# Why Cessnas not Biplanes



## The Basket (Nov 10, 2019)

I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?

So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?

The top speed of these aircraft are negligible so drag isn't an issue. 

But better STOL and stalling speed would be a great boon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 10, 2019)

The Basket said:


> I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
> 
> So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
> 
> ...


I think cost and drag is an issue. Even a cruising speed of 122knots (Cessna 172) is fast in automotive terms, get up to 120MPH and stick an arm out of your car window, oh and then check out your cars consumption.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 10, 2019)

The Basket said:


> I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
> 
> So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
> 
> ...


 
If you look at the most pure "modern" aircraft from the late 40's - early '50's you'll find that the some aircraft like the original Bonanza cruised quite efficiently at around 170 MPH using about 150 HP from their 185 HP engines. Many European aircraft did even better on less HP, but traded range and useful load. (Stelio _Frati_ immediately comes to mind.)

There is no biplane that I am aware of that had a comparable performance/HP/cost ratio.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 10, 2019)

The Basket said:


> I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
> 
> So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
> 
> ...



Their top speeds are hardly "negligible"; a biplane with the same payload-range performance as a Cessna 172 would be considerably heavier and require a significantly larger engine. I don't know whether they'd have better STOL characteristics -- most STOL aircraft are monoplanes, at least partly because flaps are less effective on biplanes -- and the stalling speed of a 172 is already pretty low.

The only technical advantage of a biplane* is that the interwing struts can be used to permit lower wing weight.


---

* Unless you're going to go into seriously high-tech aerodynamic optimization, such as joined-wing configurations, which tend to have the problem of places to put the fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 10, 2019)

The Basket said:


> I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
> 
> So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
> 
> ...


Drag _is_ an issue even at low speeds. If you have an engine failure in a bi-plane, you'd better be pretty quick getting the nose down to maintain speed, and your glide profile is pretty steep.

Cost of manufacture also enters the equation; building another set of wings would significantly increase the manufacture costs. Rigging the aircraft wings and control surfaces is more complicated as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 10, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> Drag _is_ an issue even at low speeds. If you have an engine failure in a bi-plane, you'd better be pretty quick getting the nose down to maintain speed, and your glide profile is pretty steep.
> 
> Cost of manufacture also enters the equation; building another set of wings would significantly increase the manufacture costs. Rigging the aircraft wings and control surfaces is more complicated as well.


I would have thought with all that extra wing area that biplanes would have more lift and a better glide profile. Curious why this would not be the case.
Because the increased drag outweighs the increased lift maybe?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> There is no biplane that I am aware of that had a comparable performance/HP/cost ratio.


I'd say that the Beech Staggerwing, even though it is 1930's vintage, would be the most modern biplane with comparable (or even better) performance.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 10, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I would have thought with all that extra wing area that biplanes would have more lift and a better glide profile. Curious why this would not be the case.
> Because the increased drag outweighs the increased lift maybe?


Yes, the increased lift is more than offset by the drag increase, particularly at high angles of attack.

At high angles, the induced drag (the drag associated with the production of lift, like wingtip vortices) is increased, and with twice the number of wingtips, you're going to get more induced drag.
You've also got bracing wires, although in a modern version you wouldn't need them.

It's a very simplified way of thinking about it...


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 10, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I'd say that the Beech Staggerwing, even though it is 1930's vintage, would be the most modern biplane with comparable (or even better) performance.


 I guess that if you were to design a new bi-plane, it'd look something like this:






120 kts on 23l/hr and 125 hp

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 10, 2019)

Specs for a Beech D-17-A Biplane with a Wright R-760-E2 engine (350hp for take off and 320hp at 1400ft max continuous or normal) are.

Useful load 1735lb, payload with 98 gal fuel, 928lb (4 passengers and 248lbs for baggage and "extras") Gross weight 4200lbs, max speed 180mph at sea level, cruise using 75% power at 9300ft was 170mph, Cruising range at that speed and altitude was 850 miles burning 17.5 gallons an hour. retractable landing gear

Post war Cessna 195 using a 300hp Jacobs engine. 
Useful load 1300lb, payload with 80 gal fuel, 583lb (3 passengers and 100lbs for baggage and "extras") Gross weight 3350lbs, max speed 180mph at sea level, cruise using 70% power at 6500ft was 159mph, Cruising range at that speed and altitude was 700 miles burning 16 gallons an hour. fixed landing gear.

1947-48 Beechcraft Bonanza with a 185hp take off E-185 Continental (165hp max continuous)
Useful load 992lb, payload with 39 gal fuel, 570lb (3 passengers and 60lbs for baggage and "extras") Gross weight 2550lbs, max speed 184mph at sea level, cruise using 60% power at 10,000ft was 160mph, Cruising range at that speed and altitude was 650 miles burning 8.6 gallons an hour. retractable landing gear. 

The Beech 17 was available with both smaller and larger engines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2019)

The Basket said:


> So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?



*$$$$$$*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 11, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I'd say that the Beech Staggerwing, even though it is 1930's vintage, would be the most modern biplane with comparable (or even better) performance.



There was an attempt in the late 90's to produce a modern version of the Staggerwing in kit-form - but looking at Wikipedia, not many were built...


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I would have thought with all that extra wing area that biplanes would have more lift and a better glide profile. Curious why this would not be the case.
> Because the increased drag outweighs the increased lift maybe?



That would be one reason. The other is that biplanes tend to have lower maximum lift coefficients, so a biplane needs about ten percent more wing area to get the same stall speed for a given weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2019)

For a modern biplane,

I present Sorceress: 
Attribution: Jarek Tuszyński / CC-BY-SA-3.0 & GDFL

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Nov 11, 2019)

There is also a difference between piloting a monoplane and a biplane, so I was told by Gen. Aldo Costa, who took his Flying Brevet on the Spad XIII (sic) that I had the possibility to interview when He was in his early '80 (in the early '90s). In this photo Gen, Costa, then a Captain is at the far right






While a modern monoplane, say a monoplane with an evolving wing profile and a convenient wash-out, once trimmed, can fly almost by hitself, not the same thing can be said for a biplane, that generally needs a constant adjustment on the stick. First monoplanes vere rather unstable not only because they had no evolving profiles and no wash-out (in Italy G.50 and Macchi MC 200 Serie I, to say two), but also because Pilots, accustomed to biplanes, were acting too much on the stick, adding worse to the worst.

