Going for my Multiengine rating

By way of an addition....

if somebody is in the back it is very easy to rotate for a nice flare
without getting close to a tail stall. Even with full flaps. Tlhere is
probably only one knot difference in stall speed between two notches and
three(full). Fuel and row one passengers only, the cg is very near it's
forward limit. A local flying school that also rents out it's Seneca has
some weight strapped down in the back area, I think 75 pounds. I think
they had three collapses over the last 15 years and none were due to
mis-rigging. And it is checked every 50 hours and also they hold an stc
for putting a window in so it can be inspected through the nose baggage
area each flight.

The Visitor wrote:

No, and with full flaps it pull an greater aoa for the same
authority(down force). It stalls. And the nose can drop real hard. As
the stab moves into ground effect the aoa increases also. The Cessna
Cardinal had this problem, which later got addressed with slots in the
stabilator.

Greg Esres wrote:

The Visitor wrote:

To flare nice with full flaps invites a tail stall.

Not likely. You will lose elevator authority, but the AOA gets
smaller as the tail moves down.





why there is the abundance of nose gear collapses in the type.

Actually, there is an AD out on the Seneca nose gear. The collapses
are generally due to misrigging of the airplane. Friend of mine has a
nosewheel collapse after a full stall, nose high landing.



Generally? I'm sorry about your friend and a misrigged gear on anything
is a hazard. And the pa34 nose gear (like any) can be mis-rigged.But the
seneca nose gears take a pounding because of the way they are flown. It
leads to failures.

John

I think they had three collapses over the last 15 years and none
were due to
mis-rigging.

And how do you know? Our mechanics said the same thing, but it struck
me as a cover-your-ass sort of defense.

And it is checked every 50 hours and also they hold an stc for
putting a window in so it can be inspected through the nose baggage
area each flight.

They've had the window in for 15 years? The problem only came to
light in the past few years. Our mechanics also put in a window.

Oh I know. I can imagine how it strikes you, but that is it. I think
they also hold some stc for some kind of mod in there also.



Greg Esres wrote:
I think they had three collapses over the last 15 years and none
were due to
mis-rigging.

And how do you know? Our mechanics said the same thing, but it struck
me as a cover-your-ass sort of defense.

And it is checked every 50 hours and also they hold an stc for
putting a window in so it can be inspected through the nose baggage
area each flight.

They've had the window in for 15 years? The problem only came to
light in the past few years. Our mechanics also put in a window.

This is from "Cessna Wings for the World", by William D. Thompson,
regarding the C-177:

==================================snip========== =============
The pitch-down motion in flaps-down sideslips was a more serious
problem, however. Production test pilots became aware of a more
noticeable waviness in some of the leading-edges of the wing, and
occasionally, a 2-foot length of paint overspray that caused wing-
dropping tendencies at the stall. This had to be corrected by
applying body filler material on the leading-edge or rubbing compound
to remove the almost invisible overspray. There was also questionable
uniformity of the stabilators, giving as much as 15-mph deviations in
minimum trim speeds. On some airplanes they reworked or actually
replaced the stabilator with some improvement. This led to the
decision to incorporate slots into the stabilators' leading edges so
that they could tolerate a steeper downflow of air without stalling
the under-surface of the stabilator. This solved the problem, and a
fleetwide "Cardinal Rule" retrofit was planned at no cost to the
customer. In the meantime, a service bulletin called for a temporary
installation of a simple sheet metal plate that would limit the
maximum flap deflection to 15 degrees. We were paying the price for
these thin skins.
==================================snip========== =============

So this was more than just a stabilator stalling; it had more to do
with production problems than an inherent design problem. A tail-
stalling airplane wouldn't pass certification tests.

Greg Esres wrote in news:1191895718.877577.245080@
50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

This is from "Cessna Wings for the World", by William D. Thompson,
regarding the C-177:

==================================snip========== =============
The pitch-down motion in flaps-down sideslips was a more serious
problem, however. Production test pilots became aware of a more
noticeable waviness in some of the leading-edges of the wing, and
occasionally, a 2-foot length of paint overspray that caused wing-
dropping tendencies at the stall. This had to be corrected by
applying body filler material on the leading-edge or rubbing compound
to remove the almost invisible overspray.


I~mpossible. how could a bit of paint cause a los of lift when th ewing
shape is only htere for streamlining?



Bertie

To borrow your phrase, it strikes me more as a cya thing because it did
get out to the market place.

Greg Esres wrote:

This is from "Cessna Wings for the World", by William D. Thompson,
regarding the C-177:

==================================snip========== =============
The pitch-down motion in flaps-down sideslips was a more serious
problem, however. Production test pilots became aware of a more
noticeable waviness in some of the leading-edges of the wing, and
occasionally, a 2-foot length of paint overspray that caused wing-
dropping tendencies at the stall. This had to be corrected by
applying body filler material on the leading-edge or rubbing compound
to remove the almost invisible overspray. There was also questionable
uniformity of the stabilators, giving as much as 15-mph deviations in
minimum trim speeds. On some airplanes they reworked or actually
replaced the stabilator with some improvement. This led to the
decision to incorporate slots into the stabilators' leading edges so
that they could tolerate a steeper downflow of air without stalling
the under-surface of the stabilator. This solved the problem, and a
fleetwide "Cardinal Rule" retrofit was planned at no cost to the
customer. In the meantime, a service bulletin called for a temporary
installation of a simple sheet metal plate that would limit the
maximum flap deflection to 15 degrees. We were paying the price for
these thin skins.
==================================snip========== =============

So this was more than just a stabilator stalling; it had more to do
with production problems than an inherent design problem. A tail-
stalling airplane wouldn't pass certification tests.