fubar57
General
Drove a Pacific P12 gravel truck for 20 miles on a logging road after it lost it's power steering
The p38 and docile handling charachteristics or lack thereof.
- Thread starter michael rauls
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
I found the V35 Bonanza to have a very easy stall. As part of the Bonanza Pilot Proficiency Program, they made you fly around 1 or 2 knots above stall. I enjoyed it so much that later I used to do it in the training area around home. I could laze around at 45 knots and every now and then it would stall by just gently dropping the nose. I would simply add a bit of power and go again. There was no nasty wing drop or buffeting. Now when I stalled a Victa Airtourer at 10,000 ft that was a different story - the wing drop exceeded 90 deg. I never did that again.
Did you notice a difference?
Actually, its descendant. The first Aztrucks were originally marketed as Apache 235s. We had a couple, alias U11s, at the NAS. Unlike the later "true" Aztecs, they had a rather small nosewheel, and would all too frequently collapse the nosegear when taxied fast across the arresting gear. Expensive mishap: two props, two engines, eight engine mount donuts, one nose gear assembly, and rebuilt nosegear trunnion supports. The annual operating cost of an "economical" U11 turned out to be greater than a US2B (Yes, Virginia, there actually was such a thing!) and nearly as much as an SH3. And the "used to be" offered so much more ego gratification for testosterone poisoned naval aviators with its two big hairy chested radials and the elevated perch of its cockpit. Dreams of "hitting the boat" and joining a deploying squadron were seldom far from the thoughts of aviators who'd drawn a dead end NAS assignment because they scared the LSO during carrier quals in advanced training.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Did you try one at cruise power in a 2G 60° bank? I've heard the vee tails aren't so gentle accelerated. The T34 would let go at a little over 3Gs, and it had a bit of gyration, but nothing scary, and ailerons came back immediately. 240 kt Vne was kind of nice to have.
Cheers,
Wes
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
I don't think I ever took it to 60° bank. I never used it for anything out of the ordinary, our local flying school had an A152 Scareobat for doing things like that.
Our Navy club had a 150 'bat too, and those crazy nugget aviators from the F4 RAG squadron, after turning and burning all day in their jets, would come over and take out the T34 and the 'bat and continue their ACM adventures. Fortunately they were just scared enough of the teeny weenies to not press things too hard, and we never had any incidents. (If you discount the occasional civilian private pilot who blundered into their playground) Suppose we ought to get back to P38s?
Cheers,
Wes
fubar57
General
The what?.......oh yeah....the thread. Carry on then.................
Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,268
- May 26, 2018
XBe,
LoL... just one final response if I may before we gravitate to the Lightning. I stand corrected on the Aztec being a descendent to the Apache & thoroughly enjoyed your descriptive writings on all of your naval brethren's egos. Please don't stop!
LoL... just one final response if I may before we gravitate to the Lightning. I stand corrected on the Aztec being a descendent to the Apache & thoroughly enjoyed your descriptive writings on all of your naval brethren's egos. Please don't stop!
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
To me or at least in my view, you have to design something in the sense that it is to be used by a complete idiot.
Whether it's a rifle or aircraft or car or computer software then besr case scenario is make it like a child's toy so that it won't go wrong because you have designed it to not gone wrong.
So the idea of a qualified capable pilot should get into a mass production aircraft and fly it no bother to me is perfectly reasonable.
End of the day, test pilots must leave their ego at the door and think along the lines of how would the greenest worst pilot fly this in bad weather? Maybe I'm wrong on this.
Question.... Could a capable Cessna pilot get into a F-15 and fly it about? I'm not talking about combat but just take off and landing and basic aerobatics? In my limited view, I would suspect that it something that is possible.
Whether it's a rifle or aircraft or car or computer software then besr case scenario is make it like a child's toy so that it won't go wrong because you have designed it to not gone wrong.
So the idea of a qualified capable pilot should get into a mass production aircraft and fly it no bother to me is perfectly reasonable.
End of the day, test pilots must leave their ego at the door and think along the lines of how would the greenest worst pilot fly this in bad weather? Maybe I'm wrong on this.
Question.... Could a capable Cessna pilot get into a F-15 and fly it about? I'm not talking about combat but just take off and landing and basic aerobatics? In my limited view, I would suspect that it something that is possible.
This is a question for Biff. He's our Eagle man. But based on my experience with new hire FOs in the humble Be1900, I'd say the biggest challenge would be "brain speed". Things happen at about twice the pace of the Seminoles, Senecas, and Duchesses most of these kids had been instructing in, and there are more things that have to happen. Jets only increase the brain speed jump, not to mention having new and strange procedures and handling characteristics. Just the transition from left hand control yoke right hand throttle to left throttle right stick can be daunting to a low time pilot who's become set in their reflexes. I made that transition at 95 hours total time, and despite hours of practice time sitting in the cockpit on the ground, it took 2 1/2 hours in the air before I was comfortable with it. And the T34 is about as intuitive as a stick-and-rudder plane gets. Forget aerobatics. Your average Cessna pilot is not prepared for that in any aircraft.
It'll be interesting to see what Biff has to say.
Cheers,
Wes
Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,268
- May 26, 2018
I would tend to agree there with Wes. History has shown the F-100 Super Sabre was known as a pilot killer long after it went into production. Same can be said for the WW2 Martin B-26 Marauder & many other aircraft that were passed by test pilots supposedly for idiots (or low-time pilots) to fly.