So, considering that it is absolutely essential that a GA light airplane has to be safe and simple to fly by non professional pilots and adding all considerations about drag etc seen in the above post ( let's not forget that drag is proportional to the square of the speed), no wonder that biplanes are not fashionable anymore in the GA.
Same reason, I suspect (ease and safety of fly) that led to install in a light GA airplane a yoke instead of a stick.
Certainly, there are exceptions, like this biplane, designed, built and flown by some Friends of mine...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 11, 2019)

I don't find the Tiger moth to be any 'harder' to fly than a Piper Cub, but it is different. With a lower wing loading, it is more easily disturbed from level flight, and you are correct, it does need constant attention, but I think that is more to do with design philosophy than the bi-plane; e.g. the trim only has detents where it locks, so if you need a trim position between two, you're out of luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 12, 2019)

I heard of a guy who converted a Piper J-3 into a biplane. 

He lost in every performance category, climb, top speed, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 14, 2019)

Clearly, no sailplane pilots have checked in to this thread yet, and all shots have been on the paper, but nobody's hit the X ring yet.
The holy grail of airframe performance is L/D, the ratio of lift to drag, most easily achieved with a monoplane, and in the most extreme form by a canard or a sesquiplane on the order of a Rutan Long Eze or a Quickie. Given that a sleek efficient monoplane like an early Bonanza is relatively easy and economical to design and produce, and is the more efficient layout it's not surprising that paradigm has become dominant. Try matching a Luscombe's or an Ercoupe's performance on 65 HP with a biplane, or a Cessna 170's on 145 HP.
The increased expense and reduced performance/HP of "modern" GA aircraft vis a vis their ancestors comes from hanging more gewgaws, "luxury", and STOL airframe mods on them, and the additional HP to compensate. Compare the E185 powered Bonanza mentioned upthread with its most recent descendant in the Vee tail line. More electronics, more weight, more seats, more luxurious appointments, more HP, and of course, MUCH MORE $$$$$$$! (But less performance/HP) The sports coupe has become a limousine.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 14, 2019)

Well, of course part of the reason is advancement in materials and construction methods. There have not been many aluminum stressed skin cantilever wing biplanes built. And before those construction methods were developed there were not many monoplanes built using biplane wood and tube construction methods. 

It is interesting that the Ercoupe and Luscombe were built with all aluminum structures but still had fabric covered wings. The fabric was not needed for structure but just to keep the wind from going somewhere it should not. And those were good designs, too, even by today's standards. My Ercoupe was 30 lb lighter and had less drag when then wings were fabric covered; I wish they still were.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 14, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Well, of course part of the reason is advancement in materials and construction methods. There have not been many aluminum stressed skin cantilever wing biplanes built. And before those construction methods were developed there were not many monoplanes built using biplane wood and tube construction methods.
> 
> It is interesting that the Ercoupe and Luscombe were built with all aluminum structures but still had fabric covered wings. The fabric was not needed for structure but just to keep the wind from going somewhere it should not. And those were good designs, too, even by today's standards. My Ercoupe was 30 lb lighter and had less drag when then wings were fabric covered; I wish they still were.
> View attachment 560864


But....you don't have to about recovering the wings.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Clearly, no sailplane pilots have checked in to this thread yet, and all shots have been on the paper, but nobody's hit the X ring yet.
> The holy grail of airframe performance is L/D, the ratio of lift to drag, most easily achieved with a monoplane, and in the most extreme form by a canard or a sesquiplane on the order of a Rutan Long Eze or a Quickie. Given that a sleek efficient monoplane like an early Bonanza is relatively easy and economical to design and produce, and is the more efficient layout it's not surprising that paradigm has become dominant. Try matching a Luscombe's or an Ercoupe's performance on 65 HP with a biplane, or a Cessna 170's on 145 HP.
> The increased expense and reduced performance/HP of "modern" GA aircraft vis a vis their ancestors comes from hanging more gewgaws, "luxury", and STOL airframe mods on them, and the additional HP to compensate. Compare the E185 powered Bonanza mentioned upthread with its most recent descendant in the Vee tail line. More electronics, more weight, more seats, more luxurious appointments, more HP, and of course, MUCH MORE $$$$$$$! (But less performance/HP) The sports coupe has become a limousine.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Even L/D maybe a bit over rated. Look at the American Traveler AA1A, I remember Grumman advertising a 144 MPH (Statute) top speed in TR-2 guise. And that puppy had an rather interesting glide ratio. It's all about lightness, power to weight and some attention to drag. 
(Although, remember the press surrounding Lopresti's Mooney 201?)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 14, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Although, remember the press surrounding Lopresti's Mooney 201?


I took my CFII checkride in one of those. Lopresti enhanced an already efficient airframe by significantly reducing cooling and parasite drag and boosting the lift side by using gap seals to reduce lift losses. Result: a much improved L/D and a hotrod airplane that badly needed a speed brake to get it down without shock cooling the cylinders. The FAA inspector got real nervous every time I had to pull it all the way back to idle to get it down to flap and gear speeds. Going down the ILS with gear and flaps down required so little power that the CHTs dropped alarmingly.


jetcal1 said:


> Even L/D maybe a bit over rated. Look at the American Traveler AA1A, I remember Grumman advertising a 144 MPH (Statute) top speed in TR-2 guise. And that puppy had an rather interesting glide ratio.


