Many of us struggle with the techniques appropriate to starting our fuel-injected, big-block Lycomings and Continentals -especially when they're hot! Quite apart from the frustration and embarrassment, improper starting techniques can result in flooded engines, fires, cooked starter-motors, airframe and engine damage, flat batteries and even (potentially) personal injury or fatalities.

Generally speaking, cold-starts are not an issue, whilst it appears that many of the difficulties associated with hot-starting these engines stem from the tendency of the fuel in the lines to vaporise due the residual heat in the engine.

Cold Start:

• Master: ON
• Mags: ON
• Mixture: FULL RICH
• Throttle: FULLY OPEN
• Boost Pump: PRIME -watch for the fuel-flow to rise from zero, allow it to stabilise for ½ second, then boost pump OFF
• Mixture: IDLE CUT-OFF
• Throttle: CRACK OPEN ½ INCH
• Start
• When the engine fires, smoothly slide the Mixture to FULL RICH

If the engine starts to die again, it may be necessary to “catch it” with brief bursts of the pump. Rarely an issue on a cold start.

Hot Start:

As previously mentioned, vaporised fuel in the engine fuel-lines is frequently the cause of difficult hot-starts. The simplest & best solution is to replace that fuel, with clean, cool, raw fuel.

• Master: ON
• Mags: OFF
• Mixture: IDLE CUT-OFF
• Throttles: CLOSED
• Fuel Pumps: ON allow the pumps to run for around 30 seconds to 2 minutes
• Fuel Pumps: OFF
• Fuel Tank Selector: CHANGE TANKS if possible. This prevents you drawing the just-expelled warm fuel back into the engine.
• Proceed as per Cold Start

Another method you may find of benefit, if you don’t want to run your fuel pumps:

• Master: ON
• Mags: ON
• Throttle: FULLY OPEN
• Mixture: FULL RICH - look for a quick spurt of fuel flow
• Mixture: IDLE CUT-OFF
• Throttle CLOSED, then OPEN ½ inch
• Start

Some people advocate flooding the engine to achieve a hot-star Some manage it without malicious afore-thought… due the risk of catastrophic damage to the engine and potential loss of the airframe in a fire, it’s not a technique I recommend deliberately trying. However, should you find yourself with a flooded engine, proceed thus:

• Master: ON
• Mags: ON
• Throttle: FULL OPEN
• Mixture: IDLE CUT-OFF
• Crank the engine until it fires
• Mixture: to FULL RICH smoothly, whilst
• Throttle: CLOSE briskly, set desired IDLE RPM
• IMMEDIATELY allow the aircraft to taxi forward 1.5 aeroplane lengths, in case excess fuel has been pumped out onto the ground and lit up during the start.
• Should you experience a cowling or induction system fire as a consequence of raw fuel all over the place from flooding it, KEEP CRANKING the engine to draw the fire back where it’s supposed to be! Get the engine checked.

CAUTION: Check your AFM -there will probably be a time limit on how long you can continuously crank your engine without it starting. DO NOT EXCEED that limitation. The consequences of exceeding may include:

• Melting the lead plates in your battery
• Melting your battery
• Melting your Starter Motor

Your AFM will specify how long you can crank the engine for without risk of damage, and specify “rest” cooling-off periods between consecutive start attempts.

Flat Battery Starts:

I’m not going to try and tell you how to jump-start your aircraft -there are subtle but important differences in every airframe. You’ll need to refer to your AFM for the good oil on how to proceed with an External Power start.

This however, is a technique that has worked well for me in the past when I have had an aircraft with a weak battery refuse to start in cold wx conditions. It’s based on the assumption that drawing massive current from the battery, as during an engine-start attempt generates heat -Lots of heat, which we are going to use to our advantage.

You’ll generally find out that the cold has sapped your battery when you make your 1^st engine-start attempt of the day. That sickening, weak grinding of the starter-motor will tell you, as will the sight of a near-stationary propeller blade. Frustrating. However, all is not lost.

Now, if you’re cold-soaked battery is in a twin, pick the engine that usually starts most easily -there’s always one a bit more willing.

Basically what you want to do is:

• Set your aircraft up as usual for an engine start, leaving off any unnecessary electrical items
• Crank the engine within the limitations of your AFM, or until the battery simply will not turn the engine any further
• Turn EVERYTHING (especially the Master) OFF
• Walk away from the aircraft. Go make a coffee or something

Give it a good 10 minutes or so, which will allow the heat generated by your failed start attempt to warm the battery. When you get back to the aircraft, proceed as you usually would for a normal, cold-engine start. When (if!) it starts, get your generator or alternator on-line smartly, before attempting to start your second engine.

Of course, if this doesn’t work, you’ll need to jump-start your aircraft from an external power-source. Proceed as per your AFM.

Disclaimer:

As always, use all of the above advice at your OWN risk.

The Cowboys Guide to Beach Operations

Flying onto remote beaches can open for you a world of fascinating opportunity and breathtaking beauty, taking you to places few others have access to and affording you unique sporting and recreational opportunities.

But like all other aspects of aviation endeavour, there are things you need to know first, for your own safety and to prevent inadvertent damage or potential hull-loss and its attendant risks. In all cases, a comprehensive briefing on Beach Operations and checkout by an appropriately qualified instructor is recommended before you go, as is a briefing on the specific beach you intend to operate, by someone with recent experience on that beach.
There were a few things you'll need to consider before and during the flight. In no particular order:

•     ◆    Is your aircraft insured for the intended operation?
•     ◆    Are you insurable in command of the operation?
•     ◆    Is a beach landing allowed by the aircraft owner/operator?
•     ◆    What are the tide-times for your intended beach? How is this time established? Is it referenced to a published tide-time in a known location? You are particularly interested in establishing the low-tide time for your beach, as all operations will take place around this reference.
•     ◆    2 hours either side of low-tide will probably be your 'window of opportunity' for beach operations, perhaps less if it is a particularly windy day pushing the wave-surge higher up the beach, or on a particularly steep beach.
•     ◆    All operations will be conducted below the mean high-water mark, on sand washed and compacted by the tide.
•     ◆    All turns on the beach are made towards the water, always. This keeps you on the washed/compacted sand throughout the turn. Make the widest radius turns possible within the area available to you.
•     ◆    Conduct a thorough low-level inspection of the beach before committing to the approach/landing. Look for obstructions, humps in the sand, soft-spots (wet), debris and people on or adjacent to your selected landing area. Beach landings are often in remote areas; people that may be there can get quite excited to see an aircraft and could rush down to get that impressive photo- right in front of you. Be aware of it, be prepared to go missed if necessary.
•     ◆    Your inspection needs to be particularly thorough if you are the 1st to operate onto a beach after a storm or particularly heavy wx. The character of the beach may have changed dramatically.
•     ◆    A full short-field approach technique onto the beach is recommended -lower touchdown speed, shorter landing roll. Hold the nose-wheel off as long as possible. Do not use brakes unless absolutely necessary -try to prevent sand/grit abrading pads and discs.
•     ◆    Likewise on departure, a full short-field technique should be used, with the nose-wheel off at the earliest opportunity.
•     ◆    Always have some sort of flight-following on beach-ops, either through company ops or the nearest ATS facility, with an expected 'call again' time -usually 20-30 minutes after your landing call. That way if you miss your 'call again' time, someone will be acting to find out why. It might be something as minor as a flat battery that has delayed you, but with only whatever is left of a 4-hour beach 'window' things need to be moving along to rectify the situation before the aircraft gets wet!
•     ◆    Many beach landings are x-wind, either an on- or off-shore breeze. Nothing here that a normally competent pilot can't handle.
•     ◆    Due to the 'forgiving' nature of your landing surface, touchdowns tend to be smooth and gentle!
•     ◆    Before you shut-down, look to see if your wheels are sinking into the sand. If there is any sign of 'settling' give it the jandal smartly, get yourself out of there onto a better area.
•     ◆    If your intention is to stay on the beach longer than your 'window', make sure there is somewhere appropriate above the high-water line to park, with firm sand access and tie-down your aircraft. Make sure control locks are installed and vents/windows/cowl-flaps are closed. Install cowl plugs and pitot covers if available.
•     ◆    Take a folding shovel or similar with you. You may need it if you become bogged!
•     ◆    Take some plywood (or similar) to go under mains and nose/tail-wheel when parked.
•     ◆    On returning to your base, give your aircraft a thorough fresh-water wash, with particular attention to the landing gear and brakes, belly, under-wing surfaces,particularly in low-wing aircraft, flap and aileron slots and hinge attachments. CAUTION: If you operate in a cold climate, particularly on a cold, clear, frosty day, the water can freeze as soon as it touches your airframe! Best not done if you need to use it again soon!


Some people advocate dropping objects from the aircraft in-flight as a method of checking how firm the landing surface may be. Dropping bricks (or anything else!) from the aircraft is against the law, and even from say 50-100 feet a brick is a pretty small target to be basing your judgement of the surface on. If you have to, just drag your mains lightly on your landing area with power up; if it feels too soft, then full-power, off and have another go another day.

With regard over-size (tundra) tyres, on some beaches they may be essential. That's why you need a thorough briefing on your intended landing area before you go. On many beaches however, particularly those used on a more or less regular basis for aircraft movements, they are neither necessary nor desirable. If you are looking at making your 1st ever beach landing, it is more likely you will be going to a beach that's a known quantity with an experienced instructor. Relax, enjoy the experience! Don't make it any more complicated/expensive than it needs be! There are lots of beaches that are safely accessible without any need of 'special' equipment.
You will visit some remarkable places. Have a heap of fun!
This article is also available as PDF Download.

 

A Cowboy’s Guide to the Cessna 185

---

---

These notes are just a collection of thoughts and observations on operating, handling, owning, maintaining and enjoying the Cessna 185. There is very little reference material available for newly-rated pilots or new owners to study on this aircraft, so the following may be of benefit! It is intended to be a useful guide (as opposed to an Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), which today is written more by lawyers, for lawyers with the sole intention of avoiding legal liability), so may contain advice on some operations that you consider to be ill-advised or outside the normal flight envelope... there really is no substitute for good, common sense –albeit not such a common commodity these days- so don’t read these words as encouragement to go beyond your experience and training, your AFM limitations, or for that matter, the letter of the law as promulgated in your AIP.

Sometimes people end up well outside their skills, experience and training, whether intentionally or not. The Cessna 185, in common with most other aircraft, will punish laxity, poor planning and ham-fisted mishandling. The only way to learn to fly one is to get in amongst it, as with all motor skills, but it is often useful to have a little information at your disposal before doing so. That’s a lot better than trying to develop your own unique solutions to issues when the situation demands it, and what these notes are intended for –it does not mean you need to try all this stuff on your own!  If you must, find a suitably qualified and experienced instructor to guide you.

Since the C-185 is often utilised in short-field and mountain flying operations, these notes are prepared both from that perspective and with that utilisation in mind. That is where my experience was gained -specifically, in the Southern Alps of New Zealand and on commercial operations in Papua New Guinea. My total time on the C-185 is only about 1,000 hours, but covers 30 years as a consequence of travelling to school in one as a kid. During that time, most areas of the flight envelope have been given a look at least, if not pretty thoroughly explored. Don’t underestimate the benefit of learning from the experiences of others.  The training system in PNG (as in the mountains of Southern NZ) relies heavily on the skills and experience available in their pilot cadre to turn a new pilot into an operational pilot; turning what many pilots would consider abnormal into safely routine, daily operations for average pilots.

There will be no mention of Float or Ski operations, or reference to the C-180 specifically, as I have no experience in these operations. Having said that however, apart from some engine and weight variations, a C-180 can be considered to be largely the same aircraft.

---

General

The C-185, also known as the Skywagon, is a six-seat, single-engined, general aviation light aircraft manufactured by Cessna. It first flew as a prototype in July 1960, with the first production model being completed in March 1961. The Cessna 185 is a high-winged aircraft with non-retractable conventional landing gear and a tail-wheel. Over 4,400 were built with production ceasing in 1985. Production ceased in large part due to two factors: the demise of the general aviation boom that characterised the post World War II years in the United States, and the growing awareness by insurance companies that tail-wheel aircraft were harder to insure due to their handling characteristics during takeoff and landing. When Cessna re-introduced some of its most popular models in the 1990s, the tail-wheel equipped Cessna 180 and 185 were consigned to the history books and not resurrected. (1)

The C-185 is a development of the C-180, which is itself a development of the C-170, a design which has its origins in the early 1940s and was inspired by the pre-war high-wing Cessna airframes. It is not a state of the art design, but the laws of Aerodynamics and aluminium construction methods have not changed much in the last 50 years anyway!

One of the main reasons for the success of the C-185 is a large engine in a small, light airframe. It has proven to be strong enough for the task and is frequently seen advertised as having a payload equal to the empty weight of the aircraft. This has handling implications, as will be discussed later. The C-210 will go faster, the C-206 has more room, the C-182 is easier to handle and the C-172 is cheaper to run; but a 185 is a good balance of the best attributes of all of those airframes. Best of all they are great fun to fly and are an appreciating asset, which can have quite a low operating cost -if flown properly.

Unlike most of the Cessna model range the C-185 has never changed its basic shape, size or speed. There are a few detail changes in construction over the years, but from a pilot point of view a 185 is a 185, though for some reason, later models seemed to get heavier on the controls and less docile. The 185 can be customised to some extent by changing the configuration to suit the task at hand, by:

·        changing main and tail-wheel tyre sizes,

·        adding floats or skis,

·        installing ‘bubble’ windows,

·        engine and/or propeller variations,

·        adding a cargo pod,

·        altering the rigging on the wings and

·        adding leading edge and/or wingtip kits.

 

As a result the speed can vary by about 20 knots between machines, depending on how they are equipped.

The C-185 is predominantly powered by the trusty old Continental IO-520, but early models used the IO-470 with some airframes more recently retro-fitted with the IO-550. Turbocharged Continental and Lycoming engines can be used, but unless there is a specialist requirement on floats or at altitude, there is not much point, as it is already a well-powered airframe. There is added complication with a turbo as well, which explains why most aircraft with these engines tend to have two of them.

---

Picketing

A surprising number of rebuilds are the result of aircraft being blown off their pickets -much more so than a nose-wheel aircraft, as at rest, a 185 sits in a flying attitude. Any decent wind can cause problems for the unprepared. In most cases, a decent set of pickets will do the trick, but there have been known cases of the tie-down wing attachment being torn out of the wing in wind-speeds in excess of 40 knots. In these winds and above, given the ‘at rest’ attitude of the aircraft and wing, substantial lift is generated. One way prevent lift being generated is to raise the tail high enough to achieve a negative angle of attack on the wing. Digging the mains in a few inches by whipping out a couple of sods with a spade and putting the tail-wheel on top of a 12-gallon drum or ute deck should do the trick.

Another way is to put a couple of mattresses on top of the wing with a couple of lengths of wood on top and tie it all down securely. This will destroy the lift on the airfoil. I have never tried either myself. Occasionally when a very strong gale is forecast, it may be neither practical nor possible to move the aircraft –trying something like this just may save the day and the airframe! Certainly the mattress idea in a 40-knot gale is a bit theoretical, but when needs must...  A further option is to park the aircraft facing downwind –tail into wind. This does open the possibility of bending a few control rods and/or hinges, but the machine will most likely still be there in the morning. Use the internal control-locks provided and, if possible, find and fit some external control locks also. The parking brake is unreliable and wheel chocks are better put in before you leave one unattended. Always carry them with you.

Another potential problem is damage from windblown material; I have had a cowling quite badly dented because of loose debris.  Parking a vehicle in front of your aircraft may help and make sure there is nothing obvious upwind like an un-picketed Piper Cub, tent city of asylum-seekers or Microlight convention about to head your way!

