Why Cessnas not Biplanes

[XBe02Drvr]

Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?

As an airshow performer they appeal to the masses.

 

[swampyankee]

Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?

As an airshow performer they appeal to the masses.

The latter quote, from XBe02Drvr is probably the one that has the most chance of being the basis for a successful business, except there simply isn't that big a market, although quite a few of the aerobatic aircraft are either one-offs or from very small production batches. A biplane would also have to be better than, say, the Pitts.

In response to the first quote, The Basket's, there are some, very specialized cases, where biplanes can be more efficient, i.e, superior lift/drag or superior payload fractions than monoplanes, but these are difficult to realize and run into the problem of lacking volume to put useful stuff like landing gear and fuel.

 

[GrauGeist]

A modern biplane would have a chance in today's market only if it filled a niche - the only thing I can think of, is the An-2 which was capable of carrying cargo and people in and out of some fairly primitive locations.
If I remember right, they produced the "Annie" right up to the turn of the century, too.

 

[swampyankee]

A modern biplane would have a chance in today's market only if it filled a niche - the only thing I can think of, is the An-2 which was capable of carrying cargo and people in and out of some fairly primitive locations.
If I remember right, they produced the "Annie" right up to the turn of the century, too.

Possibly, but DHC made some quite useful STOL aircraft with only one wing. Flaps are a great invention, and tend to work better on monoplanes.

 

[MIflyer]

During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.

Grumman proposed a COIN version of the Agcat crop duster. Based on the design of the F3F fighter, the airplane was simple, reliable, very rugged and resistant to ground fire, able to loiter for extended periods, and capable of accurately delivering considerable effective ordnance; the Army concluded it was just what they needed. "How many do you want to buy?" asked Grumman. The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"

And USAF would never let them have it anyway. "You ground gainers seem to be forgetting who's in charge here. Your Close Air Support requirements are determined by us, not you!!"

"What? Us, buy a subsonic, straight wing, ugly attack plane with a gun today? It may be exactly what we need, but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.

Those ex-Navy SPADs should have gone to the Army, not USAF.

 

[gumbyk]

Would a modern Biplane have any advantage over a modern Monoplane?

Not really, duplication and complexity of controls, means weight and maintenance penalty. You've still go the problem of more induced drag at the wingtips, and interference drag at wing attach points.
It's not all bad though, the Eagle that I posted a picture of earlier had the forward wing at a slightly higher incidence angle than the rear main wing, so it stalled first, but you still had control.

 

[jetcal1]

"Low wing float", the bane of high wing pilots transitioning into a larger, heavier, underwing bird. That's one of the reasons I used to advocate that primary students with professional aspirations finish their private in the Sundowner. You think a Warrior is a floater, try a Twin Comanche, Seneca, or Seminole. Or even worse, a Mooney or Comanche.
Cheers,
Wes

I have not known anybody who could make consistently good landings in a Comanche or a Mooney. (That includes a friend who has had his Comanche 180 for 30 years and flies it a lot. Probably 200-300 hours a year.)

 

[jetcal1]

To full flap or not to full flap, that is the question.
I spent several years as chief instructor at our local FAR 141 flight school, and we got jerked around by the Feds over full flap landings. The FSDO inspector who supervised our administrative and curriculum documentation was a follower of FAA dogma that all standard routine landings be full flap in all aircraft at all times. Our ops inspector, OTOH, felt that light, low powered aircraft like C150/152/172 didn't have adequate performance to consistently make safe go-arounds in a full flap situation from low altitude. We were stuck in the middle with conflicting written directives from two different offices in the FSDO. My boss (the owner) presented these literary masterpieces to the chief inspector/facility manager, who chose to err on the side of safety and cancelled the full flap requirement.
Cheers,
Wes

As mentioned, our "old-timey" (Including one 34K hr, FAA CFI of the year.) CFI's were not fully onboard with full-flap landings unless you had a reason to get down and stopped in a short distance.

 

[gumbyk]

As mentioned, our "old-timey" (Including one 34K hr, FAA CFI of the year.) CFI's were not fully onboard with full-flap landings unless you had a reason to get down and stopped in a short distance.

Why not use a resource that is available to you?

We never had any issue going around in a C-150 with full flap, as long as you didn't try to go straight into a climb. There was some forward pressure required on the controls until you got it trimmed, but speed had usually built up enough that you could raise the first 10º of flap fairly quickly. The only go-around accident that I've heard of down here in a C-150 was a student that raised the flaps before adding power.

 

[jetcal1]

Why not use a resource that is available to you?

We never had any issue going around in a C-150 with full flap, as long as you didn't try to go straight into a climb. There was some forward pressure required on the controls until you got it trimmed, but speed had usually built up enough that you could raise the first 10º of flap fairly quickly. The only go-around accident that I've heard of down here in a C-150 was a student that raised the flaps before adding power.

