Instruction in a champ
- Thread starter 3689A
- Start date
scout88305
SPONSOR
Northern Minnesota
What variety Champ? Engine size?
Copied and Pasted from an Aeronca site
Flight Characteristics
It takes about ten seconds in a Champ's cockpit to decide that all of Chief Designer Hermes' Anti-Cub design goals were met and then some. Some argue the Champ cockpit is too modern. Too civilized. Those are usually Cub pilots speaking.
Once on board, the immediate impression will be of visibility and a cheerful airiness. The wing and skylight is so high and the pilot sits so far forward, there is none of the "Man trapped in an airplane" feeling of so many of the Champ's contemporaries. This is definitely the airplane for a big person.
One of the cockpit's niceties is that all of the major engine controls, i.e. carb heat, fuel on/off, mags are in a panel by the pilot's left hip. This makes them available from both seats, although the front seat pilot has to squirm around a bit to get a hand down there.
Incidentally, the later airplanes have most of the fuel in the wings and do away with the fuselage tank, while the original airplanes have a fuel gage peeking out of the top of the boot cowl for the fuselage tank.
If it's a 7AC, you'll be doing the "Brakes! Contact!" routine with an Armstrong starter. If a 7EC, there's a "T' handled on the right half of the instrument panel that eases the starting chores.
In most areas, there's a big handling difference between the A and E models because of the difference in weight. An original, lightly finished A model with its 65 hp Continental weights about 710-725 pounds or about the same as a Cub. The 90 hp E models sometimes weigh as much as 200 pounds more because of electrical, interior, tanks, etc.
There's some difference of opinion as to how to start a take-off in a Champ, stick forward or stick back. A lot of the flight schools that used later 7ECs with the No-Bounce gears routinely started the takeoff roll with the stick full forward. Presumably, this was done to get the tail up as soon as possible to keep the oleos from extending. If the pilot waits too long to pick the tail up, the weight will come off the oleos while in a three-point position allowing them to extend. When they're extended, they have little to no resistance so they'll compress easily. When one compresses, even though the airplane is headed straight, the illusion is that the airplane is turning and pilots often poke in rudder that's not needed causing a swerve where there was none. Bear in mind, however, that all of this is happening in slow motion as the airplane will fly-off somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 mph.
Theoretically, the bigger engine Champs will climb better than the lowly 7AC, but not by much. The books say an AC is supposed to give 500 rpm and the EC 800 rpm. In real life, the difference isn't that great. Because of its lighter weight, the 7AC floats off the ground compared to the 7EC which feels more like it's on rails. Only the very lightest 7AC, however, has the feather-like feeling of a Cub when it separates.
Most of the Cub's resemblance to a feather is probably because the Cub has just enough more wing area that its wing loading at gross is a little lower, 6.8 lb/sq. ft to 7.1 lb/sq. ft. The books say a 7EC weighs 890 pounds empty (1450 pounds gross, more than a C-140) compared to a 7AC at 710 pounds (1220 pounds gross, about the same as a Cub).
Note that the 7EC, despite its much bigger engine has about the same useful load as the 7AC.
Once up to cruising speed, the 7AC (65 hp) can generally be depended on to be 5-8 mph faster than the similarly powered Cub, or a good solid 85-90 mph. The 7ECs seem to run about 90-95 mph.
Ask any who fly a Champ and they'll all say its a "...rudder airplane...". That's because its adverse yaw is so pronounced, you either coordinate with rudder or slip and slide around on the seat. It's much more noticeable than in a Cub. This makes it a superb trainer.
When you start trying to compare things like roll rate and aileron pressures between airplanes like Cubs and Champs, you're dealing more with perceptions than actual differences. For one thing, the Cub control stick juts up higher, especially in the front seat, and has an innately "bigger" feel to it. The mechanical advantage means the stick moves further than a Champ's in the same situation, but the response is probably close to being the same. The pressures, also, are close, but it is very difficult to say. The perception is that Cub controls are heavier, when they really aren't.
There is, however, a difference to the overall "feel" of the controls. Somehow, a Cub feels a little more precise and a touch quicker. We're splitting some very slow-speed hairs at this point, but that seems to be the general opinion.