Another hazard your picketed aircraft may be exposed to is stock, mainly cattle. Cattle beasts are very inquisitive and like rubbing on anything handy –your aircraft included!  If you go away for a short period thinking it will not be a problem as the cattle are some distance away, most likely on your return, the aircraft will be surrounded and possibly damaged. I know of at least one tail-plane rebuild due to this. The best solution, if you must leave your aircraft unattended in the vicinity of livestock, is to erect a small electric fence and energiser around the aircraft, move the cattle –or move the aircraft!

---

Loading

Of everything you’ll ever do in, with and around your C-185, the most critical is loading.  Many of the problems you may face airborne are related to improper loading or securing of your load and can (and should) be resolved before you leave your parking-spot.  It’s definitely not a matter of just throwing your load in the doors, closing-up and blasting off! There is quite a skill to loading and securing a C-185 properly:

·        There is not much room available for the payload,

·        The doors (and frames) can be a restriction with large items to be loaded,

·        The doors are easily removed for large items of cargo,

·        Do not leave the doors open -they are of light construction and a slight breeze from behind will catch them and twist them around the strut. After which they will not close properly and there will be considerable wind noise. Best way to shut them is to open the window, stick a hand out and apply firm pressure from the outside.

·        Passengers seem to be of the opinion that their safety in the aircraft will be greatly enhanced by slamming the door just as hard as they are physically able. This of course, deforms the door and causes excessive wear and damage in the latch mechanism.  Best idea is to make it absolutely clear to them during the pax briefing that they are not to operate the doors in any circumstance other than an emergency.  The doors are shockingly expensive (and almost impossible) to repair properly.

·        Stretchers and coffins can just fit between the strut and door-post, hopefully without having to tip them sideways (this can get really untidy). Some models have an additional door behind the baggage door which assists in the loading of lengthy items,

·        Beware of long sharp objects: morons will poke these through the windows quite easily and tradesmen are the worst –quite unthinking.

·        If there are five passengers and no cargo-pod, put the people in first (smallest in the back) and fling the bags on top. If you can get belts around them all and stay within the aircraft weight limits, you’re on a winner!  It is possible to get several people in, if they are small enough and don’t whinge. Small pyramids of people work well too -my personal record is 13.

·        Do not put people in the cargo-pod, this is reputed to be a most unpleasant way to travel and may put the victim off flying altogether.

·        Handle everything yourself, or one day some remarkably heavy object like a Caterpillar starter motor or backpack of uranium ore will end up in the aft end without your knowledge...

·        When loading the pod, put all the small, heavy stuff right at the front –it’ll help with W&B.

·        Try and keep small crowds away while loading -they only get in the way and annoy you.

·        It may take a couple of tries to work out how to fit all the stuff in.

The big trap is the area aft of the back seat, which can have a large space available in some machines. Use this for light gear like foam mattresses, sleeping bags, polystyrene and Ops managers brains. Have a good think before putting more than a few kilos in there –it’s not there as overflow space when the pod and cabin are full!

The consequences of incorrect loading and the subsequent CofG problems with a probable overload can be unmanageable once airborne. A colleague of mine met his end, not so much due to the substantial overload, but the fact that the aft compartment was used to achieve it. Several people shared his fate after control was lost during a turn en-route to the airfield. It either stalled in the turn or entered a spiral dive due to lack of pitch authority. An extreme example, but bear in mind that on a long flight your CofG will move aft (due fuel-burn) so what may have been manageable on take-off may not be a few hours later on landing. On departure with a full load, it is a good idea to check the position of the trim indicator. If it is full forward or close to it and you find you are using forward stick to prevent a pitch-up, consider returning. The aircraft will not fly tail low but will become very sensitive in pitch as the tail-plane becomes more ineffective. It is the same size as that on a Cessna 172, in contrast to the larger C-206 tail-plane -which has the same payload.

Once I flew vegetables out of mountain airstrips to a large international airport. It turned out that I was underestimating weights and with little fuel and a cabin and pod filled to capacity with around 650Kg of freight, there would be an aft CofG problem on landing. What happens is as speed decreases, the control surfaces become less effective so you keep winding-in forward trim -until it runs out. Next flaps come out and further forward stick is required. Finally at around 300ft, full flap is selected and the control yoke meets the instrument panel with a rather distressing thud. Left unattended, you will pitch up, stall, plummet to the ground and die. To avoid this messy scenario, simply get rid of some flap and control will be restored, allowing you to carry on with the landing. I have never explored the option of applying full power to retrieve the situation in a 185, as power provides a further pitch up moment –not finest-kind helpful. Some brave person can feel welcome to try this -it is a sound idea in an Islander with engines mounted high, but a partial flap landing seems to be the best bet in a C-185. In the situation outlined, coming in fast with little flap was not a problem as the runway was about 3 km long, but shorter places may not be so easy. So if you’re landing in tricky places with a big load, a good idea is to select required flap and reduce to landing speed early. You’ll have time & space to sort it out, if it’s getting a bit out of shape. Incidentally, the same principle with use of flap applies to any aircraft. The C-185 will not show any sign of aft loading on the apron (its bum is already on the ground), so lends itself to the odd drama in this area. Most other machines have a nose-wheel so will fall or lean back if not properly balanced and get spotted.

One type of load that can cause surprise is steel pipes or any other heavy stuff sitting low in the cabin, largely out of sight. As the old saying goes: out of sight, out of mind. Twice I have carried pipes and nearly failed to complete a low-level turn clearing stock. I had expected the Aircraft to be light having neglected to take the load into account, since it didn’t catch the eye.

As an aside, it is easy to get carried away with low-level manoeuvring in remote areas; be careful out there. It’s a major cause of fatal accidents.

Regarding amount carried: the payload with full fuel varies with each aircraft, but most empty weights are around 800Kg, so around 750Kg of fuel, pax and freight can be carried. Most jobs need around 2 hours fuel plus reserves, so say 120Kg, plus a Pilot at around 80Kg, so a ballpark payload figure is 500Kg plus or minus 50Kg. For a long trip, reduce payload by 40Kg per 100NM beyond 250NM. With a cargo-pod and some hefty passengers, max weight will be reached easy enough, especially with full tanks. For a long flight there is a good case for stopping half way for comfort and refuelling as well.

Overloading in an aircraft with no cargo pod or aft compartment is difficult, but with a pod and long-range tanks, it’s easy enough. As explained previously, the main problem is it usually goes hand-in-hand with an aft CofG, but there are other issues. Structural ones are load on such things as landing gear, floor, brakes, wings and so on. The mains are strong enough to handle a good load, but the tail-spike will fail, as will the tail-wheel hub and tyre under heavy load. The cabin floor is actually quite weak, unless it has plywood over the top. Early C-185’s were used for topdressing in New Zealand and operated in the Agricultural category with an increased max-weight. They all have patches on the wings due to cracks in the skin along the main spar, and usually a few ripples and twists as well. So the extra load must have taken a toll on the structure. The brakes can overheat and the disc itself can shear, taking the attachment bolts with it –not uncommon on the C-207, in part due to the increased aircraft mass. The main problem though is no surprise; if you put too much in the thing it just will not fly very well. It doesn’t take much extra to make a difference either: a 5% overload will make a 15% difference to take-off distance etc. I once flew a load of parachutists, two of whom were called Peter -both climbed in when that name was called! The extra 80Kg on top of an already full load led to a substantially increased take-off roll!  The aircraft just got light on the wheels and stayed on the ground, until speed built up enough to fly at that weight. Once in the air it is very slow to reach climb speed, but once there, the rate of climb is quite acceptable at low altitudes and cruise speed will be little affected. Really though the cheapest way to carry a heavy load is by means of two light ones. This is especially true for short trips in a 185 where the loading can take longer than the flight.

Remember that once loaded outside the weight and CofG limits, you are in Test Pilot territory and normal assumptions on performance, handling, stall-speeds etc., go out the window. One thing not to leave behind though is fuel, especially on a long flight in ordinary weather. An hour’s fuel only weighs around 40Kg and does not cause a CofG problem.  When push comes to shove, they will fly if a bit over, but will not run on air.  Also on landing from such a flight (~5hrs) you will be 200Kg or so lighter, so weight is not an issue on arrival.

---

Ground Handling

For generic tail-wheel handling there are articles and books available covering the physics of it in detail, complete with diagrams. Read one (or more!). (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Before-start man-handling can cause damage. The tail-section skins will not always put up with people pushing on them to get the tail around. The forward tail-plane hangs off the trim-jacks, so is nowhere near as robust as it appears. The forward fin skins are very thin and will dent easily. On your own, a rope attached to the tail-spike allows you to steer and pull at the same time, or if necessary, push on the top of the tail-wheel going forward for the same effect. This method allows you to see both wing tips as well. Some later models have grab handles just forward of the tail-plane, which are quite worthwhile and can be installed as a mod.

Starting your aircraft can be an art of itself –especially hot engine starts. Details are in the AFM, so read it. The problem with hot engine starts arises because of fuel vaporisation in the fuel-lines above the (hot) cylinders.  To prevent or overcome this, you need to purge the lines, replacing the vaporised fuel with clean, cool fuel from your tanks:

·        Throttle fully open (in),

·        Mixture to idle cut off, (out) and

·        Full electric fuel pump for about ten seconds.

This procedure cycles the heated fuel back through the return pipe and replaces it with cool stuff from the tanks. Then set your throttle and mixture as per the AFM, or anything that works. Crank the engine. Once started, it will most likely die after a few seconds, so be ready to catch it with the electric pump briefly. It should run smoothly from there. Do not over-prime as the excess fuel can gather in the bottom of the cowling and catch fire. If there are leaks in the fuel-system, it may happen anyway. These fuel fires can be hard to spot because they don’t make much smoke, so look out for bystanders getting all agitated or check a shadow of the cowling for distortion. If necessary, just keep cranking the engine to suck the flames back inside the induction system. An engine-start is the best solution; it will either suck the flames in or blow them out. On one aircraft this was so common I would post a sentry with a fire extinguisher for hot starts! It is possible to lose the entire aircraft this way but mine never suffered any damage from them.

Flat battery starts:

• Jump-starts from a car are possible and quite easy with a 12-volt system,
• On a 24-volt system, just a single 12-volt battery may be enough to do the trick, or you may need two 12-volt batteries and three jumper-leads; work it out.
• Do not crank the starter too much (15-30 seconds is usually more than enough), it will overheat and burn up. Allow the starter to cool between starting attempts. Details are in the AFM.
• Manual prop (Armstrong) starts are possible, but the big snag is priming the engine if there is not enough power to run the electric pump.
• One trick is to put fuel in the air cleaner for a prime.
• Never try to prop-start your aircraft without assistance! Unless two pilots are present, one to swing and the other inside, there is too much to go wrong, so better left as a very last resort in remote areas.
• If the master switch was left on, but there is enough battery power remaining to get a prime on a cold engine, it will most likely start.
• Armstrong starts on a hot engine are unlikely to be successful.
• If you should find your aircraft and ignition-key are geographically separated, it is possible to remove the earth wires from the magnetos and hand-swing for a start. In this case engine prime will still be available.  You will have ‘hot’ mags however –so best you don’t let anyone get too close to your prop after you shut-down!
• Batteries are not at all partial to cold wx!  If you operate in cold, frosty locales, the day will come when -as a consequence of the cold- your aircraft will just not start.  If you have no ground-power or jump-start facilities immediately available and an Armstrong start is unappealing, try this:
• Prime as for a normal start or possibly just a little more,
• Crank the engine until the battery will no longer push the propeller over the next cylinders’ compression (it won’t take long!), but do not crank it for any longer than the maximum period indicated in your AFM – we still don’t want to burn that starter-motor out,
• Repeat the step above after allowing a 30-60 second cooling period,
• Shut the aircraft down completely –including (especially) the battery Master!!!
• Walk away from the aircraft for 15-20 minutes or so –grab a coffee, check the wx, whatever...
• Have another go at starting it.  It just might work.

This wee procedure has saved the day for me on more than one occasion!  As you’ll already know, dragging current out of a battery generates heat.  Drag lots of current out, (as in an engine-start attempt) you generate lots of heat.  After your initial start attempts, you walk away to allow the heat generated by the start attempts to permeate throughout the cold-soaked battery... making sense yet?  Yup, a warmer battery will give you better battery performance and hopefully more current, probably allowing a good, clean (if slightly sluggish) engine-start.  Once you have it running, it won’t take long for the engine heat and alternator to make everything copacetic again.

OK, we’re running.

Tattoo this on your forehead:  Never, never get out of your aircraft with the engine running.  Never.  Why, says you?  Here are a few reasons.

• The most common ground-accident for pilots is walking forward into their own turning blades,
• As stated earlier, Cessna light-single (and some light-twin) handbrakes are crap.  Even in mint-condition, they’re crap.  Do not rely on them alone –ever.  Cables fray and sometimes separate, mountings loosen and wear, latch-position mechanisms wear and can vibrate loose... you get the idea,
• Likewise throttle friction-locks can vibrate loose, allowing the vibration to further open the throttle, increasing engine power,
• It’s not entirely unknown for unattended aircraft to just wander off on their own, causing all-sorts of stress to any pax that maybe aboard, damage to the aircraft, damage to other aircraft in the vicinity, property and personal damage and untold mayhem –not to mention acute embarrassment and financial stress to the pilot that forgot that particular rule.  Ever tried lassoing a moving aircraft?

Once you’re inside, strapped in and started up, forward visibility is limited -to the right in particular. Nearly drove into a Cardinal once that was in the blind spot, so it’s always best to have a good look around before getting in. Aircraft fitted with the big tyres are worse, especially if they have the original small tail-wheel as well.  Be aware of your blind-spots and taxi accordingly.

Steering on a light twin is by nose-wheel steering, supplemented by differential power and brakes. In a C-185, there are only the brakes -and you do rely on them! Lose them and the chances are you will be talking to the Insurance bloke pretty soon. The biggest cause of brake problems is corrosion pitting the calliper barrel. This tears the O-ring and within 50Hrs flying, the fluid will run out and the pedals will go soft. The brake lines themselves can crack or suffer foreign object damage and be broken. Hot brakes don’t like being taxied through cold water either. It cracks the brake-pads. It’s best to avoid areas of standing water after landing.  As mentioned earlier the disk too can fall apart, so give all these areas a thorough inspection before each flight. Don’t drag your brakes against power either –that’s poor airmanship and mostly avoidable and unnecessary. Don’t try to save a few pennies by deferring maintenance on your brakes. It just isn’t worth it.

Making turns to the left is a doddle: the P-factor is helping you! Lift the tail, a wee nudge of power and away she’ll go! Your crosswind component for taxi is around 25Kts, so at a large airport with a fair distance to go, just getting to the threshold can be a saga. Take it easy.

Some models have stowable pedals. Looking at the crash-comics, it seems these may not be as wonderful as advertised and need to be treated with caution. Remove them, or install fixed ones if necessary for endorsements. The RH side pedals can be jammed by loose objects or cargo in turbulence; it’s almost impossible to rectify in flight, so make sure everything is securely stowed.

On a rough field, flaps are best kept retracted until you line-up. With flaps down, an angle is formed between flap and wing, so flexing of the wings may lead to uneven forces being placed on the whole flap-surface via the attachment and activation mechanisms, leading to stress-cracks in the flap trailing-edge.

One of the great advantages of the tail-wheel, is the ability to pivot the aircraft around one main, almost turning in the width of the aircraft, -real handy in airstrip operations and restricted spaces. On concrete or tarmac, be kind to the undercarriage by letting the inside wheel inch forward slightly which allows the tyre to line-up with the rest of the aircraft. This releases the stresses on the tyre, axle and gear-leg that occur otherwise, especially if using big, low-pressure tyres. Next issue relates to the speed of these turns. It is easy and fast to just jump on one brake and she’ll do a 180˚ turn in a couple of seconds. Sitting as you are on the pivot point, this seems OK. But, bear in mind that the extremities of the aircraft are 15-20 feet away, undergoing substantial acceleration and deceleration forces (and have a fair bit of inertia) so you are probably creating a fair twisting-moment too. All these forces are coming from directions the aircraft is not really stressed for, especially the tail-spike which will quite probably chose a moment like this to fail. It is twisted by the sideways movement and it was during such a manoeuvre that mine fell off. I have been told that these ground-loop type turns cause as much wear on the airframe as just about anything else. A mathematician could work it out, but to take a few extra seconds turning around seems easy enough.

