special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,600
- May 13, 2018
Don't forget about our MiGs and Su's at Tonapah. We had MiG-15s,-17s, and at least one -19, plus -21s not only for evaluation, but for dissimilar combat training.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is the case today but such was not always the case as my Dad chose to point out when we did our first rebuilds back in the 1980s.That article is about aviation hardware and the industry used bolt stretch for a long while in certain applications and then came up with special washers that indicated that the bolt had reached the point of plastic deformity. Such hardware is always single use.
I am a pilot and have flown both conventional and tricycle types, plus stick-time in the right seat of additional types.Then again, I am NOT a pilot, but I have crashed just about everything that can be found on simulators.
I heard those were fast down low, but never fought with them. Also of note is the ACMI pod under the right (starboard) wing.
There is a really good discussion on the subject here:I am a pilot and have flown both conventional and tricycle types, plus stick-time in the right seat of additional types.
My family owned a Cherokee Warrior (Piper PA-28), too.
My instructors were former WWII fighter pilots, by the way: USAAF, USMC and a former JG27 pilot.
Hi Pat. I didn't call YOU arrogant. I said not flying their aircraft was militarily arrogant.If I'm arrogant and wrong why did no one else build their aircraft to the same standard as the A6M, and if the A6M design was so good why did they change it to be like everyone else?. The A6M was successful and able to reach out over vast area's of the Pacific because of the situation it fought not because it was a revolutionary aircraft.
I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, but how I was trained, is how I fly.There is a really good discussion on the subject here:
Wheel landing vs. Three point?
I've just had my first flight in a taildragger yesterday, and I am HOOKED on the way this aircraft flies! So, I wanna know more. Is there a reason for landing differently? Is it personal preference? Are there weather/wind conditions that would dictate which type of landing would be more...www.pilotsofamerica.com
I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, but how I was trained, is how I fly.
The men that trained me were veteran high-hour combat pilots who were themselves trained by experienced pilots.
Not sure how many people in that discussion were trained by a USAAF P-40/P-51 pilot, a USMC F4F/F4U pilot or a JG27 Bf109 pilot, but ok.
If you set the Stearman down with the tail "reasonably high", then how is it you have done a "three point" landing?I am not knocking your skills or the skills of your instructors but as I said before I was taught to treat aircraft like women - what one likes another does not.
The good thing is, unlike with a woman, you can and should learn each type of aircraft's likes and dislikes before you first fly it. For that reason I will land a 220hp Stearman three point, just like they taught in WW2, and I will fly a 450hp Stearman on to the runway with the tail reasonably high.
The RAF established the Air Fighting Development Unit before WWII. During the war they flew all the enemy aircraft they could to find out their strengths and weaknesses. Eric Browns books are largely based on his experiences at the AFDU.Hi Pat. I didn't call YOU arrogant. I said not flying their aircraft was militarily arrogant.
Again, flying their airplane to see what challenges it may present does not mean you want an Air Force of enemy-built airplanes and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the "design philosophy" or philosophy at all. It means you are looking to find out how their equipment flies so you can tell if your guys are in some trouble, are evenly-matched, or are over matched. The ONLY way to find out in WWII was to fly the enemy aircraft with pilots who had some test-flying experience and see.
Despite the sophistication of computer simulation today, the only way today to REALLY find out is still to fly it. You can get close with a sim, but you need the flight data points to program the sim. Gotta' fly it to get the data points, and you have to get points all over the flight envelope to do it justice. Just try flying the MS Flight Simulator P-51 to verify that part. It doesn't fly much like real P-51, which is strange. The C-172 is decently close except for the ability to fly inverted.
I think the argument is being lost, I'm talking about why aircraft were designed the way they were compared to everyone test flying captured aircraft, two different thingsThe RAF established the Air Fighting Development Unit before WWII. During the war they flew all the enemy aircraft they could to find out their strengths and weaknesses. Eric Browns books are largely based on his experiences at the AFDU.
Also pilots like DH Clarke were doing the same thing in the field. Knowing your enemy is one of the basic tenets of war.
You really should read the thread. There is plenty of disagreement and explanations and optimal technique seems to vary with type.I'm sure that's an interesting discussion, but how I was trained, is how I fly.
The men that trained me were veteran high-hour combat pilots who were themselves trained by experienced pilots.
Not sure how many people in that discussion were trained by a USAAF P-40/P-51 pilot, a USMC F4F/F4U pilot or a JG27 Bf109 pilot, but ok.