How do ya loop a Stearman?
ShawnD2112
practice, I think.
I tried to use the same techniques as in the Pitts, but found that didn't
work. Of, I think, 4 loops I tried, one I almost spun out of inverted, one
I ended up coming out in a quarter cloverleaf, two were really more of a
series of accelerated stalls, and two ended up siphoning fuel out of the
tank near the top of the loop.
Technique I'm used to in the Pitts is to get 140, smooth pull to 4Gs, ease
off the back pressure a bit at the top to keep it round, keep the wings
level, increase back pressure to the same as the original pull by the time
we're back to straight and level.
When I tried that in the Stearman, that's when I ended up siphoning fuel and
getting accelerated stalls. Those, by the way, are kinda cool. You're near
the top, keeping the back pressure up so it'll come over the top when you
start to feel a buffet and suddenly the stick goes slack in your hand and
ends up at the rear stop.
The technique Ian was teaching me is much more involved, largely due to a
fixed pitch prop on the 220 hp engine. Dive for 125, keeping engine revs at
1900 (still breaking in a rebuilt engine). Gently pull up and increase to
full throttle. Keep the back pressure progressively increasing until it's
over the top - don't ease off to round it out, decrease and then chop the
throttle as speed build on the back side, check to see how much altitude
we've lost, increase to full throttle once straight and level! Now, it
sounds easy but I didn't find it easy.
I think what I was doing wrong is pulling back too sharply at the beginning
so I didn't have any stick left at the top to keep it coming over without
stalling - maybe bled off too much energy too early so there was nothing
left at the top. I also noticed the wings weren't level as we came to the
top and I thought afterward that maybe it needs a bootfull of right rudder
on the way up to counteract torque, etc. Ian said we should be able to do
the whole thing with no more than 2.5 G but I ended up pulling 3.5.
So, the question is - any hints on looping (and barrel rolling) a low speed,
high drag machine like a Stearman? IT's obviously a lot easier in something
like the Pitts which has more than enough grunt to get itself over neatly.
The Stearman's a delight to fly and I'd really like to be able to learn to
fly her well in all areas of the envelope.
Any inputs appreciated!
Thanks,
Shawn
2.5 hrs Stearman (but it seemed like 10 minutes!)
hawk2...@my-deja.com
it is based to a large extent on the 220 stearman.
In article <b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"ShawnD2112" <Shawnd.SPA...@Virgin.net> wrote:
> Had a go at looping a Stearman yesterday. That's going to take a bit
of
> practice, I think.
[snip]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Pilkington
went around fine without the problems that you've mentioned below. I
sentence you to another dual session with an aerobatic instructor.
Regards,
Dave Pilkington.
In article <b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"ShawnD2112" <Shawnd.SPA...@Virgin.net> wrote:
> Had a go at looping a Stearman yesterday. That's going to take a bit
of
> practice, I think.
>
flyi...@my-deja.com
Now you are learning the nuances of flying! Realizing there is more
than yank and bank and relying on power to get you thru. I really do
appreciate what you are doing and the fun you are having.
Have had lots of fun in Stearmans over the years but have not flown one
in at least five years. Was instructing in them in central California
for crop dusting. Probably 1000 hours in the Pt 17 and variants.
Cheers
FlyinRock
Seth
I'm new to the group and this looked like a good place to jump in. Mainly
I'm a sit back and listen, low time pilot. I saw the Red Baron Pizza
Stearmans do loops just as pretty as you please. Maybe a quick email to
them would help. Not sure if your machine was compatable in power?
Good Luck,
Seth
Dudley Henriques
"ShawnD2112" <shawnd.N...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Shawn,
I never used the Stearman for show work, but we had one for awhile in
our stable of airplanes.
The Stearman has a Vne at 124, so don't dive beyond that for a loop
entry. You should be fine at that speed. It sounds like you're loading
it too fast in the pull. You can fly it all day at under 4g's.The wing
develops a ton of lift so there's no need to rush it. Reference the wing
tip in the pull just like the Pitts and keep it squared up with rudder.
As the energy bleeds off on the front side, you will need some right
rudder. You can pick this up right away by referencing the tip. You'll
see it move off the horizon line. Just feed in the right rudder to keep
it there. The Stearman will just stop and pay off if you ease off the
pull around the top. You don't have the excess energy to "round off"
like you do in the Pitts. On the other hand you can't simply keep
pulling it in tight either. You can snap or partially snap it by doing
this. The trick is to "feel" for the right amount of stick to "urge" it
around. It's kind of like riding a humpback whale until you get the hang
of it.
The Lycoming 220 (R-680-17) is marginal for vertical akro. You have to
use airspeed and energy conversion instead of power in this airplane.
Keep at it with the instructor. From what you wrote, he sounds like he
knows how to fly the bird.
Good luck,
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Certified Flight Instructor
stuart
Stearman bleeds kinetic energy very quickly if you pull hard. You would be
amazed at how (inadvertently) slow you can fly it inverted without stalling
at the top of the loop, but don't get too slow on purpose, should you enter
a spin, you will get the wake up call of your life. Trust me on that one.
The stick goes very slack indeed. Bit of right rudder, reference wings
level. I could never get mine to do a crisp loop, and in all fairness, I
don't do aerobatics all that often as she is 60 years old after all. Vne in
the Stearman is not a real great worry, only because you have to point the
nose down with power for a bit before you get there, at least in mine. Power
back, and it won't accelerate too bad. I don't really worry about
overstressing the big whale, I'm told its hard to do in the Stearman unless
you are really messing up.
Stu-:)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles K. Scott
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "ShawnD2112" <shawnd.N...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Shawn,
>
> I never used the Stearman for show work, but we had one for awhile in
> our stable of airplanes.
>
> The Stearman has a Vne at 124, so don't dive beyond that for a loop
> entry. You should be fine at that speed. It sounds like you're loading
> it too fast in the pull. You can fly it all day at under 4g's.The wing
> develops a ton of lift so there's no need to rush it. Reference the wing
> tip in the pull just like the Pitts and keep it squared up with rudder.
> As the energy bleeds off on the front side, you will need some right
> rudder. You can pick this up right away by referencing the tip. You'll
> see it move off the horizon line. Just feed in the right rudder to keep
> it there. The Stearman will just stop and pay off if you ease off the
> pull around the top. You don't have the excess energy to "round off"
> like you do in the Pitts. On the other hand you can't simply keep
> pulling it in tight either. You can snap or partially snap it by doing
> this. The trick is to "feel" for the right amount of stick to "urge" it
> around. It's kind of like riding a humpback whale until you get the hang
> of it.
Fun subject. I should preface this comment by saying that I have not
flown in a Stearman although I've looped in a Waco UPF-7 several times.
Regarding the VNE, I swear I've read that the Stearman is one of the
few airplanes that has no restrictions in flight, that it literally
cannot be hurt no matter what you try to do to it (in the air), and
cadets during WWII literally tried everything including vertical
powerdives with conscious loosing abrupt pullouts. The only other
airplane I'm aware of that is or was similarly unrestricted (although
I'm sure there are more I haven't heard about) was the Grumman F4F
Wildcat.
As to the looping, I watched a Stearman being looped in the landing
pattern on the downwind leg and it looked like something I was watching
in slow motion, he couldn't have been going more than 80mph during the
pullup. I'm guessing that like others have suggested you probably were
pulling too hard on the stick and bled off energy too quickly.