Some thoughts on taxiing with a crosswind: a wind from the right is not so bad as brake will hold the tail around, while power used against brake (OK, so there’s an exception to every rule...) will also turn the tail into wind. When the wind is from the left, things get a bit harder. At around 15-25kts crosswind -depending on load, slope and surface, the aircraft will not hold straight on brake, so weathercocks into wind. Right hand brake and heaps of power will not bring it around, but due to gyroscopic effects (ask someone else!) a tail-lifting force is produced. Next thing you know, an empty 185 can nose-over, hit the prop and damage the tail on the way back down! Ouch! Two people I know have had this happen to them, so it is not just a theoretical possibility. One option, if attempting a 90˚ right-hand turn, is just make a 270˚ left-hand turn! At one particular airport with a sloping taxiway and the afternoon trade winds, the turn left to go right was the only way! ATC might wonder where you are going at first, but it works and is much less conspicuous than tipping up or going nowhere. Full flap can help ground handling sometimes, depends on the wind. The brakes will heat up on a long taxi and lose effectiveness; sometimes a pause is needed for them to cool. Good news is, not much runway will be needed once you get to it, so head upwind to an intersection if possible and once on the active, just head into wind and go, rather than lining up on the centreline -too hard on real windy days. One thing, due to the fact that they weathercock during a strong gust, I have never heard of one blowing over in the taxi phase.

---

Take-off

Prior to line-up, check the magnetos, cycle the prop, set the trim, select two notches of flap, push the mixture and prop controls in, check fuel selectors and contents. Really that’s it. Everything else is secondary.

There are however, two problems you may face here:

• Leaving the side of the runway still on the ground, and
• Reaching the end of the runway, still on the ground.

As a rule, the take-off phase of flight is a reasonably simple affair -unless the engine stops. In a C-185 however, it is complicated by the ground handling properties and made worse by the use of full power! On an airstrip with poor braking-action and a tail-wind, it may not be possible to control the aircraft in the early stage of the attempted take-off. This is an extreme case and two solutions are to point about 15˚ to the right of the centre line, advance power over a few seconds and hopefully it will line-up (P-factor again) and then have enough speed and prop-wash over the fin to track the runway centreline. Lightly loaded, there can be a case for a reduced-power take-off. After the first few metres, brakes will not be needed so heels on the floor! On a sloping strip, be sure you know where the centre line is -often it cannot be seen from the parking area, so from time-to-time, people spear off over a bank by mistake. A rough field calls for full forward elevator initially to get the weight off the tail wheel. When the tail is lifted there will be a further left-turning moment, so bring the tail up slowly. There is not much need to raise the tail-wheel more than a foot or so off the ground. Once above 20Kts or so the fin and rudder will be quite effective, but may not really bite until the tail has swung 15˚ or so from the line of travel. This can be quite disconcerting until you get used to it. Control the swing by briefly reducing power, causing a right turn to regain track and then smoothly power up again. With the correct attitude the Aircraft will fly when ready, speed will depend on loading and type of leading edge fitted.

Airspeed and control are more important than achieving an early lift off. Even on a short strip it’s better to use all of it and leave the end at a good flying speed, rather than unstick early and flounder along at too low an airspeed. Likewise, speed and control are preferable to vertical clearance over an early obstacle, within reason. The exception is a soft runway or long grass where it is better to get airborne and accelerate level a few feet above the ground, in ground effect.

One case where it is possible to use the entire field-length and depart at minimum flying speed is an elevated field with a drop-off at the end. This is a most useful technique in ‘hot and high’ conditions, where power is lacking. The entire length can be used for the take-off roll and around 50Kts indicated will be enough to become airborne (just) and clear the end. Pole forward to avoid a tail-strike and gain airspeed. Away from ground effect level flight will not be possible, so expect to lose between 100-400ft, until climb-speed is achieved and the rate of descent arrested. This technique can be dodgy with an aft CofG though -if you’re unable to get airborne by the end of the strip, as the thing is lobbed off into space without actually flying at all it may pitch up and stall. In any event the whole concept is better left to the very brave or very stupid.

The length of runway required can vary considerably: from a usable minimum of 250m, light at sea-level, up to around 1000m heavily loaded at altitude. Rough safe distances at MAUW of 600m at sea level increase by 50m per 1000ft gain in density altitude and halved for Pilot-only would be reasonable ballpark figures. Much less, get the performance charts out and have a look at the wind, surface and obstacles. One of the traps is to fly one around light and forget how much runway is needed when loaded. This happens mainly to private owners who may only have a few flights a year at gross and just themselves much of the time. On each take off it is a good idea to select a point where it is safe to abort and stop by the end. This point can only be guessed at by experience, but around 40Kts on the clock by half-way down the field is a good start. On a sloping, one-way field it is not uncommon to be committed to the take-off on leaving the parking bay, so it varies from place to place. One hazard in undeveloped countries is to find indigenous people or pigs on the take-off path and abort the take-off too late. Chances are they will move quickly or cause minimal damage. Same applies when landing but be prepared to leave quickly if you hit one on arrival!

Sometimes performance will be less than expected due to surface state, a wind change, engine snags or just overloading for the conditions. If you’re not happy with the way it’s developing early in the roll, abandon it. Remember, the far end of the field is a lousy place to realise it may not fly. It is far too late by then and the only hope you have is to keep going and pucker-up: an attempted abort will only result in a crash anyway. So you may as well go in at full power and make a proper job of it.

Flap settings: it is normal to use two notches for take-off. If still on the ground at the end of the field, a further notch will most likely help. There is data to suggest that the wing favours use of three notches. It would be interesting to do a trial on this. On a large, sealed runway it is likely that zero flap would reduce time to 500ft at climb speed, whilst reducing cockpit workload.

---

Climb

Once airborne a 185 is very similar any other high-performance Cessna piston single, only nicer to fly. Most of the following comments could be applied just as well to any other Cessna with the naturally aspirated Continental 470-550 series installed. As stated in the book there is strictly no need to reduce power after takeoff. Full power climbs are permitted and the 5-minute, full-power limitation on the IO-520 is only a noise consideration. Common sense suggests that to keep noise, engine wear and fuel consumption down, power is reduced, usually between 100-600ft AGL, or clear of all obstacles. A good climb speed is around 80KIAS, or at the top of the full-flap limit white arc is good, because it’s easy to spot at a glance. However 100KIAS can be a good cruise-climb speed if light and down to 70KIAS if trying to clear a ridge without turning. Normal power settings are 24”MP and 2450 RPM. Keep your fuel flow generous in the climb:, the fuel cools the engine and helps prevents cylinder cracking from overheating and lean running. Climb only lasts 10-15 minutes in most cases, so the extra fuel cost is minimal. One operator I knew leaned back to just rich of peak EGT in the climb and ordered new cylinders along with the milk and bread. Another does not touch mixture in the climb at all, has had no trouble with cylinders and reasons ‘fuel is cheap’. Personally, I lean back to top of the green, have had no problems with cylinders either, apart from those cracked due to age. Throttle settings have to be opened during the climb until, at around 6000ft density altitude, full-throttle height will be reached. Cowl-flaps should usually be open, although at higher altitudes, they can be partially closed since the engine will be producing less power and the ambient air is much cooler.

---

Cruise

Cruise altitude will depend on en-route and ATC requirements, wind, and terrain. In theory, full throttle height is most efficient, but in practice there is not much in it between sea-level and about 10,000ft density altitude. Less fuel is used the higher you go, so with favourable tail-winds up high, good ground-speeds and low fuel consumption can be yours. Apart from the savings, this gives very good range as well. Only snag is: without oxygen it is very tiring. A good idea when levelling out is to go a couple of hundred feet above the desired level and slowly descend back to it -this will help acceleration to cruise speed and sometimes allows a few extra knots. Cowl flaps can be closed at TOC and remain there until landing, though some advocate opening them a little, just prior to descent to cool the engine and then close them again at TOD.

Which brings us to engine handling: and haven’t there been tens of thousands of pages and millions of words uselessly spent on propounding and defending one Old Wives Tale (OWT) or another on this topic alone... I’ll try to keep this as painless as possible.

One of the most persistent OWT’s expounds that manifold pressure (MP) measured in inches must always be less than the RPM in hundreds, or the power-plant will immediately blow to pieces under the strain.  Briefly, utter nonsense.  Were this so, turbocharged, turbo-normalised and super-charged reciprocating engines could not exist.  Yet, this nonsense is still taught by many instructors for non-boosted, constant-speed engines. Bear in mind that the turbocharged IO-520 uses the same cylinders and compression ratio of 8:1 as the normally aspirated -520, full power is 34” boost and cruise is at 2800RPM. There is one UAV that has a turbocharged Lycoming and reportedly runs 28” boost and 800RPM!!! Fixed-pitch propeller aircraft usually climb at full throttle with no ill effect.

To further (and finally!) illustrate the nonsense of this OWT, consider this: ISA Mean Sea-Level atmospheric pressure is 1013.2Hpa or 29.92” Hg. Under those same conditions with a normally aspirated reciprocating engine, regardless of what RPM you set, you cannot achieve a MP any more than fractionally in excess of 28”.  This OWT is based on the premise of the pressure difference between atmospheric and the internal pressure of the engine.  Stated simply, the least pressure difference between internal and external pressures occurs when the engine is stopped, and pressures have had time to equalise.  Have a look at the MP gauge of a stopped engine sometime –it will be at or very close to the local barometric pressure for your elevation.  By the same token, the greatest pressure differential will be seen on an engine running at idle -20”MP difference or more.  So how could running an engine at full-throttle (the minimum pressure differential for an operating engine) cause it to catastrophically self-destruct?  It’s just not logical.  There is a wealth of worthwhile information to be found in other publications. (9)

So it would seem over-boosting a 185 engine is not an issue. Indeed having once run them at quite conservative power settings, all that I achieved was filling the valve seats and cylinders with carbon! They lost compression, as the operating temperatures were too low and combustion incomplete. Also, engine wear varies with the square of the RPM. This means an engine operated at 2000RPM will have less than half the wear of an engine operated at 3000 RPM, which seems to suggest that higher RPM will only wear the engine unless some boost is available. In a C-185, high RPM also decreases propeller efficiency; indeed much of the noise at take-off is the propeller tips going supersonic. My point is to question the practice of a cruise power setting of 24/2450; I would now look at using 24/2200 or 25/2300. More important than boost is the mixture setting which, if incorrect will cause engine damage within a very few flights. Too lean will burn valves and crack cylinders, while too rich can reduce range and leave you short at the end of the flight, plus the cost of it. Ensure that there is a functioning exhaust gas temperature gauge to set the mixture with –better yet, you’ll have balanced injectors fitted and proper engine-management systems installed so you know what is going on in your engine. Guessing from MP, RPM and fuel-flow may not work -one or more of the gauges may be giving false readings.

On climb, keep fuel flow up and EGT down as discussed earlier, but in the cruise just rich of peak seems to be best. At lower power settings like a steep descent or holding, peak EGT can be used as the engine can then handle it at the lower power setting.

Turbulence can be a worry during cruise and descent, however in a C-185 it is more a matter of discomfort than danger. Most likely due to the use of struts, and in common with all the other Cessna singles with struts, these aircraft are extremely robust. The occupants will give up before the aircraft, as proven by some clown in a C-172 who, equipped with crash helmet, full harness and parachute flew through the wake of a Boeing 727. He came out with bruises and some moderate injuries, but the 172 was undamaged.

One job I flew involved flying in the mountains in gale-force winds. The result was constant moderate to severe chop. It was uncomfortable, but did not appear to loosen any rivets. Neither did the dive through a hole in cloud, which ended up at the red-line in the same conditions. I am not suggesting anybody try these things, just trying to illustrate that the C-185 will stay together, when many other similar aircraft with no struts may not. In fact I doubt a 185 has ever broken up in the air. Within reason then, it is a problem a 185 pilot need not worry about too much, but common sense dictates that when it gets rough, take it easy and slow down.

Do not use rapid control inputs except on the rudder when landing or taking off. Especially in the ailerons at high speed, this can twist the wing and then it will not fly straight. One of the greatest dangers can be from loose objects thrown around the cabin as discussed earlier, so ensure all is tied down securely.

Some points on mountain flying, although it is really a separate topic covered by other material:  be very careful when flying down-wind towards high or rising ground -it is very easy to run out of room and hit it. Always leave room to turn away from any high ground ahead. Against all logic, it is possible to lose a great deal of height very quickly indeed. Mountain waves can be insidious. There doesn’t need to be exceptionally high winds either and the rapid altitude change can be quite unsettling. If caught in a mountain wave, you can be carried up or down at 1000fpm or much more and feel you have lost control of the aircraft. It is disconcerting. If possible, the best bet is to turn down-wind; the high groundspeed will carry you directly away from the undesirable part of the wave. Even in an empty aircraft at low level it is possible to be forced into the ground unless some action is taken. In a strong mountain wave, heading into it at best climb speed will literally get you nowhere. You might experience it infrequently enough for complacency to set in; for me only once every few hundred hours. Remember that at altitude little excess power is available and the aircraft will have a TAS higher than IAS, so once again leave plenty of room for any anticipated manoeuvring and remember it may not be possible to conduct a brisk, level turn.

---

Descent

For a normal descent, take your height above the field in thousands of feet and multiply by 3 to get TOD distance from destination in nautical miles. So at 6000ft for a sea-level landing, start your descent at 18NM out and an 800 ft per minute rate of descent will bring you in nicely. Just bring the power back a bit and speed will come up to 140-170KIAS, depending on how the aircraft is set up. In normal use, reserve flying in the yellow arc of the ASI to near-calm days. Comments earlier on turbulence are only included because this is not always possible. Don’t forget to gradually reduce MP and enrich your mixture during the descent.  Watch your T’s & P’s too, to avoid shock-cooling your engine.  If you have no terrain or ATC descent restrictions, consider a 5:1 descent instead of a 3:1: the lower ROD is easier on the ears and gives a slightly smaller speed increase over a longer time. Parachute dropping pilots have a need to get down faster, as can those mountain-flying or descending through a break in cloud. There are two main ways of doing this: easiest is a straight line descent, just reduce power to around 18”MP and get airspeed up to around 160KIAS. As long as the cowl flaps are closed, this has been proven not to shock cool the engine and it will come down real quick. Second is a spiral descent with full or 3 notches of flap. You might find yourself doing this to get down through a hole in cloud, into a valley. Set the power back to 16”/2000, bring the speed back to 55-65KIAS, put the flap out and roll in about 60˚ AoB. Ideally, it will require full-aft elevator and you then control angle of bank and airspeed with aileron, a low speed spiral dive in other words. It will give a rate of descent of around 2000 FPM and require a very small radius. Snag is quite high G-forces are involved, so it is hard on the body, needs a high degree of concentration and does impose some stress in the aft end. In near instrument conditions, when all you can see is the airfield below in heavy rain or thick smoke, there is danger of becoming disorientated and ending up inverted, so keep a close eye on the artificial horizon or the ground. If cargo is on-board, consider the deck angle or else it may all come forward to meet you. Try not to do this with passengers on board either as they may find it disconcerting. The same method works in larger general aviation aircraft such as the Islander, C-402 and Bandeirante. Also handy if you get caught in an up-draught from a thunderstorm or wave conditions downwind of a mountain range in a gale and in danger of being sucked up into the cloud.

