# Spitfire engine failure in dive?



## Major (Apr 10, 2008)

I heard some where that the Spitfires engine would cut off in a dive. What varients did this apply too? I think it only happend to the mkI and was corrected from mkII on. Correct me if im wrong.

thanks


----------



## ccheese (Apr 10, 2008)

One of the Brits may be able to help you, Major.... 

But, I'll welcome you to the forum....

Charles


----------



## Major (Apr 10, 2008)

Thanks


----------



## timshatz (Apr 10, 2008)

It was the engine on the early marks of Spitfires. Had a standard, gravity fed carb. Would cut out in negative g. Brits fixed it with a "floating" carb. Seemed to do the trick.

Germans 109s used a fuel pump. My understanding is it was in the gas tank itself. Pretty smart engineering, if accurate.


----------



## Major (Apr 10, 2008)

So in what variant was this problem corrected? Did it only apply to the mkI?

thanks for the answer


----------



## claidemore (Apr 10, 2008)

Not sure that "engine failure" would be the correct term to describe that phenomenon, usually it resulted in the engine sputtering and coughing as a result of reduced fuel flow, rather than complete fuel starvation. Pilot had to hold negative G for an uncomfortable length of time to cut the engine out completely and it would roar back to life as soon as they returned to positive G flight. 

Starting during the production of the Mk V they used a modified carburator, designed by a female engineer, that was referred to as "Miss Shillings orifice". This partly fixed the problem. 
The Bendix-Stromberg carburater in the Mk IX was the final solution and eliminated the problem completely.

The DB engines on the Messerschmitts were fuel injected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Major (Apr 10, 2008)

Thanks for the reply.

I just read something saying that they started using the carburetors on the mkV spitfires. Is this true or did they start using them later on the mk IX?


----------



## claidemore (Apr 10, 2008)

Major said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I just read something saying that they started using the carburetors on the mkV spitfires. Is this true or did they start using them later on the mk IX?



They used the modified carbs (shillings orifice) on the Mk V's, the Bendix-Stromberg carbs came on the Mk IXs. I believe the B-S carbs (lol) were retro-fitted on MkVs, not 100% certain on that. 

Claidemore


----------



## Major (Apr 10, 2008)

K i just read this:
The first improvement was the shilling's orifice, after that rolls royce made an improved carburetor that could take sustained negative G's (they were put into all rolls royce engines from merlin 45 on), than the final version was the bendix, which were fitted on merlin 61's and above.

correct me if im wrong


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 10, 2008)

Its my understanding that to counteract this problem the Spitfire pilots would split-S a dive. They would roll upside down and then dive to maintain positive G's in the dive so the engine wouldn't sputter. This is opposed to the Bf-109 which could just go right into a dive because of thier injector system.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2008)

> The Bendix-Stromberg carburater in the Mk IX was the final solution and eliminated the problem completely.



I thibk this was a "pressure carburetor" like those used by the V-1710. This is basicly the same type of mechanism as "single point fuel injection" (throttle body ingection in GM terminology) which uses a pressure pump to inject fuel through a spray nozzel into the intake manifold or throttle body.

This also explains why the V-1710 (and other US engines using these carbs, including the pre war R-1820 and R-1830, never suffered from -G or inverted flight cut-out problems)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Its my understanding that to counteract this problem the Spitfire pilots would split-S a dive. They would roll upside down and then dive to maintain positive G's in the dive so the engine wouldn't sputter. This is opposed to the Bf-109 which could just go right into a dive because of thier injector system.



As long as tou kept pulling +G's you'd be fine.


One thing I've wondered about though is what about the DH. Mossie and Westland Whirlwind. With the Mossie using early Merlins and the Whirlwind using Perigrines (which should have similar carbs), wouldn't simply rolling the a/c cause an engine (the one rolling downward experiencing -G's) to sputter, or if it was a hard roll (combat maneuvering) cause the engine to cut out completely? 

That would pose a serious problem, and one that contemporary German and US designs didn't have to face with all combat engines using either pressure carbs or fuel injection. (though it was carburetor fed, I think the DB 600 used a pressure carb too, which was being replaced with the direct injected 601 aniway and the Jumo 210G, 211, and BMW 801 were all direct injected as well)


----------



## slaterat (Apr 11, 2008)

The neg g problems on spit 1 and Hurri Is were two fold. Initially at the onset of neg g the fuel and float would splash to the top of the float bowl, closing the needle valve and starving the engine of fuel. If the neg Gs were sustained the heavier fuel would displace the float downwards opening the needle valve flooding the engine and could potentially lead to engine hydrolock.