Corky Scott
Dudley Henriques
"Charles K. Scott" <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:8n912e$9po$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
> In article <PHKl5.182$Cc2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >
> > "ShawnD2112" <shawnd.N...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Regarding the VNE, I swear I've read that the Stearman is one of the
> few airplanes that has no restrictions in flight, that it literally
> cannot be hurt no matter what you try to do to it (in the air), and
> cadets during WWII literally tried everything including vertical
> powerdives with conscious loosing abrupt pullouts. The only other
> airplane I'm aware of that is or was similarly unrestricted (although
> I'm sure there are more I haven't heard about) was the Grumman F4F
> Wildcat.
Vne on the F4F was around 318mph.
Both of these airplanes are extremely tough as you say, but make no
mistake about it, if you go fast enough....and you pull hard
enough......you can suffer structural failure in ANY airplane. Every
airplane has a flight envelope called a vg diagram that tells you
exactly where the limits are.
Rick Macklem
: Regarding the VNE, I swear I've read that the Stearman is one of the
: few airplanes that has no restrictions in flight, that it literally
: cannot be hurt no matter what you try to do to it (in the air), and
: cadets during WWII literally tried everything including vertical
: powerdives with conscious loosing abrupt pullouts. The only other
: airplane I'm aware of that is or was similarly unrestricted (although
: I'm sure there are more I haven't heard about) was the Grumman F4F
: Wildcat.
The story I read in one of the "coffee table books" on the Stearman
was that, when they were testing the wings at the factory, they ran
out of sand bags before the wings started deforming, let alone breaking
(Haven't confirmed this elsewhere, though).
I have a copy of the old Navy Stearman Pilots manual and it doesn't list
any G limits. I think it listed a Vne of 186mph for the stock Stearman
but I'll double check and post again tomorrow, if that isn't the number.
Many (most?) Stearmans have been modified over the years, so that number
might not be right for the one your flying.
I can't think of anything that would add to the excellent comments on
looping the Stearman, except maybe the following (if you promise not to
laugh:-):
- I've found a toilet plunger useful for practicing this stuff on the
ground. There's a real tendency to pull back and to the right when
you pull around loops and I find if I watch the "stick" on the end
of the toilet plunger, I catch myself doing that.
Good luck and have fun with it, rick
ps: It was rolling the old Stearman that I found a real challenge.
Gumbo
I believe 318 is the top speed of the F4F, not Vne. From everything
I've ever read about the Wildcat, it was so rugged that terminal dive
airspeed was not redlined. There were basically no limits on speed and
maneuverability. Since it was basically a crappy fighter, this was one
of it's only advantages (along with its ammo load). I'm open for
correction, but I've read this in numerous sources.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dudley Henriques
"Gumbo" <jl0246N...@alpha.rwu.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:0f26367e...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com...
> Dudley,
>
> I believe 318 is the top speed of the F4F, not Vne.
That could very well be right. I'm just going on memory about this.
From everything
> I've ever read about the Wildcat, it was so rugged that terminal dive
> airspeed was not redlined.
The problem with structrual failure is the g -airspeed combination, not
airspeed alone. Back in those days, the performance graphs were sparse
to say the least. The printed material from Grumman reflected this for
the F4F. It wasn't until later in the war that the flight envelopes were
presented on vg diagrams.
There were basically no limits on speed and
> maneuverability. Since it was basically a crappy fighter, this was
one
> of it's only advantages (along with its ammo load). I'm open for
> correction, but I've read this in numerous sources.
Actually, the Wildcat did quite well in combat. It's my understanding
that it's kill ratio was around 7 to 1 against all comers. (If your arm
didn't fall off first from cranking up the gear that is) :-)
Gumbo
:-)"
30 turns and many a busted wrist and smashed nuckle.
George R. Patterson III
>
> Actually, the Wildcat did quite well in combat. It's my understanding
> that it's kill ratio was around 7 to 1 against all comers.
Maybe so, but Joe Foss (who flew them at Guadalcanal) said that it was
markedly inferior to the Zero. He stated that if he put the worst of
his pilots in a Zero and the two of them went at it, the guy in the Zero
would be able to shoot Foss down in a few seconds.
You may be thinking of the Hellcat - a much better aircraft.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Charles K. Scott
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Vne on the F4F was around 318mph.
This has got to be a typo, right? The max speed in level flight was
around 330 or more. You don't mean 418 do you?
My father, who flew for the Navy during WWII, recounted to me one day a
talk he attended with Joe Foss who had just come off a tour at
Guadalcanal and was back in the states. He remembered that Foss talked
about a time when he was cought by several Zero's alone and needed to
get out of the situation, FAST. He knew from briefings regarding the
A6M Zero that it could not stay with the Wildcat (which he was flying)
in a dive so he pushed over and went to war emergency power. My father
remembers him joking that when the wingwalk material began peeling off
the wing, he figured that was probably fast enough and began his
pullout. Obviously, he survived this flight or he wouldn't have been
standing their talking about it but I'll bet he might have exceeded the
VNE that day by a little bit. ;-)
Speaking of the Wildcat, one visitor to Guadalcanal observed Marine
pilots returning from flight ops and approaching Henderson Field. Some
of them chose to drop their landing gear in an unusual manner: they
apparently unlocked the landing gear crank and then snap rolled the
airplane (the snap roll added G's to the airplane and the gear spun
down in a HURRY). The Wildcat's landing gear was raised and lowered by
a hand crank and was purely mechanical, no engine driven hydraulics.
It took some 27 (I think) cranks to get it up and the crank wasn't
nicely located so on takeoff and climbout it was often easy to identify
what the airplane was because it would porpoise up and down as the
pilot laborously cranked the gear up.
This was such a time consuming task that during the Battle of Midway
after the three Japanese carriers had been sunk and the remaining
Japanese carrier had launched a retaliatory strike, James Thach who had
returned from the initial strike during which he escorted the hapless
TBD Devastors launched while the Yorktown was twisting and maneuvering
to avoid incoming torpedo bombers. Thach realised he did not have time
to raise his landing gear and turned towards the incoming bombers who
were at very low level and had split to approach the carrier from two
sides.
Turning left he saw the spray from AA fire and tracers aimed at one
bomber and turned in to close with it. As he approached on it's port
side, he saw the torpedo release and plunge into the water. He was now
in range and brought the bomber under fire noticing a diagonal white
stripe on the vertical stabilizer. The bomber, stricken by the
accurate fire hit the water short of the carrier.
This airplane was flight leader Tomanonga and the last thing he did on
earth before being shot down was accurately aim that torpedo. One of
the several excellent weapons the Japanese developed before the war was
the aerial torpedo, they tended to run true and detonate when they were
supposed to. This one did both and the resultant explosion permanently
disabled the Yorktown.
Corky Scott
Dudley Henriques
"George R. Patterson III" <grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:399837D5...@earthlink.net...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Maybe so, but Joe Foss (who flew them at Guadalcanal) said that it was
> markedly inferior to the Zero. He stated that if he put the worst of
> his pilots in a Zero and the two of them went at it, the guy in the
Zero
> would be able to shoot Foss down in a few seconds.
I don't remember Joe ever saying that; he loved the Wildcat! So did
Thatch. I do remember them saying that on paper, the F4F and the Zero
compared badly. The Wildcat on paper couldn't even begin to match the
Zero's performance. What happened with Joe, and others like Thatch, who
flew the F4F against superior performing airplanes like the Zero, was
that by using the airplane wisely instead of allowing the turning
horizontal fights the Zero was known for, they ran up a pretty
respectful score. If you look at the kill ratios for F4F pilots against
the Zero, it comes out to about 7 to 1. The difference was in the
cockpits, not the airplane per se. Joe had a great respect for the Zero
as you say, but believe me, he was very happy with his ending score
against Zeros, as was Thatch and a few others.
