Different "feel" of a plane... thoughts?

T

Tracey

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
825
Display Name
Display name:
tracey
Today I flew an older model 172 and it was much more sensitive to my control inputs-- I felt like I was flying it and not necessarily the other way around. I'm trying to think of what was different so that I can put it into words, but it really just felt more sensitive. I felt much more "in control" if that makes sense.

I wonder what everyone's thoughts are regarding this and if you've had the same experience. Makes me wonder if the newer 172 that I've been learning in is "too much plane" for me? I'm not sure, all I Know is that the one I flew today seemed much more control-able. :dunno:

Thoughts?
 
Tracey said:
Today I flew an older model 172 and it was much more sensitive to my control inputs-- I felt like I was flying it and not necessarily the other way around. I'm trying to think of what was different so that I can put it into words, but it really just felt more sensitive. I felt much more "in control" if that makes sense.

I wonder what everyone's thoughts are regarding this and if you've had the same experience. Makes me wonder if the newer 172 that I've been learning in is "too much plane" for me? I'm not sure, all I Know is that the one I flew today seemed much more control-able. :dunno:

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I once cheated on my instructor with another airport, another instructor, another plane. It was a 172, which I didn't flinch at, since I've flown one maybe once or twice at that point and I was pre solo so of course I knew everything. When I preflighted the plane my hands turned black and it took two hands to push the mixture full rich during my checklist. That plane was so difficult to control I must have done 5-10 go arounds I just could not take off or land.

So yes, I know what you mean. Lots of people on here say a plane is a plane but with low hours I don't think so. Each of the 4 planes I have full access to right now, and am checked out in, flies differently.
 
Tracey,

Different airplanes, even of the same vintage, will feel differently. I think you normally fly a 180HP 172S model, and the older one you flew today probably had 160 HP. Depending on how the airplane has been used and maintained, the tension in the control cables and the balancing of the control surfaces, and the rigging of the airplane can all contribute to a different feel.

So if it felt different, it probably WAS different.

But another part of this is that your internal learning process DOES NOT STOP when the lesson is over. Your brain will still be trying to integrate things hours or days later. Sometimes a student will not fly for a couple of days and at the next lesson there will be a marked improvement. We instructors attribute that to our superior teaching skills (at least when BSing with others) but the fact of the matter is that it's just how the mind works. Sometimes it works the other way, you can have five lessons in a row with very little improvement, and then suddenly the plateau is over and improvement happens at a more rapid rate.

If I (or anybody else) had a cure for plateaus, or a way to magically imprint knowledge (as opposed to information) in a student I'd be a gazillionaire. Since I/we don't, we just keep plugging in the knowledge that sooner or later it DOES come together.

Sort of reminds me of two Maine-iacs sitting on rocking chairs on the front porch of a country store (this is not a joke, I witnessed this):

#1 (rocking, looking at the sky): Think it'll rain?
#2 (pauses for reflection): Bound to, sometime.
#1 (rocks a bit): Think it'll stop?
#2 : Oh Ayuh, always has.

Glad you had a good time flying!
 
I've had a similar feeling when flying S-series 'hawks after many hours in earlier models (K, L, M, N off the top of my head). The newer ones are definitely heavier; maybe that has something to do with it.
 
Thanks everyone-- Tim, I do wonder if the different horsepower had something to do with it-- I'll find out what the horsepower is when I go back. I don't think it's a plateau issue-- the plane really felt different. Or heck, maybe it was a plateau, because I felt like I was much better able to handle the plane.

Kim- so far it seems like they do all fly differently. I think I'm finding that I like the smaller and less horsepower planes, which is good to know. And Rottydaddy-- I think you're on to something, the "heaviness" that I feel in the one that I train in all the time sometimes feels like too much. :shrug:

Thanks everyone, I appreciate everyone's thoughts and inputs.
 
Typically you can trace it down to weight differences when you're within a type.
 