The AA1 was a GeeBee racer miniaturized. Draggy, with a small, heavily loaded wing, it flew on the "high HP brick" principle, and suffered in the payload and handling departments. Scary sumbitch in a spin, to boot. Due to its wing loading, it's optimum glide happened at a rather high speed with commensurate sink rate. At a more sedate glide speed it sank like the brick it was.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zippythehog (Nov 14, 2019)

I found information somewhere on biplane rigging. Wow. A true art form it was an interesting read.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I took my CFII checkride in one of those. Lopresti enhanced an already efficient airframe by significantly reducing cooling and parasite drag and boosting the lift side by using gap seals to reduce lift losses. Result: a much improved L/D and a hotrod airplane that badly needed a speed brake to get it down without shock cooling the cylinders. The FAA inspector got real nervous every time I had to pull it all the way back to idle to get it down to flap and gear speeds. Going down the ILS with gear and flaps down required so little power that the CHTs dropped alarmingly.
> 
> The AA1 was a GeeBee racer miniaturized. Draggy, with a small, heavily loaded wing, it flew on the "high HP brick" principle, and suffered in the payload and handling departments. Scary sumbitch in a spin, to boot. Due to its wing loading, it's optimum glide happened at a rather high speed with commensurate sink rate. At a more sedate glide speed it sank like the brick it was.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Made my first landings in a TR-2, a Cheetah, (FBO where I worked at 13.) and a Luscombe (CFI at FBO had his own airplane.) before I was able to settle in on one airplane always being available. (A Warrior at the 2nd FBO where I worked after FBO #1 went out of business) Maybe I'm not the person you want picking your airplane. 

Funny thing is, I always grouped Lopresti and Rutan together as engineers who designed for efficiency but watched out for flying characteristics.

Jim Bede? I grouped him with Messerschmidt, we're gonna' go fast and you're gonna' learn to deal with the quirks because your gonna'get speed over handling and you'll like it.

Fred Weick? You're gonna be bored but get there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 15, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Maybe I'm not the person you want picking your airplane.


As an instructor, I agree. As a pilot, bring it on!
Did my tail wheel conversion in a Luscombe; regrettably after too many hours of nose dragger time. Sweet flying little bird, but designed for midgets and almost impossible fit for my 6'5" 220 lb frame. Since then it's been J3, PA18, L3, C170, C195, and L19, but never enough with any one bird to get really good at it. I've done a little instructing in various Grummans; the Tiger was a lot of fun. One guy showed up as a passenger in an AA1 he'd just bought and wanted me to teach him to fly in it. Like a fool, I took him on, and after 12 frustrating hours of twitching around the sky, finally convinced him to park it and rent the school's C150s until he calmed down and gained a little confidence. Last I heard, he was doing airshows in a Pitts.
Can't abide Hersey bar Cherokees. Long wing Warriors aren't so bad, but I'm a Cessna & Beech man at heart.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 15, 2019)

Zippythehog said:


> I found information somewhere on biplane rigging. Wow. A true art form it was an interesting read.


Our final exam in the rigging section in Airframes was for the class to assemble and rig a PT17. The 3 Stooges and Keystone Kops didn't have anything on us. Super wow! Wound up with a do-over on Saturday morning.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 15, 2019)

True, but with an airplane built in 1946, you really need to open it up and look at everything every once in a while anyway. Fabric covered wings facilitate that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 15, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> I don't find the Tiger moth to be any 'harder' to fly than a Piper Cub, but it is different. With a lower wing loading, it is more easily disturbed from level flight, and you are correct, it does need constant attention, but I think that is more to do with design philosophy than the bi-plane; e.g. the trim only has detents where it locks, so if you need a trim position between two, you're out of luck.



In late ww2 in Canada there was an enquiry into why it took pilots trained on the Tiger Moth twice the hours to convert to a Harvard that the pilots trained on a Stearman took.
The result was summarised as something like _the Tiger Moth handles like a Tiger Moth and the Stearman handles like an aeroplane._


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 15, 2019)

In order to meet CSAF McPeak's requirement that pilots be trained in acrobatic maneuvers from the outset, the USAF academy replaced the trusty old Cessna T-41 with the T-3A Slingsby Firefly. It used a larger engine than the British version of the airplane in order to handle the requirements for acro training at the higher altitudes associated with the Colorado Springs area. After numerous in-flight emergencies due to the engine quitting and two fatal mishaps as well as some instructors refusing to fly the Fireflies, the Air Force stopped using the Firefly and eventually scrapped them.

Someone pointed out the Air Force could have used PT-17 Stearman biplanes to replace the T-41 and very probably have had more a lot more success.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 15, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> In order to meet CSAF McPeak's requirement that pilots be trained in acrobatic maneuvers from the outset, the USAF academy replaced the trusty old Cessna T-41 with the T-3A Slingsby Firefly.


USN has been training pilots ab initio in acro mode since the 30s. N3N, SNJ, T28, T34, T34C, and on. As a civilian CFI at a flight school contracted to a local military college, I did ab initio training for USAF ROTC pilot candidates in C150s. I must admit I think the Navy approach produces better pilots, at least where tactical jets are concerned. A significant number of our cadets washed out of UPT when they got to the T38 phase.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 15, 2019)

The USAF tried putting pilot candidates directly into T-37's for a while but I think they concluded it was an expensive way to find out that a candidate was going to be too difficult to train. So they switched to the T-41 as a cheaper way to find that out. Obviously, back in the PT-17 days they taught at least some acro in Primary. But when they tried to mix the "Can this guy learn to fly in a reasonable time?" with acro that was disastrous. Of course, Gen McPeak had flown with the Thunderbirds and thought that acro was really the thing to do.

I recall meeting officers that had washed out of pilot training saying things like, "I could fly that thing just great but I could not land it!" And I recall meeting one former pilot trainee that said he had washed out of T-38 training because he could not fly formation. I was a bit surprised that they would wash anyone out that late.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 15, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> But when they tried to mix the "Can this guy learn to fly in a reasonable time?" with acro that was disastrous.