The first sloution was the famous shilling orifice. introduced after the BoB, that restricted fuel flow and prevented the second problem of flooding the engine and hydro lock.

The next improvement was a baffle in the float bowl that helped prevent the fuel and float from surging upward under limited neg gs. this allowed short neg g manouevres. This was used on spit v s Hurri IIs and merlin 61 Spit 9s afaik.

Latter merlins had the stromberg injector carbs(throttle body injection) allowing sustained neg g manouevres.

Slaterat


----------



## Major (Apr 11, 2008)

Hmm I wonder how long the shillings orifice allowed the spitfire to peform neg G stuff, ive searched a little and it seems that no one knows the exact amount of seconds the spitfire could peform neg G stuff without the engine sputtering.

Also, did the Rolls royce Griffon engines have this problem also?


----------



## claidemore (Apr 11, 2008)

Major;

From a Rolls Royce *Griffon *book, Griffon engines had the Bendix carb. 

I believe you can view that document at the link below, as well as a host of other Spitfire related info. I may have downloaded it from there too. 

You should also check out the Techincal Section on these forums. 

Spitfire Performance Testing

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 11, 2008)

To my earlier question: Does anyone know of problems from the effects of -G from rolling (particularly hard rolling) a twin engine a/c (ie Mossie and Whirlwind) with these carburetors of early Merlins (or Perrigrines)? 


And from what I've read the Schilling's orifice (and other pre injection carb improvements) was that -G could be performed for limited time periods (a few seconds, not specified but probably much less than 30 sec) and inverted flight could not be maintained for useful lengths of time.


----------



## Major (Apr 11, 2008)

Did loops, rolls, split-S's, and the opposite of split-S's count as negative G's, in other words did they effect the engine at all or was it only a dive that messed it up?

Oh, and i have no clue about the question you asked, sorry


----------



## antoni (Apr 11, 2008)

One of the great problems, as discerned by pilots was the tendency for the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under these circumstances. Many authors have criticised this aspect of the Merlin design. In reality, like most engineering, it resulted from a design compromise. The drop in temperature developed in a carburettor results in an increase in the density of the fuel-air mixture when compared to that of a fuel injection system. As a consequence the Merlin produced a higher specific power output (horse power per pound) than the equivalent German engine. It was felt that this gave a higher power to weight ratio for the fighter and (rightly or wrongly) that this outweighed the disadvantages. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm across the float chambers with a calibrated hole (the infamous "Miss Shilling's orifice"! I think ‘restrictor’ is the correct term, orifice sounds like someone’s rude sense of humour.) allowed negative 'g' manoeuvres, and was fitted as standard from March 1941. Fitting the new carburettor to the Merlin 45 created the Merlin 50 series. Late production Mk Vs were fitted with the Merlin 50 or 50A and 56 optimised for high altitude, or the 55 with a two-piece engine block. To optimise low-altitude performance the blades of the supercharger blowers were cropped. These engines were identified with the suffix M. For the Mk V these comprised the 45M, 50M and 55M. Sustained zero 'g' manoeuvres were not sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU carburettor was fitted to single and two stage Merlins. 1943 saw the introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburettor which injected fuel at 5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to the Merlin 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU injection carburettor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a function of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins.


----------



## Major (Apr 11, 2008)

wow thanks. So from what I read there are 3 versions.

1. Miss shillings orifice
2. Anti-G version of SU carburettor
3 Stromburg carburettor

Do you happen to know if rolls, split-S's, loops, and the opposite of a split-S(forgot what its called) produced negative G's or positive G's? Im pretty sure that Loops are positive but im not sure of the rest.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>To my earlier question: Does anyone know of problems from the effects of -G from rolling (particularly hard rolling) a twin engine a/c (ie Mossie and Whirlwind) with these carburetors of early Merlins (or Perrigrines)? 

I've never heard of such problems, and I suspect that the high rotational inertia that results from the twin's engines' outboard position made it difficult to achieve roll accelerations required to create carburetion problems.

>And from what I've read the Schilling's orifice (and other pre injection carb improvements) was that -G could be performed for limited time periods (a few seconds, not specified but probably much less than 30 sec) and inverted flight could not be maintained for useful lengths of time.

From the Pilot Training Manual for the P-51 Mustang (covering the D and K variants with Merlin engines):

"However, when the plane is in inverted flight, the oil pressure falls off because no oil reaches the scavenger pump. For that reason you must limit inverted flying to 10 seconds - which is plenty of time for any normal or combat maneuvers."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## antoni (Apr 12, 2008)

I haven’t a clue what effect various acrobatics have on the carburettor.