You're right about the Hellcat being an improvement. It indeed was just
that...a whole new and better ballgame.
ShawnD2112
barrel rolls. He says he hasn't the guts to do an aileron roll, yet. He's
only got about 20 hours on this machine and he's having a ball with it.
It's fun flying with and learning from a guy who has as much enthusiasm as a
kid on Christmas morning with a new toy.
As for your tip, I don't have a plunger. Can I use a toilet brush? :)
Shawn
Rick Macklem wrote in message <8n93e1$soo$1...@testinfo.cs.uoguelph.ca>...
ShawnD2112
watching the tip for rudder input is new to me and may solve a problem I've
been having. In the Pitts, if I get to the back side and can see the
horizon again inverted and the wings aren't level, I seem to put in the
wrong aileron correction so make it worse before making it better. Checking
the tips on the way up may help that. Before I've only checked the two tips
after the horizon disappears to check that both tips are equal. Looking at
one may save me some neck strain.
As for the instructor, he's actually just a recent owner (12,500 hrs in all
kinds of stuff including 75/767s). His bird only has about 20 hours on the
clock since restoration so he's learning too. It's kinda neat that way in
that he's figuring stuff out about the airplane and has as much enthusiasm
about it as a kid at Christmas. He's learned to do a pretty good barrel
roll in it too.
Thanks for the hints. I'll add them to my notes for my next flight.
Shawn
Dudley Henriques wrote in message ...
"ShawnD2112" <shawnd.N...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Shawn,
I never used the Stearman for show work, but we had one for awhile in
our stable of airplanes.
The Stearman has a Vne at 124, so don't dive beyond that for a loop
entry. You should be fine at that speed. It sounds like you're loading
it too fast in the pull. You can fly it all day at under 4g's.The wing
develops a ton of lift so there's no need to rush it. Reference the wing
tip in the pull just like the Pitts and keep it squared up with rudder.
As the energy bleeds off on the front side, you will need some right
rudder. You can pick this up right away by referencing the tip. You'll
see it move off the horizon line. Just feed in the right rudder to keep
it there. The Stearman will just stop and pay off if you ease off the
pull around the top. You don't have the excess energy to "round off"
like you do in the Pitts. On the other hand you can't simply keep
pulling it in tight either. You can snap or partially snap it by doing
this. The trick is to "feel" for the right amount of stick to "urge" it
around. It's kind of like riding a humpback whale until you get the hang
of it.
The Lycoming 220 (R-680-17) is marginal for vertical akro. You have to
use airspeed and energy conversion instead of power in this airplane.
Keep at it with the instructor. From what you wrote, he sounds like he
knows how to fly the bird.
Good luck,
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Certified Flight Instructor
ShawnD2112
Now that's justice at work! :)
Shawn
David Pilkington wrote in message <8n7lur$25e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Its been a long time since I've looped a 20 hp Stearman but I recall it
went around fine without the problems that you've mentioned below. I
sentence you to another dual session with an aerobatic instructor.
Regards,
Dave Pilkington.
In article <b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
ShawnD2112
dusting. Is it as cool and as hairy as it looks? I've watched Stearmans do
turns at treetop level that had me cringing standing on the ground. Looks
like great fun but the intensity must be unreal!
flyi...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n7mti$2t1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Ahhh Shawn
Now you are learning the nuances of flying! Realizing there is more
than yank and bank and relying on power to get you thru. I really do
appreciate what you are doing and the fun you are having.
Have had lots of fun in Stearmans over the years but have not flown one
in at least five years. Was instructing in them in central California
for crop dusting. Probably 1000 hours in the Pt 17 and variants.
Cheers
FlyinRock
hawk2...@my-deja.com
That is how my instructor taught me to get it into an inverted spin.
I HATE being on the outside of a spin. Not to worry though it recovers
nicely.
In article <uAMl5.149144$ef6.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
"stuart" <hyde...@home.com> wrote:
> Dudley has explained it very well. Don't pull too aggressively as the
[snip]
you can fly it inverted without
stalling
> at the top of the loop, but don't get too slow on purpose, should you
enter
> a spin, you will get the wake up call of your life.
Ed
"The Greatest Generation." As I recall, he flew right back to Henderson
field with the Zeros still on his tail, and landed at full speed without
even slowing down. He slid off the runway on the far end of the field and
the zeros zoomed away under aa fire. He said they counted over 500 holes in
his wildcat. One of the pilots in his squadron described him as having "all
the balls of any man who ever walked the earth." No qualified endorsement
there, eh?
From what I have read, Wildcat pilots managed to hold their own against the
zero by using tactics that took advantage of superior durability and
firepower against the far more agile Zero. The zero had no armor and did
not have self-sealing fuel tanks early in the war, while the wildcat could
absorb a lot of punishment. That is one reason the Thatch weave worked well
against the more agile zeros.
--
---
Charles K. Scott <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:8n9ctl$e4f$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
George R. Patterson III
>
> I don't remember Joe ever saying that; he loved the Wildcat!
My father used to have his wartime autobiography. I read it several
times and finally left it somewhere (as small boys are wont to do). It
would have been published back in the late 40s or early 50s. That
statement of mine is nearly a direct quote, but, as you can see, my last
reading was decades ago. Foss' conclusion was that Marine pilots were
much better trained than the Japanese pilots he was fighting over the
canal.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Dudley Henriques
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
That's true. Most of the guys flying the F4F loved the ugly beast. Foss,
Marian Carl, Butch O'Hare, Jim Thatch and Jim Flatley all agreed that
the Wildcat could hold it's own very well against the Japanese
competition....if you flew it right!
There was some growling from our side early on, as you have correctly
pointed out, about the -3 version. The later version, the -4 was a much
more preferred airplane against the Japanese.
The mystique that has surrounded the A6M through the years is
fascinating. Actually, Sakai once told us he preferred the type 96 as a
dogfighter. He was also a strong proponent of making the kill on the
first pass. That comes as a real shock to some people. Even Sakai chose
not to dogfight the Zero unless he had to do it. Chennault had already
discovered in China that the day of the dogfight was about over; and
this was even before the Zero arrived on the scene. Although even
today, we still enjoy discussing the dogfight in glowing terms, it is
interesting to note that pilots like Sakai, flying airplanes like the
A6M, were leaning heavily against getting involved in dogfights with
airplanes of lesser performance.
Edward Zager
|> Dudley Henriques wrote:
|> >
|> > Actually, the Wildcat did quite well in combat. It's my understanding
|> > that it's kill ratio was around 7 to 1 against all comers.
|>
|> markedly inferior to the Zero. He stated that if he put the worst of
|> his pilots in a Zero and the two of them went at it, the guy in the Zero
|> would be able to shoot Foss down in a few seconds.
|>
|>
"It isn't the crate, it's the man in it" - Manfred v. Richtofen
A kill ratio doesn't really tell you anything about the performance of the
aircraft involved. Consider that the Mig 15 was superior in many aspects
to the F-86, (ceiling, top speed, and due to locality, excess fuel) and
then look at their kill ratios against each other in Korea.
As I recall, the F4F vs A6M (exclusively) kill ratio was very close to 1:1.