On reaching bottom of descent and joining the circuit, it can be difficult to get speed back to the flap range in the early models. One solution is to fly downwind at 500’ instead of 1000’ and pull up on the turn to base leg to lose speed. Occasionally someone on the field may complain, but I find telling them to piss off and mind their own business works well. There is no regulation against it. If a cargo-pod and large tyres are fitted, slowing down will not be a problem as the drag cuts into the top speed on descent considerably. In a later model with the 120Kt initial flap speed think about giving it a 10Kt margin, otherwise you risk twisting the rear spar. Downwind just check the mixture is in for a possible go around and on finals push the prop control in. Some open the cowl flaps on final in preparation for go around as well. I figure it is a distraction and an aborted landing is rare enough not to require it, so open them on landing. Like many of these things it is a matter of personal preference.

---

Landing

Landing is the interesting and lively part of C-185 flying, where from time to time it all goes wrong. For the most part it is simply a skill that requires practice, but the following ideas may help. Consider your landing distance required to be the same as your take-off distance required –that way you’ll never try to get into somewhere you can’t get out of.  Other than that, there are three main areas you need to consider: the touchdown, the slowdown, and ensuring the whole thing stops before the end.

The approach comes first and a normal 3˚ approach applies, regardless of airfield slope. Speed depends on whether a wheel or three-point landing is intended, whether there is a flat or sloping field, type of leading edge and loading. But 65KIAS is a good base figure, plus or minus 10kt, depending on what you are up to. The mathematically inclined can work out stall speed for the weight: use 1.3V_s for normal landings or 1.1V_s for short landings. Add 1 knot for every 2% slope and half the headwind component to allow for gusts. A little experience will soon allow you to pick a figure out of your nose though.

On the subject of slope, it is possible to land on some impressively steep places with a few in PNG having sections of around 20%. There are few public roads built of any more than 15%, so we are talking steep here! The main points are: practice, normal 3˚ glide-slope, extra speed to cope with a 23% round out, probable max power to make it to the top of the strip once on the ground and having somewhere level enough to park at the top. If it is a 400 metre strip at altitude with a tailwind, expect a 90Kt ground-speed, which requires a strong sphincter, but once used to it, the slope will wash speed off very quickly. In fact, the brakes will hardly be needed and once used to it I worried more about the short, flat, wet places. Visually these types of landings can be quite overwhelming at first, with the combination of high speed and the field disappearing up the top of the windscreen. I mention it because in a single it is good to know what is possible for use in an emergency.

For the inexperienced, the best way to land is the three-point landing. Same technique as a nose-wheel Cessna: just get a few inches above the surface, ease the power and stick back until holding full-aft elevator, then wait until the aircraft gently stalls onto the ground. A small skip is normal, but a big bounce is unlikely, since airspeed is so low by touchdown. It is really quite simple and not much harder than landing a C-172, especially when light. Starters are best to use this method, keep the back seat empty and land on decent sized fields, into wind for the first few hours. Before long they will feel quite confident and wonder what all the fuss is about! In these conditions, it is not hard. Down-sides are forward visibility is limited, it can be hard to touchdown at the desired spot, can damage the tail-wheel area when fully loaded, a gust of wind can loft you back into the air, as can undulations on a rough strip. The latter two and just plain getting it all wrong can cause quite large bounces, often made worse by inappropriate pilot responses. On a very short field, the 3-pointer is best, but requires skill because it is so easy to touch-down short of the threshold or float the length of the strip and run off the end.

The other extreme is the wheel landing where the aircraft is flown onto the ground at a much higher speed in a tail-high attitude. With no nose-wheel to get in the way, once the mains touch, pole forward to reduce the angle of attack on the wings and put the aircraft weight on the mains for optimum braking. Doing so will stop any tendency to bounce, even though flying speed may still exist. Some even touch down with light pressure on the brakes, so that on ground-contact the tail rises automatically, but this can be hard on the tyres. The tail can be allowed to rise quite high at this stage. With the high speed, a nose-over will not occur, but it may at lower speeds. Touchdown can be reasonably firm as long as the tail is kept high to prevent a bounce. It is possible to get a foot or two above the ground and simply pole forward to achieve a positive landing. Advantages are higher speeds are possible, which is handy at a large airports where you may be pursued down finals by a jet and speed is of the essence.

A desired touchdown point can be selected and landed on quite accurately. Forward visibility is good as is braking with all the weight on the main wheels. In gusts the aircraft is less likely to become airborne again as the required AoA has been reduced by the tail high attitude. The tail assembly is safe from damage -it will not touch the ground until later in the landing roll. Disadvantages are that due to the higher speed the wheeler method can simply use up too much runway, no good for short-field operations. Due to touching down well above the stall, bounces can be high and numerous with heavy impacts from them if it all goes wrong. Harder on the brakes due to higher speeds.

The best compromise is what is best termed a tail-low wheeler or a 3-pointer without the flare and the tail-wheel touching the ground. Approach at say 65KIAS, aiming at a point about 50m into the field. Touch-down will be with the mains at the required point and in a slightly tail-low attitude, because the speed is lower than a classic wheeler. Effect the touchdown as described for the wheeler. You can now get the tail back up and get on the brakes to slow down without floating down the strip like a 3-pointer. It takes practice to do well, but once mastered is a sound way of landing especially on rough strips at MAUW. Allows a reasonably short landing in control, with a moderate risk of a bounce and saves the tail-wheel and spike as they do not touch the ground until later. If kept straight the C-185 will absorb a lot of punishment. One PNG strip gave me a sore back and most other aircraft such as the C-206 and Islander needed much extra maintenance, but it never seemed to bother the C-185. The ski-plane experience with them also bears this out.

As in the take-off, during a x-wind landing the tail may swing around a few degrees before the fin comes into play and catches it. There can be a delicate balancing act between various forces on a crosswind, which can see some quite interesting crab angles. The key is to keep your feet moving and make numerous, small adjustments early to keep on-line. This is one case where rapid and full control movements can be quite appropriate, if needed. Concentrate on the middle distance, not the bit of ground just in front of the aircraft. The tail is best kept a foot or two off the ground for as long as practical, especially if heavy and on a rough strip. The aircraft weight will be on the mains, you’ll have better visibility and less chance a flat tail-wheel causing you grief. A three-point landing on a very short field will make this impractical. Seal is much worse than grass -the tyres grab and a touch-down with any crab angle gets interesting. If possible, use the grass and if low-time on-type, keep the back seat empty on seal until you’ve had a bit of experience. Cross wind technique is the same as for any other aircraft, but the limit is lower at around 12Kts. A wind from the right is much more manageable than one from the left though. By turning into wind on a wide runway at the end of the landing it is possible to handle a much higher limit.

There is no advantage to having an overly tail-high attitude. A risk here is that you will be thrown forward by the deck-angle and onto the brakes. Then the aircraft can tip over, even at quite high speed. Heavy braking should be used early if needed, but towards the very end of the roll, stay light in the brakes. Excessive use here risks building up material in front of the wheels that can tip the aircraft on its back at very low speed. Interestingly there is no risk of prop strike as such: by the time the prop hits, the machine is already almost vertical and on the way over. Some pilots prefer to dump the flap as soon as positively on the ground to get more weight on the wheels and reduce the chance of a bounce. I find it a distraction at a critical phase of flight, so do not do this.

Over-running the field is the next issue. Causes are using a strip too short for the conditions and load, landing too far down and running out of room, losing the brakes or finding little or no braking available due surface conditions. Down-wind landings are worth avoiding in a C-185. It makes directional control quite difficult in the latter stages of landing and needs a long field. Load will increase the landing distance required, since inertia equals the mass times the velocity squared. The mass of a C-185 can almost double and the approach speed increases as well. Because a small increase in speed means a large increase in landing distance, accurate maintenance of the correct approach speed is critical in the final stages.

Remember that mountain strip you visited alone? It may get to be short at one end with a few mates and a couple of crates of beer on board! Landing at a nominated point on the field should be practiced, even if your runway is long enough not to matter. Then when required, the skill is there. As noted earlier check the brakes are in top order at all times. One big trap is a poor braking surface. Damp clover and lucerne, newly cut crops, moss, hay, saturated turf and wet, smooth seal can all surprise with next to no braking action. Often it is not possible to determine the braking action from the air, so if uncertain have a good look, get the speeds back and don’t waste any runway. In these conditions bigger tyres are worst for braking, as they will not dig in and break the surface. As with a take-off, after a certain point there is no option but to land. In bush operations this point can be on turning finals and on a short level strip with a go around it is around the normal touchdown point. Try one on a medium size field and it can be surprising how much room is needed with a full load. Often a landing will go wrong and the pilot will attempt to go around far too late in the game. The result is a higher speed crash that may hurt, where otherwise there would have been a low speed impact or none at all.

As for this bouncing caper, it happens to all of us, even those with thousands of hours on type. Usually the bigger the audience, the greater the likelihood and the greater the magnitude of the bounce! The key issue in a bounce is to recover the aircraft whilst avoiding damage. If the recovery effort gets out of phase with the aircraft bounce-cycle, the bounces will get heavier, higher and more damaging. Be prepared to go-around and start again. If the next landing is a good one, there is no loss of pride and fuel is cheap. On a one-way strip there may be no option but to ride it out because to attempt a go-round risks running out of space. Once did this and ended up with turf in the brake disk, scraped the pod and touched the tail-spike on the tail-cone. That was with the big 8.50 tyres too, so they really are quite robust! The single passenger vacated via the baggage door and fled into the jungle, in spite of the fact this was not the destination. It’s difficult to describe how best to recover from a bounce, as there are too many variables. So I will not attempt to do so. Work it out.

Once on the ground it is understandable to relax a bit, especially if it has been a rough trip. A normal response in most aircraft, but a big mistake in a C-185 –that’s when she’ll bite you in the arse. They will survive positive arrivals and bounces within reason if kept straight. What does the damage and keeps many rebuild shops busy is C-185’s and C-180’s that have ground-looped. This occurs in the deceleration phase of the landing, below about 30Kts, and many at quite low speed. The cause is failure to keep the aircraft straight as described in any book on tail wheel handling.  Many of the issues mentioned in the taxi and take-off notes arise here as well, but late in the landing-roll it is much more difficult to control and correct, due to the deceleration and loss of aerodynamic control. If the wind is anywhere but directly on your nose, it is going to try to weather-cock your aircraft.  Your CofG is behind your mains, but as it weather-cocks it tries to overtake the rest of the aircraft, accelerating into a ground-loop.  How fast you are going at the time decides the severity of the event.  The only solution is to keep your aircraft straight.  Early in the landing-roll, that’s easy: you still have effective airflow over your fin and rudder, assisted by differential brakes.  Once you decelerate below around 30Kts you lose that aerodynamic control and rely instead only on the differential braking.  At times, a little blast of throttle to get some airflow over the fin & rudder may help, but it doesn’t do anything to help slow you down!

In a C-185, you’re still flying it until its shut-down and on the pickets for the night!!!

---

Emergencies

There is no change to the standard engine-failure drill for forced landings in a C-185. If you are forced to put-down in a very small clearing or beach, it may be an idea to pole-forward and lock-up the brakes as soon as you are firmly on the ground. The aircraft will flip, but it will stop in a very short distance with relatively little damage. The occupants should be safe from harm with the wing below and the tail-section to absorb any impact. It would take some nerve to actually do this but in theory it sounds like a good idea. Partial engine failures are actually more common. Mainly from magneto failures, cracked cylinders and blocked injectors. In all these cases the engine will run with some vibration, but performance will be affected and it may not be possible to maintain altitude. Remember to use the electric fuel pump if an engine failure occurs, often the problem is the fuel control unit or mechanical pump. Early model C-185’s did not have fuel selectors; the only real use was to isolate a leaking tank. So pilots who have flown a machine without them can easily forget they exist, being out of sight as well. It is then possible to fly one which does have them and suffer an engine failure if only one tank is selected. I know this because it happened to me. Even if the mistake is realised and the tanks changed, it takes a little time for the engine to catch again. This is due to the one-gallon header tank on the floor, so check those selectors and maintain your fuel-log.

---

Maintenance

Some notes on common maintenance snags which often occur. These are mainly related to cylinders, brakes, fuel cells and the tail-wheel:

The cylinder barrels are steel with an alloy head, so after a few thousand hours they can crack around the join and in extreme cases the head can separate completely. There will be significant vibration should this occur and some oil loss, but the engine will still run and allow a landing somewhere -unless you are having a very bad day. The cause is thermal stress, as the different metals expand and contract at different rates when heated and cooled. So it is the rate of change of temperature as much as the actual CHT. Use the cowl flaps, sensible mixture settings and try and make smooth changes in power settings. They will still crack with age, despite the best of care and attention. The greatest temperature-change ever is after shutting down with a brisk, cool breeze blowing through the cowling. Close the cowl flaps and consider blocking the front intakes in these conditions. Most likely you will have a plywood bird-blocker for the air intakes anyway. After about 1500hrs, cracks become reasonably common and after about 3000hrs just expect it and have a spare one in the hangar. Oversized cylinders are the worst as the walls are thinner and they are older, which is why they have been bored out. Ideally new ones would be fitted at every full overhaul as Lycoming suggest, and their pots are better than the TCM ones. That would be quite expensive though. The best compromise may be to buy new when one cracks instead of going for a repair. There is not a great price difference now. Mostly these cracks will show up on a compression-test rather than causing problems in flight. It is largely a matter of inconvenience due to downtime and the remote spot fate will force you to land on. I once had a bad vibration in flight and all compressions on landing were good. The cracks can close up again when cooler. That particular cylinder blew 50hrs later and stranded me in a remote area. Be very aware of CO2 poisoning if gas escapes from a cracked cylinder and finds a way into the heating and ventilation system. Once had this and was lucky it was a short flight, it is very insidious and extremely dangerous. So, keep the exhaust, heater system and air hoses in good order too. Mine were very ordinary at the time.

Fuel-cells, caps and drains can be real problem. All C-185’s are old enough now to have had trouble with rubber fuel cells. With age, the outlet pipes become hard, crack and leak. Apart from the fire hazard, the mess is considerable. The black stuff in the lining can also peel off and block the fuel system and ripples in the bladders can make it hard to get any water out. When this happens, it is time to install new bladders. They are not much more expensive than reconditioned and a lot cheaper than a crash. Fibreglass tanks are also available.  Either way, don’t mess around with the old ones when they give trouble, they’re just not worth the drama.

The old flush fuel-caps are a hazard. The O-ring can let water in and your aircraft just won’t run on water. I took off with a pint of water in the system and the engine stopped 19 minutes later when on high finals, coasted in. The fuel check had revealed 100% water, so it looked clear. Raised caps should be installed by now. If not, do so. They are quite cheap and very worthwhile.

Fuel drains can stick and stay open after checking for water. Standing alone on an airfield on a cold morning with a thumb over the drain and avgas seeping down to the armpit, wondering what to do next is a low point in life. So, keep a spare one on the glove box along with a spanner. Failing that just a stud the right size to block the hole will do.

On rough or soft-field operations the tail-wheel can cause problems. Standard ones are a little small and tend to dig into the ground, and suffer flat tyres. Tail-wheel shimmy can be a major problem. If on landing the panel turns to a blur and the pedals try to break your ankle, that’s it. An overhaul of the tail-wheel shim-dampers is the solution. Pilot technique can also reduce this by keeping the tail-wheel off the ground. A larger tail-wheel has many advantages too, beyond the lower likelihood of tail-wheel shimmy -better visibility out the front as well. With no load it is possible to fly to the maintenance base and hardly use a flat tail-wheel. Elevators, brake and power will keep the tail up, even from a standing start to a dead stop. Take care not to tip over though. Also with heavy use the tail spike can fatigue and break. They are hollow, so if stuck find a 3/8” reinforcing rod, weld a plate on one end for a skid and bash the other into the hole. That will get you home.

