J-3 time

[billrunnels]

While at Butler University(CTD) I received ten hours of instructional flight time in a J-3(cub). We flew out of Hoosier Airport which had no runways just open field. Our instructors were civilian pilots. We had the same instructor for nine hours and a check pilot on the tenth. On the first hour he had me trying to fly a rectangular pattern. The second hour he said "cadet, do you think you can take off ?" I used up a good portion of that field but did get it in the air. At the end of the hour he said "you got us up here can you get us back on the ground". I can still here him yelling ya-hoo as we bounced along. What an experience for one who had only sampled flight on a fifteen minute ride at the Missouri State Fair. The next seven hours were routine training (spins etc.). Then came the final tenth check ride. We took off and he put me through the various maneuvers and landed. I passed with this comment in my log book "Cadet Runnels gets the airplane to do what he wants but I am not sure how he does it"

 

[Airframes]

Sounds like when I tried to fly a Stampe SV4 !!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Another one of those bass-ackward machines with the prop turning the wrong way, torque doing the wrong thing, and "positive earth" to boot!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[billrunnels]

Another one of those bass-ackward machines with the prop turning the wrong way, torque doing the wrong thing, and "positive earth" to boot!
Cheers,
Wes

But a forgiving, fun little aircraft to fly. I never did get my license but had an instructor friend, would give him $10 to make three take offs and landings. This was shortly after the end of WWII.

 

[at6]

My Step father was an A&P, service manager, and a pilot. On weekends when I was a kid we would spend Saturdays at the airport where he would perform inspections for flight time. My job was cleaning the nose gear with a brush and solvent plus wipe the exhaust stains from the plane. Later we would go flying where he taught me to read the instruments, fly level, and do turns. At the same time you were watching for other planes. My favorite experience was one hour of T-6 time with aerobatics 18 years ago.

 

[billrunnels]

My Step father was an A&P, service manager, and a pilot. On weekends when I was a kid we would spend Saturdays at the airport where he would perform inspections for flight time. My job was cleaning the nose gear with a brush and solvent plus wipe the exhaust stains from the plane. Later we would go flying where he taught me to read the instruments, fly level, and do turns. At the same time you were watching for other planes. My favorite experience was one hour of T-6 time with aerobatics 18 years ago.

The T-6 time would be a fun time.

 

[at6]

Bill, That hour was my only official and "legal" log book time.

 

[billrunnels]

Bill, That hour was my only official and "legal" log book time.

At least you have that to support the memory.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

But a forgiving, fun little aircraft to fly. I never did get my license but had an instructor friend, would give him $10 to make three take offs and landings. This was shortly after the end of WWII.

OMG Bill, that comment wasn't about the sweetheart J3! OMG no! I was talking about Airframe's Stampe, what you would get if you let a Frenchman try to invent a Tiger Moth. The story I was told went like this: "One day shrouded in the mists of time, a Frenchman (some say Belgian) got his hands on a Tiger Moth and locked her up overnight in the breeding pen with an old Bucker Jungmann leftover from the Nazi occupation, and nine months later, a Stampe emerged!"
Cheers,
Wes

 

[billrunnels]

Bill, That hour was my only official and "legal" log book time.

I have a one time experience also in a B-17. Often on training flights I would not have assigned duties other than observer. I spent considerable time in the copilot's seat flying the aircraft under the pilot's supervision. Our copilot loved to play poker so he would get up a game in the radio room. Our crew delivered a new B-17 to the UK. On the segment from Trenton, NJ to Bangor, ME I was in the copilot's seat. When approaching Bangor our pilot asked me if I thought I could land the aircraft and I said yes. He announced to the crew that I would be making the landing to a moaning response.. I made a successful landing. The only thing the pilot did was tell me when to flair as I had no idea how high the flight deck was when on the ground.

 

[at6]

I was never taught how to take off or land. I did at least observe and got a rudimentary idea of how it is done in the 152.

 

[billrunnels]

I was never taught how to take off or land. I did at least observe and got a rudimentary idea of how it is done in the 152.

The take off and landing were the fun things to do.

 

[Jimbob]

My flight instructor told me the same thing in a C-152.