I would expect that the total Wildcat kill ratio would be better than this.
The superior performance of a single A6M was negated by the pairs tactics
of the USN (Thach weave)
If the Japanese had adopted the pairs tactics that the USN employed, the
kill ratio might have been much different. Although you also have to
consider that the F4F could take much more battle damage than an A6M.
I would expect this might matter when one aircraft is dragging an enemy
aircraft across the nose of his wingman.
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
Dudley Henriques
"Edward Zager" <eza...@td2cad.KiLLSPam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8nbtcc$i...@news.or.intel.com...
> "It isn't the crate, it's the man in it" - Manfred v. Richtofen
A point brought home quite vividly to Manfred by a fellow named Brown.
>
> A kill ratio doesn't really tell you anything about the performance of
the
> aircraft involved. Consider that the Mig 15 was superior in many
aspects
> to the F-86, (ceiling, top speed, and due to locality, excess fuel)
and
> then look at their kill ratios against each other in Korea.
This is basically true. Kill ratios are more useful as a measure of the
total personnel; aircraft; tactics eval.
>
> As I recall, the F4F vs A6M (exclusively) kill ratio was very close to
1:1.
Considering the performance variation between these two airplanes, a 1:1
kill ratio would indicate exactly what our F4F people were telling us.
That the airplane could hold it's own if flown correctly against the
competition.
Considering the acm advantages enjoyed by the zero community, the kill
ratio should have been much higher in their favor. This considers of
course that the analysis considered tactics used by both sides; and
quality of pilot personnel; (the difference between the cockpits,) as
both you and I have said.
> I would expect that the total Wildcat kill ratio would be better than
this.
> The superior performance of a single A6M was negated by the pairs
tactics
> of the USN (Thach weave)
The Thatch Weave was actually a forerunner of what later became a
subject with which I'm quite familiar, "Loose Deuce".
Thatch realized early on that there was merit in wide horizontal
separation mutual support maneuvering that included lead changes from
engaged to free by a section. Many people don't know that the F4F had a
superior roll rate to the Zero, especially at higher airspeeds. The
secret of the weave was high angle off snap shooting, which our guys
practiced a great deal, and the ability of the Wildcat to reverse
quicker than the zero. Staged from a wide (about 1000' for an F4F
section) horizontal combat spread formation, the zero was allowed to
commit(become predictable) on one of the Wildcats. This F4F became the
engaged fighter. The two F4F's would then perform a hard turn into the
zero, which if done correctly, allowed a high deflection snap shot by
the free fighter who now became engaged.(switch). The hook was now
baited. If the zero continued the pass on his initial target, both F4F's
reversed into him again. The superior roll rate of the Wildcat now
closed the door on the A6M. The zero's target, breaking hard into him,
caused him to overshoot in the plane of his turn(zero higher airspeed,
must overshoot or create a square corner) which forced the zero outside.
The second Wildcat, having reversed again, was now either nose to nose,
or given another high deflection gunshot.(nose quarter attack). The
Wildcat pilots liked this situation because of their superior fire
power(scatter pattern bore sighting with the 50's)
Thatch was way ahead of his time. His ideas about wide separation mutual
support; lead switches; and split plane maneuvering later became a way
of life in the fighter community.
>
> If the Japanese had adopted the pairs tactics that the USN employed,
the
> kill ratio might have been much different
I agree.
Charles K. Scott
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> writes:
> The
> secret of the weave was high angle off snap shooting, which our guys
> practiced a great deal, and the ability of the Wildcat to reverse
> quicker than the zero. Staged from a wide (about 1000' for an F4F
> section) horizontal combat spread formation, the zero was allowed to
> commit(become predictable) on one of the Wildcats. This F4F became the
> engaged fighter. The two F4F's would then perform a hard turn into the
> zero, which if done correctly, allowed a high deflection snap shot by
> the free fighter who now became engaged.(switch). The hook was now
> baited. If the zero continued the pass on his initial target, both F4F's
> reversed into him again. The superior roll rate of the Wildcat now
> closed the door on the A6M. The zero's target, breaking hard into him,
> caused him to overshoot in the plane of his turn(zero higher airspeed,
> must overshoot or create a square corner) which forced the zero outside.
> The second Wildcat, having reversed again, was now either nose to nose,
> or given another high deflection gunshot.(nose quarter attack). The
> Wildcat pilots liked this situation because of their superior fire
> power(scatter pattern bore sighting with the 50's)
>
> Thatch was way ahead of his time. His ideas about wide separation mutual
> support; lead switches; and split plane maneuvering later became a way
> of life in the fighter community.
Dudley beat me to it but I was going to elaborate on Thach's weave at
some point.
Commander Thach had developed the weave in anticipation of encountering
a Japanese fighter that he read about in an intelligence paper. This
was the first inkling of the A6M type Zero fighter and he heard about
it during the summer of 1941. Thach worked out the tactics and proved
them in training using his deadliest shot Butch O'Hare as the attacker.
Thach duly educated all in his squadron in the tactic and I should take
a moment here to explain emphatically that this was designed from the
outset to be a DEFENSIVE maneuver. It was intended to protect pairs or
groups of fighters who were cought in a tough situation.
As I mentioned in the previous post a month ago, there needed to be a
minimum of two fighters for it to work. Both fighters flew abreast
each other at the minimum turning radius of the aircraft and kept an
eye on each others tail.
When/if a fighter was spotted diving in, as Dudley explained, the trick
was to wait until the enemy fighter was committed to the firing pass
and then bank up and turn steeply in towards the other fighter flying
with you. That fighter was supposed to notice you turning it towards
him and immediately was to bank towards the now rapidly approaching
other fighter and pass below him. So far each fighter has made one
turn, towards each other.
The attacking fighter, in order to bring his target under fire must
lead the now rapidly turning fighter in front of him so he has to yank
and bank in that direction and pull VERY hard. But wait, not only is
his target disappearing to one side, his partner is now rapidly
approaching near head on. The attacker's only option is to continue to
attack, now aiming at the newcomer or pull up and away as rapidly as
possible. Either tactic in this particular scenario put the A6M at a
disadvantage because the Wildcat was very much more heavily armored
than the Zero and in this rapid fire situation would only be able to
bring his machine guns to bear (the 20mm cannon were slow firing and
had low muzzle velocity which made snap shots problematic) while the
F4F was opening fire with four .50 caliber machine guns which carried a
much heavier weight of fire than the .30 caliber machine guns.
All the US fighter who brought the Zero under fire wanted to do was
"shoot the attacker off his partners tail". So if the Zero didn't yank
too hard on the stick and bleed off energy he likely made it out of
range rapidly, the US fighters were generally only using this tactic
because they were at a disadvantage for one reason or another and
rarely pursued beyond knocking them off each other's tail.
But if the Zero pilot yanked too hard and mushed in front of the
turning in Wildcat, bad things could and did happen to him.
Now back to Commander Thach. After training his squadron how to
perform the weave, by the time he was in combat in earnest, things had
changed. His old squadron was broken up and his executive officer was
killed by a whirling prop when the guy landing behind him came in too
fast, missed all the wires and floated over the barrier. The now very
dead Lovelace was the only other person from Thach's original squadron
who knew about the weave and was aboard the Yorktown as it headed for
point luck off Midway.
Thach planned to explain things to his squadron after that but
understandibly never got around to it. So the first opportunity he had
to use his tactic was as he approached the Japanese fleet flying with
three guys who had never heard of a defensive weave of any sort.