Compared to a C-152, the roll performance will seem leisurely at best. The pressures are slightly lighter than a Citabria and the roll rate about the same.
The Champ stalls normally, with just a tiny bit of edge to it. Release the stick and it's flying again. Kick a rudder hard and it rotates into a surprisingly comfortable spin that stops as soon as you release back pressure and punch a rudder. Just letting go will bring it out almost as quickly as doing something deliberate.
Depending on the model, a Champ is happy to approach at just about any speed, but keeping it under 60 cuts down the float. Three-point landings happen almost automatically once you get used to a nose that's not in the way. The sight picture isn't that much different than landing a C-152 on its mains and holding the nose off. Actually, you can probably see more out of the Champ.
In a no-wind situation, the airplane will track perfectly straight. Given a good cross wind, the pilot will have to work a little harder but the airplane will handle it as long as the pilot keeps the wing down and the nose straight.
Wheel landings are also automatic and probably easier than in any other type of taildragger. Just don't force it on. Let it find the ground, pin it in place and the landing is over.
The controversy between those who love the Cub and those who swear by the Champ will never be resolved. The important thing to remember is they are both terrific airplanes and the Champ wouldn't have survived as long as it has if it hadn't had the Cub as a role model.
Copied and Pasted from an Aeronca site
Flight Characteristics
It takes about ten seconds in a Champ's cockpit to decide that all of Chief Designer Hermes' Anti-Cub design goals were met and then some. Some argue the Champ cockpit is too modern. Too civilized. Those are usually Cub pilots speaking.
Once on board, the immediate impression will be of visibility and a cheerful airiness. The wing and skylight is so high and the pilot sits so far forward, there is none of the "Man trapped in an airplane" feeling of so many of the Champ's contemporaries. This is definitely the airplane for a big person.
One of the cockpit's niceties is that all of the major engine controls, i.e. carb heat, fuel on/off, mags are in a panel by the pilot's left hip. This makes them available from both seats, although the front seat pilot has to squirm around a bit to get a hand down there.
Incidentally, the later airplanes have most of the fuel in the wings and do away with the fuselage tank, while the original airplanes have a fuel gage peeking out of the top of the boot cowl for the fuselage tank.
If it's a 7AC, you'll be doing the "Brakes! Contact!" routine with an Armstrong starter. If a 7EC, there's a "T' handled on the right half of the instrument panel that eases the starting chores.
In most areas, there's a big handling difference between the A and E models because of the difference in weight. An original, lightly finished A model with its 65 hp Continental weights about 710-725 pounds or about the same as a Cub. The 90 hp E models sometimes weigh as much as 200 pounds more because of electrical, interior, tanks, etc.
There's some difference of opinion as to how to start a take-off in a Champ, stick forward or stick back. A lot of the flight schools that used later 7ECs with the No-Bounce gears routinely started the takeoff roll with the stick full forward. Presumably, this was done to get the tail up as soon as possible to keep the oleos from extending. If the pilot waits too long to pick the tail up, the weight will come off the oleos while in a three-point position allowing them to extend. When they're extended, they have little to no resistance so they'll compress easily. When one compresses, even though the airplane is headed straight, the illusion is that the airplane is turning and pilots often poke in rudder that's not needed causing a swerve where there was none. Bear in mind, however, that all of this is happening in slow motion as the airplane will fly-off somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 mph.
Theoretically, the bigger engine Champs will climb better than the lowly 7AC, but not by much. The books say an AC is supposed to give 500 rpm and the EC 800 rpm. In real life, the difference isn't that great. Because of its lighter weight, the 7AC floats off the ground compared to the 7EC which feels more like it's on rails. Only the very lightest 7AC, however, has the feather-like feeling of a Cub when it separates.
Most of the Cub's resemblance to a feather is probably because the Cub has just enough more wing area that its wing loading at gross is a little lower, 6.8 lb/sq. ft to 7.1 lb/sq. ft. The books say a 7EC weighs 890 pounds empty (1450 pounds gross, more than a C-140) compared to a 7AC at 710 pounds (1220 pounds gross, about the same as a Cub).