Tracey said:
Thanks everyone-- Tim, I do wonder if the different horsepower had something to do with it-- I'll find out what the horsepower is when I go back. I don't think it's a plateau issue-- the plane really felt different. Or heck, maybe it was a plateau, because I felt like I was much better able to handle the plane.

Kim- so far it seems like they do all fly differently. I think I'm finding that I like the smaller and less horsepower planes, which is good to know. And Rottydaddy-- I think you're on to something, the "heaviness" that I feel in the one that I train in all the time sometimes feels like too much. :shrug:

Thanks everyone, I appreciate everyone's thoughts and inputs.
Click to expand...

I think you and I like them for the same reason. The slower / smaller the plane, the more time you have to think and plan out your actions. You can also fly them with your pinky so you don't need huge muscles. The bigger / faster planes - more force is needed (mine even has rudder trim to help) and things seem to happen faster.
 
The S model will be heavier overall and probably have a more forward CG, which (this is a quiz, students) will do what to stability and "feel" as compared to an aft CG?

Let Tracey answer first, class!
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I think you and I like them for the same reason. The slower / smaller the plane, the more time you have to think and plan out your actions. You can also fly them with your pinky so you don't need huge muscles. The bigger / faster planes - more force is needed (mine even has rudder trim to help) and things seem to happen faster.
Click to expand...


This is not an accurate conclusion. A Beech 18 (or Baron or Bonanza) has lighter control force requirements than a 152. It's all about balancing forces with proper design work.

The fact that you say you can fly a 152 with your pinky in a comparison to other planes tells me you still aren't using the trim enough. 2 flicks of nose up in a 172 as part of your set up to flare and you'll land it with a pinky as well.
 
Henning said:
This is not an accurate conclusion. A Beech 18 (or Baron or Bonanza) has lighter control force requirements than a 152. It's all about balancing forces with proper design work.

The fact that you say you can fly a 152 with your pinky in a comparison to other planes tells me you still aren't using the trim enough. 2 flicks of nose up in a 172 as part of your set up to flare and you'll land it with a pinky as well.
Click to expand...

Not true for the rudders and yes I flew the 172 hands off using trim on final approach on Saturday. But the rudders my gosh were hard.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Not true for the rudders and yes I flew the 172 hands off using trim on final approach on Saturday. But the rudders my gosh were hard.
Click to expand...

The rudder is the funky aftermarket trim thing, I'm talking about the 'flying with a pinky' and 'not needing muscles'. If you are 'hands off' down final at 1.3 Vso, when you get to the bottom and are starting to flare, reach down and give the trim 2 more flicks nose up as you bring your hand to the throttle. This is even more important to do with the 180hp planes. Where were you in the CG envelope in that plane with 2 up front?
 
Henning said:
This is not an accurate conclusion. A Beech 18 (or Baron or Bonanza) has lighter control force requirements than a 152. It's all about balancing forces with proper design work.

The fact that you say you can fly a 152 with your pinky in a comparison to other planes tells me you still aren't using the trim enough. 2 flicks of nose up in a 172 as part of your set up to flare and you'll land it with a pinky as well.
Click to expand...

Having flown Bonanzas, Barons, and 152s...It's pretty silly to claim that their control forces are lighter then the 152. Simply not so.

Your point may be valid -- but your comparison isn't.
 
jesse said:
Having flown Bonanzas, Barons, and 152s...It's pretty silly to claim that their control forces are lighter then the 152. Simply not so.

Your point may be valid -- but your comparison isn't.
Click to expand...


I'd like to use a spring scale to put that to test, all planes loaded mid weight and mid CG. Be interesting to see what kind of force spread across makes, models, and types.

Granted it's been a while since I've flown a 152, but I remember going from one to BE 95 where flare went from an entire arm movement with significant force applied near landing to just leaving my forearm resting and pulling back just rolling fingers and wrist.
 
TMetzinger said:
The S model will be heavier overall and probably have a more forward CG, which (this is a quiz, students) will do what to stability and "feel" as compared to an aft CG?