In the event, the first wave of Japanese CAP swarmed over them and
almost everyone took some hits. One of Thach's flight disappeared
(shot down) and his wingman had his radio shot out. Thach, realising
he was in a VERY desperate situation, radioed to his men to move out
further from him and tried to explain how to react to the now frequent
incoming Japanese fighters.
He had to do this while maneuvering against the slashing Japanese
attacks and trying to keep the rest of his flight intact and in the
air.
Like I said, only one of his flight besides himself still had a working
radio. He moved out to the side. Thach's wingman stayed tucked right
with him because that's what Thach had told him to do prior to
launching (he was a newbie ensign) and now he was a very scared young
man and desperately stayed close to Thach as he (Thach) maneuvered to
avoid incoming attacks.
The Zero's lined behind the lone wingman and nosed down to attack, one
at a time.
This leant itself to the countermove (the weave) as Thach could shoot
the attacker off, or scare it away and then regroup for the next round.
This appeared to confuse the Japanese pilots at first and they never
did organize to attack in groups and while the puzzled this tactic
(they had never seen this in combat before anywhere) Thach cooly
proceded to shoot down five Zero's before he put his knee pad away.
The fight wasn't over, he was getting exhausted by that time and
remembered being fatalistic and thought that he would not live through
this fight so he decided it was stupid to be keeping track.
It was about this time he spotted the Dauntless dive bombers streaming
down to attack the three blissfully unaware carriers "in a glistening
cascade". He was thrilled beyond imagination and never forgot that
sight. The Zeros instantly left him and raced for the descending
bombers but it was too late. In a situation never duplicated the rest
of the war, the three visible carriers had just straightened obligingly
into the wind and steadied on course to launch the much delayed strike
against the US fleet. Not even during training did the SBD's have such
conditions and this was the real thing.
They made good use of the opportunity and in the space of just four or
five minutes, three carriers that were the pride of the Japanese fleet
were catastrophically blazing and loosing way. The fourth, the Hiru,
was hidden from sight behind one of those ubiquitous rain squalls and
escaped damage for the moment.
Thach observed the destruction and turned for base keeping together and
warding off at least one more attack before reaching safe skies.
The Thach weave had proved itself in the most desperate of conditions
and would be used again as word spread both officially and through the
grapevine of this life saving defensive maneuver.
Corky Scott
ShawnD2112
Great post, well explained. I was actually able to visualize each airplane
and the relationships to each other. Nice job.
Shawn
Charles K. Scott wrote in message <8nertf$9t5$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>...
Jack
> ...to elaborate on Thach's weave
Thanks, Corky, that was great.
--
Jack
MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
Ed Forsythe
lasted as long as there were gun engagements - now a thing of the
past.
--
"I seek the company of those who have lived beyond the edge
If I seem aloof and haughty,
Call it honest arrogance."
Tally Ho!
Ed
"Jack" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:399B103D...@earthlink.net...
Ed Forsythe
rate, adverse yaw, etc. But it sure as hell will do a nice slow roll.
--
"I seek the company of those who have lived beyond the edge
If I seem aloof and haughty,
Call it honest arrogance."
Tally Ho!
Ed
"ShawnD2112" <shawnd.N...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:IiYl5.6391$Lv6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
stuart
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Forsythe@email.msn.com Ed Forsythe
I really love to take you up on that :0 My definition of an aileron
roll = rapid roll on a point, using ailerons only. No rudder or
elevator required. Just lay the stick over and count the turns - at
least that's how the Air Farce teaches it from T-33s and F-86s to
F16s<s>.
--
"I seek the company of those who have lived beyond the edge
If I seem aloof and haughty,
Call it honest arrogance."
Tally Ho!
Ed
"stuart" <hyde...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Jiln5.4421$T5.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Ed
planes like Stearmans, you have to pitch the nose up prior to entry, and you
can only do one, because the nose falls from loss of lift as you roll.
I quote page 163 of Basic Aerobatics (Szurovy and Goulian), describing a
test flight of the new Boing 707 in front of the Boeing president and
200,000 spectators in 1953: <snip>
"With test pilot Tex Johnston at the controls, the 707 was streaking along
at 450 mph at about 400 feet. Suddenly its nose pitched up sharply to 35
degrees and to everyone's utter shock, it started rolling to the left.
Shock turned to amazement and then to wild enthusiasm as the 707
majestically completed a giant, lazy aileron roll that would have done any
Stearman pilot proud."
--
---
Ed Forsythe <Ed Fors...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:vuln5.567$up6....@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
stuart
The Stearman can do an aileron roll, as described. No it can't do them like
a jet obviously, but it wll do multiple rolls on a point while descending.
Stu:)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
stuart
some ICAO definitions:
Aileron rolls are flown with the rudder and elevator in the neutral position
during the roll. The aileron is fully deflected in the direction of the
roll.
This is the easiest of the rolls to fly.
The aileron roll is started by pulling the nose up to 20 - 30 degrees above
the horizon. The elevator is then neutralized and the aileron fully
deflected
in the direction of the roll. The controls are maintained in that position
till the roll is completed. After the roll is completed the nose is usually
20 - 30 degrees below the horizon.
The aileron roll is not a competition maneuver.
Slow Rolls
----------
Slow rolls have to be flown normally on a straight line (exception is the
avalanche). The roll rate has to be constant and the longitudinal axis of
the
plane has to go straight. This requires constantly changing rudder and
elevator control inputs throughout the roll. Hesitation or point rolls
include
stops at certain roll angles. The number on the base of the roll symbol
describes the number of points the roll would have if it were a 360 degree
roll. Allowed are 2 point, 4 point and 8 point rolls. The fraction on the
arrow of the roll symbol describes what fraction of a full roll is to be
executed. If no points are specified, rolling is done without hesitations.
If
no fraction is specified, a roll symbol that starts at the line specifies a
half roll (see description of the Immelman). A roll symbol that crosses the
line specifies a full roll (first figure). The second figure shows the
symbol
for 2 points of a 4 point roll (adding up to half a roll) from upright to
inverted flight.
Snap Rolls
----------
Snap or flick rolls also have to be flown normally on a straight line. A
snap
roll is similar to a horizontal spin. It is an autorotation with one wing
stalled. In the regular snap, the plane has to be stalled by applying
positive g forces. In an outside snap, the plane is stalled by applying
negative g. In both cases rudder is then used to start autorotation just
like
in a spin.
Barrel Roll
-----------
The Barrel Roll is a not competition maneuver. I The barrel roll is a
combination between a loop and a roll. You complete one loop while
completing
one roll at the same time. The flight path during a barrel roll has the
shape
of a horizontal cork screw. Imagine a big barrel, with the airplanes wheels
rolling along the inside of the barrel in a cork screw path. During a
barrel
roll, the pilot experiences always positive G's. The maximum is about 2.5
to
3 G, the minimum about 0.5 G.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Dudley Henriques
"Ed" <hayw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Yln5.295$Q%5.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> An aileron roll is a 1G maneuver completed with aileron only. In slow
> planes like Stearmans, you have to pitch the nose up prior to entry,
and you
> can only do one, because the nose falls from loss of lift as you roll.
That's exactly right. You can do a fairly good aileron roll in the
Stearman with about 100mph and a smooth pull and set to about thirty
degrees. Full aileron will produce a roll that discribes an arc by the
nose back to about level flight or slightly below the horizon. A little
inside entry rudder with the aileron for yaw dampening and a bit of
forward stick through inverted will tighten the arc a bit and produce a
smoother roll.