Note that the 7EC, despite its much bigger engine has about the same useful load as the 7AC.
Once up to cruising speed, the 7AC (65 hp) can generally be depended on to be 5-8 mph faster than the similarly powered Cub, or a good solid 85-90 mph. The 7ECs seem to run about 90-95 mph.
Ask any who fly a Champ and they'll all say its a "...rudder airplane...". That's because its adverse yaw is so pronounced, you either coordinate with rudder or slip and slide around on the seat. It's much more noticeable than in a Cub. This makes it a superb trainer.
When you start trying to compare things like roll rate and aileron pressures between airplanes like Cubs and Champs, you're dealing more with perceptions than actual differences. For one thing, the Cub control stick juts up higher, especially in the front seat, and has an innately "bigger" feel to it. The mechanical advantage means the stick moves further than a Champ's in the same situation, but the response is probably close to being the same. The pressures, also, are close, but it is very difficult to say. The perception is that Cub controls are heavier, when they really aren't.
There is, however, a difference to the overall "feel" of the controls. Somehow, a Cub feels a little more precise and a touch quicker. We're splitting some very slow-speed hairs at this point, but that seems to be the general opinion.
Compared to a C-152, the roll performance will seem leisurely at best. The pressures are slightly lighter than a Citabria and the roll rate about the same.
The Champ stalls normally, with just a tiny bit of edge to it. Release the stick and it's flying again. Kick a rudder hard and it rotates into a surprisingly comfortable spin that stops as soon as you release back pressure and punch a rudder. Just letting go will bring it out almost as quickly as doing something deliberate.
Depending on the model, a Champ is happy to approach at just about any speed, but keeping it under 60 cuts down the float. Three-point landings happen almost automatically once you get used to a nose that's not in the way. The sight picture isn't that much different than landing a C-152 on its mains and holding the nose off. Actually, you can probably see more out of the Champ.
In a no-wind situation, the airplane will track perfectly straight. Given a good cross wind, the pilot will have to work a little harder but the airplane will handle it as long as the pilot keeps the wing down and the nose straight.
Wheel landings are also automatic and probably easier than in any other type of taildragger. Just don't force it on. Let it find the ground, pin it in place and the landing is over.
The controversy between those who love the Cub and those who swear by the Champ will never be resolved. The important thing to remember is they are both terrific airplanes and the Champ wouldn't have survived as long as it has if it hadn't had the Cub as a role model.
Grant
FRIEND
At Work.....
Hey! Put a cork in it!
He is asking because he wants to know. Not to get the third degree from you.
If you ain't got something nice to say..............
I know you are more experienced than most of the people on this site and we all like learning from your experience but c'mon. Give us a break. I mean why bust a guys chops for asking. Why publicly try and humiliate a guy? why would you do this?
And if you read his post you will see he is asking if anyone has RECEIVED dual in a champ.....Possibly he is looking for an opinion about it from a Student's point of view. He could have thousands of hours PIC in a champ but never given dual in one. Here this guy is joining just a few months ago with, at the time of this writing all, of 37 posts and he is looking for advice not a lecture in how to be friggin' Instructor of the year.....
behindpropellers
Registered User
NE Ohio
mvivion said:
Man Mike, give the guy a chance. If a guy can drive a cub what makes a champ hard to drive??? I have never flown one myself but they all are governed by the same rules of thrust, drag, lift, and gravity.
Clyde and Susan
BENEFACTOR
Thanks, Grant, for saying exactly what I was thinking when I read Mike's post. I have many hundreds of hours in both Cubs and Champs. In the case of the Champ, a long time ago. They both have their own personality, and both are fine flying machines. I personally prefer the snugness of the Cub. It is hard to feel like a part of the airplane in a Champ. I like my Cubs, but if I had an airknocker Champion, I'd like that too. ...Clyde
bob turner
Registered User
I have great respect for Mike's opinions. On this one, though, the critics are right - if you can instruct in a Cub, you are more than qualified to instruct in Champs.