It was disastrous because they didn't do it right. If you take a bunch of ab initio students and put them in a plane that requires too much "brain speed" due to complexity, high speed, and/or complicated procedures, and start them off in "two dimensional" flight, then you're going to encounter disasters when you "add" acro to the mix. USAF should have stuck with the T34, despite its glamour deficit.
USN has always taught "three dimensional" flight from the get-go. Straight and level is learned normal and inverted at the same time. Loops and rolls are experienced from lesson one. Spins are accomplished successfully before solo. And how is this done without an astronomical fatality rate? By using a rugged, simple, honest-flying trainer that doesn't demand overwhelming brain speed, but that handles like, and has its cockpit configured like, its big brothers. The inclusion of three dimensional flight from the start is pretty effective at weeding out the "losers" before too much is invested in them.
Prop aircraft like the T28 and T34 are configured to behave as much like a jet as possible through offset thrust lines and aileron-rudder interconnects to allow jet-like "feet on the floor" turns and thrust changes.
T41 method of inspecting a spot directly below: fly a steep 720 and look down. T34 method: roll inverted and look up. A student who is comfortable with that approach before solo has a head start at becoming a combat pilot.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2019)

On the original question see.

Blackburn C.A.15C - Wikipedia 

The monoplane was faster, climbed better and had a higher ceiling.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 16, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The USAF tried putting pilot candidates directly into T-37's for a while but I think they concluded it was an expensive way to find out that a candidate was going to be too difficult to train.


The tweet was a twin with some quirky behaviors and complex procedures; just too brain speed demanding, and not a particularly good acrobatic performer from a training standpoint. USAF would have been better off with T28s or T34s and full on acro from the start. Admittedly, both would have had to be up-engined to perform at AF Academy density altitudes, but that would be feasible given the T28C and the many civilian T34s flying with IO520s of 285 and 300 HP.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 16, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the original question see.
> 
> Blackburn C.A.15C - Wikipedia
> 
> The monoplane was faster, climbed better and had a higher ceiling.



An interesting surprise there in terms of climb.
However, a couple of key contemporary metrics are missing that are not as important today.
1. Stalling and approach speeds
2. Take-off distance 
3. Landing distance


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 16, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> As an instructor, I agree. As a pilot, bring it on!
> Did my tail wheel conversion in a Luscombe; regrettably after too many hours of nose dragger time. Sweet flying little bird, but designed for midgets and almost impossible fit for my 6'5" 220 lb frame. Since then it's been J3, PA18, L3, C170, C195, and L19, but never enough with any one bird to get really good at it. I've done a little instructing in various Grummans; the Tiger was a lot of fun. One guy showed up as a passenger in an AA1 he'd just bought and wanted me to teach him to fly in it. Like a fool, I took him on, and after 12 frustrating hours of twitching around the sky, finally convinced him to park it and rent the school's C150s until he calmed down and gained a little confidence. Last I heard, he was doing airshows in a Pitts.
> Can't abide Hersey bar Cherokees. Long wing Warriors aren't so bad, but I'm a Cessna & Beech man at heart.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I must agree that my instructors worked much harder than me. 

Also, having flown two of the first Traumahawks off the line, at 16 years old I was unimpressed and would have preferred just about anything else. Never flew a Skipper, but......to your earlier post is was pretty sad to watch the malaise-era airplanes get slower and lose useful load. (I'd take a 1964-1965 150 over any other year 150.)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 16, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> An interesting surprise there in terms of climb.
> However, a couple of key contemporary metrics are missing that are not as important today.
> 1. Stalling and approach speeds
> 2. Take-off distance
> 3. Landing distance


All depends on how you define "better" climb. Dimes to dollars the biplane has a slightly higher max rate of climb that happens within a narrow speed range, while the monoplane has near peak climb rate over a wider speed range, and climbs at a significantly higher airspeed, covering more ground in the climb.
In the other three metrics the biplane wins hands down.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 16, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Also, having flown two of the first Traumahawks off the line, at 16 years old I was unimpressed and would have preferred just about anything else. Never flew a Skipper, but......to your earlier post is was pretty sad to watch the malaise-era airplanes get slower and lose useful load. (I'd take a 1964-1965 150 over any other year 150.)


The Skipper is a Traumahawk with manners and more solid construction, for which it pays a weight penalty. In practical terms, almost every training flight takes off overweight, unless both pilots are midgets. Don't let the published stats fool you. They represent a "stripped" airplane that no one is actually going to instruct in. One FBO I worked for became a Beech Aero Center, and were pressured to ditch their C150s for Skippers. The economics just weren't there, and the 150s stayed. The 150 was a better airplane for primary instruction, but the Sundowner was a perfect "step up" plane for people who wanted to move up to bigger and faster. I used to advocate finishing the Private in the Sundowner for those with professional aspirations. It was easy to fly safely and challenging to fly really well.
My favorite C150s were the '70, '71, '72, series planes. A little more civilized than the true lightweights, but not so loaded down as later 150/152s.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 16, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> All depends on how you define "better" climb. Dimes to dollars the biplane has a slightly higher max rate of climb that happens within a narrow speed range, while the monoplane has near peak climb rate over a wider speed range, and climbs at a significantly higher airspeed, covering more ground in the climb.
> In the other three metrics the biplane wins hands down.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I'd bet they were looking for a relatively short take-off coupled with a relatively steep angle of climb sufficient to get them over any trees at the end of 12-1500 foot grass strip.
The last three metrics were pretty important given the average airport in 1932. Having flown in a Fairchild 24 and a few cabin Wacos, their short take-off distances and general "field performance" came as an absolute revelation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 16, 2019)

I suspect the Marines at Midway would have been better off in their old F3F-3's rather than the F2A.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 16, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Having flown in a Fairchild 24 and a few cabin Wacos, their short take-off distances and general "field performance" came as


I got a ride in a R985 powered PT17 with less than half tanks and a 150 lb pilot. Felt like a catapult launch, and it flew off in 3 point attitude without raising the tail in about two runway stripes distance. When the throttle hit the stops, the rudder was near full deflection.
The one that really amazed me was the Collings B24. It was a repo ferry flight with just the two pilots and me, and she lifted off in a level attitude at what looked and felt like an impossibly low speed and distance. I wasn't in the cockpit and couldn't see the gages, but it just seemed SO slow.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 17, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Also, having flown two of the first Traumahawks off the line, at 16 years old I was unimpressed and would have preferred just about anything else. Never flew a Skipper, but......to your earlier post is was pretty sad to watch the malaise-era airplanes get slower and lose useful load. (I'd take a 1964-1965 150 over any other year 150.)