>
> "With test pilot Tex Johnston at the controls, the 707 was streaking
along
> at 450 mph at about 400 feet. Suddenly its nose pitched up sharply to
35
> degrees and to everyone's utter shock, it started rolling to the left.
> Shock turned to amazement and then to wild enthusiasm as the 707
> majestically completed a giant, lazy aileron roll that would have done
any
> Stearman pilot proud."
Tex had a beautiful photograph taken by the co- pilot showing the
engines sticking straight up; taken as the airplane passed through
inverted. It hung behind his desk at Boeing for many years.
He was also "politely" told by the President of the company,
"Don't EVER do that again"
Forsythe@email.msn.com Ed Forsythe
Even had I seen that I still wouldn't believe it <g>. "Hoot" Gibson, a
Boeing 727 captain, inadvertently rolled a B727 (with passengers) when
he was screwing around with leading edge flap settings at cruise power
settings (definitely not in the book). He got an asymmetrical flap
condition and found himself going on his back. In the interest of not
scraping the passengers off the overhead by pulling neg g's he went
with the roll and did what could best be described as a descending
barrel roll. The a/c lost 15,000' before he recovered straight and
level. He saved his career by calling it a flap "malfunction."
Even assuming that 707 climbed from 400' to 2000' before the roll
started, he would have recovered underground. I have done aileron
rolls from 1000' in an F-100 and because I didn't pull the nose up
enough at the start I dished out at the bottom and had to rush the
last half and still lost 400' - scared the hell out of me<g>.
I just called a buddy who retired as a captain from Eastern/American
Airlines with ample time in 707s and he's still laughing about a 707
rolling from 400'. There is no such thing as a large lazy aileron
roll. "Large" and "lazy" more aptly describes a barrel roll. Watch
the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angel solo pilots when their birds look
like darts rolling on a string - those are aileron rolls. The
sophisticated civilian aerobatic birds can do aileron rolls because
they have very high roll rates and differential aileron, reducing
adverse yaw.
Without high roll rates you have to use top rudder and down elevator
as you roll, to keep the nose close to the point. Top rudder and down
elevator = slow roll. Rolling around a point on the horizon with
equal excursions above/below the horizon and left/right of the point =
barrel roll (large and lazy). Rolling with the nose close to a point,
without having to use top rudder and down elevator = aileron roll.
While no aircraft really rolls on it's longitudinal axis, to make it
appear as though it is, you must keep the nose on a point as closely
as possible. To do that without using top rudder when the wings are
perpendicular to the horizon, and down elevator as you are going
inverted, you must roll rapidly or you will lose the point.
I have seen B-47s doing immelmans off the deck during LABS runs
(tossing the nuke) and *that* was awesome, but a 707 at 450kts/400'
rolling would be like seeing an elephant doing a triple off the 3
meter board! <bg>.
--
"I seek the company of those who have lived beyond the edge
If I seem aloof and haughty,
Call it honest arrogance."
Tally Ho!
Ed
"Ed" <hayw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Yln5.295$Q%5.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
T-Boy
hayw...@hotmail.com says...
> An aileron roll is a 1G maneuver completed with aileron only. In slow
> planes like Stearmans, you have to pitch the nose up prior to entry, and you
> can only do one, because the nose falls from loss of lift as you roll.
>
> I quote page 163 of Basic Aerobatics (Szurovy and Goulian), describing a
> test flight of the new Boing 707 in front of the Boeing president and
> 200,000 spectators in 1953: <snip>
>
> "With test pilot Tex Johnston at the controls, the 707 was streaking along
> at 450 mph at about 400 feet. Suddenly its nose pitched up sharply to 35
> degrees and to everyone's utter shock, it started rolling to the left.
> Shock turned to amazement and then to wild enthusiasm as the 707
> majestically completed a giant, lazy aileron roll that would have done any
> Stearman pilot proud."
Seen that on Discovery Channel - *incredible* !
--
Duncan
Ed
We have a disagreement of terms here. My aerobatics instructor is a retired
air force pilot, and he uses the term "barrel roll" and "aileron roll" like
you do.
However, your definitions do not agree with the IAC. A slow roll is just as
you describe it. A barrel roll is a combination loop and roll, flown with
back elevator as well as aileron deflection, and inscribes a path like a
plane flying around the inside surface of a barrel ... hence the name.
But an aileron roll is a roll completed with aileron only, with no
requirement to maintain the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. You pitch
the nose up to 30 degrees, neutralize the elevator, and apply full aileron
deflection. The nose falls as you roll because of loss of lift, so you
finish with the nose in level flight attitude.
Your definition of an aileron roll is useful for guys lucky enough to fly
fighter jets. For the rest of us, stuck in the world of what our paychecks
can afford, it's not much use, so we use the IAC definition. Obviously a
stearman can't do the darts-on-a-string maneuver you describe. However, it
clearly can do an aileron roll as defined by the IAC, and I believe that was
the intent of the original poster.
I'm with you on the 400 feet AGL, that's gotta be an exaggeration. There's
a picture of the inverted 707 wing next to the story I cited, but the ground
is visible and it looks a hell of a lot farther down than 400 feet.
However, one would assume that Tex, having tested the maneuver at altitude,
knew how much he had to pitch the nose up to avoid altitude loss and finish
in level flight.
Regards,
Ed
--
---
Ed Forsythe <Ed Fors...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:nnnn5.602$up6....@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
Paul M. Anton
4000' maybe????
Cheers:
Paul
N2273H
stuart
handbook, although I do believe other definitions preceded theirs which were
different. I think they just wanted a commen protocol.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
vincent p. norris
In Tex's autobiography, it is described as a "barrel roll." Since I'm
sure Tex knows the difference between an aileron roll and a barrel
roll, I've always assumed that was a blooper committed by Tex's ghost
writer.
I think most non-aviators think every roll is a "barrel roll," in the
same way Southerners think every Yankee is a "Damn Yankee."
vince norris
>
>
Charles Oppermann
> >> majestically completed a giant, lazy aileron roll ....
>
> In Tex's autobiography, it is described as a "barrel roll." Since I'm
> sure Tex knows the difference between an aileron roll and a barrel
> roll, I've always assumed that was a blooper committed by Tex's ghost
> writer.
Okay, now I'm confused. Tex's 707 roll definitely had significant pitch and
altitude changes - which I consider a barrel roll.
A F-18 snapping 360 degrees around the long axis, without perceivable pitch
or altitude change is a aileron roll in my book.
Am I right?
Bob Moore
>Okay, now I'm confused. Tex's 707 roll definitely had significant pitch and
>altitude changes - which I consider a barrel roll.
>A F-18 snapping 360 degrees around the long axis, without perceivable pitch
>or altitude change is a aileron roll in my book.
Well......the Navy taught me back in '58:
A barrel roll is a combination of pitch (loop) and roll inputs such that when
the aircraft is inverted, it's heading has changed EXACTLY 90 degrees. The
aircraft continues the pitch and roll inputs as it returns to it's original
heading and altitude. There is a variation on this roll where a point is
chosen on the horizon, 45 degrees off heading and the barrel roll is flown
around this point with the nose first below the horizon then above the horizon
an equal amount when inverted.
An aileron roll starts with a pitch-up of perhaps 15-30 degrees at which point
the elevator input is neutralized and then aileron input alone is used to roll
the aircraft through 360 degrees of roll during which time, the nose will fall
back to the horizon.
