Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What did you learn on your checkride? My Private Pilot Examiner said "Sweat thyself not, this is just another lesson. We're going to educate each other: you're going to show me how safe a pilot you are, and I'm going to show you a thing or two your instructors never did. So after he put me through my paces, he said "You'll do", then asked: "Have you ever been in a fully developed spin in one of these things?"
"No, we did spin avoidance but no spins".
"Yep, that's what your logbook shows, would you like to see what it's like?"
"Isn't that considered acrobatics?"
"Yep, and it's prohibited except when operating in Utility Category and in a training situation. You're Pilot in Command of this flight, I'm legally just a passenger, so I'm asking, do we meet the stated conditions to do it legally?"
"I guess so."
"Okay, you want to give it a try? Remember, you're PIC."
So he demonstrated, I followed through, then did one each way myself, and got thoroughly hooked on "the world turned upside down"!
Cheers,
Wes

My examiner said the same thing to me. He said that besides verifying that I am a safe pilot, he also wanted to teach me something. That my checkride was not complete unless it was an important lesson.

His father had been killed in a spin, and he wanted to hone in on spin training, but the aircraft was restricted from spins at any time. But he did as much as he could to hone in on the importance of spin avoidance, and recovery from one. He went into more detail than the books or my instructor did during training. It was a great experience. I was on cloud nine afterwards.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

His father had been killed in a spin, and he wanted to hone in on spin training,

A windshield full of trees going round and round is a lot less paralyzing if you've been there before. A trainer that's not spin able is a travesty. If it's capable of getting into a spin, but its spin characteristics are unsafe, then it's unairworthy and shouldn't be used as a trainer.
I never was comfortable with the FAA's promotion of "gentle" flight instruction. (Don't do anything that might make the student nervous or uncomfortable! And don't let them get the idea that there could be any fear involved.) That creates "armchair pilots" liable to freeze on the controls when that assymetric stall happens turning downwind to base because they were holding the nose too high and "ruddering" the plane around in their nervousness about lowering the nose and using the appropriate bank angle less than 1000 ft AGL.
Look at the accident statistics back in the day.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[jmcalli2]

What do you mean "stupid maneuver"? He was kind of boxed in, harrying the B-26s at low altitude his options were limited. The B-26 was a speed demon bomber, so if he had overtake speed on them, he was up in the speed range where the Zero was pretty stiff in roll, so he wasn't going to win a turning fight if he lived to get into it, but he had speed, so up was the viable option. This is a situation where control harmony at speed is the deciding factor. Heavy high speed stick forces in the Zero, vs light and responsive in the ("twitchy" aft engine) P-39 allowed the Cobra to stay with him in the pull-up. His goose was pretty much cooked from the onset. His only other survival option might have been a (muscular!) roll to the left into the tightest turn he could manage at that speed and hope the American misjudges his deflection as he gets in a quick snap shot before popping up into his zoom climb. This might have achieved survival, but no victory, an unattractive prospect for any self-respecting Samurai. The zoom into a loop onto the opponent's tail is much more attractive. He just didn't expect the clunky, slow climbing Cobra to commit suicide by trying to go vertical with him.
Cheers,
Wes

Just a "butt-in' thought on the phrase, "Slow-climbing P-39". See the performance figures for the A6M2 at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf and P-39N at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_FS-M-19-1487-A.pdf

This suggests that climbing at low/medium altitude when bounced by a P-39 is not a good idea.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Just a "butt-in' thought on the phrase, "Slow-climbing P-39". See the performance figures for the A6M2 at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf and P-39N at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_FS-M-19-1487-A.pdf

This suggests that climbing at low/medium altitude when bounced by a P-39 is not a good idea.

Just my 2 cents.

Poor Yoshino! He didn't have access to your sources. In fact, I believe Koga and his Zero weren't yet embarked on their carrier that day.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Just a "butt-in' thought on the phrase, "Slow-climbing P-39". See the performance figures for the A6M2 at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf and P-39N at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_FS-M-19-1487-A.pdf

This suggests that climbing at low/medium altitude when bounced by a P-39 is not a good idea.

Just my 2 cents.

Those figures are for a P-39N, which had 225 more HP and somewhat less weight than the D. Besides, any previous experience the Japanese had against the P-39 was most likely meeting them and bouncing them as they struggled to intercept an incoming raid with very little warning.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

A windshield full of trees going round and round is a lot less paralyzing if you've been there before. A trainer that's not spin able is a travesty. If it's capable of getting into a spin, but its spin characteristics are unsafe, then it's unairworthy and shouldn't be used as a trainer.
I never was comfortable with the FAA's promotion of "gentle" flight instruction. (Don't do anything that might make the student nervous or uncomfortable! And don't let them get the idea that there could be any fear involved.) That creates "armchair pilots" liable to freeze on the controls when that assymetric stall happens turning downwind to base because they were holding the nose too high and "ruddering" the plane around in their nervousness about lowering the nose and using the appropriate bank angle less than 1000 ft AGL.
Look at the accident statistics back in the day.
Cheers,
Wes

I absolutely agree with you. I think spin training should be mandatory for a private pilot as well.

I remember my 1st cross country solo, I flew out to the first controlled airport, did my required touch and goes, got out and got my logbook signed by a person at the FBO. Then I took off and flew to my 2nd airport on my 2nd leg. I was so used to flying left traffic in my training, it really caught me off guard when the tower told me to fly right traffic. I asked them to repeat it, as if I had misunderstood them, but nope they said right traffic. I know I was making my base to final turn absolutely wrong, because I just was not used to it. My bank was too high, and I know my nose was too high. Stall warning came on, and it buffeted a little. I immediately lowered the nose, and was able to make a successful landing, but I can tell you my pucker factor was through the roof. My instructor had told me to do a few touch and goes there as well, before shutting down and getting my logbook signed. I had had enough for the day though after that happened, and decided to go to a complete stop, shut down, get some water, get my logbook signed, and then do a nice slow flight back home to my home airfield.