The Shilling orifice or restrictor may have been one of several early solutions but I cannot find a reference that clearly explains what they were. Morgan and Shacklady’s Spitfire the History surprisingly has little to say on this matter despite explaining at great length some very obscure aspects of Spitfire development. I quote:

“The MK V did need additional power and something needed to be done about the float carburettor, the former being overcome by the installation of more powerful Merlins; the latter by fitting of the ‘Shilling’ orifice into the carburettor, initially, and the adoption of a modified Bendix Stromberg carburettor later. On 12 May MAP issued a notice to the effect that all new production Merlin 46 and 47 engines should be fitted with the Rolls Royce negative-G carburettor. Also, the 46 was to be given a new mark number.”

The new mark number is the 50 series. The Modellers Data File says of the Merlin 50.

“This engine was purely a service trials engine based on the Merlin 46. It used a diaphragm-controlled fuel feed, which was later deleted in favour of Miss ‘Shilling’s ‘restrictor’, and then the RAE anti-G device.”

There seem to be three solutions. The RAE is Farnborough which is where Miss Shilling was. So what was the RAE anti-G device if it wasn’t the Shilling ‘restrictor’? Which, if any, was the RR carburettor? The diaphragm-controlled fuel feed?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Apr 12, 2008)

There's an Alfred Price book out there that displays almost (if not all) mods made on the Spitfire throughout its history. I believe it's called Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History. The Spits with regular carburettors also had the problem of fuel mixture becoming too rich if the negative G was held too long since the fuel would pool in the float chamber. 

To my understanding the orifice was much like a thin, circular metal plate with a hole in it. It ensured that the fuel in the float chamber was never excessive so that there would be no overflow.


----------



## Major (Apr 13, 2008)

So the Merlin 46 and Merlin 50 were the same engine O_O?


----------



## antoni (Apr 13, 2008)

The Merlin 50 was a trials engine based on the 46 and fitted to two squadons of Spitfire Mk Vs at North Weald.


----------



## Major (Apr 13, 2008)

Ive read that the Merlin 50 was also used in Seafire mk II's and Seafire mk III's, is this true?


----------



## antoni (Apr 14, 2008)

Seafire Mk IIs were first fitted with Merlin 46s but most interceptions were at lower altitudes. For that reason the Navy wanted them fitted with Merlin 32s but they were hard to come by as they were earmarked for Barracuda Mk II. Eventually a number were diverted. A single Seafire was fitted with a Merlin 55 but never saw service. I cannot find any mention of any being fitted with Merlin 50s. 

The Seafire MK III was fitted with Merlin 55s or 55Ms. Again I cannot find any mention of any being fitted with Merlin 50s.


----------



## Major (Apr 14, 2008)

Seafire Mk. III Trials

British Aircraft of World War II - SUPERMARINE SEAFIRE (Merlin, fighter)

Was the Merlin 55 also fitted with an anti-G carb? I would assume that if the Merlin 46 and 50 were fitted with one, than the 55 was also, just making sure.

thanks


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 14, 2008)

my dad commented on this, as he flew both hurricanes and spits, and to cure, a pilot rolled on his back, and then dove, so fuel was pushed into the carb, rather then nosing over, and g-force would starve the merlin, and allow an adversary to escape. a cumbersome solution until rectified, same as a fault with the 109 in the BoB. as new pilots, or ones whom might be over whelmed with little flight experience where told to stay out of the clouds, for a plane above will spot you 15 seconds before your visibility is suffice, and safest place or altitude for a spit, is to circle at 24 to 25,000 feet as this height was a hinderance to the bf109 ..,

I was unable to find a clip to demonstrate the fuel nemisis to early model Merlins, but if one watches the very opening clip in the movie Battle of Britian, a hurricane pilot does a victory roll over retreating troops and civilians, if you watch closely and listen, the engine cuts out as fuel is thrown from the carbs, and emits black smoke when the merlin cuts back in...but perhaps is summed up by 2 british tankers a few seconds later stating..."Who the hell's he trying to kid"

bf109 Emil


----------



## Major (Apr 14, 2008)

I never really got the "inverted dive" thing.
So the pilot would roll inverted, than push "up" elevator to make the plane dive, than what? How does he get back to normal level flight?