An axial roll is similar to an aileron roll except that there is no initial
pitch-up, and as the ailerons are used to roll the aircraft, the rudders and
elevators are used to keep the nose on a point on the horizon.
Any half-assed roll that was neither pure "barrel" or pure "aileron" and was
as a result was more comfortable due to less "g's" than a barrel roll and no
"0" or negative "g's" as in an aileron roll, was generally called a "slow
roll", and was not accepted as a precision maneuver.
As a veteran of 17 years of B-707 flying and simulator instructing, and having
tried every conceivable roll in the sim, and having seen the film of Tex's
roll, it definately appears to be a "half-assed slow roll" :-)
Bob Moore
ATP B-707, B-720, B-727
PANAM (retired)
NAVCAD Class 12-58
stuart
the geometry. Since aerobatics had their origins and original purpose
derived from miliitary flying, you can see the value in learning these
manoevres this way. Did the US Navy not come up with another type of roll,
used by jets to "get inside someone's turn". I remember watching a Canadian
F-18 do a manoevre where he was rolling right 1/2 to inverted while
simultaneously doing a sharp 90 degree turn to the right, then from inverted
and 90 degrees from the original heading, continuing the right roll to
upright, but changing direction, by turning left another 90 degrees to the
original heading. Kinda did a double take when I saw it done.
Stu:)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Moore
Sure sounds like a "barrel roll" to me! :-)
Bob Moore
Charles Oppermann
and
> >altitude changes - which I consider a barrel roll.
> >A F-18 snapping 360 degrees around the long axis, without perceivable
pitch
> >or altitude change is a aileron roll in my book.
>
> Well......the Navy taught me back in '58:
Thanks for the description!
flyi...@my-deja.com
been busy so late reply. I have often said the only thing more fun than
watching a crop duster working, is to do it yourself! But, what many
pilots do not realize, is the high degree of intense professional skill
and training required. The flying part is probably easiest of all
required! But, it certainly will take you back to the very basics of
flying and not "seat of pants" but carefully done flight techniques. To
fail to realize gravity is a serious fact will cause you great anguish!
I've sprayed for over 34 years in airplanes and helicopters and
someplace near 12,000 hrs in the lowest reaches of the airspace system.
I had one crash when I ran out of fuel in my 2nd season but only
damaged the airplane and some soybeans. Have had a number of close
calls and engine failures or mechanical failures that caused an
unscheduled landing. No damage but that in part was due to my flying
with the idea of not IF it quit, but rather WHEN.
You learn how to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances, weather
conditions, aircraft feel while you spray off weight, or as the wings
get dirty from spray and bugs. You learn a lot about bird strikes, and
how fast wires can go UP, or how rapidly the trees grow when you try a
late downwind pull-up. You learn how different airplanes of the same
make/model will fly depending on how they are rigged, how they will
turn, how much you can carry, how much runway you need. I often worked
off a 1200' grass strip and it was not uncommon in many places in the
world. Still chuckle to look at photos on a strip in Egypt that seemed
to get shorter as the corn grew at each end and I left grooves in the
corn with my landing gear. Learning how to fly with the nibble of a
stall in the turns, learning how quickly it can get away from you with
heavy hands and abrupt control movements, how important your feet are
and how to operate off strips that are barely wider than your landing
gear.
Pretty challenging kind of flying and with the absolute best pilots
doing the flying. The problem is we are getting older and dropping out
with no replacements coming along. I've done my last season while doing
night work last year. Reason? Hell I'm 64 now and tired of it. Can't
hang in there for 12 hrs in the cockpit for weeks at a time and no time
off. Not as quick reflexes, not the physical stamina, harder to focus
as required to stay alive, (it takes incredible focus and
concentration) and it is probably the hardest physical labor you can
imagine. Hot dirty smelly conditions and people always bitching at you
for making noise, polluting the environment, killing the children (I am
waiting to see what they do about starvation not using chemicals to
increase crop yields).
As you can see, I could go on for hours and never repeat myself. So,
ask and I'll try to answer in a reasonable fashion.
FlyinRock aka Ol Shy & Bashful
In article <MiYl5.6395$Lv6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"ShawnD2112" <Shawnd.SPA...@Virgin.net> wrote:
> Now I'm the one who appreciates what you've done. Tell me a bit
about crop
> dusting. Is it as cool and as hairy as it looks? I've watched
Stearmans do
> turns at treetop level that had me cringing standing on the ground.
Looks
> like great fun but the intensity must be unreal!
>
> flyi...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8n7mti$2t1
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Ahhh Shawn
> Now you are learning the nuances of flying! Realizing there is more
> than yank and bank and relying on power to get you thru. I really do
> appreciate what you are doing and the fun you are having.
> Have had lots of fun in Stearmans over the years but have not flown
one
> in at least five years. Was instructing in them in central California
> for crop dusting. Probably 1000 hours in the Pt 17 and variants.
> Cheers
> FlyinRock
> In article <b5Dl5.4322$Lv6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "ShawnD2112" <Shawnd.SPA...@Virgin.net> wrote:
> > Had a go at looping a Stearman yesterday. That's going to take a
bit
> of
> > practice, I think.
> >
> > I tried to use the same techniques as in the Pitts, but found that
> didn't
> > work. Of, I think, 4 loops I tried, one I almost spun out of
> inverted, one
> > I ended up coming out in a quarter cloverleaf, two were really more
> of a
> > series of accelerated stalls, and two ended up siphoning fuel out of
> the
> > tank near the top of the loop.
> >
> > Technique I'm used to in the Pitts is to get 140, smooth pull to
4Gs,
> ease
> > off the back pressure a bit at the top to keep it round, keep the
> wings
> > level, increase back pressure to the same as the original pull by
the
> time
> > we're back to straight and level.
> >
> > When I tried that in the Stearman, that's when I ended up siphoning
> fuel and
> > getting accelerated stalls. Those, by the way, are kinda cool.
> You're near
> > the top, keeping the back pressure up so it'll come over the top
when
> you
> > start to feel a buffet and suddenly the stick goes slack in your
hand
> and
> > ends up at the rear stop.
> >
> > The technique Ian was teaching me is much more involved, largely due
> to a
> > fixed pitch prop on the 220 hp engine. Dive for 125, keeping engine
> revs at
> > 1900 (still breaking in a rebuilt engine). Gently pull up and
> increase to
> > full throttle. Keep the back pressure progressively increasing
until
> it's
> > over the top - don't ease off to round it out, decrease and then
chop
> the
> > throttle as speed build on the back side, check to see how much
> altitude
> > we've lost, increase to full throttle once straight and level! Now,
> it
> > sounds easy but I didn't find it easy.
> >
> > I think what I was doing wrong is pulling back too sharply at the
> beginning
> > so I didn't have any stick left at the top to keep it coming over
> without
> > stalling - maybe bled off too much energy too early so there was
> nothing
> > left at the top. I also noticed the wings weren't level as we came
> to the
> > top and I thought afterward that maybe it needs a bootfull of right
> rudder
> > on the way up to counteract torque, etc. Ian said we should be able
> to do
> > the whole thing with no more than 2.5 G but I ended up pulling 3.5.
> >
> > So, the question is - any hints on looping (and barrel rolling) a
low
> speed,
> > high drag machine like a Stearman? IT's obviously a lot easier in
> something
> > like the Pitts which has more than enough grunt to get itself over
> neatly.