Some operators fly more than they write. There is little if any advantage in understating hours in a C-185. No airframe components are time limited. Most engines require a top-overhaul at half-life and again at around 1700 hrs. This will usually occur regardless of what is in the books. Often money will be wasted on a worn engine because the logbook says there should be life left in it. The big mistake is to delay oil changes and run over the 50hr limit. With mineral oil, there is a good argument for changing at 30hrs. At this stage it breaks down, goes black, consumption goes up and lubrication properties rapidly reduce. I know an agricultural operator who changes at 30 and the engines are very clean and show little wear at overhaul time. Some modern synthetic oils should be good for more than 30 Hrs. With a quick-drain sump, an oil change is quick, cheap, and can be done by the pilot. In a cool climate where temperatures get below freezing at night a simple oil heater like a light bulb will greatly reduce engine wear on start up. Otherwise it flows like syrup and takes some time to reach the top end. Really cold climates like Alaska are a specialised area I know little about. Apparently they take the oil out at night and keep it warm somehow.

---

Modifications

As mentioned earlier the C-185 can be customised to suit your needs. If this is carried too far though, it does pose the question of whether it is the right type for the job at all. For example: buy a Centurion for speed or a Beaver for heavy-duty short-field work. For lighter strip-work look at a Piper Cub (a classic!), C-170 if you can find one or even a tail-wheel C-152. An easy to fly personal aircraft with the same performance as a C-185 is the C-182.

The most useful add-on is probably the cargo-pod. These allow room for 6 people and their bags, or just more cargo. Cruise speed is reduced by about 5Kts and more in the descent, where airspeed will not get far into the yellow arc. If it all goes wrong and one of the gear legs is ripped out, the pod will absorb much of the damage that would occur otherwise. If however it is a private machine and you can get all your friends and relatives in the back of a Piper Cub with a spare seat, a pod will not be needed.

Leading edge and wing tip mods come in various shapes and forms. They improve low-speed handling. Most work well; it really depends on whether the extra cost and weight is justified. The old symmetrical leading edge may not be the best on paper, but does give plenty of warning of a stall. Bear in mind that an airspeed of 35Kts, which is possible with these kits, is faster than that, because the indicated and actual airspeeds diverge at these low speeds. Also the stall when it arrives, can be quite sudden. At high-altitude, lower approach speeds cannot be used safely since the power needed may not be available. This is more the realm of the Islander with its 39KIAS stall. Be aware of gusts at low speed. A 20Kt wind at 60KIAS is a third of your airspeed. Come back to 40KIAS, it is half. My point is to question whether an approach much below 60KIAS is a good idea regardless of stall speed. But if used as a safety buffer for bad days, leading edge kits can be a great asset. Would have ended myself in the PNG jungle back in ‘92 without one. That’s a pretty hefty recommendation, come to think of it. Presumably they’ll also help the aircraft blow off the pickets in a gale... The only wing mod that does not make sense is flap gap-seals. Fowler flaps work by allowing the air to flow from the top of the wing under the flap, so preventing this does not seem sound. I have doubts about very droopy wing-tips as well -any aerodynamic benefit must seem small after hitting your head on one!

Tyre size can be varied up to 8.50 on the standard rim; speed will be reduced but most useful on soft fields. Go easy on the brakes though, on a sealed runway tyre creep can occur with big tyres at low pressure. Wheel spats increase speed by about 5KIAS and can make up for that lost by a pod. They also keep the bottom of the wing clean and make a good step. But they can harbour quite a bit of mud or ice, adding up to quite a weight. Plus some people think they just do not look right on a C-185. But, the rest of the Cessna range have them. Small tail wheels can be replaced by bigger ones if they are not up to the job and I think stronger tail springs are available as well, have seen one somewhere.

Early models did not come with refuelling steps or handles on the strut and forward of the door-post. These are most useful and well worth adding, saves falling off the strut when nothing else is available. As mentioned earlier, grab handles in the aft end will reduce the chance of ground-handling damage on the skins and elevator.

Inside, just a couple of really handy things: articulated seats in the front allow adjustment from desired position on the ground to see out to that in cruise with the tail up. They go up and down as well making them a must for short, stumpy, sawn off and vertically challenged people. Inertia reel full-harness seat belts for the front, or even just for the pilot side, are worth a look. The passenger can use a fixed full harness and I have used one on the pilot side as well. In a C-185 though, it is essential to be able to reach the flap lever on landing, just when a crash is most likely. A fixed harness does not allow this and has to be loosened off for landing, kind of missing the point. Single diagonal shoulder straps and lap straps only are next to useless. These aircraft have a very strong cabin area in a crash, so proper belts to help prevent head injury are well worth it. In high-risk work and heavy turbulence, a light helmet can have a place if there are no passengers.

Avionics are a matter of choice. With GPS now the basis of may panels, it can be a good GPS/NAV/Comm with a back up radio. Many aircraft are full of old, obsolete nav gear that often doesn’t even work. In my opinion, it clutters up the panel and all needs to be flung out to save weight.

Autopilots may be useful if a great deal of IFR flying is done, but most C-185’s tend to be VFR and fly quite straight on their own.

Noise is an issue in the clean-green new century and the C-185 must be about the noisiest aircraft for its size in the world. It is mainly to do with the prop tips going supersonic at high RPM, creating that distinctive scream on take-off. Apparently there is little advantage in the long two bladed props over the 82 inch one. There may be a mod to cut the 86 and 88 inch ones back. For parachute work where noise is a real issue, a modern 3-blade prop offers a significant noise footprint reduction. As do the old 3-blade ones, but these have a slight performance penalty. They offer better ground clearance and with a pod on, may not even touch if a leg is ripped out. Mostly common sense actions such as avoiding built up areas, whinging trampers and keeping the RPM down will help our case and reduce the chance of restrictions. If on the other hand you think ‘stuff the poor’ and let them go deaf while burning as much of the world’s oil as possible, get an 88 inch prop with the 300HP motor. Dunno if it performs any better, but the whole province will know when you are off somewhere. The noise will wake the dead on take-off and climb.

The Missionary Aviation Fellowship has developed two good mods that I have only ever seen on MAF or ex-MAF aircraft. One is an emergency fuel system, which when activated, puts fuel directly into the intake manifold. Thus most of the fuel-supply system failures can be bypassed. It will get you home. The other moves the battery from behind the cabin to the left-hand front of the firewall. The movement in CofG must be considerable and most useful where the aft compartment is used. If flown light, perhaps not a good idea. A C-185 can have a forward CofG with just the pilot on board -not a big problem, but increases the chance of tipping over. The one I knew with a forward mounted battery did just that. These are just some of the mods available. They can all have a place -just beware of gilding the lily, so to speak.

Currency and training

Sometimes, C-185 owners will have a few bad experiences and avoid flying them unless they have to. This is not sound thinking as currency is important. If privately owned the extra cost of flying them is minimal, most only do about 100hrs a year, some less. For maintenance and proficiency reasons it is better to do 100hrs annually at least. The extra cost from say 50-100hrs is not much more than the fuel, since the engine will run out on calendar time and they need an annual anyway. Insurance is a fixed cost and should actually be cheaper for those who fly regularly. Looking at privately owned aircraft in New Zealand, few of them will ever wear out, but the fleet has an abysmal record of landing accidents. Indeed almost all of them have been crashed at some point, supporting a case for better training and currency.

Currency on its own is not much use if the skills being practiced are not appropriate. So training is important, but appropriate training is essential. Most private owners and some CPL’s receive little more than a bare endorsement and so blunder along, learning a little more with each fright until they either master it or not. I know this because that is how I learnt to fly them, prompting these notes. Most private owners are quite good pilots and need to be keen on the aircraft to own them, but should consider independent, experienced advice from time to time on how the machine is best flown and used. Properly done this can be a fun and educational thing that will increase confidence. Otherwise it is possible to start doing strange things and not realise if operating alone. Certainly a C-185 is not for the faint-hearted, but once mastered it is really not that difficult and for the most part is great fun.

At the other end of the scale, over-confidence can be a problem. From time to time, some character will decide to `show us what you can do in a 185’, but push the limits too far and metal will bend eventually. It is this group that tends to have the very serious, high-speed accidents. Sometimes the question is not whether something is possible or if the pilot has the skill, but if it is a good idea. An example is landing at a marginal spot if a good one is only a few minutes’ drive away.

For some reason, fatal accidents are rare. So while the landing accidents go off the graph, the C-185 appears to be one of the safest single-engine piston aircraft. Possibly because a certain amount of skill is needed just to get airborne, so the truly incompetent stay away. Plus it is a strong airframe with good climb performance, but not the high speed in cruise and descent of a high performance retractable that can get people in trouble.

---

 

I’ll give the soapbox a rest now.

I hope these notes are useful. It is not what you know that will cause trouble, but what you don’t know. Above all, enjoy flying these things. That’s what it should all be about.

________________________________________________________________

Postscript and DISCLAIMER:

If anyone thinks these notes are useful, use them, add to them, pass them on or whatever. I do not pretend to know all there is to know about the C-185, or flying and my experiences may vary from others. The landing section did not get across what I was after, but that is the best try. I have a boring airline job now and looking at the completed notes, realise it really is a Cowboys guide. I wouldn’t attempt those 1,000 hours again and must be living proof that ignorance is bliss, as I enjoyed it all at the time. Now 500hrs can go by without a flicker on the pulse. While intending to be anonymous in case some prick sues me for crappy advice my e-mail is: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Due to junk-mail, it may not work.

---

 

 

1. Wikipedia. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_185.

2. Plourde, Harvey S. The Compleat Taildragger Pilot. The Compleat Taildragger Pilot. 1991.

3. (RET), Col R.L. Upchurch USMC. Taming the Taildragger. Taming the Taildragger. 2003.

4. (unknown). Taildragger Tactics. Taildragger Tactics. 2004.

5. General Aviation Reading series. Conventional Gear: Flying a Taildragger. [book auth.] David Robson. Conventional Gear: Flying a Taildragger. 2001.

6. Ball, John. Taming the Taildragger: A Flight Manual for Classic Tailwheel Aircraft. Taming the Taildragger: A Flight Manual for Classic Tailwheel Aircraft. 1987.

7. AOPA Flight Training. Transitioning to Taildraggers. [book auth.] Mike Collins. Transitioning to Taildraggers. s.l. : Mass Market Paperback, 2005.

8. Cessna 185 Skywagon. Manny Puerta, Jack Ronalter, and John Hirons. s.l. : Amazon, 14 July 2007, The Aviation Consumer.

9. Deakin, John. Pelican's perch. AvWeb. [Online] 2009. http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182146-1.html.

Most of these reference works are available for purchase via Amazon.com at: http://www.amazon.com.

Additional Web Links:

Australian Cessna 180/185 Club: http://www.skywagon.info

International 180-185 Club: http://www.skywagons.org/

International 180-185 Club –discussion forum: http://www.skywagons.org/forum/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

This article is also available as a PDF Download.

---

 As most of you will be aware, Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM) poorly reflect the realities of operating your aircraft.  They are a document predominantly prepared by lawyers (some would say for lawyers) apparently with the intention of minimising and limiting the manufacturers' liability exposure due to the use and misuse of their products, rather than with the intent of assisting the end-user (pilots) to get the best out of their aircraft.

Many AFM's are best described as a fairy-tale.  Hopelessly optimistic performance and consumption figures, operational "advice" apparently written in a lost attempt at preventing even the most ham-fisted klutz from bending metal, or worse. It seems manufacturers, regulators -and industry- would prefer to legislate "solutions" to issues rather than train pilots properly -or provide clear, concise, accurate information.  Have you ever wondered why later model Cessna 172's had the maximum flap-setting available reduced from 40˚ to 30˚?

LIMITATIONS: The Limitations section(s) of your AFM, including but not limited to: Loading, W&B, Structural Load limits, V-speeds and any other limiting information, contains empirical data established by test-pilots under strictly controlled conditions and must always be respected. Do Not exceed AFM Limitations under any circumstances.

 

It seems that (predominantly in the USA) there were several crashes of 40˚-flap equipped 172's during an attempted missed-approach -with 40˚ of flap extended, despite the fact that the AFM directed a reduction of flap immediately after the application of power for the missed approach.  Enter the lawyers... under the ridiculously litigious American legal system, victims of such inept mishandling by the pilots (or their families) were able to bring Product Liability suits against the manufacturers and, against all common sense, win massive damages awards. This whole nonsensical process very nearly sounded the death-knell for the entire GA manufacturing industry!!!  That's also why those later-model C-172's have only 30˚ flap available.

So we're trying to redress the balance somewhat, by providing absolutely non-Politically Correct information written by pilots with extensive experience in the aircraft and operations of which they write.  We're always interested in what you may be able to add too, so if you have experience of a particular airframe, operation or technique which may be of interest or benefit to others, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it -we can discuss your article!

Due to the nature of the flying conducted by the pilots that write for us and the areas and situations in which they fly, they are all too often disparagingly tagged "cowboys", usually by those who have little or no knowledge of what they do, how they do it or why they do it. In comparison to what others may be used to, I imagine that they could be perceived as cowboys, but for the knowledge, care, thought & experience that underpin every flight.  So, with that in mind, welcome to:

 

The Cowboy's Guides to:

 

The Cessna-185

The Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander

Beach Operations

Starting your Big-Bore engine

 

 

 

A Cowboys Guide to the Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander

---

Background and History:

The Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander is a 1960s British light utility aircraft, main line airliner and cargo aircraft designed and originally manufactured by Britten-Norman of the United Kingdom. The Islander is one of the best-selling commercial aircraft types produced in Europe. Although designed in the 1960s,  over 750 are still in service with commercial operators around the world. The aircraft is also used by the Army and Police forces in the United Kingdom and is a popular light transport with over 30 military aviation operators around the world. Britten-Norman was started in 1953 to convert and operate agricultural aircraft and it also produced hovercraft. Design of the Islander started in 1963 and the first prototype BN-2 first flew on 13 June 1965, with the second prototype on 20 August 1966. Both of these aircraft had engines that were less powerful than the production versions. The Islander is a high-wing cantilever monoplane with a rectangular fuselage and two-wing mounted engines. A conventional tail unit and a fixed, tricycle landing gear. The fuselage will usually accommodate one pilot and up to nine passengers. The first production Islander’s maiden flight was on 24 April 1967 and the aircraft was certified in August 1967. Production started at the Britten Norman factory at Bembridge,  Isle of Wight but within a few years, the company could not keep up with demand. A contract was placed with IRMA of Romania, initially to produce aircraft from a kit of parts, but the Romanian factory soon became the main source of Islander production. A military version of the Islander was marketed as the Defender, with under-wing hard-points and fitted out as a light troop transport and support aircraft, it was first flown in 1970.The second prototype was developed into a stretched, Super Islander but the program was stopped and the aircraft was used as a basis of the three-engined version, the Trislander. The company was in financial difficulties and by the end of 1970 went into receivership. In 1972 the company was bought by the Fairey Aviation Group and production of the Islander and Trislander was moved to their factory (Avions Fairey) in Gosselies, Belgium, although the aircraft were flown to Bembridge for final customer preparation. The new company developed the Turbo Islander with Lycoming LTP-101 turboprops, but the engines were too powerful for the aircraft and the design evolved into the Turbine Islander (BN-2T) with Allison 250 turboprops. Fairey then suffered financial problems and called in the receiver and the Fairey Britten Norman Company was sold to Pilatus of Switzerland. An improved version, the BN-2A Islander, first flew in 1969.  It incorporated aerodynamic and flight equipment improvements as well as changes to the baggage arrangements. In 1978 a further improved version, the BN-2B Islander II, was introduced. Improvements included increased carrying capacity and propeller modifications to reduce noise levels. Options included a long-nosed version for increased baggage capacity, raked wing-tip auxiliary fuel tanks and twin Allison 250-B17C turboprop engines. When the latter are installed, the aircraft is designated the BN-2T Turbine Islander. A military conversion of the Islander, the Defender 4000, is capitalising on the Islander's rugged structure for use in Third World countries. Recent purchases from police and military customers centres around use in surveillance and counter-terrorism operations. The Maritime Defender is another military version of the Islander, intended for search and rescue, coastal patrol and fishery protection.