I did most of my training in either a Tomahawk, or Cherokee.
I far preferred to Tomahawk over the 150 for training; the 150 was too stable, and I found produced lazy pilots. The Tomahawk actually required attention to keep it on track.

That, and it had a larger cabin...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 17, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> I far preferred to Tomahawk over the 150 for training; the 150 was too stable, and I found produced lazy pilots.


Cherokee 150, or Cessna 150? A lot of 150HP Cherokee 140s were marketed overseas as Cherokee 150s.
I thought the Cessna 150 was an excellent trainer and the Traumahawk was dangerous, but then I've never been much of a fan of T tails and their handling traits (most Beechcraft products excepted). A couple of cases of T-hawks coming unglued in flight kind of prejudiced me.
The Cessna 150 was just stable enough to keep a ham fisted beginner mostly out of trouble, but not so stable as to mask basic aerodynamic characteristics such as adverse yaw, torque and P factor, my main gripe with Hersey bar Cherokees.
(Sidebar) When I stepped up from the C182 to the T34 with the same engine, I was amazed at the lack of torque and P factor effects. My instructor, a former Naval Aviator, said: "Hey, the Teenie was designed to train future jet pilots, so they tried to make it handle as much like a jet as possible. Did you notice the offset thrust line, down and to the left, and the aileron rudder interconnect? You can drive this thing around all day with stick and throttle, feet flat on the floor. But don't let me catch you doing it! We fly this one like a proper recip." And so began the most fun 150 hours of my flying days.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 17, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Cherokee 150, or Cessna 150? A lot of 150HP Cherokee 140s were marketed overseas as Cherokee 150s.
> I thought the Cessna 150 was an excellent trainer and the Traumahawk was dangerous, but then I've never been much of a fan of T tails and their handling traits (most Beechcraft products excepted). A couple of cases of T-hawks coming unglued in flight kind of prejudiced me.
> The Cessna 150 was just stable enough to keep a ham fisted beginner mostly out of trouble, but not so stable as to mask basic aerodynamic characteristics such as adverse yaw, torque and P factor, my main gripe with Hersey bar Cherokees.
> (Sidebar) When I stepped up from the C182 to the T34 with the same engine, I was amazed at the lack of torque and P factor effects. My instructor, a former Naval Aviator, said: "Hey, the Teenie was designed to train future jet pilots, so they tried to make it handle as much like a jet as possible. Did you notice the offset thrust line, down and to the left, and the aileron rudder interconnect? You can drive this thing around all day with stick and throttle, feet flat on the floor. But don't let me catch you doing it! We fly this one like a proper recip." And so began the most fun 150 hours of my flying days.
> ...


My training was in a Cherokee 161 (taper-wing). I've flown the slab-wing Cherokees a bit, and besides the glide ratio of a streamlined brick, didn't have a problem with them. The 235 Hp powered on was great to fly 1-up.

I hated instructing in the C-150. You could tell those who had learnt on a C-150 and then moved to the Tomahawk. They'd tend to 'parachute' down to the runway, with no flare at the end. Nice stable approach though.


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 17, 2019)

The Cessna 150 is just safe enough to be a trainer and just hazardous enough to be a good trainer. It reacts sharply in pitch to adding or subtracting flap, has significant P-Factor, does both power on and power off stalls with a high chance of occupant survival, spins readily (and very nose down, to horrifying effect) but comes out of it easily, needs rudder at high power and low speed, can be slipped safely, has narrow enough gear to make sideways hopping not uncommon, and due to the high wing you'll never think you're in a fighter plane. In addition, trying to maintain level flight with all 40 deg of flap down may be the most educational experience possible.

I recall arriving at the airfield where I kept my Ercoupe in Maryland and noting right away there was not much flying going on for a nice Saturday morning, In fact there was NO flying going on. I looked around and found out why. A student in a Cessna 152 on his first solo had not corrected for P-factor, ran off the runway at full power, and hit (1) a partially dismantled Ercoupe, (2) a dismantled Republic Seabee, (3) a Meyers 200 under restoration, (4) a boat on a trailer. If anyone wants to go looking for the Seabee I'll tell y'all where they threw the carcass.

I moved to Florida, flew my Ercoupe down, and the next day decided to go look around the local area. I taxied out to Runway 29, did my run-up, and then waited as a nice looking Cessna 140 came down final. I checked the pattern for other traffic, looked down the runway to see if it was clear, and was shocked to see the Cessna standing on its nose. I taxied down, asked the pilot of he was Okay and when he explained he could not get the tail down, taxied down to park and help him with that task.

There is something odd about an Ercoupe getting destroyed and another being first on the scene for mishaps that were exactly the kind that the airplane was designed to avoid.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2019)

I love the Cherokee. My only gripe with the Hershey bar wing was that it tended to want to “glide” down the runway and never land. Otherwise, I found it a great plane to learn in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2019)

We owned a Cherokee Warrior back in the 70's. I loved that crate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 18, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I love the Cherokee. My only gripe with the Hershey bar wing was that it tended to want to “glide” down the runway and never land. Otherwise, I found it a great plane to learn in.