> > The Stearman's a delight to fly and I'd really like to be able to
> learn to
> > fly her well in all areas of the envelope.
> >
> > Any inputs appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shawn
> > 2.5 hrs Stearman (but it seemed like 10 minutes!)
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ShawnD2112
lifestyle. I think I'd enjoy the flying but not sure I could endure endless
12 hour days with no days off. Though there are days I'm not sure I can
stand another 5 day/40 hour workweek in an office, either.
You've given me some great images to think about. More later,
Thanks,
Shawn
flyi...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8nsh21$oti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
David CL Francis
<Ed@Forsythe.?.msn.com> writes
>Even had I seen that I still wouldn't believe it <g>. "Hoot" Gibson, a
>Boeing 727 captain, inadvertently rolled a B727 (with passengers) when
>he was screwing around with leading edge flap settings at cruise power
>settings (definitely not in the book). He got an asymmetrical flap
>condition and found himself going on his back. In the interest of not
>scraping the passengers off the overhead by pulling neg g's he went
>with the roll and did what could best be described as a descending
>barrel roll. The a/c lost 15,000' before he recovered straight and
>level. He saved his career by calling it a flap "malfunction."
That is interesting and a completely different version from that given
at length in 'Emergency Crisis on the Flight Deck'.
According to that account Captain Gibson had still not been cleared of
blame after 10 years and had fought for years to clear his name. The
author of the book is very supportive towards Captain Gibson.
The incident was much more serious than you indicated above. After 1 and
half rolls the aircraft was pointing almost vertically downward and was
pulling 3.5g or more. It continued down at an average descent rate of
46,000 ft a minute and exceeded Mach one, the sonic boom being heard on
the ground. The ASI was now reading 450 knots, the g continued to rise.
470 knots was now shown. Starting from 39,000 ft the 727 was now passing
20,000 ft after 5 or 6 rolls. At that the Captain called for the
undercarriage to be lowered. Both main gears were severely damaged and
the 'A' hydraulic line ruptured. The right gear twisted so much it
jammed the flaps but the lowering of the undercarriage had the right
effect and speed began to drop. At 11,000 ft the roll had been checked
and the Captained started to pull out. The descent bottomed out at 5000
ft and pulled 6 g. Pulling out so hard meant that the aircraft zoomed
and airspeed dropped as low as 160 knots.
The story of the landing in detail is horrific. Three red lights but the
nose gear did lock after 30 minutes. The final approach was flown at 205
knots and to flare full right aileron and full right rudder was needed.
It touched down at 197 knots. When they attempted to tow the aircraft
after it stopped, after moving 10 ft, the starboard landing gear started
to separate. They jacked it up to look at the damage and the gear fell
off in three pieces. The damage was extensive but the aircraft was
repaired!
A bit more than a light hearted descending barrel roll.
--
Francis E-Mail reply to <fli...@dclf.demon.co.uk>
Forsythe@email.msn.com Ed Forsythe
--
"I seek the company of those who have lived beyond the edge
If I seem aloof and haughty,
Call it honest arrogance."
Tally Ho!
Ed
"Charles Oppermann" <chu...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:399f9d9e$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> > >> Shock turned to amazement and then to wild enthusiasm as the
707
> > >> majestically completed a giant, lazy aileron roll ....
> >
> > In Tex's autobiography, it is described as a "barrel roll." Since
I'm
> > sure Tex knows the difference between an aileron roll and a barrel
> > roll, I've always assumed that was a blooper committed by Tex's
ghost
> > writer.
>
> Okay, now I'm confused. Tex's 707 roll definitely had significant
pitch and
> altitude changes - which I consider a barrel roll.
>
> A F-18 snapping 360 degrees around the long axis, without
perceivable pitch
> or altitude change is a aileron roll in my book.
>
> Am I right?
>
>
Guenther Eichhorn
Springfield, VT. I was flying Basic in a 220 hp Stearman. Came in
first place and won the Grassroots Award. Flying aerobatics
competition in a Stearman is quite a challenge after being used to a
Pitts (I have been flying a Pitts S-2A for 12 years, last year in
Unlimited).
Looping a Stearman is really quite easy. The Stearman is much more
stable than a Pitts and doesn't deviate from the looping plane as
easily as the Pitts. I pull about 3.5 g when I go in the loop,
increasing the back pressure smoothly but rapidly. Like in the Pitts,
I start to relax on the back pressure when I get past vertical and have
only very light back pressure over the top. Corrections are made when
you start to see the horizon coming up at the tail. As I said before,
the Stearman needs much less corrections because it is much more stable
than the Pitts. Altogether, the loop in the Stearman is very much like
the loop in a Pitts.
Rolls are a different story. I haven't tried an aileron roll in the
Stearman, and I don't intend to. During an aileron roll, the nose
drops continuously, the longer it takes to do the roll, the more the
nose will drop. And rolling a Stearman takes a LONG time. The only
way to do a roll is to keep the nose up with the proper control inputs
from rudder and elevator. But even then it is not easy. The engine
quits when you are half way around, from then on it is almost
impossible to keep your altitude (as you are supposed to in
competition). The easiest roll in the Stearman is the snap roll. That
plane likes to snap. Even the snap roll is kind of slow, but
considerably faster than the slow roll (which really deserves its name
in this case). I am teaching the owner of the Stearman to fly
aerobatics (he is 74 years old, and got his license in the Stearman 4
years ago). I would like to see him fly Basic in a contest, and he is
coming along nicely, except for the rolls. He has no problem with snap
rolls, but the slow rolls are a problem.
In the next contest I am thinking about flying Sportsman in the
Stearman. This will be an adventure. I think the biggest problems
will be the reverse half cuban and the Immelman. In the reverse half
cuban, the problem will be that most of the figure (from the roll on)
will be flown without power, since the engine will quit during the
roll. In the Immelman, the problem will be to manage the roll at such
a low airspeed without loosing lots of altitude. I'll see how it
works, it is certainly an interesting challenge.
Guenther
----------------------------------------------------
Guenther Eichhorn | g...@cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA
CPL,ASMELS,IA,Glider,CFI | Pitts S-2A: N1GE
DC-3 type rating | Flying is the Pitts
See: http://acro.harvard.edu/IAC
and: http://acro.harvard.edu/SOARING
Ed
with them, it's a barnstorming show in Northern Virginia (near Warrenton)
every Sunday. They have about 12 Stearmans, plus a few Wacos and other
planes. Aerobatics, formation flying, balloon pops, ribbon cutting, mail
bag pickup, wing walking, and comedy acts (you know, the old farmer in a
cub, that kind of thing).
One of their marque acts is a low-level aerobatic display in a Stearman.
Quite impressive. It appears to be roughly equivalent to two consecutive
sportsman sequences, starting at about 500 AGL and finishing at about 50 ft
AGL. The announcer comments that one of the most challenging things is the
lack of inverted systems. Evidently the pilot (who is very talented) knows
how to keep the engine going by little nudges to the stick at just the right
time. A VERY graceful sequence, I can tell you that.
Anyhow, I'm not really a trained eye, so I can't draw any lessons from it,
other than if you are near Washington DC on a Sunday between May and
October, and you like Stearmans and good flyin', you should try to catch the
show. It starts at 2:30. If you fly into W66 before then, they will come
pick you up in a van.
Oh, and "Veritas", Gunther ...
Ed
--
---
Guenther Eichhorn <g...@head-cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:39aab...@cfanews.harvard.edu...