Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Even L/D maybe a bit over rated. Look at the American Traveler AA1A, I remember Grumman advertising a 144 MPH (Statute) top speed in TR-2 guise. And that puppy had an rather interesting glide ratio. It's all about lightness, power to weight and some attention to drag.Clearly, no sailplane pilots have checked in to this thread yet, and all shots have been on the paper, but nobody's hit the X ring yet.
The holy grail of airframe performance is L/D, the ratio of lift to drag, most easily achieved with a monoplane, and in the most extreme form by a canard or a sesquiplane on the order of a Rutan Long Eze or a Quickie. Given that a sleek efficient monoplane like an early Bonanza is relatively easy and economical to design and produce, and is the more efficient layout it's not surprising that paradigm has become dominant. Try matching a Luscombe's or an Ercoupe's performance on 65 HP with a biplane, or a Cessna 170's on 145 HP.
The increased expense and reduced performance/HP of "modern" GA aircraft vis a vis their ancestors comes from hanging more gewgaws, "luxury", and STOL airframe mods on them, and the additional HP to compensate. Compare the E185 powered Bonanza mentioned upthread with its most recent descendant in the Vee tail line. More electronics, more weight, more seats, more luxurious appointments, more HP, and of course, MUCH MORE $$$$$$$! (But less performance/HP) The sports coupe has become a limousine.
Cheers,
Wes
I took my CFII checkride in one of those. Lopresti enhanced an already efficient airframe by significantly reducing cooling and parasite drag and boosting the lift side by using gap seals to reduce lift losses. Result: a much improved L/D and a hotrod airplane that badly needed a speed brake to get it down without shock cooling the cylinders. The FAA inspector got real nervous every time I had to pull it all the way back to idle to get it down to flap and gear speeds. Going down the ILS with gear and flaps down required so little power that the CHTs dropped alarmingly.Although, remember the press surrounding Lopresti's Mooney 201?
The AA1 was a GeeBee racer miniaturized. Draggy, with a small, heavily loaded wing, it flew on the "high HP brick" principle, and suffered in the payload and handling departments. Scary sumbitch in a spin, to boot. Due to its wing loading, it's optimum glide happened at a rather high speed with commensurate sink rate. At a more sedate glide speed it sank like the brick it was.Even L/D maybe a bit over rated. Look at the American Traveler AA1A, I remember Grumman advertising a 144 MPH (Statute) top speed in TR-2 guise. And that puppy had an rather interesting glide ratio.
I took my CFII checkride in one of those. Lopresti enhanced an already efficient airframe by significantly reducing cooling and parasite drag and boosting the lift side by using gap seals to reduce lift losses. Result: a much improved L/D and a hotrod airplane that badly needed a speed brake to get it down without shock cooling the cylinders. The FAA inspector got real nervous every time I had to pull it all the way back to idle to get it down to flap and gear speeds. Going down the ILS with gear and flaps down required so little power that the CHTs dropped alarmingly.
The AA1 was a GeeBee racer miniaturized. Draggy, with a small, heavily loaded wing, it flew on the "high HP brick" principle, and suffered in the payload and handling departments. Scary sumbitch in a spin, to boot. Due to its wing loading, it's optimum glide happened at a rather high speed with commensurate sink rate. At a more sedate glide speed it sank like the brick it was.
Cheers,
Wes
As an instructor, I agree. As a pilot, bring it on!Maybe I'm not the person you want picking your airplane.
Our final exam in the rigging section in Airframes was for the class to assemble and rig a PT17. The 3 Stooges and Keystone Kops didn't have anything on us. Super wow! Wound up with a do-over on Saturday morning.I found information somewhere on biplane rigging. Wow. A true art form it was an interesting read.
I don't find the Tiger moth to be any 'harder' to fly than a Piper Cub, but it is different. With a lower wing loading, it is more easily disturbed from level flight, and you are correct, it does need constant attention, but I think that is more to do with design philosophy than the bi-plane; e.g. the trim only has detents where it locks, so if you need a trim position between two, you're out of luck.