---

Licensed production

A number of companies in addition to Britten-Norman have manufactured the Islander. IRMA from Romania has been building the aircraft since1969, including the SONACA (Fairey), in Gosselies, Belgium. The aircraft has also been assembled in the Philippines.

 

Trislander

A design project to develop an Islander with a larger capacity resulted in the BN-2A Mk. III Trislander. This aircraft has a stretched fuselage, modified landing gear and a third (tail-mounted) engine.The prototype was constructed from the original, second BN-2 prototype and flew on 11 September 1970. Further information can be found here.

The Trislander is simply 2 Islander fuses joined together with a bigger wing and tail plane. It was considered innovative in its day, but I wonder why people would not add flexibility to their operations by simply using 2 Islanders? In the latter case, the purchase price would be less and the operating cost of having 3 more undercarriage legs and one more engine could easily be offset by carrying the 2 more passenger seats...

---

General:

In my experience, the BN-2 is an aircraft seemingly fairly generally disparaged and disregarded in one Wide Brown land. It labours under the less-than-affectionate nickname of Bongo Van there and those that have flown it seem to be in an awful rush to get out of it –some of them, anyway. Obviously, theirs is not an opinion I personally share. I have spent around 1,000hrs in these wee beasties, in areas as diverse as coastal regions and beaches to the mountainous terrain of Southern New Zealand and metropolitan areas –often in the same day, sometimes in the same flight! There are few aircraft out there –single or twin- that will ever go close to doing what the BN-2 does daily, with aplomb. If you ever get the opportunity to get thoroughly acquainted with this wee lady, take it. Put all the prejudices and tales you have heard so long & often out of mind, get into her and explore her flight envelope, loading, CofG envelope and definitely her low-speed regime. Sure, she’s a bit of a noisy bitch –but show me a similar aircraft that will take whatever fits in the doors, fly it at around 140KIAS (if flown properly) and put it onto unprepared surfaces, in shocking x-winds, in a distance that could only be matched by a fling-wing. Even then, an equivalent fling-wing won’t lift the same load, lift it as far, as fast or come within a bulls-roar of the price! The BN-2 is renowned as ‘an accountant’s aircraft’ due to its consistently good returns on comparatively low operating and maintenance costs. New Islanders are hard to come by today –and even harder to justify. As is often said; “A new Islanders biggest competition –is a used Islander!”  Some pilots may come to the Islander with a handful of hours in smaller GA training twins, but for many pilots, an Islander is their 1^st multi-engine aircraft. They could have no finer aircraft to learn the  skills of their trade on. The smart ones pay attention and learn to fly the BN-2 properly, enjoy their GA time, learning new skills almost daily and move onto better things as skilled and well-rounded professional pilots. The others pretty smartly wind-up in 2-pilot crews, where there’s always someone else to keep an eye on them, -and they often find their Captains are ex-Islander drivers...

The Islander is a simple, safe, robust aircraft, originally designed as a short-haul commuter. Its sheer versatility however has seen it shine in many, varied roles world-wide, where it is still in general use in remote locations, island-hopping, tourist work, geo-magnetic survey and ambulance roles amongst others.

What those that disparage the Islander are failing to understand is that the Islander was manufactured to fill a specific niche market. That is, multi-engine short-duration legs over water or other inhospitable terrain, into and out of short, poorly prepared strips. The aircraft design concept was very much in line with that other uniquely British product, the LandRover. Both are designed to be solid, like a brick outhouse, and to carry a tonne where others cannot go.

Over 1200 Islanders have been manufactured since 1965. In that time there have been many thousands of modifications. The aeroplanes have been largely custom built for individual owners, so that means there are effectively over 1200 different model Islanders. Most of the modifications relate to only one aircraft. The way the Type Certificate holder designs each mod means that most of the mods could go onto any aircraft, even as an after market addition. In choosing such a path, the design of the Islander has grown in an evolutionary manner, rather than revolutionary. Mods that pop the design up into another niche have been largely avoided because there are other aircraft already servicing those areas. Progress has meant that whilst every Islander is a little different, any Islander is recognisable and flyable by someone with Islander knowledge and experience. So far, no one has managed a design that better suits the Islanders niche than the original Britten Norman.

Specifically note that BN, as a small manufacturer has chosen the evolutionary design change through modification path because large mod or design changes are simply too expensive to be supported by the small volume of sales.

On different model designations, these is usually a change to the base line mod state. The latest model available is the BN2C-300. It comes with an additional row of passenger windows, 3 bladed scimitar props and some other improvements over the BN2B-20 mod state.

The 3 bladed Hartzell straight props have been available for a long time. These allow much smoother and quieter operations over the traditional 2 bladed props. The scimitar 3 bladed props allow a further reduction of noise levels by enabling the achievement of full power at 70 RPM less than the older models. With either mod now available, I am surprised any Islander has 2 bladed props.

The third row of passenger windows is a recent innovation whereby a properly incorporated and reinforced mod is added in a primary structure area of the fuselage. An older FAA STC third row window is not considered safe by the type certificate holder because the STC designer did not have factory backing or calculations when cutting the holes. IE: in all probability, the older STC aircraft have written off fuselages...

The BN2T is a specific model option with an alternative engine. The idea being that not everybody can source avgas easily, and not everybody is happy with piston engine reliability. BN2T fuel flows are around 170 litres per hour versus say 120 litres per hour for a BN2B-20. With the same amount of fuel on board, clearly turbines will have slightly less range than the piston, but in most instances, people will not be using their Islanders outside the above mentioned niche. In that niche, turbine Islanders, due to the much lighter engines and the significantly higher maximum all up weight, can carry more into and out of the destination airfields.

In the surveillance or special mission role, turbine engines offer greater flexibility in terms of speed and altitude, and very long endurance/loiter times coupled with much smoother and quieter operations. IE: the turbine engine is orders-of-magnitude quieter than the piston models.

In this modern day of product liability, whilst many people want to innovate and make suggestions for improvements, it must understand that the type certificate holder has to spend money on any re-design or modification. This can be prohibitively expensive for a small manufacturer. BN prides itself on satisfying the needs of customers, and most new modifications are therefore derived from new aircraft buyers. Older aircraft owners may usually fit new mods after-market, and they often don't have to pay much of the design costs associated. If these owners want something specific, the designers will do it, but they cannot do it for free.

I have enjoyed many an hour in many an Islander. While they are not a jet fighter, they are an aircraft that serves a specific purpose. For those who operate Islanders, there is usually no other choice. Not even a PAC750XL can go everywhere an Islander goes.

---

Pre-flight:

As PinC, it is solely your responsibility to ensure the aircraft is in all respects ready for the intended flight. Allow yourself whatever time is necessary to meet that responsibility completely, whether for the 1^st flight of the day or any subsequent flight during the course of the day. Never ask someone else to pre-flight your aircraft for you, or even to dip your fuel tanks. It is your responsibility. Never execute a pre-flight or any part of a pre-flight for someone else. If you are asked to do so, best you invite them to remove themselves in short, jerky movements and get out there and do it themselves.

In common with most aircraft, its best to start your pre-flight in the cockpit. Open the crew-door and secure it back against the forward fuselage with the clip provided for that purpose. Check your fire-extinguisher, 1^st Aid kit and axe, under the pilot seat. It’s the best time to install your personal headset and any other equipment you may require now (GPS, anyone?) and check & secure your flight documents. Take the opportunity now to check your brake master-cylinder fluid-level now too –it is down near the rudder pedals. It is the reservoir for both your toe and parking brake. No fluid in there, no brakes at all. Make sure your:

• Switches are set,
• Mags & fuel-pumps off,
• Parking brake set (make sure it is set properly –not just the lever flicked-down) and
• Carb-air is selected cold.

 

 

 

A fairly typical (if basic) Islander cockpit layout, here illustrating the fuel-selectors in x-feed

 

 

You will want to grab your fuel-stick, fuel-drain tester and a good, clean rag now too. Turn your Master on, check your fuel-gauges (you’ll confirm with a tank-dip shortly), run your flaps out to their full deflection (52^o, 2 notches), turn on all your exterior and interior lights and your pitot-heats. Your 1^st lap of the aircraft is a real quick one (we don’t want to burn out the pitot-heaters) so just a quick dash along the Port leading edge, a quick touch of the pitot to check it’s heating (don’t grab it or hang onto it –they get fierce hot, fearsome quick -flay the skin right off your hand they will), check the landing light is working on the leading edge and alternating (if fitted), then around the wing-tip check the Port (red) nav-light and strobes, a quick dash behind the tail-plane to check the wee white light in the stinger and off to the Starboard wing-tip checking strobes and (green) nav-light, the other landing-light on the leading edge, the Starboard pitot-heater and back to the cockpit to get the switches and Master off. Whew!

OK, you have the aircraft configured now for a thorough walk-around. You can –and should- take your time. The 1^st start of the day, when you are doing your pre-flight and run-up, is most likely going to be the best and only opportunity you’ll have during the day to have a really good look around your aircraft, look after her and sort out any minor wee niggles. So get to work early enough that you have plenty of time for a thorough pre-flight and a proper run-up (more on that later), pre-flight planning and paper-work, and be ready to meet & greet your pax, load the aircraft and be comfortably ready for an on-time departure. The hurrieder you go, the behinder you get...

OK, given the top of the engines, tanks and associated ports and openings are above your head (well, mine anyway), I generally like to get that area knocked-over next. If you have steps – it’s easy. Just position them outboard but adjacent to your cowling and you can check oil-levels and dip your tanks from there. Do both sides. If no steps are available, the aircraft roof and wing is well strong enough to support your weight whilst you do your over-wing inspections. Climb up from the crew-door and onto the wing. Best to stay on the rivet-line that demarcates the wing-spar, just to be sure. Dip your fuel-tanks and check your oil levels (8 quarts^[1]) from there. Whilst you’re there, have a glance at your VHF and HF (if fitted) antennas and their attachment points, and make a visual inspection of your rotating beacon.

Back on the ground, start at the cockpit door, checking hinge attachments, latch mechanism, Mag-alarm over-ride switch operation and security. Check the wing-root air-inlet and the wing-root leading-edge for damage. Check the engine cowl is correctly fitted and all fasteners are secure. Open the engine fuel-drain hatch and take & check a fuel-sample from the gascolator. Make sure the fuel-drain closes properly and the hatch is securely closed. Don’t spill the fuel-sample on the ground –apart from being messy and damaging the tarmac, it’s environmentally irresponsible. You’ll need it again shortly anyway, so for the now just pour it into that good, clean rag you have with you. Check your propeller for stone-nicks (get ‘em filed out if necessary) and the spinner for cracks and security. Check the front of the engine, propeller-boss and CSU for fluid leaks and security of linkage arms. Have a look at your front cylinders for any sign of gas-leak staining, which may indicate a cracked head. Visually check plug-leads are secure and in good condition. Check the outboard engine cowl for security –and wipe off any oil or greasy finger-marks. Continue along the wing leading-edge checking for damage. Take a fuel-drain from the wing-sump, check, and –you guessed it- pour it onto your rag. Check the (by now cooler) pitot-head for security, damage and any bugs or debris obstructing the static or dynamic openings. Onto the landing-light which we already know is working, so we just check the security and cleanliness of the perspex cover. Around the wing-tip we’re looking for damage (predominantly hangar-rash), and security of the nav/strobe light assembly. Check your static-wicks as you go past and be sure your aileron horn-balance is there and secure. Manually manipulate your ailerons through their full range, whilst checking the security and movement of the hinges and actuator rods.^[2] Same for the flaps: you should get no more than 1-2mm of ‘wriggle’ at the trailing edge of the flap when manipulated. Duck under the flap; wipe your gear-leg and cowling clear of oil-stains. While you’re down at the back of your cowling have a good peer inside looking for major oil-leaks, the general appearance & condition of the engine and attached accessories, leads & lines for security. There’ll always be a bit of oil-staining around your cowls and gear-legs from the mist out of the protruding engine-breather line. It’s a normal part of Islander operation and why Islander pilots always have a rag ready to clean the legs and cowls. Further down, check your landing-gear linkages, tyre pressures and general condition (look for cuts, severe abrasions, any sign of the tyres twisting around the rim, embedded stones etc.) and a thorough inspection of your brake disc (condition) and pads (cracks^[3] or needing replacement). Check your aft Passenger door hinges for security and door latches for operation & security. Many Islander (pax) doors don’t fit so well any more –a trait they have in common with many other light aircraft. Over-enthusiastic pax take it upon themselves to slam the doors with all their physical might in the belief that it will enhance their security in-flight. That’s why so many of the older aircraft are a bit noisier and a lot draughtier than they ought to be. Be sure to stress to your pax during their pre-flight briefing that you and only you will operate the doors in any circumstances other than an immediate emergency.

Moving aft, check the hinges and security of the baggage hatch. Open-up, make sure everything you might need to be in there is there, and nothing unsecured. You’ll probably have a static-vent aft of the hatch; check it. On some aircraft there is an extra rotating beacon on the belly around here too. Have a good look at your vertical fin and tail-plane leading-edge on the way back to the elevator. You want to check the elevator thoroughly for damage (hangar-rash again) full & free movement, general condition, linkages for security, static wicks, trim-tab hinges & security and very importantly, the trim-tab itself. You should see towards the centre that the trim-tab has been split. Check the plates connecting to both sides of the tab thoroughly for cracks or wear and the control-linkages themselves. Legend has it, in the early days of the Islander’s history the trim-tab was one-piece, with only one plate connecting the linkage to the tab. That plate broke in-flight apparently. The trim-tab was more than strong enough to over power the pilots’ elevator inputs and the aircraft crashed. Check it thoroughly. The split tab would probably allow you sufficient elevator authority to make a safe landing if one side let go. I don’t know of anyone having proven that though...  Pop a finger into the tail-cone hole where the trim linkages are too, especially if you see any debris poking out of it.... birds seem to have a bit of a proclivity for building their nests in there! If that happens, it’s only 5 minutes with a screw-driver to pop the tail-cone off, clean it out & replace it. Whilst you’re down the back, take a moment to look forward –you should be able to visually check that your fuel-caps are in on the wing! Second side,pretty much same as the first. Wander forward checking static vents,flap, cowls, leg, gear, brakes, engine (fuel drain), aileron, wing-tip & lights, leading edge & lights, pitot-head, fuel-sump, prop and engine-front, wing-root, front pax-door, and forward fuselage. Thoroughly check the nose gear, particularly for tyre wear, inflation and condition and the extension of the nose-oleo. An over-extended oleo is as bad as an under-extended oleo.^[4]

Back in the drivers-seat, you can turn your Master back on and get the flaps away whilst you get yourself all emotionally prepared for the run-up. A word now on flap-extension/retraction whilst I think of it: the flap-switch is not like the Cessna flap-switches you may (or may not) be used to. A quick flick of the switch will most definitely not do. You need to consciously push the switch down the full extent of its travel and then pause for a count of 1 before you release it. If you do that, the flap will happily motor its way out to 26^o on the 1st such activation and 52^o on the 2nd activation. Do it in a hurry and just swipe the switch, I guarantee you will wind up with only a momentary, partial extension or retraction of only a few degrees. Always visually check your flap setting is what you expect to see, with no asymmetry. It only takes a second to glance over both shoulders & check for an asymmetric extension. There is also a flap-extension gauge in the overhead. Check it, be sure it’s working and appropriately. With the Master off, it is normal for this gauge to fall to the stops.