Also, do you know if the Merlin 55 had anti-G carbs?

thanks for the answer.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 14, 2008)

Major,
The pilot does a half roll and "pulls" on the stick, his plane is upside down after the half roll, so he pulls back on the stick to push the nose down. Then as he dives he can do a slow roll back to an upright position so he will be pulling positive G when he does his pullout. He'd lose 1-4 seconds, (depending on speed ) if the 109 bunts. 

The thing that is almost never mentioned, is that the favorite escape maneuver of the 109s during BoB (and after) was a half roll and dive, which is exactly what the Spit and Hurricnae should be doing anyways. 

The Merlin cutting out in a neg G maneuver was a nuisance, but as a tactical disadvantage, it is over stated and over emphasized IMO.

A little footnote:
SU, stands for Skinners Union, for the 3 Skinner brothers who owned the factory that produced those carburators, and also produced the Bendix carbs for Rolls Royce. This company also developed a fuel injection pump which was used on Mosquitos, and which eventually became the Simmonds Fuel Injection pump which is what I have on my 1952 Fordson Major Diesel tractor! How cool is that, to have the same fuel injector that they used on the Mosquito?


----------



## Major (Apr 14, 2008)

Ahh i see.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

It was basicly a split-S dive...

Really the only major time this cut out is a problem is during aiming when you may need to pull a little -G.

An interesting thing to mention is that the Il-2 Sturmovik combat flight sim models this effect quite well on the Hurricane Mk.I and the Gloster Gladiator. (both used by the Finns)


----------



## Major (Apr 14, 2008)

Wait, how come rolling inverted before the dive does not make the engine cut out? I thought inverted flight would pull negative G and mess up the engine.....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2008)

It's not inverted flight since you could roll and continue to pull +G's. (by applying elevator during the roll) Even if just rolled and then pulled back into a dive the period when 0/-G's would be experienced would be something on the order of 1 sec. (enough for the engine to sputter, that's all)


----------



## claidemore (Apr 15, 2008)

Don't forget that this was not a gravity fed fuel system, there was an engine driven fuel pump that was pushing fuel from the tanks to the carburators and an immersed pump in the lower tank (Mk V) to maintain pressure at high altitudes. The pump operated in inverted and negative G flight, the problem was the mixture of fuel to air in the carburator. 
Basically the engine was still getting fuel, it just wasn't mixed properly, and so the engine would run 'rough', sputter etc. 

If flying inverted, the pilot had to pull the throttle back so the engine would not get 'flooded', once he returned to a normal flight attitude, he could throttle up and the engine would roar to life again. They were actually more worried about fouling the engine with coolant and oil than starving it of fuel. 

Pilots were also taught to 'barrel' the roll during aerobatics to maintain positve G and keep the engine running smoothly, as KK mentions.


----------



## Major (Apr 15, 2008)

Wait a sec, so the engine would sputter if the pilot just did a simple roll O_O ?


----------



## antoni (Apr 15, 2008)

Major said:


> Seafire Mk. III Trials
> 
> British Aircraft of World War II - SUPERMARINE SEAFIRE (Merlin, fighter)
> 
> ...



To speed up production the first 32 Seafire Mk IIIs were built with fixed wings. They fior this reason they were redesignated MK IIc (Hybrids). The last MK II LR764 was fitted with a Merlin 55 and MK II tail unit. The first MK III/II Hybid,LR765 was fitted with a Merlin 50 as was LR766. All three were trials aircraft. There are some MK III serials listed as fitted with Merlin 45Ms and Merlin 55Ms but it is tedious to look down lists of serials for entries with an engine specified. They also seem to be trails aircraft. As most have no engine listed I assume that means they were fitted with the engine specified, which for the MK III, was the Merlin 55. Does that mean that the other serial numbers for the MK III/IIc Hybrid were fitted with MK III engines or MK II engines I don’t know but I am inclined to think that as they were originally built as MK IIIs they had the Merlin 55

I am not sure what type of carburettor was fitted. The 50A and 56 had the same carburettor as the 50. I don’t think it is a simple case of a 50 series engine being the 40 series engine fitted with a new carburettor. For example the 55 was a modified 50 with a two piece engine block.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 15, 2008)

I highly recomend reading the Spitfire Mk II pilots notes, very good information on aerobatics with the float carburater engines. 

Can download a pdf from these forums here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/spitfire-manuals-9050.html

Or a zip file with scans here:

Free Supermarine Spitfire Checklists to Download


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 18, 2008)

Major,
The pilot does a half roll and "pulls" on the stick, his plane is upside down after the half roll, so he pulls back on the stick to push the nose down. Then as he dives he can do a slow roll back to an upright position so he will be pulling positive G when he does his pullout. He'd lose 1-4 seconds, (depending on speed ) if the 109 bunts.
from claidemore...thank you for enlightening an earlier reply as to my posting...