Let Tracey answer first, class!
Click to expand...
The "feel" willl be heavier? Have to rely more on trim? Harder to flare, pull back? Am I embarrassing myself in front of the entire class?

(And maybe I do like the older class of Cessnas....?).
 
DavidWhite said:
Tis' true.
Click to expand...
I think I might agree with this too. THey really are all different though. The one I flew today I didn't have to put the seat all the way "up" and in the older model at my flight school I can hardly reach the rudders!
 
Tracey said:
I think I might agree with this too. THey really are all different though. The one I flew today I didn't have to put the seat all the way "up" and in the older model at my flight school I can hardly reach the rudders!
Click to expand...

Yes and no, planes are like horses, some of them need more finesse than others to get what you want out of them, and some of them can become a hand full fast in the hands of an inept handler, and some fit like an old glove the first time you mount them. At the end of the day, the commands they take from you to get a desired response from them are the same. Just like a horse though, you can't be afraid to kick it or reach up and twist an ear. If it takes more, give it more, if it takes it all, give it all.
 
Tracey said:
The "feel" willl be heavier? Have to rely more on trim? Harder to flare, pull back? Am I embarrassing myself in front of the entire class?
Click to expand...
Anyone care to enlighten me? Did I totally fork up this answer?
 
Henning said:
Yes and no, planes are like horses, some of them need more finesse than others to get what you want out of them, and some of them can become a hand full fast in the hands of an inept handler, and some fit like an old glove the first time you mount them. At the end of the day, the commands they take from you to get a desired response from them are the same. Just like a horse though, you can't be afraid to kick it or reach up and twist an ear. If it takes more, give it more, if it takes it all, give it all.
Click to expand...
Yes, true, Henning, but the one I flew today was so much more responsive than what I'm used to- I loved it. The second I touched a control, the plane responded, it was very sensitive. The one I"m used to-- I guess I need to be a bit more aggressive or something on the controls. I'll have to try to notice the differences. All I know is that today's plane and flight was great! (I'm out of town, so I'm taking advantage of being in a new place with different planes/instructors-- always interesting to get new/different perspectives).
 
Tracey said:
Yes, true, Henning, but the one I flew today was so much more responsive than what I'm used to- I loved it. The second I touched a control, the plane responded, it was very sensitive. The one I"m used to-- I guess I need to be a bit more aggressive or something on the controls. I'll have to try to notice the differences. All I know is that today's plane and flight was great! (I'm out of town, so I'm taking advantage of being in a new place with different planes/instructors-- always interesting to get new/different perspectives).
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, they're all different, yet they're all the same. As you gain experience in different types you will quickly start seeing the similarities between power/speed/weight types rather than differences. If you pay attention to how different designs deal with issues such as control force balance and stability, as well as wing loading (gross weight: sqft lifting surface) you start knowing what to expect before you ever get in it.
 
Henning said:
Yeah yeah, they're all different
Click to expand...
Ruh-roh, I got "yeah yeah'd." :lol:

Seriously though, I would love to get to the point where I knew what to expect before I got in. Actually, I would really just like to just repeat the responsivness that I felt today! (It almost made me feel.... competent).
 
No, you're absolutely right. The older airplanes have a lighter feel. Part of it can come from the design of the flight controls themselves. Older ones have smaller grips, and are easier to manipulate. Don't believe all that other BS, it's probably due to the pain-killers.


Tracey said:
Anyone care to enlighten me? Did I totally fork up this answer?
Click to expand...
 
Tracey said:
So I was right?:yikes:
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think you fully understand why you were right, yet.

As the CG moves forward, the tail must generate more downforce to keep things in balance. That means the wings are carrying more weight (the weight of the plane PLUS the tail downforce).
What that means is that the plane will feel more "solid", and more force will be needed to change it's flight path. So that makes it feel heavier, and for a given power setting, it actually flies a little slower, compared to an aft CG. It's tougher to flare, too.

