywhere else. Did this really happen, Bruce, or are you just blowing smoke up our noses? If the latter, I think maybe you owe either an explanation or a retraction.
 
Notme said:
No smoke. I suspect Jesse really did think it was a mid-air but it happened at a much lower altitude than he thought and no birds were harmed.

I also suspect runway end lights give way pretty easily, even if in the process they tear up a pair of wheel pants pretty good. If you happened to hit them exactly as you touch down you may not even know you did it...until the airport manager finds the pieces of wheel fairing and his broken lights.
Click to expand...
I suspect you heard one side of the story but not the other. Quite frankly at this point I'm sick of the entire deal and the "extra things" that I keep hearing from people instead of the actual flying club board members..Whom prefer to just ignore me and constantly increase my bill. So I'll leave it at that. I suspect one specific board member as being the leader of such allegations..Which is kind of ironic in my mind, since he is not exactly perfect.

I'm curious why you refer to yourself in the 3rd person when you are this airport manager. Not that I really know you other than when you yelled at me for riding my dirtbike on the runway when I was eight...and a couple of stories I've heard. I don't think that my family was ever on good terms with you.

Ron said:
While I must say that Jesse's claims of piloting prowess are extraordinary, and perhaps exaggerated (I know I'm not that good, and I've been at this longer than Jesse's been breathing)
Click to expand...
I don't see what claims I make that are so extraordinary? Want a video of height judgement?
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
While I must say that Jesse's claims of piloting prowess are extraordinary, and perhaps exaggerated (I know I'm not that good, and I've been at this longer than Jesse's been breathing), I don't recall ever having heard of Jesse wrecking at KAUM or anywhere else. Did this really happen, Bruce, or are you just blowing smoke up our noses? If the latter, I think maybe you owe either an explanation or a retraction.
Click to expand...
Frankly, either way it was a mean spirited comment, IMO.
 
Notme said:
actually, I think I heard most of it.

club 1/3; you had a plane reserved on the clubs schedule system, You were the only person on the schedule that night.
Click to expand...
Funny..Because the plane was just getting put into the hangar by another pilot when I took it. There are 105 people that have access to that plane and they are constantly managing to propstrike, hit hangars, and whatever else you could possibly think of happening to an airplane.

notme said:
Your 1/3; you told this forum that you hit something in mid air and the wheel pants were broken upon return.
Click to expand...
Followed by me questioning if it was my fault at all. 105 members have access to that plane. Their planes are constantly being damaged. Infact just after this something similiar happend to another one of their planes... Why didn't they blame it on the last guy that flew it? Probably because that guy didn't have the balls to call them and say something didn't look right. Infact no one called them. I guess that's what I get for calling them.

notme said:
I can't address how well or poorly communications were handled.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple. There was no communication. Most of my attempts were discarded and every few weeks they'd write me a little something which contradicted their previous statement. Infact most communication consisted of another pilot or former instructors of mine calling me to tell me what they heard. It was completely different each time. Infact at least one of the instructors that I've talked to will not give instruction in that club's aircraft due to their tendenacy to come back and blame them for something weeks later.

I just saw an opportunity to give you a little ribbing. How in the world am I supposed to pass up this:

"I can accurately judge my distance above the ground to about six inches. I have no problem doing low passes at any airspeed down to about a foot. Because everytime I land I don't let myself float. When I come over the runway I have no more energy left and the airplane is almost done flying."
Click to expand...
First off what's so difficult about judging your height above the ground down to a few inches? Some people can do it all day for thousands and thousands of hours. I beleive there are even people on this forum that have seen me do such. Once you get used to it..it is easy.

Anyways ...I'm not offended. At first I wasn't even going to bother replying in this thread. But then I noticed that the management council was taking notice and it sounded like a good time for me to say something. Plus quite frankly I was a little bit surprised to see you post. I am starting to wonder how many people out there just lurk around on the forum reading everything but rarely or never posting.

SkyHog took it in the right tone
Click to expand...
I suspect Skyhog's tone was of the "0h n0z!" some anonymous guy is blaming something on you! ...Like I said your comment did not offend me.

I must have hit a sore spot with you.... sorry... I thought you could take it.
Click to expand...
The entire issue is a sore spot with me because of of their complete and other disregard of the bylaws that I signed upon joining combined with the fact that they just like to send me bills but refuse to talk to me. How would this not be a sore spot? The entire deal bugs the **** out of me to this day.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
While I must say that Jesse's claims of piloting prowess are extraordinary, and perhaps exaggerated (I know I'm not that good, and I've been at this longer than Jesse's been breathing), I don't recall ever having heard of Jesse wrecking at KAUM or anywhere else. Did this really happen, Bruce, or are you just blowing smoke up our noses? If the latter, I think maybe you owe either an explanation or a retraction.
Click to expand...
I think I know Jesse pretty well and my opinion is you are breathing smoke. Yes he's rather confident of his skills, flying and otherwise (like many "kids" his age) but IME he walks the walk nearly as good as he talks the talk, and the "runway light incident" appears to be complete fabrication. The only "facts" in evidence are the slightly cracked wheel fairing that may or may not have been in that condition prior to Jesse's flight, and that he did fly the plane in question.
 
lancefisher said:
I think I know Jesse pretty well and my opinion is you are breathing smoke. Yes he's rather confident of his skills, flying and otherwise (like many "kids" his age) but IME he walks the walk nearly as good as he talks the talk
Click to expand...

Ill second that.
 
As will I, having met the man in person and spent some time with him in the air and on the ground.

tonycondon said:
Ill second that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top