|
tonystro -> RE: New Hanger 9 p-51 mustang **Trainer?!?** (9/4/2005 2:43:00 AM)
|
Bleemer,
Thanks for the excellent flight report. I experienced nearly identical flights today when I was asked to perform the maiden flights for two P-51 PTS aircraft. The exception was that I was able to loop (trainer-like) and roll (elevator required thru inverted) both aircraft. For clarity I will refer to them as PTS #1 and PTS #2. Both pilots have quite some time since solo, one is still advancing his skills on an Alpha (PTS #2), the other has moved thru several other planes (PTS #1)--currently flying an Ultra Stik. Before I get more specific I want to mention that our field is grass, about 2- 2 1/2 inches high, the ground is a bit uneven and rough at this time of year but not bad. We had a mild breeze (6-10 mph) varying from down the runway to a full 90-degree crosswind.
1. Both aircraft had had the airbrake devices turned to be more like gear doors. PTS #1 had working flaps while PTS #2 had them fixed in the full down position.
2. First flight was with PTS #1. I decided to perform the take off and initial part of the trim flight with the flaps up. As I would with any 'warbird', I brought throttle up slowly. The plane tracked well, the tail lifted as it accelerated. I allowed it to decide when it was going airborne and after about 250 feet she flew off. Trim was off on elevator, aileron and rudder., but easily controlable. My very first impression was that she was 'way too slow.' However, as I was to learn quickly, that was simply a pre-conception that 'mustangs' should be fast. Under full power the plane had a steady, somewhat shallow, climb. After reaching altitude, throttle to about 1/2, I trimmed her for straight and level, hands off. Other than feeling the roll was a bit sluggish (like a trainer) and that throttle changes did not seem to have much effect (between 1/2 and full), the plane was steady, consistant, maneuvering much like an Alpha trainer. Of course the exception is that I had to 'fly' out of a bank back to wings level, as I would expect. Also, with throttle at idle the plane definitely descended, although the descent angle could easily be reduced because the plane was controllable at quite low airspeed. Achieving comfortability with the plane, I reduced power to about 1/3, let the plane slow while holding level and hit the flap switch. NO pitch changes were observed although the plane began gaining altitude. A couple of clicks less throttle and she leveled out. Two patterns, each a little lower, demonstrated great controlability. Flaps still down, I flew the landing pattern, keeping about three clicks of throttle on base to final to touch down. It did a slight bounce and settled the tail. Taxi back was un eventful. The owner decided to remove the leading extensions for the next flight, which he would fly.
3. The maiden flight of PTS #2 (fixed flaps down) was much the same, with only two notable differences. The take off was shorter by about 30% with the fixed flaps, and the there was much less tendency for the nose to drop when pulling power to idle. After trimming for neutral, transmitter was given to the owner. Since all his limited experience is with an Alpha trainer, he had to concentrate on 'rolling out' of the banks. Otherwise, he was delighted with plane. By the time he set up for landing the wind was gusting, 90-degree crosswind. Although he would had landed his Alpha, he elected to have me land. With minor rudder inputs the final and landing were uneventful, although it did 'hop' twice. My opinion is that the gear is a bit springy. Definitely so comapred to my Funtana 40, which I greased in four times this morning!. The owner was ecstatic. He intends to make this his primary plane.
Unfortunately, this report can not end on this happy note. PTS #1 did not survive its second flight. After he removed the wing extensions, the owner took the plane up. The plane still 'looked' slow and some slight re-trimming was required. However, it flew well. After about five minutes he offered me the transmitter for my opinion on its current performance. The roll rate was increased nearly double. Other than the faster roll rate I didn't notice and changes in the performance of rolls and loops. I returned the transmitter to him. Some few moments later he had a thumb glitch (fight versus left), and in recovering put the plane into a climbing left turn. It fell off into a very nose down spiral at about 150-175 feet altitude. He was unable to recover, believing that he had had no control response from an instant before it banked over. Possibly he had a battery/switch problem as when I looked the transmitter, shortly after the 'thud', the throttle stick was full forward yet we had never heard the engine speed up.
The fuselage was pretty much destroyed from the firewall to behind the wing tailing edge. Wing had minor damage where it would mate with the left, forward fuselage. Engine, tank and servos appeared undamaged. All hinges were secure, all control horns and keepers were secure and in place, and all control surfaces were free and not binding. He was going to post-crash investigation of the radio fucntion, but I was already late for an appointment and had to leave.
Overall, I thought the performance of both planes was acceptable. However, my opinion is that they do not live up to the hype. Although I am sure some will sucessfully learn to fly with one, I would not recommend the P-51 PTS as a first plane. I think Hangar 9's Alpha, even the Arrow, are a better choice. I also think it falls short of performance as a 'sport scale' P-51. Hangar 9 has ARFs that do this much, much better.
I must say, however, that if one accepts the compromises the PTS would be one cool looking 'second plane.'
|
|
|
|