The taper wing was really bad for that if you were only a couple of knots too fast crossing the threshold. I didn't find the slab-wing one did.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 18, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> I did most of my training in either a Tomahawk, or Cherokee.
> I far preferred to Tomahawk over the 150 for training; the 150 was too stable, and I found produced lazy pilots. The Tomahawk actually required attention to keep it on track.
> 
> That, and it had a larger cabin...


I've been told that after the new stall strips and a few other changes the airplane was a little nicer. Our initial introduction with the mag problems, yokes, rudder binding, etc, etc, made for a stigma that has not washed away in my mind.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 18, 2019)

Funny thing is, (Aside from the first 18 months of the Tomahawk.) all of these aircraft if flown diligently within their limitations make for acceptable training or 200-300 NM leg X-country aircraft. 

From a training aspect? Depends on the flight instructors. Although "full flap landing" was de rigor, my instructor(s) made me land with with partial, no flap and encouraged me to play the configuration when doing my pattern work. The CFI should (In my opinion) develop a curriculum that will demonstrate to the student the skills he wants them to learn. In my case, full flap landings and long drawn-out finals drew the ire of the Instructors at the FBO where I worked.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 18, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> I've been told that after the new stall strips and a few other changes the airplane was a little nicer. Our initial introduction with the mag problems, yokes, rudder binding, etc, etc, made for a stigma that has not washed away in my mind.


The flight school I worked for had 15 PA-28's (both Tomahawk 1 and 2's), doing just under 1,000 hrs p.a. each, and never experienced any of those airframe problems. About the only recurring problem we had was the trim cable binding on the drum, but it wasn't often enough that it was really too much of an issue, and if they didn't force it too far, the pilot could work it out in flight.
Mags are still a weak point for any Lycoming or Continental, which is why Lycoming are about to do away with them and go electronic. The 500 hour inspections took care of most of the issues, and we ran our engines 'on condition' out to 3-3,500 hours.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 18, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Funny thing is, (Aside from the first 18 months of the Tomahawk.) all of these aircraft if flown diligently within their limitations make for acceptable training or 200-300 NM leg X-country aircraft.
> 
> From a training aspect? Depends on the flight instructors. Although "full flap landing" was de rigor, my instructor(s) made me land with with partial, no flap and encouraged me to play the configuration when doing my pattern work. The CFI should (In my opinion) develop a curriculum that will demonstrate to the student the skills he wants them to learn. In my case, full flap landings and long drawn-out finals drew the ire of the Instructors at the FBO where I worked.


Yep, completely agree, there were guys on the airfield who hated the Tomahawk, but loved the C-150.
Not sure why you'd routinely land with less than full flap though. I do remember doing a few '3-mile finals' calls while doing circuits, unfortunately, that comment goes over hte head of someone who flies that sort of circuit.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I got a ride in a R985 powered PT17 with less than half tanks and a 150 lb pilot. Felt like a catapult launch, and it flew off in 3 point attitude without raising the tail in about two runway stripes distance. When the throttle hit the stops, the rudder was near full deflection.
> The one that really amazed me was the Collings B24. It was a repo ferry flight with just the two pilots and me, and she lifted off in a level attitude at what looked and felt like an impossibly low speed and distance. I wasn't in the cockpit and couldn't see the gages, but it just seemed SO slow.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Lot's wing and no weight? That's the recipe when HP is expensive and heavy. (Lloyd Stearman "grew up" with the Pietenpol/Model A engine generation.) 
Funny how concrete made airplanes like AA-1 and the Aerostar possible ain't it? 
We had a gentleman that did the 150HP, STOL and taildragger conversions to his 150 on my field. You would not believe the the takeoff distance when there was any kind of wind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> The taper wing was really bad for that if you were only a couple of knots too fast crossing the threshold. I didn't find the slab-wing one did.



I really did. I had a problem just hovering over the runway it seemed. I learned how to overcome it though.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 18, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I really did. I had a problem just hovering over the runway it seemed. I learned how to overcome it though.


Yeah, I found it quite satisfying when I could shut a Cessna piot up by landing the Cherokee in the same distance they could land a 172 in!
Once you get it sorted you can get it into a runway you can't get out of unfortunately.
It's funny how some pilots have difficulties others never do...


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 18, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> Yep, completely agree, there were guys on the airfield who hated the Tomahawk, but loved the C-150.
> Not sure why you'd routinely land with less than full flap though. I do remember doing a few '3-mile finals' calls while doing circuits, unfortunately, that comment goes over hte head of someone who flies that sort of circuit.



My instructors were all either trained missionary pilots or old timers that had been flying since the 30's. I was taught to keep patterns really tight, use minimal flap and slip to control airspeed and approach. The reasons given were;
You can make the field if you lose an engine.
If you miss your approach/go around the airplane will climb better with partial flap rather than full flap while you clean it up.
Full flap is only really good for when you're doing a short field approach and always carry power. (Who cares what the FAA says!)
I was also taught that since our runway was very long at 3K FT, turn base as the end of the runway comes even with your stab and don't worry about using the 1st third of it in a 150 (Or a Luscombe).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 18, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My only gripe with the Hershey bar wing was that it tended to want to “glide” down the runway and never land.





gumbyk said:


> The taper wing was really bad for that if you were only a couple of knots too fast crossing the threshold.


"Low wing float", the bane of high wing pilots transitioning into a larger, heavier, underwing bird. That's one of the reasons I used to advocate that primary students with professional aspirations finish their private in the Sundowner. You think a Warrior is a floater, try a Twin Comanche, Seneca, or Seminole. Or even worse, a Mooney or Comanche.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "Low wing float", the bane of high wing pilots transitioning into a larger, heavier, underwing bird. That's one of the reasons I used to advocate that primary students with professional aspirations finish their private in the Sundowner. You think a Warrior is a floater, try a Twin Comanche, Seneca, or Seminole. Or even worse, a Mooney or Comanche.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I just found that they were more critical on target threshold speed.
I did a couple of flights in a Comanche with a stol kit fitted. If the stall warning wasn't going, you weren't going to get it on the ground.
The twins weren't so bad, a bit higher wing loading. But again, target threshold speed was key.