 

[billrunnels]

My flight instructor told me the same thing in a C-152.

I think that would apply to all aircraft.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I think that would apply to all aircraft.[/QUOTE
Not ALL aircraft. The 747 is reputed to be so easy to land it's boring!
Friend of mine had a brief career with People Express (People's Distress!) before it was swallowed up by Continental and he flew as First Officer on the 747 for awhile on the Newark - London shuttle. He said landing that thing was boring, it was so easy. If your approach was stabilized on speed and trimmed for hands off, that monster would land itself. Apparently as it started to fly into ground effect and the ground began to compress the wingtip vortices and downwash, it would shift the center of lift forward, flaring the aircraft gracefully onto the runway. Then that huge assortment of landing gear trucks took over and settled it smoothly onto the pavement.
He said if you saw a video of a 74 bouncing on landing, it meant the pilot was trying too hard. Or there was a strong turbulent crosswind.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[billrunnels]

Friend of mine had a brief career with People Express (People's Distress!) before it was swallowed up by Continental where he flew as First Officer on the 747 on the Newark - London shuttle. He said landing that thing was boring, it was so easy. If your approach was stabilized on speed and trimmed for hands off, that monster would land itself. Apparently as it started to fly into ground effect and the ground began to compress the wingtip vortices and downwash, it would shift the center of lift forward, flaring the aircraft gracefully onto the runway. Then that huge assortment of landing gear trucks took over and settled it smoothly onto the pavement.
He said if you saw a video of a 74 bouncing on landing, it meant the pilot was trying too hard. Or there was a strong turbulent crosswind.
Cheers,
Wes

I can believe it. Have a Delta pilot friend who fly's the Airbus. It is equipped for hands off landing but he said he always turned it off and made a manual landing just to restore some joy of flying.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I can believe it. Have a Delta pilot friend who fly's the Airbus. It is equipped for hands off landing but he said he always turned it off and made a manual landing just to restore some joy of flying.

Yes, but in the case of the Airbus (and most other large sweptwing jets) the autoland is an autopilot feature which means the electronics are landing the plane. In the 74 it's the inherent aerodynamics of the airframe interacting with ground effect. It's an old school antique of an airplane (at least the 100 and 200 series) where the the protocol was to fly an autopilot coupled approach to minimums, then disconnect and land manually. Dick said it was so easy to fly that in visual conditions they would handfly the approach all the way down just for the entertainment value of it. Can you imagine 300 passengers clamping their armrests with white knuckles unaware that the guys up front are busy amusing themselves by handflying the approach? Needless to say this was strictly fair weather entertainment. In turbulence or IMC, of course, it was by the book.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[billrunnels]

Yes, but in the case of the Airbus (and most other large sweptwing jets) the autoland is an autopilot feature which means the electronics are landing the plane. In the 74 it's the inherent aerodynamics of the airframe interacting with ground effect. It's an old school antique of an airplane (at least the 100 and 200 series) where the the protocol was to fly an autopilot coupled approach to minimums, then disconnect and land manually. Dick said it was so easy to fly that in visual conditions they would handfly the approach all the way down just for the entertainment value of it. Can you imagine 300 passengers clamping their armrests with white knuckles unaware that the guys up front are busy amusing themselves by handflying the approach? Needless to say this was strictly fair weather entertainment. In turbulence or IMC, of course, it was by the book.
Cheers,
Wes

Wes, I invested 32 years in commercial aviation marketing and sales. I spent a lot of time in the air and I would prefer hands on landings every time. I had more faith in the pilot's skill then the electronic. However, this judgment goes back to earlier days. I retired in 1981.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Wes, I invested 32 years in commercial aviation marketing and sales. I spent a lot of time in the air and I would prefer hands on landings every time. I had more faith in the pilot's skill then the electronic. However, this judgment goes back to earlier days. I retired in 1981.

Electronics have come a long way since 1981, both in reliability and calculating capacity.
Planes like the F-16 and Airbus A320 have divergent inherent airframe stability. Without the fly-by-wire computers constantly making thousands of tiny corrections they would go instantly out of control and self-destruct by over G-ing the airframe. The total antithesis of the 747.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Gnomey]

Excellent stuff Bill!