When it comes to Huskys, Mike is probably correct in recommending just a touch of extra knowledge for the instructor. The darn thing flies beautifully, but you cannot be sloppy on the approach, like you can with a Cub. Still, an instructor with Cub experience will not have serious problems with any reasonable taildragger.
Beware of the weird ones. Do not jump in the front seat of a stock Waco and think you can rescue a sloppy student.
As usual - just opinion.
When it comes to Huskys, Mike is probably correct in recommending just a touch of extra knowledge for the instructor. The darn thing flies beautifully, but you cannot be sloppy on the approach, like you can with a Cub. Still, an instructor with Cub experience will not have serious problems with any reasonable taildragger.
Beware of the weird ones. Do not jump in the front seat of a stock Waco and think you can rescue a sloppy student.
As usual - just opinion.
Matt 7GCBC
Registered User
Northwest
Insomniacs?
Looking at the timing of these posts, wondering how many of you folks have a drink in your hand as you sit in front of the keyboard? Maybe just early risers or on vacation in Europe? Me, I'm headed home from work in about an hour. Enjoyed the Cub / Champ comparison. Thanks. Y'all have a good one.
Well, before I wrote my reply, the previous posts were all between 2 and 3:30 AM, but after, it shows them all around 11p.m. Must be one of those computer glitch thingys. I'll just go home to bed now and not worry about it.
Looking at the timing of these posts, wondering how many of you folks have a drink in your hand as you sit in front of the keyboard? Maybe just early risers or on vacation in Europe? Me, I'm headed home from work in about an hour. Enjoyed the Cub / Champ comparison. Thanks. Y'all have a good one.
Well, before I wrote my reply, the previous posts were all between 2 and 3:30 AM, but after, it shows them all around 11p.m. Must be one of those computer glitch thingys. I'll just go home to bed now and not worry about it.
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
I'm not the Ace of the Base, which is why I'd be very reluctant to instruct in a type I'm not pretty familiar with.
And, these are my standards---which may or may not apply to others. So, take it for what its worth. Which several already did.
And--the FAA says it's okay, so... :-?
MTV
And, these are my standards---which may or may not apply to others. So, take it for what its worth. Which several already did.
And--the FAA says it's okay, so... :-?
MTV
dreamer
Registered User
Somewhere over the Rainbow
I've received dual instruction in three different Champs (all 1946 7-AC) with three different instructors, including the one that will eventually be the examiner for my check ride which will take place largely in the Champ I have the most time in. I soloed in the Champ and did my second supervised solo in the same Champ. I like the idea that I am learning some real fundamentals of flight in such a time honored trainer. The adverse yaw is really educating my feet and my butt. I also like the idea that I am becoming very familiar with the most basic of instruments (needle, ball and airspeed). I think this is a great place to start learning to fly. There's something about a little yellow airplane that just delights my soul!
Good Luck!
Lynne
Good Luck!
Lynne
Bill Ingerson
Registered User
Snohomish Washington
Champs
Hello 3689A
I think you have a very straight forward question on how the champs work as trainers. They work very well and are fun to fly, we have one at our field and its been used for many years and still going. I enjoyed flying them and there easy to learn in. Your a cub man and probably have alot of hours in them. Wish you luck in your venture as a instructor. Your not doing it for the money and taking on alot of risk no matter what plane your flying.
Hello 3689A
I think you have a very straight forward question on how the champs work as trainers. They work very well and are fun to fly, we have one at our field and its been used for many years and still going. I enjoyed flying them and there easy to learn in. Your a cub man and probably have alot of hours in them. Wish you luck in your venture as a instructor. Your not doing it for the money and taking on alot of risk no matter what plane your flying.
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
Kase,
I seriously doubt it, but it isn't the FAA who I worry about.
I don't want someone busting their airplane, or worse yet, hurting themselves due to something I failed to teach them, even if it takes a year to catch up with them.
Consider this: I've known folks with hundreds of hours of Super Cub time, who've never hand propped an airplane. That is a skill that you probably should have a little guidance in prior to your first live shot at it.
It ain't rocket science, and these aren't F-22's, but they can hurt you.
MTV
I seriously doubt it, but it isn't the FAA who I worry about.