The thing that is almost never mentioned, is that the favorite escape maneuver of the 109s during BoB (and after) was a half roll and dive, which is exactly what the Spit and Hurricnae should be doing anyways.

The Merlin cutting out in a neg G maneuver was a nuisance, but as a tactical disadvantage, it is over stated and over emphasized IMO.

as said, someone can notice this at the VERY begining of the movie Battle of Britian...turn up the sound, and it shows a hurricane doing a roll, and listen, as the fuel is forced from the carb., the engine cuts out, as it continues, the engine cuts back in, now to rich from fuel being forced into carb., and leaves a trail of black smoke...perhaps the best example or view of the merlin cutting out, then coming back to life...

bf109 Emil


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 19, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> Major,
> The pilot does a half roll and "pulls" on the stick, his plane is upside down after the half roll, so he pulls back on the stick to push the nose down. Then as he dives he can do a slow roll back to an upright position so he will be pulling positive G when he does his pullout. He'd lose 1-4 seconds, (depending on speed ) if the 109 bunts.
> from claidemore...thank you for enlightening an earlier reply as to my posting...bf109 Emil



Yes, by pulling back on the stick in the inverted position, the so-called centrifugal gravity exerts a force on the aircraft (and, hence, the engine) of ~1G, thereby imitating normal gravity.


----------



## Kwiatek (Mar 4, 2009)

I really wonder if during negative G engine would be stop in early Spitfire and Hurrciane? How it looks like for these 2 cases:

1. - pilot is making shallow sustained dive with only small negative G

2. - pilot is apply suddenly high negative G 

I really wonder if engine would be stopped or just have pause in working or so? When engine should be stopped definitly?

I play Il2 1946 where after pushing suddelny negative G or during medium constanly G engine is immidietly stoping but under only small suistaned negative G engine work properly. Is these correct and corespondly to RL?


----------



## Observer1940 (Jun 3, 2015)

HoHun said:


> Hi Koolkitty,
> ...
> 
> From the Pilot Training Manual for the P-51 Mustang (covering the D and K variants with Merlin engines):
> ...



Hello

A file in TNA, Kew, has a 1940 copy letter stating quite clearly that Inverted flying of the RAF fighter with the Merlin engine should be stopped, due to oil starvation to bearings.

Mark


----------



## stona (Jun 3, 2015)

The manoeuvre is explained in this 1976 documentary by a couple of chaps who were there, did it and were actually rather good at it. Scroll to about 24' 30" if you don't have time or have a short attention span 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDzZnCkbxgs_

Cheers

Steve


----------



## rochie (Jun 3, 2015)

Good stuff Steve.

Not everyone's cup of tea but Bader is a massive hero of mine faults and all !


----------



## stona (Jun 3, 2015)

He could fly the sh*t out of a Spitfire or Hurricane and was as brave as they come. He should have stuck to doing that.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## rochie (Jun 3, 2015)

Yup !


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2016)

Major said:


> Wait, how come rolling inverted before the dive does not make the engine cut out? I thought inverted flight would pull negative G and mess up the engine.....



Haven't any of you guys DONE any of this stuff? When you're doing a positive G split-S, you "barrel" the roll by making a sharp coordinated ailerons-and-rudder turn in the desired direction (usually the one in which engine torque and "P" factor will aid your roll rate), while maintaining gentle back pressure on the stick. As you pass through 90 degrees bank angle, your nose will start to fall through and you will pass through inverted nose down in a dive. Continue your coordinated roll with just a touch of back pressure until you're right side up again, relax the back pressure, and you're in a 1 G dive. The float carb in your Cessna 152 Acrobat hasn't even burped.
If, on the other hand, you attempt a slow aileron roll around the plane's longitudinal axis, you will experience negative G while inverted with accompanying sputters and stumbles.
Y'all have fun, now, y'hear?
Wes


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 21, 2016)

they probably haven't. even a lot of guys that do fly haven't had the opportunity to do some of those maneuvers. I have been in pipers, stinsons, and cessnas but none were rated for that. I have never had the chance to do a split S....would love to.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2016)




----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2016)

Thanks for the graphics Sr6!
The slightly barreled split-S I was describing was simply an expeditious way to get the nose pointed downhill while maintaining positive G. Sort of a hybrid of the depicted aileron and barrel rolls without the swooping climbing roll of the barrel and allowing back stick pressure and gravity to pull the nose sharply down once past the vertical bank. Not very expeditious actually in a slow underpowered General Aviation aircraft. A stoutly constructed 1000 hp fighter going circa 300 mph would pull it off quite nicely as long as it wasn't going fast enough to bind up the ailerons. A combat maneuver, not an air show maneuver. I could do it in the T-34 keeping all the coral dust and bits of electrical insulation firmly planted on the cockpit floor.
Cheers
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2016)

Just trying to show that a plane could upside down and yet not suffer from negative "G".