Cessna's you seem to be able to get away with an unstable approach and land, but a low wing wasn't quite so easy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 19, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> Not sure why you'd routinely land with less than full flap though.


To full flap or not to full flap, that is the question.
I spent several years as chief instructor at our local FAR 141 flight school, and we got jerked around by the Feds over full flap landings. The FSDO inspector who supervised our administrative and curriculum documentation was a follower of FAA dogma that all standard routine landings be full flap in all aircraft at all times. Our ops inspector, OTOH, felt that light, low powered aircraft like C150/152/172 didn't have adequate performance to consistently make safe go-arounds in a full flap situation from low altitude. We were stuck in the middle with conflicting written directives from two different offices in the FSDO. My boss (the owner) presented these literary masterpieces to the chief inspector/facility manager, who chose to err on the side of safety and cancelled the full flap requirement.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 19, 2019)

Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 19, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?


As an airshow performer they appeal to the masses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 19, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?





XBe02Drvr said:


> As an airshow performer they appeal to the masses.



The latter quote, from XBe02Drvr is probably the one that has the most chance of being the basis for a successful business, except there simply isn't that big a market, although quite a few of the aerobatic aircraft are either one-offs or from very small production batches. A biplane would also have to be better than, say, the Pitts.

In response to the first quote, The Basket's, there are some, very specialized cases, where biplanes can be more efficient, _i_._e_, superior lift/drag or superior payload fractions than monoplanes, but these are difficult to realize and run into the problem of lacking volume to put useful stuff like landing gear and fuel.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2019)

A modern biplane would have a chance in today's market only if it filled a niche - the only thing I can think of, is the An-2 which was capable of carrying cargo and people in and out of some fairly primitive locations.
If I remember right, they produced the "Annie" right up to the turn of the century, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 19, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> A modern biplane would have a chance in today's market only if it filled a niche - the only thing I can think of, is the An-2 which was capable of carrying cargo and people in and out of some fairly primitive locations.
> If I remember right, they produced the "Annie" right up to the turn of the century, too.



Possibly, but DHC made some quite useful STOL aircraft with only one wing. Flaps are a great invention, and tend to work better on monoplanes.


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 19, 2019)

During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.

Grumman proposed a COIN version of the Agcat crop duster. Based on the design of the F3F fighter, the airplane was simple, reliable, very rugged and resistant to ground fire, able to loiter for extended periods, and capable of accurately delivering considerable effective ordnance; the Army concluded it was just what they needed. "How many do you want to buy?" asked Grumman. The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"


And USAF would never let them have it anyway. "You ground gainers seem to be forgetting who's in charge here. Your Close Air Support requirements are determined by *us, not you*!!"

"What? Us, buy a subsonic, straight wing, ugly attack plane with a gun today? It may be exactly what we need, but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.


Those ex-Navy SPADs should have gone to the Army, not USAF.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 19, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?



Not really, duplication and complexity of controls, means weight and maintenance penalty. You've still go the problem of more induced drag at the wingtips, and interference drag at wing attach points.
It's not all bad though, the Eagle that I posted a picture of earlier had the forward wing at a slightly higher incidence angle than the rear main wing, so it stalled first, but you still had control.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "Low wing float", the bane of high wing pilots transitioning into a larger, heavier, underwing bird. That's one of the reasons I used to advocate that primary students with professional aspirations finish their private in the Sundowner. You think a Warrior is a floater, try a Twin Comanche, Seneca, or Seminole. Or even worse, a Mooney or Comanche.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I have not known anybody who could make consistently good landings in a Comanche or a Mooney. (That includes a friend who has had his Comanche 180 for 30 years and flies it a lot. Probably 200-300 hours a year.)


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> To full flap or not to full flap, that is the question.
> I spent several years as chief instructor at our local FAR 141 flight school, and we got jerked around by the Feds over full flap landings. The FSDO inspector who supervised our administrative and curriculum documentation was a follower of FAA dogma that all standard routine landings be full flap in all aircraft at all times. Our ops inspector, OTOH, felt that light, low powered aircraft like C150/152/172 didn't have adequate performance to consistently make safe go-arounds in a full flap situation from low altitude. We were stuck in the middle with conflicting written directives from two different offices in the FSDO. My boss (the owner) presented these literary masterpieces to the chief inspector/facility manager, who chose to err on the side of safety and cancelled the full flap requirement.
> Cheers,
> Wes


As mentioned, our "old-timey" (Including one 34K hr, FAA CFI of the year.) CFI's were not fully onboard with full-flap landings unless you had a reason to get down and stopped in a short distance.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 19, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> As mentioned, our "old-timey" (Including one 34K hr, FAA CFI of the year.) CFI's were not fully onboard with full-flap landings unless you had a reason to get down and stopped in a short distance.


Why not use a resource that is available to you?

We never had any issue going around in a C-150 with full flap, as long as you didn't try to go straight into a climb. There was some forward pressure required on the controls until you got it trimmed, but speed had usually built up enough that you could raise the first 10º of flap fairly quickly. The only go-around accident that I've heard of down here in a C-150 was a student that raised the flaps before adding power.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 19, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> Why not use a resource that is available to you?
> 
> We never had any issue going around in a C-150 with full flap, as long as you didn't try to go straight into a climb. There was some forward pressure required on the controls until you got it trimmed, but speed had usually built up enough that you could raise the first 10º of flap fairly quickly. The only go-around accident that I've heard of down here in a C-150 was a student that raised the flaps before adding power.



I heard a couple of different reasons for that, one that I remember the most was it taught the student not to be dependent upon full flaps. As a teenager, I found the tighter pattern that they taught with steeper approaches, power off and minimal flap to be more fun and also more precise. But, in the mid-70's this conflicted with the FAA dogma of every landing shall be full flap and that's what I was taught as well.