I heard a couple of different reasons for that, one that I remember the most was it taught the student not to be dependent upon full flaps. As a teenager, I found the tighter pattern that they taught with steeper approaches, power off and minimal flap to be more fun and also more precise. But, in the mid-70's this conflicted with the FAA dogma of every landing shall be full flap and that's what I was taught as well.

 

[MIflyer]

In fact, transitioning from the Cessna 150 to the Ercoupe 415C you have to get used to the fact that the Ercoupe does not float down the runway like the Cessna. The angle of incidence and airfoil is such that you can just fly it onto the runway and stomp on the brakes. Properly rigged and with gear set up the right way, an Ercoupe can go down the runway at 90MPH and not lift off until you pull back on the wheel just a teeny bit.

Of course the proper way to land is like anything else. You come down final at 60-65 and flare at about 55 and hit MLG first, nosewheel high. But unlike a Cessna 150 it sets right down.

During one period of time I was trying to see how slow I could land, like a Cessna 150. I made one terrible landing after another, putting on bursts of power to kill the sink rate at the last moment. But one day, with about 10 kts wind down the runway I finally did everything right, held it off, had the wheel all the way back and the wings were rocking all on their own just before we touched down.. As luck would have it, a guy I worked with had just landed his Comanche and was standing on the wing right next to where I touched down, doing maybe 35 mph groundspeed. The next day at work he said, "That landing you made had to be the greatest in the history of avaition." I replied it was just a standard Ercoupe landing, but I after that I went back to my old routine of just picking the spot on the runway and setting her right down.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

the Ercoupe does not float down the runway like the Cessna. The angle of incidence and airfoil is such that you can just fly it onto the runway and stomp on the brakes.

"Erc one five Charlie, three quarter miles, call the ball."
"One five Charlie, ball, fuel point eight, trick or treat."
"Five Charlie, show you low and right, correcting....power.....POWER!.......................BOLTER! BOLTER! BOLTER!"
Tailhook, anyone? Betcha it'd be a great ball flyer.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Why not use a resource that is available to you?

Because we were not flying out of 1200 foot circular grass aerodromes with trees and wires all around anymore. We didn't need to make a routine out of maximum performance takeoffs and landings, though we did practice them to stay proficient. We did make a lot of crosswind landings out of a slip, and high wing planes generally handle better with half flaps in that scenario. What I used to do for my own proficiency practice, and what I would allow less experienced renter pilots and solo students to do on their own, was of course different.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I have not known anybody who could make consistently good landings in a Comanche or a Mooney.

Back when my (then) girlfriend was working on her ratings, we went partners with an old classmate of mine on his Mooney M20. He couldn't get insurance on it by himself because of low total time. Neither he (150 hr private) or I (6K hr ATP commuter pilot) ever mastered consistent greasers in that bobsled, but my girlfriend (who eventually retired as an AA 737 pilot) could do it every time. She just had the knack. I've ridden (in the pax cabin) through her landings in DO228, SW4, SAAB340, ERJ145, CRJ50 & 70, and B737, and she greased them all. Talent will out.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[The Basket]

A female pilot?

Next you be telling me about flat earth and crystal pyramids.

There was no female Pilots at the Battle of the Coral Sea! You must think I would believe anything!

 

[The Basket]

During Vietnam the US Army was looking for a convoy escort aircraft. They did not like the USAF solution of scrambling jet fighters when a convoy of trucks got into trouble. They wanted something overhead all the time.

Grumman proposed a COIN version of the Agcat crop duster. Based on the design of the F3F fighter, the airplane was simple, reliable, very rugged and resistant to ground fire, able to loiter for extended periods, and capable of accurately delivering considerable effective ordnance; the Army concluded it was just what they needed. "How many do you want to buy?" asked Grumman. The Army response was, "What? Us buy a biplane today? It may be exactly what we need but we'd be laughed out of the Pentagon!"

Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing?

A Huey or a Cobra?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing?

A Huey or a Cobra?

Them whirly things in that hot humid climate were kind of limited on ordnance load. A rotary to fixed wing conversion student I had flew Charlie gunships in Nam, and he said with only a partial ordnance load it wouldn't lift into a hover, and had to be "hop-skipped" into a sliding takeoff on the PSP matting. Kind of hard on the skids. He said once a crazy Birddog FAC friend of his made a "formation" takeoff with him side by side and did three liftoffs and touchdowns before his gunship cleared the PSP. Said his door gunner bout died laughing.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[MIflyer]

Don't they have them whirly things that could do that kinda thing?

There is a reason the army developed nap-of-the-Earth flying. There is no such thing as a "combat" helicopter, unless you are so low they can't draw a bead on you. All that needs to happen is the tail rotor to get hit.



Nap of the Earth will not work for convoy patrol; you need some altitude to be able to spot threats. And of course probably the main reason they want air cover constantly overhead is to scare the bad guys off. You could fly an Ag Cat or an A-1 around at 1000 ft and he could get shot at all day and possibly not even notice.

By the way the Ercoupe has two power off descent rates.

1. Baldwin Piano
2. Baldwin Locomotive