As the CG moves aft, the tail doesn't need to generate as much downforce to keep things balanced. That makes the plane feel more responsive, and cruise a little faster. But it also means that you'll work a little harder to fly it precisely. And as the CG moves aft of the limit :nono: stall recovery may not be possible, because the tail may not be as effective.

So I'd bet the airplane you flew was lighter, which was the primary cause of the different feel, and your CG may have been a little bit aft.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yes, but I don't think you fully understand why you were right, yet.

As the CG moves forward, the tail must generate more downforce to keep things in balance. That means the wings are carrying more weight (the weight of the plane PLUS the tail downforce).
What that means is that the plane will feel more "solid", and more force will be needed to change it's flight path. So that makes it feel heavier, and for a given power setting, it actually flies a little slower, compared to an aft CG. It's tougher to flare, too.

As the CG moves aft, the tail doesn't need to generate as much downforce to keep things balanced. That makes the plane feel more responsive, and cruise a little faster. But it also means that you'll work a little harder to fly it precisely. And as the CG moves aft of the limit :nono: stall recovery may not be possible, because the tail may not be as effective.

So I'd bet the airplane you flew was lighter, which was the primary cause of the different feel, and your CG may have been a little bit aft.
Click to expand...
This is not true in the slightest. All that is required for stall recovery is that the tail have a greater reserve AoA than the wing. As soon as the wing stalls, the Center of Lift transfers to the tail moving lift aft of CG with a resultant positive automatic recovery.
 
Henning said:
This is not true in the slightest. All that is required for stall recovery is that the tail have a greater reserve AoA than the wing. As soon as the wing stalls, the Center of Lift transfers to the tail moving lift aft of CG with a resultant positive automatic recovery.
Click to expand...

And if the CG is far aft of limits?

You're probably right that I could have phrased it better. I think Ron said it better in the other thread about how an aft CG affects behavior at the stall. The PHAK says that the undesirable effects of a "...CG location aft of the limit include extreme control difficulty, violent stall characteristics, and very light control forces which make it easy to overstress an aircraft inadvertently."

By "tail not as effective" I didn't mean to imply the tail stops flying. I meant to imply that its ability to balance the forces it needs to balance in a stall recovery is reduced.

I could edit my post, but I'll leave it as is, as an example of how I sometimes don't convey the message intended, and how useful it is to the discussion when folks correct each other.

Bottom line is that a CG aft of the limits is bad, and makes you a test pilot.
 
TMetzinger said:
And if the CG is far aft of limits?

You're probably right that I could have phrased it better. I think Ron said it better in the other thread about how an aft CG affects behavior at the stall. The PHAK says that the undesirable effects of a "...CG location aft of the limit include extreme control difficulty, violent stall characteristics, and very light control forces which make it easy to overstress an aircraft inadvertently."

By "tail not as effective" I didn't mean to imply the tail stops flying. I meant to imply that its ability to balance the forces it needs to balance in a stall recovery is reduced.

I could edit my post, but I'll leave it as is, as an example of how I sometimes don't convey the message intended, and how useful it is to the discussion when folks correct each other.

Bottom line is that a CG aft of the limits is bad, and makes you a test pilot.
Click to expand...

The force/ability that is lost with regards to stall as CG moves aft is one of moderation and finesse, not ability to recover. You have a much lower window of warning to stall and the event becomes extremely violent.

That's why the MD 11 had to have the stall prevention rig it did to certify at an aft CG to make the design Trans PAC runs and advertised/claimed fuel economy numbers.They even loaded depleted Uranium in the tail.
 
The ability to recover from the stall for an average pilot will be affected by the moderation and finesse of the pilot, no? Where a stall with the CG within limits should be recoverable (without damaging the airplane) by an "average" proficient pilot, one with the CG aft of limits may not be.

Put another way, it's aerodynamically possible to recover from a stall with the CG aft of limits. But that's not the same thing as saying that I, or Tracey, or any other non-skygod pilot would be able to manage it.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yes, but I don't think you fully understand why you were right, yet.