USN has been training pilots ab initio in acro mode since the 30s. N3N, SNJ, T28, T34, T34C, and on. As a civilian CFI at a flight school contracted to a local military college, I did ab initio training for USAF ROTC pilot candidates in C150s. I must admit I think the Navy approach produces better pilots, at least where tactical jets are concerned. A significant number of our cadets washed out of UPT when they got to the T38 phase.In order to meet CSAF McPeak's requirement that pilots be trained in acrobatic maneuvers from the outset, the USAF academy replaced the trusty old Cessna T-41 with the T-3A Slingsby Firefly.
It was disastrous because they didn't do it right. If you take a bunch of ab initio students and put them in a plane that requires too much "brain speed" due to complexity, high speed, and/or complicated procedures, and start them off in "two dimensional" flight, then you're going to encounter disasters when you "add" acro to the mix. USAF should have stuck with the T34, despite its glamour deficit.But when they tried to mix the "Can this guy learn to fly in a reasonable time?" with acro that was disastrous.
The tweet was a twin with some quirky behaviors and complex procedures; just too brain speed demanding, and not a particularly good acrobatic performer from a training standpoint. USAF would have been better off with T28s or T34s and full on acro from the start. Admittedly, both would have had to be up-engined to perform at AF Academy density altitudes, but that would be feasible given the T28C and the many civilian T34s flying with IO520s of 285 and 300 HP.The USAF tried putting pilot candidates directly into T-37's for a while but I think they concluded it was an expensive way to find out that a candidate was going to be too difficult to train.
On the original question see.
Blackburn C.A.15C - Wikipedia
The monoplane was faster, climbed better and had a higher ceiling.
As an instructor, I agree. As a pilot, bring it on!
Did my tail wheel conversion in a Luscombe; regrettably after too many hours of nose dragger time. Sweet flying little bird, but designed for midgets and almost impossible fit for my 6'5" 220 lb frame. Since then it's been J3, PA18, L3, C170, C195, and L19, but never enough with any one bird to get really good at it. I've done a little instructing in various Grummans; the Tiger was a lot of fun. One guy showed up as a passenger in an AA1 he'd just bought and wanted me to teach him to fly in it. Like a fool, I took him on, and after 12 frustrating hours of twitching around the sky, finally convinced him to park it and rent the school's C150s until he calmed down and gained a little confidence. Last I heard, he was doing airshows in a Pitts.
Can't abide Hersey bar Cherokees. Long wing Warriors aren't so bad, but I'm a Cessna & Beech man at heart.
Cheers,
Wes
All depends on how you define "better" climb. Dimes to dollars the biplane has a slightly higher max rate of climb that happens within a narrow speed range, while the monoplane has near peak climb rate over a wider speed range, and climbs at a significantly higher airspeed, covering more ground in the climb.An interesting surprise there in terms of climb.
However, a couple of key contemporary metrics are missing that are not as important today.
1. Stalling and approach speeds
2. Take-off distance
3. Landing distance
The Skipper is a Traumahawk with manners and more solid construction, for which it pays a weight penalty. In practical terms, almost every training flight takes off overweight, unless both pilots are midgets. Don't let the published stats fool you. They represent a "stripped" airplane that no one is actually going to instruct in. One FBO I worked for became a Beech Aero Center, and were pressured to ditch their C150s for Skippers. The economics just weren't there, and the 150s stayed. The 150 was a better airplane for primary instruction, but the Sundowner was a perfect "step up" plane for people who wanted to move up to bigger and faster. I used to advocate finishing the Private in the Sundowner for those with professional aspirations. It was easy to fly safely and challenging to fly really well.Also, having flown two of the first Traumahawks off the line, at 16 years old I was unimpressed and would have preferred just about anything else. Never flew a Skipper, but......to your earlier post is was pretty sad to watch the malaise-era airplanes get slower and lose useful load. (I'd take a 1964-1965 150 over any other year 150.)
I'd bet they were looking for a relatively short take-off coupled with a relatively steep angle of climb sufficient to get them over any trees at the end of 12-1500 foot grass strip.All depends on how you define "better" climb. Dimes to dollars the biplane has a slightly higher max rate of climb that happens within a narrow speed range, while the monoplane has near peak climb rate over a wider speed range, and climbs at a significantly higher airspeed, covering more ground in the climb.
In the other three metrics the biplane wins hands down.
Cheers,
Wes