 

Run-up:

I’ve been accused of being a bit anal about my run-up’s (probably well justified), but as stated before, most likely you are going to get only the one opportunity during the day to do it properly and really look after your aircraft, so why not do it thoroughly? I reckon a pretty good rule of thumb (in ISA and ISA+ conditions) is one minute per cylinder plus an extra minute ‘because you can’. So for the Islander in ambient temperatures of 15^oC or above, I warm my engines for a total of 7 minutes at ~1200RPM before making any of the operational checks, other than a magneto dead-cut check immediately after engine start. In very cold ambient temperatures (ISA −25^oC in some cases), I’ll sit there for 20-30 minutes if necessary. Take a cup of coffee and the newspaper or a good book! Remember it’s the whole engine you want thoroughly warmed, not just your CHT! If you do it properly, you can be certain your engine is warm, the oil is up to temp (and thus the viscosity is right) and you are not unnecessarily wearing or damaging your engine due it being cold-soaked. The fuel-cost is a pittance in comparison to a blown engine. I’ve seen some people make a reduced-power take-off (NOT Islander pilots!) in the erroneous belief they’re “saving the engine” from oil-pressures over the red-line high... newsflash kiddies: all you’re doing is putting your aircraft, your pax and yourself at serious risk. If you have done a decent warm-up and run-up, your oil-pressure won’t go anywhere near the red-line. Even if your warm up was lacking, the fact that the oil-pressure goes over the red line for a few seconds on a normal, full-throttle take-off is not going to do your engine any harm at all.

On one memorable occasion, I watched a C-206 with a full load of meat-bombs barely stagger into the air at the far threshold, crossing the boundary-fence at about 10-15ft. This from a runway that the same aircraft, with the same load was usually well airborne on within half to two-thirds of the available distance. Scary, scary stuff. I shudder to think what would have happened had there been any power-loss then. Reduced power take-offs are exclusively the domain of jet aircraft –don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

 

Right. I’m not going to run you through normal/abnormal pre-start drills–that’s why you have an AFM. There are a couple of things that might be useful though: I previously mentioned making sure your parking brake was properly set. If someone has just reached into the cockpit and flicked the park-brake lever down, your brakes are not set. Start the engines, she’ll roll forward 5-10m before the brakes grab, so 1^st pre-start check is hold the toe-brakes and set your park-brake lever properly. Another check I make religiously, 1^st start of the day is to start the engines with the fuel-selectors in cross-feed. Like everything else we’re doing at this end of the day, we want to be sure the x-feeds work. If you start in x-feed, you’ll know within 30-seconds or so if it is not working as advertised, when one or other (hopefully not both!) of your engines shuts down. I generally leave them in x-feed until a minute or so before I start doing carb-air/mag/prop-checks. It's beneficial to exercise the x-feed regularly anyway. It keeps the mechanism free, seals lubricated and everything as it should be. Taxi somewhere clear of buildings, hangar entrances, loose stones/debris and other aircraft for your run-up. Warm your engines thoroughly before your checks. Some outfits, when teaching an initial twin-rating teach pilots to run-up each engine individually, leaving the opposite engine at idle or low-power. I really can’t see the sense in this practice. Effectively all you are achieving is making the whole process a lot slower than it needs be whilst exerting a twisting moment on your airframe. It’s a bizarre practice in my opinion.1^st check is fuel-feeds back to main-tanks: L-tank feeding the L-engine and vice versa. Power between 1000-1200RPM, mag function checks and mag dead-cut (to be sure you don’t have a hot P-lead), then carb-air function checks. Both engines to 1800RPM, mag-drop checks only,^[5] carb-air drop-checks then power to 1500RPM. Cycle your props 3x each engine, which can be done quite quickly -1^st L then R and so-on. The 1^st cycle may be slow due cold oil in the system, so do it carefully and thoroughly. The idea is to get hot engine-oil through the prop-hub. Once a week or so you might want to do a full feathering-check, although it was not something I personally ever did as a matter of course. Do an idling-speed check, then your run-up is complete and you should have a pretty good idea of where your aircraft is at.

A quick note here: most Islander pilots get into the habit of turning both props to the vertical after shut-down. It’s a truly miserable experience to be working around your aircraft under the wing, only to charge head 1st into a horizontal prop-blade. That’s part of the reason you always do a dead-cut mag-check immediately before shutting down –you don’t want to be swinging on a hot engine that has a live mag! Never swing the engine backwards –you’ll break the wee vanes in your engine vacuum pumps.

Check your clothing for oil-stains (particularly sleeves & back) before going to meet & greet your punters!

 

---

Loading:

If you are going to be carrying freight or luggage, it’s pretty usual to get that sorted before rounding up your punters for boarding. Make sure it’s all secured and can’t come free in-flight. If you have a row or more of seats removed for additional freight/luggage space,be certain it’s all tied down properly with cargo-nets.

When loading your pax, load the Starboard-side front door pax first –otherwise, if you load the Port-aft door pax, there is a risk of your aircraft falling back on the ground. That will not impress your boss, and is all-but guaranteed to lead to a “cup of Tea” with the Chief Pilot. The aircraft will be grounded until the longitudinal spars and aft ribs/structure are inspected for damage or possible replacement.The same risk is present when unloading too –de-plane the aft pax 1st. If you are using row 0B (the front-right seat) for pax, be sure to brief them not to touch anything. I once almost lost my fingers in an aileron-hinge when an over-excited punter decided to show-off for her mates down aft by throwing the yoke around whilst I was doing my final walk-around. I had removed my fingers from between aileron and wing only a blink of a moment earlier. That got the ‘ol heart-rate up for a bit. Make sure you demonstrate the full control-yoke throw to the front-seat pax too, so they know what to expect and don’t get knee-capped when you make an unexpected (by them) control input.

Take-off weights for most Islanders max-out at 2994Kg, so for the standard Islander, you’ll have somewhere in the range of say 500-1000kg useful payload, depending on what tanks your aircraft has and your fuel-load.

Always do a Golden Walk-around of your aircraft once loading and the pax-briefing is complete, before strapping her on yourself. Make sure the hatches are secure, no obvious damage or leaks since your last check, no pitot-covers or control-locks left in or installed without your knowledge. I was once caught by that last one. I had left the airport vicinity for a brief period, during which time the (turbine-powered) aircraft behind me had backed out of its parking spot to get away quickly due deteriorating wx, likely to close the route home through the mountains. Another pilot (a former CP of the outfit I was working for) knew where my control-locks were stored and popped an aileron-lock in and manually restrained my elevator whilst the turbine blew itself backwards. He didn’t pop the tell-tale on the yoke to let me know he’d done that. So, when I got back to the airport after rounding up my pax, I quickly boarded everyone and got out of there smartly –not least because my aircraft was the cork-in-the-bottle that needed to go so other aircraft could depart. As soon as we were airborne, I knew we had a problem. Says you: “a full & free check should have caught the control lock”. Yup, you’re right –even earlier if I hadn’t allowed the pressure of getting away to drive me, I would have done the Golden Walk-around. I always did so previously and always do so now. Well, I did do a full & free whilst taxiing. I had a child of about 10-12 in the front seat and remember thinking there was no-show of knee-capping him, as I did the check!!! Thing is, I wasn’t in my usual mount but a sister-ship that was much lighter on the controls. Whether that was enough coupled with the pressure and distraction of the wx to not do it completely or to have thought I was feeling what I expected to feel, I don’t know. But I did fly it for 30+ minutes with my ailerons locked. Much more a testament to the abilities of the aircraft than anything else. How, you ask? By very careful, judicious and deliberate use of the rudder and rudder & elevator trim. The aircraft was out of the air for a while until an engineer checked the rigging & control-lines to be sure I hadn’t damaged anything. The last-minute walk-around is absolutely Golden.^[6] Make it a part of your routine. Worth noting too that your huge rudder is well capable of picking up a low wing at any time, unassisted.

---

Taxiing & Ground Handling:

Early models of the Islander have a fully castering nose-wheel, later models a partially steering then castering nose-wheel and others a fully steering nose-wheel. Make sure you know what you’ve got, not only from a taxiing point of view but more especially when ground-manoeuvring your aircraft. Most of your ground-handling of the aircraft will be with the assistance of a tug and steering-bar –she’s a substantial machine and it needs more than a couple of people to do so by hand, which would swiftly become onerous, if that was your only way of shifting her. If your aircraft has partial or full nose-wheel steering, be sure not to turn the nose-wheel beyond around 30^o either side of straight or you risk damaging steering components. There should be limit-marks painted on the underside of the nose-cone adjacent to the nose-wheel strut. There was one instance I am aware of, of a semi-castering nose-wheel breaking through its limits (must have been on take-off) and having to land with the nose-wheel at 90^o to the direction of travel... that would have been an interesting experience and possibly due to the steering limits being exceeded during ground-handling.

Under its own power, taxiing an Islander is a very straight-forward proposition. From a standing start, little more than releasing the brakes is usually necessary to get her rolling straight ahead. Turns of course are made by use of differential power, assisted by differential brakes when required.

The Lycoming 260HP O-540 engines^[7] which the Islander has are particularly susceptible to carb icing, whenever appropriate conditions exist. Those conditions can generally be considered to be: when the outside air temperature is between –10°C and +30°C with high humidity and visible moisture is present. However, it is most likely between +10°C and +15° with a relative humidity above 40%. Under certain moist atmospheric conditions, when the relative humidity is more than 50%, with air temperatures anywhere up to 35°C, it is possible for refrigeration ice to form in the carburettor. You’re well aware of the implications of induction icing and have no doubt been told countless times not to use carb-air on the ground because it’s unfiltered. True enough, but given the Islanders proclivity towards induction icing and the insidious manner in which icing develops, I always select hot air on both as soon as I am moving. The forward movement of the aircraft is enough to prevent any debris tossed up by the props being ingested and when you reach the threshold, you want every bit of power available to you. Select cold air just before you open the throttles for take-off.

---

Engine Handling:

Which brings us to engine handling: and haven’t there been tens of thousands of pages and millions of words uselessly spent on propounding and defending one Old Wives Tale (OWT) or another on this topic alone... I’ll try to keep this as painless as possible.

One of the most persistent OWT’s expounds that manifold pressure (MP) measured in inches must always be less than the RPM in hundreds, or the power-plant will immediately blow to pieces under the strain –or sentiments to that effect  Briefly, horse-hockey. Were this so, turbocharged, turbo-normalised and super-charged reciprocating engines could not exist. Yet, this nonsense is still taught by many instructors for non-boosted, constant-speed engines. Fixed-pitch propeller aircraft usually climb at full throttle with no ill effect. To further (and finally!) illustrate the nonsense of this OWT, consider this: ISA Mean Sea-Level atmospheric pressure is 1013.2Hpa or 29.92” Hg. Under those same conditions with a normally aspirated reciprocating engine, regardless of what RPM you set, you cannot achieve a MP any more than fractionally in excess of 28”. This OWT is based on the premise of the pressure difference between atmospheric and the internal pressure of the engine. Stated simply, the least pressure difference between internal and external pressures occurs when the engine is stopped, and pressures have had time to equalise. Have a look at the MP gauge of a stopped engine sometime –it will be at or very close to the local barometric pressure for your elevation. By the same token, the greatest pressure differential will be seen on an engine running at idle- 20”MP difference or more! So how could running an engine at full-throttle (the minimum pressure differential for an operating engine) cause it to catastrophically self-destruct? It’s just not logical. There is a wealth of worthwhile information to be found in other publications.

So it would seem over-boosting an Islander’s engines is not an issue. Further, engine wear varies with the square of the RPM. This means an engine operated at 2000RPM will have less than half the wear of an engine operated at 3000 RPM, which seems to suggest that higher RPM will only wear the engine unless some boost is available. In an Islander, high RPM also decreases propeller efficiency; indeed much of the noise at take-off is the propeller tips going supersonic. More important than boost is the mixture setting which, if incorrect will cause engine damage within a very few flights. Too lean will burn valves and crack cylinders, while too rich can reduce range and leave you short at the end of the flight, plus the cost of it.

As I mentioned earlier, it is pointless over-filling your sumps. Sure, the O-540 has a sump capacity of 12 quarts (that’s a maximum limit figure not a target as one pilot I flew with seemed to believe) but, if you’re in the practice of filling the sumps to that level, all you’re going to achieve is unnecessary expense and work for yourself. After every flight you will be wiping the excess oil blown out of the engine off the cowls and gear-legs. My sumps run as happy as a sand-boy at a consistent 8 quarts. They’ll run the whole 50 hours between inspections at that level, without need of any additional oil. I still wipe my cowls and gear-legs most flights to remove the mist blown from the breather pipe, but the loss is at most measured in ml’s rather than litres. The engines will run as low as 4 quarts without stress (for a short flight) if necessary, but if you maintain 8 quarts as your sump-level, you will not have any grief. I always carry a couple of spare litre bottles of oil just in case –but to date, I’ve never needed them. They inevitably wind up going into my sumps (usually late in the 50hrs) as a top-up so that I can refill the bottles with clean, fresh oil.

---

Take-Off:
As you’ve no doubt heard, everything in an Islander happens at 65KIAS. Everything. Except the full-flap stall, which happens at 39KIAS and the clean stall that happens at 50KIAS8. But as sure as all hell, everything else happens at 65KIAS. The standard configuration for take-off is one notch of flap (26^o) and full-throttle. Really, that’s about it. Once you have the throttles all the way up, pause for a moment to allow the MP to ‘catch-up’ then check your MP gauge. You don’t want to be seeing split-needles of any more than about 1”MP. Any more than that, there’s a problem; you need to abort your take-off and sort it out. One place to look is at your mag switches –if you’ve left one off, that’ll account for your MP loss. If they’re all on, there’s something else not right. Get it sorted. About 1”MP pressure can be accepted for the age of the machine, induction system inefficiencies and gauge inaccuracies. At full power, listen for a bit of a harkle from the props. If you are not hearing that, you’ve left the carb-airs in. Get ‘em off. When you get to 65KIAS, rotate and she’ll fly directly. When you have a positive Rate of Climb and are accelerating, clean up to 0^o.^[8] I usually just allow the aircraft to accelerate at full-throttle, 2500RPM and mixtures back to top of the R on the quadrant, where she’ll give me a speed of 110-120KIAS at a climb-rate of ~800-900FPM initial. In most conditions you’ll pass through full-throttle height at around 5-6,000’ so really I can’t see any point in busy-work fussing with the throttles. Just leave ‘em up. At TOC, props back to 2400RPM and they can pretty much stay there until you put them back up on finals.

Maximum performance take-offs are where you can really have some fun –especially light. With 20+kts breeze on the nose, it’s awesome. Line-up, hold her on the toe-brakes and run her up to full power with the stick hard back. When she’s ready, slip the brakes –she’ll roll about her own length and be airborne! You’ll want to relax the back-pressure as soon as the nose starts coming up or she’ll over-rotate. You can climb her at 40-odd knots if you wish (looks great from the ground!) but best to get to 65KIAS, clean her up and just start pulling to maintain 65KIAS. I guarantee you’ll be impressed with the results! Even with a load on or in lighter wind conditions, use a similar technique and she’ll generally need only 100-150m. You might want to accelerate in ground effect before climbing out though and blue-line (65KIAS strangely) is a good place to be thinking about that.

Take-off emergencies:

Really about all you’re likely to face is a loss of engine power on one or the other. In an aircraft that can be comfortably airborne in 400m to 50’, you probably won’t fly off a lot of runways which you can’t stop on if one fails. If one fails just after lift-off, you have 2 options: if sufficient runway remains, just land; or clean it up, nail 65KIAS,^[9] feather the dead-engine, fly a circuit and land. If there is insufficient runway remaining you have no choice: you have to fly it, so run your CAPUFIC, nail 65KIAS and get on with it. Remember, your ceiling on one is only 3-4,000’ density altitude (in a young, perfectly straight machine with everything running exactly as intended!), so your options may be quite severely limited.

