I disagree,
Modern production single engine aircraft have phenomenal aerodynamics and controllability.
High powered antique airplanes designed in the 1930’s, not so much.
Just take a quick glance at the big radial engine and the tiny rudder and then imagine how uniquely bad the low speed directional control is on the antique Howard…
Having hauled skydivers numerous times in this machine, it surely has
very nice handling charactaristics as most planes.
Experienced pilots will automatically compensate for power and/or wind gust changes without catastrophic results.
My take
The author’s discussion of power, torque and P-factor during a go around is right on target. But in some airplanes the pitching moment accompanying application of full power can be a greater challenge. In Maule aircraft, for example, full power with full flaps at touchdown speed can require extreme forward pressure on the controls to maintain any semblance of level flight. In this situation many will add about 60% power then either re-trim the elevator or retract one notch of flaps before increasing power further - easier said than done with sweaty hands. It’s probably worth noting that the pitching moment will be a strong function of the weight and CG location which govern the trim setting on approach.
According to the NTSB, “It is likely that, upon application of engine power to initiate the go-around, the pilot failed to adequately compensate for the extreme left-turning tendencies of the high-powered engine, which resulted in a subsequent loss of control and aerodynamic stall.”
Translation: With a strong shove to the left by the crosswind and landing left of centerline and the EXTREME strong left-turning tendencies of the high-powered engine, there was no way that diminutive racer-inspired rudder could maintain directional control at minimal airspeed. In that situation, you get to choose between nosing over as you leave the runway or powering up and hoping beyond reason that there would be rudder. The best way to get out of that situation is to not put yourself into that airplane in that situation in the first place. It was already too late for “going around” procedures.
In concert with Mark above, the ‘one size fits all’ approach is not beneficial. The handbook should be amended to explain:
The majority of light GA aircraft will easily handle the application of full power if a ‘go around’ becomes necessary and are easily controlled with the available elevator and rudder inputs.
However, there are some aircraft for which the application of full power may exceed elevator and rudder authority to control. In those cases, the application of power should be incremental, slowly increasing the aircraft accelerates and the aircraft cleaned up.
Fr’instance, in my aircraft (RV-7A), I conduct ‘touch and goes’ utilizing full flap and trim all the way down final. The ‘go’ is conducted without reducing flap or repositioning the trim: while it is necessary to use forward pressure on the CC during the initial climb, the aircraft is easily controlled as nose-down trim is introduced and the flaps raised during the climb.