However I do wish to qualify my response by noting that this is where training has to be taken into account. Given a thorough training syllabus with the Cessna pilot to "speed up his brain" to handle such high performance aircraft as well as giving him enough hours of on-hands experience both in simulators & in real aircraft will undoubtedly give him a better chance of survival.
The B-26 Marauder's reputation of "Widow Maker" was finally addressed by additional revisions to the training program.
I'm also taking into account of what was posted about several pilots with no multi-engine training whatsoever were successful in flying P-38's in combat. That, to me anyway, speaks more about those individual pilots themselves who were fully capable of adapting to such rapid changes. So obviously they were far above what we would classify as an "idiot."
However I do wish to qualify my response by noting that this is where training has to be taken into account. Given a thorough training syllabus with the Cessna pilot to "speed up his brain" to handle such high performance aircraft as well as giving him enough hours of on-hands experience both in simulators & in real aircraft will undoubtedly give him a better chance of survival.
The B-26 Marauder's reputation of "Widow Maker" was finally addressed by additional revisions to the training program.
I'm also taking into account of what was posted about several pilots with no multi-engine training whatsoever were successful in flying P-38's in combat. That, to me anyway, speaks more about those individual pilots themselves who were fully capable of adapting to such rapid changes. So obviously they were far above what we would classify as an "idiot."
Wes,
Here's my two bits, centavos, cents.
First what I don't know is what type of or type specific training they (ferry pilots) received. I've read that crew chiefs would give the pilots a short bit of training, how to start, speeds, etc prior to the first sortie in theater. That worked under wartime safety standards but not sure what post war allowable looked like.
Second the jump from a T-6 to a single engine fighter would not be that huge when doing cross country/ ferry type flying. Tail dragger, wideish gear, throttle, prop, mixture all about the same. With some good instruction in a T-6 and good preflight ground instruction on a P-51, P-40, P-47 would not have been a big leap for simple cross country type flying. The P-39 would probably have been a little easier as the nose wheel made it more stable on ground maneuvers. The 38 would require multi training and from what I have heard today you get dual on the B-25 prior to flying the P-38. I would have kept my single engine (SE) folks and multi split for safety.
As for the Eagle we usually go from the AT-38 to the F-15. I was flying the the OV-10 immediately prior so I went back to AT-38s for about 25 hours then off to Eagle school. I had no problem going back to the AT38 but I did a few sims prior which most guys didn't, and I had only been in the Bronco for two years. The T38 is a bit tougher to land, very pitch sensitive and final is in the 155+ range plus it is VERY unforgiving in the pattern. Get slow and a huge sink rate is almost immediate, heavy wing rock in the stall, small wing, narrowish gear, underpowered and it's a century series problem looking for a place to happen. Most of its accidents were in close proximity to the field and usually ended with a smoking hole. The Eagle was very forgiving and easier to fly than the 38.
If you took a guy from T-34, T-6 type of flying (speeds, stick and throttle) and showed them only how to start, plus talked about how to fly it and turn them loose in an Eagle it would end with a funeral pyre. I say that due to it taking three dual sorties in the jet before getting solo'd out on top of having landing currency in the T38 and about 8-10 sims. You just need more time and instruction before being turned loose. Any decent pilot should with enough dual time be able to solo it out in my opine. It's relatively easy to fly point A to B. Using one as a weapon is an entirely different event.
Cheers,
Biff
Not to belabor the obvious, but isn't this what military flight training is all about; weeding out the "idiots" and cranking out "decent pilots" who can absorb and apply the fine points of "using one as a weapon"?
Cheers,
Wes
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
I suspect not without at least some instruction, and even so, could probably not land.
Of course, the USAF's security would probably keep the Cessna pilot away and the ground crew wouldn't help t his stranger in. Can F-15's even start without a GPU?
Starts only via a Jet Fuel Starter (JFS). Similar to an APU from an airliner but much more limited in use.
The plane has no battery for starting. Uses an accumulator (hyd) to start the JFS. Once it's started you can check it's (the JFS) fire detection. The JFS engages the motors via a gearbox / clutches, and once it's spinning an engine (either) above 12% you can check the both engines fire detection. Once a main generator is online you can then check the afterburner fire detection.
A battery was unwanted weight and proven not necessary. To load the secure radio fills a ground power unit can be used in lieu of doing it with engines on. There are a couple of small batteries embedded in various avionics for retention of data.
Cheers,
Biff
Wes,
In my opine there is a decent spread between the top and the bottom guys in a pilot training class. That is most likely due to learning curves. Give it a year or two and they would be very close on airmanship and flying skill. I saw guys who had a tough time do well on checkrides, and guys who did well day to day have a tough time with them. Some of it's a roll of the dice, some is personality, and some is the combo of you and your check pilots "meshing" for better or worse.
When I got to my first operational Eagle squadron most of the guys had finished number one or two in their pilot training class. And there is a bell shaped curve among those guys as well.
Cheers,
Biff
Not that guy probably. Sorry for off topic.
And that is only a 7 G jet. F15/16/22 are all 9 G machines. Those last two can get painful.
Cheers,
Biff
And how! We used to see both ends of the bell curve. Bottom of the class types who managed to squeak by carrier quals, just barely, but gave the LSOs heart attacks in the process would get assigned to a Naval Air Station ops department, where their flying would be secondary to their collateral duties, they would be first in line come RIF time, and chances for augmentation to a regular commission were nil. The nuggets coming through the F4 RAG, OTOH, were generally top notch. And the instructors were all Vietnam seasoned and holding regular commissions. Some really great guys.
Cheers,
Wes