As the CG moves forward, the tail must generate more downforce to keep things in balance. That means the wings are carrying more weight (the weight of the plane PLUS the tail downforce).
What that means is that the plane will feel more "solid", and more force will be needed to change it's flight path. So that makes it feel heavier, and for a given power setting, it actually flies a little slower, compared to an aft CG. It's tougher to flare, too.

As the CG moves aft, the tail doesn't need to generate as much downforce to keep things balanced. That makes the plane feel more responsive, and cruise a little faster. But it also means that you'll work a little harder to fly it precisely. And as the CG moves aft of the limit :nono: stall recovery may not be possible, because the tail may not be as effective.

So I'd bet the airplane you flew was lighter, which was the primary cause of the different feel, and your CG may have been a little bit aft.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me.. whatever you and Henning are talking about does not. :dunno: You two went way over my head in that discussion.

I think the airplane being lighter and having a more aft cg helped a lot.
 
Tracey said:
I think I might agree with this too. THey really are all different though. The one I flew today I didn't have to put the seat all the way "up" and in the older model at my flight school I can hardly reach the rudders!
Click to expand...

How tall are you? I didn't use a cushion on Saturday (could barely reach the rudders) because I didn't want a "crutch" and it wasn't in the plane. Learned my lesson there, I did.
 
TMetzinger said:
The ability to recover from the stall for an average pilot will be affected by the moderation and finesse of the pilot, no? Where a stall with the CG within limits should be recoverable (without damaging the airplane) by an "average" proficient pilot, one with the CG aft of limits may not be.

Put another way, it's aerodynamically possible to recover from a stall with the CG aft of limits. But that's not the same thing as saying that I, or Tracey, or any other non-skygod pilot would be able to manage it.
Click to expand...

No, the recovery is not limited in the slightest, it is still automatic in recovery, violently automatic. It will always recover from the stall so long as the tail was designed with a greater reserve AoA than the wing. There is no 'Skygod' skill required to recover any more than a 152 at forward CG. What is limited is the window of stall onset (buffet) to full stall (nose dropping out). That is where the extra finesse is required.
 
Tracey said:
I think the airplane being lighter and having a more aft cg helped a lot.
Click to expand...

I waaaaaaay overcontrolled on my first flight in a Skyhawk during intrument training. I did all my primary training in a Cherokee 6 (since that's what my parents had in the hangar). With just me and a CFI in the 6, it is very heavy in pitch. But, the Skyhawk was so light in pitch that I was oscillating right after takeoff. I didn't break anything and it was only about 3 seconds before my brain and hands figured out what to do.

Even a single airplane can have very different flight feel depending on load. The Cherokee 6 has such a large CG range that it can go from very nose-heavy to pinky-light in pitch. So actually as it gets heavier it is more responsive in pitch (since the CG is moving aft).
 
Tracey said:
I think I might agree with this too. THey really are all different though. The one I flew today I didn't have to put the seat all the way "up" and in the older model at my flight school I can hardly reach the rudders!
Click to expand...
Take a look at the seat. Before we re-upholstered, the pilot seat was so broken down (broken in) that we were actually sitting in a bowl sunken below the rim of the seat. After the re-upholstery, the seatcushion rises 2-3 inches above the rim of the seat. Where I once required a pillow to see over the glareshield, now (as you say) it is not necessary to run the seat all the way to the top. And now Hubby has to run it down when it is his turn to sit left seat. Easier to reach the rudders, too.
 
Henning said:
This is not an accurate conclusion. A Beech 18 (or Baron or Bonanza) has lighter control force requirements than a 152. It's all about balancing forces with proper design work.

The fact that you say you can fly a 152 with your pinky in a comparison to other planes tells me you still aren't using the trim enough. 2 flicks of nose up in a 172 as part of your set up to flare and you'll land it with a pinky as well.
Click to expand...
Henning, I'm concerned about this advice for a low time pilot; it sounds like a setup for a trim stall in a go around situation. Probably unlikely in a 180HP 172, but I think it may be a poor habit for a neophyte (which I still am a member of that group).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top