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 19, 2019)

In fact, transitioning from the Cessna 150 to the Ercoupe 415C you have to get used to the fact that the Ercoupe does not float down the runway like the Cessna. The angle of incidence and airfoil is such that you can just fly it onto the runway and stomp on the brakes. Properly rigged and with gear set up the right way, an Ercoupe can go down the runway at 90MPH and not lift off until you pull back on the wheel just a teeny bit.

Of course the proper way to land is like anything else. You come down final at 60-65 and flare at about 55 and hit MLG first, nosewheel high. But unlike a Cessna 150 it sets right down.

During one period of time I was trying to see how slow I could land, like a Cessna 150. I made one terrible landing after another, putting on bursts of power to kill the sink rate at the last moment. But one day, with about 10 kts wind down the runway I finally did everything right, held it off, had the wheel all the way back and the wings were rocking all on their own just before we touched down.. As luck would have it, a guy I worked with had just landed his Comanche and was standing on the wing right next to where I touched down, doing maybe 35 mph groundspeed. The next day at work he said, "That landing you made had to be the greatest in the history of avaition." I replied it was just a standard Ercoupe landing, but I after that I went back to my old routine of just picking the spot on the runway and setting her right down.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> the Ercoupe does not float down the runway like the Cessna. The angle of incidence and airfoil is such that you can just fly it onto the runway and stomp on the brakes.


"Erc one five Charlie, three quarter miles, call the ball."
"One five Charlie, ball, fuel point eight, trick or treat."
"Five Charlie, show you low and right, correcting....power.....POWER!.......................BOLTER! BOLTER! BOLTER!"
Tailhook, anyone? Betcha it'd be a great ball flyer.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> Why not use a resource that is available to you?


Because we were not flying out of 1200 foot circular grass aerodromes with trees and wires all around anymore. We didn't need to make a routine out of maximum performance takeoffs and landings, though we did practice them to stay proficient. We did make a lot of crosswind landings out of a slip, and high wing planes generally handle better with half flaps in that scenario. What I used to do for my own proficiency practice, and what I would allow less experienced renter pilots and solo students to do on their own, was of course different.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> I have not known anybody who could make consistently good landings in a Comanche or a Mooney.


Back when my (then) girlfriend was working on her ratings, we went partners with an old classmate of mine on his Mooney M20. He couldn't get insurance on it by himself because of low total time. Neither he (150 hr private) or I (6K hr ATP commuter pilot) ever mastered consistent greasers in that bobsled, but my girlfriend (who eventually retired as an AA 737 pilot) could do it every time. She just had the knack. I've ridden (in the pax cabin) through her landings in DO228, SW4, SAAB340, ERJ145, CRJ50 & 70, and B737, and she greased them all. Talent will out.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 20, 2019)

A female pilot? 

Next you be telling me about flat earth and crystal pyramids. 

There was no female Pilots at the Battle of the Coral Sea! You must think I would believe anything!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 20, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.
> 
> Grumman proposed a COIN version of the Agcat crop duster. Based on the design of the F3F fighter, the airplane was simple, reliable, very rugged and resistant to ground fire, able to loiter for extended periods, and capable of accurately delivering considerable effective ordnance; the Army concluded it was just what they needed. "How many do you want to buy?" asked Grumman. The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"


Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing? 

A Huey or a Cobra?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing?
> 
> A Huey or a Cobra?


Them whirly things in that hot humid climate were kind of limited on ordnance load. A rotary to fixed wing conversion student I had flew Charlie gunships in Nam, and he said with only a partial ordnance load it wouldn't lift into a hover, and had to be "hop-skipped" into a sliding takeoff on the PSP matting. Kind of hard on the skids. He said once a crazy Birddog FAC friend of his made a "formation" takeoff with him side by side and did three liftoffs and touchdowns before his gunship cleared the PSP. Said his door gunner bout died laughing.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 20, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing?



There is a reason the army developed nap-of-the-Earth flying. There is no such thing as a "combat" helicopter, unless you are so low they can't draw a bead on you. All that needs to happen is the tail rotor to get hit.



Nap of the Earth will not work for convoy patrol; you need some altitude to be able to spot threats. And of course probably the main reason they want air cover constantly overhead is to scare the bad guys off. You could fly an Ag Cat or an A-1 around at 1000 ft and he could get shot at all day and possibly not even notice.

By the way the Ercoupe has two power off descent rates.

1. Baldwin Piano
2. Baldwin Locomotive

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 20, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.
> 
> Grumman proposed a COIN version of the Agcat crop duster. Based on the design of the F3F fighter, the airplane was simple, reliable, very rugged and resistant to ground fire, able to loiter for extended periods, and capable of accurately delivering considerable effective ordnance; the Army concluded it was just what they needed. "How many do you want to buy?" asked Grumman. The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"



During Vietnam in 70-71 when I was there, the Army escorted convoys with OH-6s flying low, and Cobras at about 500 feet up as high escort in case anything big was found. They had been doing it for several years.
Plus the USAF was extremely reluctant to let the Army have any fixed wing aircraft beyond puddle jumpers. It was quite a struggle between the Army and the USAF over the Mohawk, and Bronco.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 20, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing?
> 
> A Huey or a Cobra?


Air Tractor AT-802U
It lives.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 21, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> All that needs to happen is the tail rotor to get hit.


"Rotary wing flight is an unnatural act, punishable by God."
Proverbs 101

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 21, 2019)

tyrodtom said:


> It was quite a struggle between the Army and the USAF over the Mohawk, and Bronco.


And the Caribou and the Buffalo. When the Chinook came out, they tried to take that too.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "Rotary wing flight is an unnatural act, punishable by God."
> Proverbs 101


I remember the old saying, helicopters don't really fly, they just beat the air into submission.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