I don't want someone busting their airplane, or worse yet, hurting themselves due to something I failed to teach them, even if it takes a year to catch up with them.
Consider this: I've known folks with hundreds of hours of Super Cub time, who've never hand propped an airplane. That is a skill that you probably should have a little guidance in prior to your first live shot at it.
It ain't rocket science, and these aren't F-22's, but they can hurt you.
MTV
bob turner
Registered User
Once again, I agree with Mike. I spend a lot of $ on insurance, but only do a small amount of instruction. I prefer taildragger checkouts, and can't really hear well enough for primary.
Listen to this: If you personally do not have instructor insurance, you can indeed be in a world of hurt a year after signing someone off in a Champ or anything else! Right, wrong, or indifferent, lawyers are trained to name everyone on the initial complaint, and you will have to hire a lawyer.
If you do have instructor insurance, it may not cover you when you are not in the aircraft!
If you have NAFI, like I do, and have 5000 hours of Cub time, including J-3 and PA-18, you are not insured in a PA-11 until you have flown it for five hours. Same with the Champ series - If you own a Decathlon, do not instruct in a Citabria until you have five hours . . .
Your student with a brand new Cirrus will insist that you, as his instructor, are covered by his policy. Not true; he is covered, not you. If you want to instruct in aircraft worth more than your house, you need a waiver of subrogation from the owner's insurer, in addition to your own liability policy.
Opinion - I am not an insurance professional.
Listen to this: If you personally do not have instructor insurance, you can indeed be in a world of hurt a year after signing someone off in a Champ or anything else! Right, wrong, or indifferent, lawyers are trained to name everyone on the initial complaint, and you will have to hire a lawyer.
If you do have instructor insurance, it may not cover you when you are not in the aircraft!
If you have NAFI, like I do, and have 5000 hours of Cub time, including J-3 and PA-18, you are not insured in a PA-11 until you have flown it for five hours. Same with the Champ series - If you own a Decathlon, do not instruct in a Citabria until you have five hours . . .
Your student with a brand new Cirrus will insist that you, as his instructor, are covered by his policy. Not true; he is covered, not you. If you want to instruct in aircraft worth more than your house, you need a waiver of subrogation from the owner's insurer, in addition to your own liability policy.
Opinion - I am not an insurance professional.
BobK
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Back to the original question, yes I have. I bought a Champ (7-AC/EC-Conv) last summer, and received most all of my training in it from someone who was recommended on this site.
Were there any specific questions ?
I felt kind of like I was getting off easy in the Champ. No flaps to deal with, an (original 1946) airspeed indicator that was vague at best, and little paperwork to deal with. I thought it was/is an excellent plane to learn in, easy to learn, financially viable, and practical (tailwheel in AK).
Someday I'll get something with a lil more performance, but for now Im all grins !
Hasta ~
Bob K.
Anchorage, AK
Were there any specific questions ?
I felt kind of like I was getting off easy in the Champ. No flaps to deal with, an (original 1946) airspeed indicator that was vague at best, and little paperwork to deal with. I thought it was/is an excellent plane to learn in, easy to learn, financially viable, and practical (tailwheel in AK).
Someday I'll get something with a lil more performance, but for now Im all grins !
Hasta ~
Bob K.
Anchorage, AK
I've heard the same for about the last 2 years, so I don't know what the deal is. I hope it's true because I'll be first in line to get a ride and maybe a checkout, i better start saving my money and forget about the Pitts. I heard widebody your suppose to get one in your area also, WP supposedly # 2 in line for a (a) model The razorback mustang. keep me posted if anything changes.
Widebody
Registered User
ND/AZ
Maybe we should beat them to the punch
and be ready when they show up :roll: .
http://www.stallion51.com/intro.html
$3000 for a 2.5hr course, 1.0 flight time. Introduction to P51.
Might be worth it just to fly one
and relish the experience.
Be sure and click on the Gathering of Mustangs & Legends
and check out the Highlights & slide show.
Brad
and be ready when they show up :roll: .
http://www.stallion51.com/intro.html
$3000 for a 2.5hr course, 1.0 flight time. Introduction to P51.