 

[fubar57]

I'm not seeing any 109s, 190s or -39s here people. JK ....I wish I had learned to fly when I had the chance

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I absolutely agree with you. I think spin training should be mandatory for a private pilot as well.

I remember my 1st cross country solo, I flew out to the first controlled airport, did my required touch and goes, got out and got my logbook signed by a person at the FBO. Then I took off and flew to my 2nd airport on my 2nd leg. I was so used to flying left traffic in my training, it really caught me off guard when the tower told me to fly right traffic. I asked them to repeat it, as if I had misunderstood them, but nope they said right traffic. I know I was making my base to final turn absolutely wrong, because I just was not used to it. My bank was too high, and I know my nose was too high. Stall warning came on, and it buffeted a little. I immediately lowered the nose, and was able to make a successful landing, but I can tell you my pucker factor was through the roof. My instructor had told me to do a few touch and goes there as well, before shutting down and getting my logbook signed. I had had enough for the day though after that happened, and decided to go to a complete stop, shut down, get some water, get my logbook signed, and then do a nice slow flight back home to my home airfield.

Your instructor was brave! I never sent students out for a triangular first solo XC, always an out-and-back, and then not to a tower controlled field. That would come later, after they had ironed out their navigation and gained a little confidence. Back in the day, PP standards required a "long solo cross-country" of three 100+ NM legs, so that was usually the last one one of the series.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I'm not seeing any 109s, 190s or -39s here people. JK ....I wish I had learned to fly when I had the chance

Sorry, the "digression monster" strikes again! Misjudged the crosswind component and drifted off course. Dammit, those Met guys were off again with their winds aloft!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[parsifal]

I'm not seeing any 109s, 190s or -39s here people. JK ....I wish I had learned to fly when I had the chance

Sorry Geo. My fault (to a degree)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm not seeing any 109s, 190s or -39s here people. JK ....I wish I had learned to fly when I had the chance

Sorry...

 

[fubar57]

You guys could talk about blimps for all I care: for a non-flyer I find it interesting.........maybe not blimps

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Your instructor was brave! I never sent students out for a triangular first solo XC, always an out-and-back, and then not to a tower controlled field. That would come later, after they had ironed out their navigation and gained a little confidence. Back in the day, PP standards required a "long cross-country" of three 100+ NM legs, so that was usually the last one one of the series.
Cheers,
Wes

I had to do three cross counties. 2 short, and 1 long.

I did a few out and about's with my instructor in the plane before doing the 1st cross country. All three cross countries included 3 stops, and all had to include a controlled airport. I'll have to look back at the requirements. I think the only the long requires 3 stops. As I said though, my instructor had me do it with all 3.

 

[gumbyk]

I had to do three cross counties. 2 short, and 1 long.

I did a few out and about's with my instructor in the plane before doing the 1st cross country. All three cross countries included 3 stops, and all had to include a controlled airport. I'll have to look back at the requirements. I think the only the long requires 3 stops. As I said though, my instructor had me do it with all 3.

We used to do 4 cross-country flights, two to controlled airfields (one dual and one solo) and two to uncontrolled airports, again one each dual and solo.
It was the short sector flights that most students had problems with, when there are two airports less than 25nm from each other, things (radio calls, etc) happen fairly quickly for a student trying to make sure they do every position report they (thought they) need.
From memory the minimum requirement for PP was 10 hrs cross-country, minimum distance didn't come into it until commercial level.

 

[DarrenW]

I'm not seeing any 109s, 190s or -39s here people. JK ....I wish I had learned to fly when I had the chance

You are absolutely right Fubar, from this point further I will refrain from talking further about the P-39's abilities in the Pacific. Just want to take a moment though to thank Parsifal and XBe02Drvr for their candid and interesting opinions concerning both axis victories and Yoshino's demise. Now on to the Nazi stuff!

 

[KiwiBiggles]

You are absolutely right Fubar, from this point further I will refrain from talking further about the P-39's abilities in the Pacific. Just want to take a moment though to thank Parsifal and XBe02Drvr for their candid and interesting opinions concerning both axis victories and Yoshino's demise. Now on to the Nazi stuff!

Personally, I would welcome a break from the endless P-39 discussions.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Personally, I would welcome a break from the endless P-39 discussions.

Ditto!

 

[P-39 Expert]

Those figures are for a P-39N, which had 225 more HP and somewhat less weight than the D. Besides, any previous experience the Japanese had against the P-39 was most likely meeting them and bouncing them as they struggled to intercept an incoming raid with very little warning.
Cheers,
Wes

Correct, the P-39N was a much better climber than the earlier D,F,K and L with the earlier -35 engine.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Poor Yoshino! He didn't have access to your sources. In fact, I believe Koga and his Zero weren't yet embarked on their carrier that day.
Cheers,
Wes

9 June 1942. Koga and his Zero were upside down in the muskeg and had been there four days. (Remember, Akutan Island is on the other side of the dateline.)

 

[XBe02Drvr]

9 June 1942. Koga and his Zero were upside down in the muskeg and had been there four days. (Remember, Akutan Island is on the other side of the dateline.)

Oops, my bad! I somehow got the idea in my thick head that the Yoshino event happened in April before Coral Sea and Midway. Guess I better wake up and pay attention!
Cheers,
Wes