Like inside loop and outside loop. Outside loop would have the oil system suffering from the same problems as inverted flight even if the planes attitude was near horizontal and right side up near the beginning and end of the loop. 

Barrel roll is sort of like a loop gone sideways


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2016)

A "horizontal spiral loop", the "hurricane" to the snap-roll's "tornado". Snap-rolls are such fun! (And so much easier to do safely than barrel rolls.) More than once I've had a tense, apprehensive student overdo a yaw correction at the break of the stall, resulting in a snap-roll/spin entry. That's why I insisted on demonstrating spin entry and recovery real early in the training process. That way if they scare themself some time practicing stalls, they'll have the experience to cope with it. It's mighty startling the first time your stomach hits your diaphragm, the sky and earth swap places, and your windshield is suddenly full of trees. (They look so close, even if they're 4 or 5 thousand feet away!) Best if you've seen it before.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BLine22 (Dec 22, 2016)

Thats first time I've heard of a slightly barreled split S but it certainly explains footage I've seen of formations transitioning from level flight to a diving attack. IIRC the split S in a T-34C was power to idle, slow to 120kts, roll inverted and pull. It was a lot off fun and much easier than the opposite maneuver which was the Immelmann.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2016)

Gawd, if I could only have gotten my hands on a Charlie model!! That was long after my T-34 days and before my PT-6 days. Betcha that was a blast! Our club plane was a tired old Bravo. Fun, but a bit of a dog, and certainly less thirsty than Charlie. Pre oil embargo, and gas was actually affordable, even for an O-470. We were housed on base and got our gas at government bulk contract price. Never would happen today!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> It was a lot off fun and much easier than the opposite maneuver which was the Immelmann.


In our Bravo we had to dive so far to reach entry speed for a Immelmann, we rolled level at a lower altitude than we began. "Woof, woof"
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Dec 22, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Gawd, if I could only have gotten my hands on a Charlie model!! That was long after my T-34 days and before my PT-6 days. Betcha that was a blast! Our club plane was a tired old Bravo. Fun, but a bit of a dog, and certainly less thirsty than Charlie. Pre oil embargo, and gas was actually affordable, even for an O-470. We were housed on base and got our gas at government bulk contract price. Never would happen today!
> Cheers,
> Wes



It was a great aircraft to train in. The Navy is done with them now. I saw rows of them at Davis Monthan last month. Hopefully some will make into civilian hands. I did get to fly a T-34B at the flying club and really enjoyed that especially taking my dad for a flight as that was the plane he trained in.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 23, 2016)

Don't know about civilian Charlies. Beech got burned on the Alpha, as the Air Force surplused them much earlier than expected, and Beech perceived they cut into Bonanza sales. The Alpha had been given an Acrobatic Category civil type certificate so Beech could fly sales demonstrators, which Beech felt came back to bite them. The Bravo was sold to the Navy with the provision that when they came off the BuAer active list they would revert to Beech. So far as I know, all currently airworthy Bravos, military and civil, are still on the official BuAer list and still officially government property. I know every year we paid one dollar to the Navy, and reported all our T-34's activity to BuAer. We also got parts support from Pensacola
The Bravo got its civil type certificate when the Navy supplied some used ones to the Forest Service for use as air tanker guides. Forest Service certified it in Utility Category, as they saw no need for acrobatics. The local feds (ex-Navy guys) ignored our aerial antics. As government employees, they had (and used) access to our bird.
I'm guessing the Charlies are similarly restricted as to ownership.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 23, 2016)

I'm also guessing that Charlies wouldn't be practical as club aircraft as their maintenance would be beyond the capabilities of most service clubs and their experience requirements for insurance would be impossibly high.
Our Bravo required 100 hrs total time and a five hour checkout with one hour and five landings at night.
Needless to say this was long before the Great General Aviation Tort Law Disaster of the 1980s!
Cheers,
Wes


----------