Might be worth it just to fly one
and relish the experience
. Be sure and click on the Gathering of Mustangs & Legends
and check out the Highlights & slide show.
Brad
aalexander
Registered User
Anchorage
mvivion said:
Pretty much all WW-II P-51 pilots soloed the mustang with no dual. Some t-6 time and a cockpit orientation was all you needed.
They had a different approach to things back then. I read the autobiography of a woman who served in the British ferry command. They had a couple of fairly broad classifications for qualifications and you were ok to fly any type that fell in that classification. If you were qualified in a hurricane, you were also qualified in a Mustang, Spitfire, Typhoon and TBM. Check out in a wellington, and you were good to go in a Mosquito, Beaufighter, Ventura, and a B-25.
Not to suggest that type specific instruction is unnecessary, just noting that attitudes had changed dramatically.
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
Yep, the approach back then was that both pilots and machines were somewhat expendable. And, as the statement "One a Day Into Tampa Bay" with reference to the B-26 suggested, they used up a lot of them.
That too was fixed with proper transition training, as was the P-38's ugly reputation, fixed largely by Charles Lindbergh and Bob Hoover.
MTV
That too was fixed with proper transition training, as was the P-38's ugly reputation, fixed largely by Charles Lindbergh and Bob Hoover.
MTV
kase said:
I had a student come to me for instruction after flipping a C140 on it's back. The FAA took his license and now requires him to be retested for his private certificate in a taildragger. The guy was 10 hours taildragger time and 4 months from his taildragger signoff. The feds did not go after the original CFI. . . FYI
Hank
185 Bushbird
Registered User
Surfside SPB-Minneapolis, MN
champ
3689A- I've given lots of dual in champs and cubs and have owned 2 champs and 7 cubs and flown many others. If the champ has the no bounce gear they are a bit different as the gear has a longer travel oleo on the gear. It takes a little getting used to in crosswinds on the asphalt, the standard gear which i prefer is more stable and a piece of cake. Go fly solo from the front first and get the feel of it and don't get too spoiled from the visibility and comfort of the magic champ. I will own another C90 champ someday .
3689A- I've given lots of dual in champs and cubs and have owned 2 champs and 7 cubs and flown many others. If the champ has the no bounce gear they are a bit different as the gear has a longer travel oleo on the gear. It takes a little getting used to in crosswinds on the asphalt, the standard gear which i prefer is more stable and a piece of cake. Go fly solo from the front first and get the feel of it and don't get too spoiled from the visibility and comfort of the magic champ. I will own another C90 champ someday .
aalexander
Registered User
Anchorage
hankster said:
That makes sense. Often when I hear of "709" rides, the checkride has little or nothing to do with the incident that prompted the re-examination. If the problem was tailwheel ops, then it makes sense to take a closer look at those.
hankster said:
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they won't. I don't know what if any policies they have, or maybe it's purely at the discretion of the fed, but they may take a closer look at the CFI. It seems like someone here, Alex Clark I think, had this happen; former student screwed somethin up and the FAA made him (the instructor) take a "709" check. IIRC, it went smoothly, but I'm sure it was a hassle that he didn't need. Apologies if my memory is playing tricks and it wasn't Alex.
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
Kase,
Again, the bigger issues that I'm aware of are:
1) Instructor's conscience
2) Legal action
Frankly, with that much time passed, I'd be really surprised if the FSDO folks would rap on the instructor's door, unless it was something REALLY ugly involved.
But, number 1 above would weigh heavily on my mind.
MTV
Again, the bigger issues that I'm aware of are:
1) Instructor's conscience
2) Legal action
Frankly, with that much time passed, I'd be really surprised if the FSDO folks would rap on the instructor's door, unless it was something REALLY ugly involved.
But, number 1 above would weigh heavily on my mind.
MTV
aalexander
Registered User
Anchorage
mvivion said:
Mike, I wouldn't argue that attention from the FAA is the number one thing (or the only thing) you should worry about, you're probably right that the issues you mentioned are (or should be) more important. I'm just saying that it *is* in fact possible that the FAA may give some attention to the CFI. It can and *has* happened.
