Talk:Champion Lancer

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

FAA rating claim

I've begun to doubt the veracity of the author's claim in Airport-Data.com that the FAA "quickly limited a multi-engine rating obtained on [the 402 Lancer] to operation of this type model aircraft only." I cannot find any verification of this assertion in other sources or in FAA records. The author similarly claims that a multiengine rating in the Cessna 336 is good "to these models only," which is not exactly true—according to "FAA Order 8900.2C" (PDF)., taking a practical test in a Skymaster merely results in a multiengine rating that is "limited to center thrust," and it's incidental that the 336/337 are the only commonplace civil aircraft types with this layout. In that vein, Order 8900.2C also states that the applicant for a multiengine rating must demonstrate feathering a propeller, which would be impossible in a Lancer with its fixed-pitch props. I speculate that the author may have jumped to conclusions; perhaps the institution of the propeller-feathering requirement was the actual reason that the Champion 402 fell out of favor with flight schools. Hangar talk that the 402 was the impetus for this rule isn't encyclopedic. Anyone have any enlightening information? Carguychris (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of older aircraft that do not have feathering propellers, like the 1935 Avro Anson and 1932 de Havilland Dragon for instance, it is unlikely that the Lancer was the sole reason for the rule. Your ref is pretty clear that it can't be used for the FAA test, though:

"Feathering Propellers.

An appropriately equipped airplane must be provided by the applicant.

(1) The feathering of one propeller must be demonstrated in flight in multiengine airplanes equipped with propellers which can be feathered and unfeathered. However, as is the case for all practical tests, the PTS/ACS requires that the applicant bring an aircraft that is “capable of performing all appropriate tasks for the certificate or rating and have no operating limitations that prohibit the performance of those tasks.”

- Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key question is when and why the prop-feathering test requirement was introduced. You're right about numerous older types having fixed props, but as far as I can determine, those fixed props make the 402 Lancer the proverbial unicorn among postwar Western type-certificated aircraft. Even the widely derided Piper Apache (I've heard it likened to a brick on one engine) has feathering props. It makes ample sense that the FAA would require a pilot to demonstrate feathering and unfeathering a prop, as it's safe to assume that nearly every airplane that person would subsequently fly would have this capability. Carguychris (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might give some indication if we knew when that rule was introduced. It may well have just been, that since almost all post-war light aircraft had feathering props and the rating, once earned, allowed a pilot to fly them, that you had to demonstrate proficiency on them. Meaning it may have had more to do with the proliferation of aircraft with feathering props than the Lancer showing up without one. There were still old Ansons, Dragons and such around then. Regardless, I think without a ref that actually says that the rule was due to the Lancer, that we can safely remove that unsourced claim as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; however, I'll wait a couple of days to give folks a chance to chime in, and then I'll delete it. Carguychris (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. - Ahunt (talk)

Comparable aircraft

Does one exist? Did any other postwar aircraft manufacturer think that an underpowered fixed-gear two-seat twin was a good idea...? Carguychris (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You left out "with fixed pitch props..." How about the Ultraflight Lazair? - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I was thinking factory-built aircraft with enclosed cabins, not ultralights. The best one I've come up with is the Aeroprakt A-36 Vulcan—high wing, tandem seating, fixed gear, two engines around 100 HP each—but it's a radically more modern design with pusher props (which I'm not certain are fixed pitch, although they sure look like it in photos). Carguychris (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the A-36 is fixed pitch, but there sure aren't many around, at least post-WWII. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]