Pristine F4U Vought Corsair

[mikewint]

never had that much time, one OH SH*T, and then pucker and try not to

 

[evangilder]

i thought that the texan was a trainer? to me that implys that it is easier to fly hence a trainer. now as i recall a stearman is a biplane. so i'd have to fly 500 hours in a tailwheel plane, then 500 hrs in a texan, before i could try to fly my 10 mill corsair? my 10mil investment is going to be spending a lot of time in the garage.
could i sit in it and make vrooom-vroom sounds? with an occasional tack-tack-tack-tack for fun?

No 500 hours in any tail wheel. The Texan was an advanced trainer. It was actually put into place to serve as an interim trainer because going from a Stearman to a high performance piston like a P-47 or a P-51 is dramatically different. Flying a Texan isn't bad, but takeoffs and landings can be pretty unforgiving.

 

[evangilder]

Ok, I'll ask a silly question: at the very lowest level of pilot's licenser, is there a different license for a tail sitter and another for tricycle gear?

The basic private pilot's license is issued with training and checkout in a standard tricycle gear aircraft. Tail dragger is an additional endorsement.

You don't need a tailwheel endorsement if you've already logged pilot-in-command (PIC) time in a tailwheel airplane prior to April 15, 1991. Otherwise, you must now receive a one-time logbook endorsement to act as PIC in a tailwheel airplane. The recommended wording for this endorsement, which is to be signed and dated by your tailwheel instructor, is provided in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-65D:

"I certify that (Pilot's Name), (Pilot's Certificate), (Pilot's Certificate Number), has received the required training of §61.31(i) in a (make and model tailwheel airplane). I have determined that he/she is proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane."

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) section 61.31(i) elaborates:

"The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures."

 

[mikewint]

evan, ok, i tried to read through those regs and they were pretty confusing. so i'm a pilot flying some light single engine plane with a tail wheel, and i have 500 hours doing so. i present my paper work, take my tests, and i can fly my F4U? or do i need that Texan in there somewhere?
from your post to viking i'm assuming that a trike is easier to land/takeoff than a tailwheel?

 

[tail end charlie]

evan, ok, i tried to read through those regs and they were pretty confusing. so i'm a pilot flying some light single engine plane with a tail wheel, and i have 500 hours doing so. i present my paper work, take my tests, and i can fly my F4U? or do i need that Texan in there somewhere?
from your post to viking i'm assuming that a trike is easier to land/takeoff than a tailwheel?

Mike I think all aeroplanes land (Isaac Newton decided the rule), the question is whether you can walk away or not.

In a way I can understand people wanting to fly a real war bird but I used to race motorcycles and so have an interest in Moto GP and Formula one. I know how hard it is to take 50BHP to the limit on a track and I have seen the comical efforts of supposedly gifted amateurs in F1 cars. I see a WW2 war bird as an F1 car working in 3 dimensions with about 4 times the power and 2 or 3 times the speed which doesnt come to a halt in a sand trap but buries itself with its pilot 10 m into the ground. Hats off to the guys who did and do fly them but it isnt for me. HOWEVER if I win the lottery and get told I have 1 month to live....I am yer man

 

[vikingBerserker]

The basic private pilot's license is issued with training and checkout in a standard tricycle gear aircraft. Tail dragger is an additional endorsement.

Thanks, I appreciate that!

 

[vikingBerserker]

The basic private pilot's license is issued with training and checkout in a standard tricycle gear aircraft. Tail dragger is an additional endorsement.

Thanks! I appreicate that.

 

[evangilder]

You could fly it with proper training, and a check out from a certified examiner who could give you the check out. But going from a small tail-wheel to a high performance piston is a fools errand. You would certainly want to have some texan or other higher performance aircraft time.

Tail wheel aircraft aren't necessarily harder to land, but they are way less forgiving to you. You have to pay a lot of attention when landing and use the rudder a lot more, often anticipating movement ahead of time. There is a pretty good write up on it with less of the legal-ese working here:
Talwheel Transition FAQ

An excerpt from it is here:

What are some of the common problems pilots have transitioning to taildraggers?

The biggest problem can be summed up in three words: rudder, rudder, rudder. Too many pilots have grown accustomed to being reactive with their rudder inputs--waiting for the airplane to do something, then responding--or worse, actually bracing their legs against the rudder pedals, especially during landing. The key in a taildragger is to be proactive with the rudder. To be light, loose, but active on the rudder pedals all the way through the takeoff and all the way through the landing.

The second problem concerns the elevator. Pilots flying tricycle gear airplanes tend to relax back elevator pressure instinctively during the landing roll out. In a taildragger landing in the three-point attitude, relaxing back elevator pressure reduces directional control, thus making it more difficult to keep the airplane straight during the roll out. The key in a three-point landing is to hold the elevator control fully aft during the entire landing roll while actively using the rudder to keep the airplane aligned with the runway.

The third problem appears during wheel landings. The key difference between the three-point landing and the wheel landing is sink rate. Successful wheel landings require minimum sink rate. If the airplane at all settles, falls, or sinks toward the runway in the last few feet, a wheel landing will be difficult or impossible. And if the pilot flinches and applies back elevator as the main wheels touch down, the airplane will rebound into the air. At this point, the pilot needs to react quickly and efficiently--either convert the landing to a three-pointer or add power and execute a go-around.

 

[N4521U]

Simply......
The PT-17, Primary Trainer, Stearman is a Basic function airplane, tail wheeled that is. Fixed gear, non retracting. When it used a wood prop, it was Fixed pitched, non adjustable. Two wings, higher lift. Low power, lighter aircraft.
The AT-6, Advanced Trainer, had retractable gear, constant speed or adjustable pitch prop, and lower lift in wing area, heavier airplane. More power.
Thus the T-6 was the transition trainer leading a pilot to the more complex and more powerful P-51 and Corsair as well as most other high performance fighter and bomber aircraft.

Remember, three fingers, three lights, gear down and locked!

 

[cptsmith]

In WW2 they had Primary, Basic and Advanced flight training using the Texan for advanced. Post war the Navy and Air Force used the Texan as their primary trainer, later being replaced with T-28 and T-34 (both tricycle gear). Around 1960-61 the Air Force went to all jet trainers (T-37 and T-38).

 

[mikewint]

sounds pretty tough an involved, and 500 hours is a lot of time. at 5hrs per day that's 3months and since you can't fly every day probably more like 6 months just to qualify to try to fly the F4U. did starting pilots in WWII have that much time to learn?

 

[N4521U]

I finished my PPL in 1991, my instructor commented at the end that with 45 hours flying time, I had more training than most WWII pilots going into combat....... ?

However during this time I had a friend who did aerobatic instruction, so I had stall, spin, And other unusual attitude instruction. My practical examiner was a crop duster pilot as well, we had a good time up there.

 

[cptsmith]

US pilot training took a bit of time. In one of Micdrows posts somewhere it states how many weeks each course took as well as how many hours flown. Roughly about 60 hours each flown in Primary, Basic and Advanced plus how ever many hours in combat transition course for the type aircraft. So close to 250 hours by the time a pilot reached combat.