---

Cruise:

My usual power-setting in the cruise is full-throttle, 2400RPM and mixtures to the top of the R on the quadrant. If you get your elevator neutral with those power-settings, you should expect to see ~140KIAS in the cruise and a fuel-burn of 52-56lph¹⁰ consistently. The key there of course is: if you get your elevator neutral –many pilots I’ve seen in the Islander using more conservative power-settings, never get their elevator neutral (to the Relative Air-flow) and stagger along in a nose-high attitude, never seeing any more than around 120KIAS on the clock –and think that’s the best they’ll ever get! To get the elevator properly neutral, I usually climb a couple of hundred feet above my intended cruise-level then drift down to the nominated altitude at the power-settings indicated, allowing the aircraft to accelerate to ~140KIAS. Once there, just trim it to maintain and she’ll sit there as happy as a clam.

Another advantage you can expect to accrue from running at full-throttle is a much lower likelihood of carburettor icing. Given that your throttle butterfly is fully open, presenting only a blade-like profile to the air-flow through the carb, there is very little opportunity for ice to adhere and develop. Should you experience carb-ice, likely your first indication will be a subtle loss of airspeed –even before you really notice any loss of MP! So if your IAS is creeping down, flick your carb-air on and you should pretty quickly see it back to where you expect.

The Islander is a very robust aircraft, so turbulence penetration is more likely going to be limited by what you are prepared to tolerate personally or what you are prepared to put your pax through. If at a low AUW, it’s best to slow the aircraft down to prevent over-stressing the airframe. Refer to your POH.

Should you find yourself operating an Islander as a member of a 2-pilot crew (usually only necessary if operating Air Transport IFR in an aircraft without an auto-pilot), be sure you have a clear division of responsibility and never work cross-cockpit. I experienced this once when flying in that scenario when the PNF reached across cockpit to manipulate the heater controls, up near my L temple. He wiped my sunglasses off and dislodged my headset whilst rubbing his fore-arm in my face and annoyed the crap outta me! All he needed do was ask, I would have made the change without effort. As it was, the distraction could have lead to an upset had we been in hard IFR or flying an approach at the time. Think about what you are doing.

Whilst on the topic of the heater: it is a gas-combustion heater with fan assistance. It is located in the tail of the aircraft and burns 6lph from the R tank when in use. Do not operate the heater on the ground –there is insufficient airflow to prevent a build-up of gas fumes that may lead to an explosion, blowing the arse off your Islander, which is not a good look and fair bloody guaranteed to get the Boss's undivided attention. Before lighting your heater in-flight, I reckon it’s a good idea to run the fan for 30-60 seconds 1^st, just to be sure. The airflow through the heater-vents is bloody awful. The people in the back seats get cooked; the pilot gets frozen, with all the variations of temperature between those 2 extremes throughout the aircraft. When I say the people in the back seats get cooked, I ain’t joking. I’ve inadvertently stewed people using the heater. I had told them during the pax-brief to let me know if they were getting too hot, but irregular checks of their condition and poor hand-signal communication meant I didn’t get the message. More better if they had passed the message forward through the aircraft verbally pax-to-pax until it got to me. As it was, they had no relief until I shut the heater off prior to joining. Use the heater with caution. In all but the most extremely cold conditions, start the heater at full noise for perhaps 5-10 minutes to get things going then reduce to ½-scale or lower as necessary. Maintain communication with your pax and adjust as necessary.

---

Fuel Management:

Managing your fuel on-board an Islander couldn’t be easier: one-tank, one engine. Simple. Main tanks useable capacity is 240l per-side, or 4 hours useable per-side. 60l per-hour, per-side fuel-burn^[10]. Don’t forget to allow for any anticipated additional fuel-burn by the heater (6l per-hour from the R tank) if you think the heater may be required in-flight. The aircraft AFM stipulates: take-offs and landings on main tanks are prohibited when the gauges read less than three gallons (under 14l) –although why anyone would want to commit aviation with a fuel-level that low is beyond me. For sure if it gets any lower, a landing will soon become compulsory. That requirement is to prevent fuel tank feed-lines un-porting as a consequence of aircraft flight attitude. Be certain you have enough on-board for your intended flight, plus reserves and planned diversion fuel (and a bit of Mum & the kids fuel) then feed each engine off its own tank and 99.9% of the time, that’s as much ‘fuel management’ as you’ll ever need to do. If it ain’t bust, don’t fix it. 30-minute tanks-changes are neither necessary nor desirable. Leave it alone unless absolutely necessary. I knew one pilot that made a habit of doing 30-minute tank changes in the Islander, a habit carried over from his extensive experience operating single-engine aircraft on agricultural operations. Everyone that flew an Islander after him found a fuel-imbalance in the tanks that had to be corrected and fuel-selectors that had to be put back to where they should be before further flight. It’s unnecessary; don’t do it. That habit bought that particular pilot terminally undone in another light-twin that had fuel-injected engines. He hadn’t allowed for the fact that the fuel-pumps in the new (to him) aircraft type picked up twice as much fuel from the tanks as the FCU delivered to the engine, returning the excess to the tank on the same side as the engine. Effectively, he was transferring fuel from the tank in use to the tank not currently in use. The rest of it’s a long story; suffice to say he suffered a double engine-failure (due fuel starvation rather than fuel exhaustion), didn’t achieve an effective restart, crashed and died.

You may find yourself flying an Islander that has the optional tip-tanks^[11] fitted. Expect a significantly better initial climb rate –the extra wing-span definitely makes a difference! They go up like a homesick Angel! Fuel capacity for the tips is 104.5l useable per-side, or 1.7 hours useable. On aircraft so equipped, there is an additional tip-tank control panel and indicator lights located on the R cockpit side wall, adjacent to the co-pilot’s/front seat pax’s head. To access the fuel available in the tip-tanks, your fuel selectors in the overhead must be ON, then select the appropriate toggle switch on the R cockpit sidewall ON. Tip-tank selection will be confirmed by the red light on the tip-tank selector panel. The tip-tank valves are electrically actuated. A handy way of confirming that the valves have actually selected across is to knock the squelch off on one of your VHF Nav boxes; you can then “listen” to the electrical valves making the selected change! For structural reasons, tip-tank fuel should be used last. Unless operationally unavoidable, don’t allow the tip-tank fuel-level to fall below 50l. I’m not aware of any take-off/landing minimum tip-tank fuel-level restrictions, but given the potentially fatal results of a tank un-porting due aircraft attitude at a critical phase of flight, I’d be thinking pretty seriously about my options with less than say 10-15l in the tips.

---

Descent:

The Islander is a very easy aircraft to descend from altitude. As always,a little planning goes a long way: take your height above your desired level in thousands of feet and multiply by 3 to get TOD distance from destination in nautical miles. So at 6000ft for a sea-level landing, start your descent at 18NM out and an 800 ft per minute rate of descent will bring you in nicely. No hugely pressing need to worry about your power settings, unless you’re in turbulence –just leave ‘em up! Sneak your mixtures up quietly as you descend. Run your speed up into the yellow arc, if conditions are appropriate. If you are empty and need to come down in a hurry, run her right up to the red-line. Use whatever descent-planning rule-of-thumb works for you –there’s plenty of them out there.

Approach:

A thoughtless pilot in an Islander can cause quite a bit of stress and mayhem for other pilots and controllers in the approach phase. If you wanted to, there’s nothing to prevent you joining downwind at 65KIAS and flying your whole approach to touchdown at that speed. You’ll certainly get the controllers’ undivided attention and quite probably see a C-152 go screaming past you looking as much like an F/A-18 in the buzz-and-break as it’s able though! More better you match your initial approach speed as far as possible to the speed range most other aircraft in the airport environment are likely to be using; around 90-120KIAS. When able, I maintain that speed until late on the base-leg which is often where I rail out the 1st stage of flap too, with speed and flap slowly coming down until I reach my target 65KIAS (blue-line) and full-flap on very short-finals. Maintain that 65KIAS until you are within the runway environment and pulling the aircraft into the flare, when your speed should be approaching the 39KIAS stall-speed momentarily before touchdown. There may be occasions when you are requested by ATC to maintain “best speed” until very short finals or the runway threshold. That request most likely means you have something significantly quicker (and larger!) than you, right behind you in the landing sequence. The Islander will slow down very quickly when you pull the throttles off and start lowering flap, so there’s no reason you don’t maintain whatever she’ll give you all the way to the flare if necessary. The major draw-back of this is that it doesn’t allow you any real opportunity to look after your engines, so when you do start to make your power reduction for landing, do not snatch your throttles back; reduce your power smoothly to throttles-closed in one continuous action over as long a period as you are able. Your carb-air should have been previously selected in anticipation and if necessary can be left on all the way to touchdown, or selected cold once the throttles are reduced to idle. Fortunately it’s a fairly infrequent request and if done properly shouldn’t result insignificantly increased risk of engine damage.

On one occasion this request was made of me when on an ambulance flight with a patient suffering a spinal injury. It was a silky-smooth day fortunately, so there was no need to reduce speed at all from an airframe point of view, or to reduce the risk of further injury to the patient. I was slotted into the landing sequence ahead of a 747 on long final and requested to maintain speed until touchdown. Using the technique outlined above, I was able to maintain 150KIAS+ all the way to about 50’, reduce power, touchdown on the threshold and still make the 1st available taxiway from the threshold to clear the runway for the 747.

---

Touchdown:

If you’ve got your approach right, touchdown is a matter of little drama. Don’t over-rotate for touchdown –it’s just not necessary and can be counter-productive in a gusty cross-wind. The nose attitude in an Islander is quite low –the correct attitude ‘feels’ quite flat. There’s absolutely nothing here that any normally competent pilot can’t handle. The Islander is superb in crosswinds and will handle virtually anything thrown at it with aplomb –within reason, of course.

On all but the shortest runways, it’s quite possible you’ll barely need the brakes for anything beyond taxiing. The low touchdown speed, aerodynamic drag and huge flaps are often enough to pull you up to taxi speed without need of further assistance. As mentioned earlier, don’t taxi through standing water if you can avoid it. Cold water cracks hot brake pads.

The strength of the main-gear on an Islander is the stuff of legend. Those gear-legs are all-but indestructible. There are photos out there of an Islander in (I think) PNG after a ‘heavy’ landing.The wing and fuselage are completely separated, with absolutely no apparent damage to the gear legs! She’s a tough wee beastie.

---

Miscellaneous:

• There is an interlock on the pilots door that is intended to prevent the door being opened onto a running Left engine. If the L magneto for the L engine is ON, the interlock is active. The interlock is also alarmed via the stall-horn, so if the door is improperly closed and the L mag of the L engine is selected to ON, you’ll know about it! The stall-horn is very loud and persistent!
• There is also a small switch/lever on the door, adjacent to the door handle which is an interlock over-ride, allowing you to open the door in an emergency with the L mag still on. Best left only for Emergency use: it will allow you to step out into a turning engine!!!
• The two aft pax doors open onto latches: the L onto a latch on the Port gear leg and the R onto a Starboard engine-cowl latch. They should always be used to prevent the doors flapping in a breeze and I find them handy for marshalling the de-planing pax in a direction that takes them away from hazards under-wing and around the engines.
• Pax bench-seats can be easily removed or fitted in a forward or aft-facing arrangement. The aft facing seating can be particularly useful for ambulance flights, allowing medical attendants easy, unimpeded access to their patient and equipment.
• Of some renown is the leaky windscreen “option” fitted to apparently every Islander ever built! When you’re flying in precip, flexing of the fuselage allows water ingress… generally targeting the pilot. Should you have to increase your rate of turn whilst in precip, the dribble turns into a veritable torrent! Forewarned is forearmed…

---

SB190

When operating at low level over water, or in inhospitable tropical climates, all aircraft will suffer from corrosion. BN introduced a service bulletin to ensure proper inspection, detection and treatment every other year for aeroplanes over 5 years old. Not performing the inspection ensures high levels of corrosion and associated expensive repairs. I suppose the point I am making is that the SB 190 was introduced because the airframes live for so long in a corrosive environment. That doesn't mean the design is wrong or the metal is easily corroded, just that all aircraft will corrode and BN has an inspection to help minimise the problem and to reduce the cost of repairs. It is an ongoing project to have the SB absorbed into the normal maintenance manual.

 

SB190 usually sees the additional of extra wing inspection panels, along the spar line. The inspections can add considerably to the periodic maintenance costs, particularly if remedial work is necessary.

---

Finally...

These notes are just a collection of thoughts and observations on operating, handling, owning, maintaining and enjoying the BN-2A.There is very little material available for newly-rated pilots or new owners to study on this aircraft, so I hope these few words are of benefit! It is intended to be a useful guide (as opposed to an Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), which today is written more by lawyers,for lawyers with the sole intention of avoiding legal liability), so may contain advice on some operations that you consider to be ill-advised or outside the normal flight envelope... there really is no substitute for good, common sense –albeit not such a common commodity these days- so don’t read these words as encouragement to go beyond your experience and training, your AFM limitations, or for that matter, the letter of the law as promulgated in your AIP. Sometimes people end up well outside their skills, experience and training, whether intentionally or not. The BN-2A, in common with most other aircraft, will punish laxity, poor planning and ham-fisted mishandling. The only way to learn to fly one is to get in amongst it, as with all motor skills; but it is often useful to have a little information at your disposal before doing so. That’s a lot better than trying to develop your own unique solutions to issues when the situation demands it, and what these notes are intended for –it does not mean you need to try all this stuff on your own! If you must, find a suitably qualified and experienced instructor to guide you. Since the BN-2A is often utilised in short-field and mountain flying operations, these notes are prepared both from that perspective and with that utilisation in mind. That is where my experience was gained -specifically, on commercial operations in the Southern Alps of New Zealand and Stewart Island. Don’t underestimate the benefit of learning from the experiences of others. A thorough training system relies heavily on the skills and experience available in a pilot cadre to turn a new pilot into an operational pilot; turning what many pilots would consider abnormal into safely routine, daily operations for average pilots. Have fun with her; she’ll teach you a lot –if you let her.

 

Postscript and DISCLAIMER:

If anyone thinks these notes are useful, use them, add to them, pass them on or whatever. I do not pretend to know all there is to know about flying or the BN-2 and my experiences may vary from others. Use these notes at your own risk.

---

[1] For convenience sake, 1 Quart (US) can be considered to be 1 Litre.  The conversion (if you care) is 1 Quart (US) = 0.946352946 Litres –or within a bulls-roar of it.  These are US-manufactured engines so it’s appropriate to use the US Quart/Litre conversion in this case.

[2] Probably best not done with any over-enthusiastic pax in the right seat... I once almost lost my fingers when one such pax decided to show off for her friends down the back, by throwing the stick from side-to-side!

[3] Do Not taxi your aircraft through standing water, particularly after landing. Cold water will crack the hot brake pads. Don’t drag your brakes against power when taxiing either for that matter.  If you’re getting too quick, reduce power.

[4] Check the little green Britten-Norman book-of-words (if you can find one) for the appropriate tyre pressures and oleo extension figures.

[5] If you should inadvertently shut both mags off, DO NOT throw them back in –you’ll cause all sorts of stress & mayhem in the induction & exhaust manifolds, potentially blowing something off, not to mention potential mag drive-shaft damage. Allow the engine to STOP completely, then do a normal restart.

[6] Just as an aside to that, never make a change to the physical condition of another pilots’ aircraft without making that pilot aware of the change. Never. No matter how much inconvenience it causes you to find them, make sure you pass the message.

[7] Someone else can write about the IO-540 300HP ones –I have no experience of them.

[8] 0^o flap is really 2^o-3^o droop, which I can’t remember for why just now... when I find out I’ll update the document. If I remember correctly, it was one of the earliest mods to the original design, to, I think, improve stall recovery characteristics.

[9] Beware the V_MCA roll if operating single-engine!!! She’ll roll on her back before she’ll stall!!!

[10] Your flight-plan fuel-burn is 60lph per side (120lph total) in all cases. There is an additional 6lph fuel-burn from the RIGHT tank if running the heater.

[11] Refer to your AFM Supplement for the aircraft you are flying to confirm tip-tank capacities and useable fuel capacities.