Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That Schweizer TG2 I used to drool over as a 14 year old got wrecked the same way. The "student" an experienced powerplane pilot got it into a spin at 1100 feet AGL, and the instructor/owner told him to recover it.we were down to about 2,500ft when he stalled it and we entered a spin. He started yelling at me, so I took control sorted it out and we landed.
That Schweizer TG2 I used to drool over as a 14 year old got wrecked the same way. The "student" an experienced powerplane pilot got it into a spin at 1100 feet AGL, and the instructor/owner told him to recover it.
"No, you! I don't know this plane!"
"Easy, recovers like any other. DO IT"
"No, you do it!"
Whump!
To those of us standing on the ground nearby there was no need for a Cockpit Voice Recorder.
They both extricated themselves from the wreckage, climbed down the tree, and walked away, still pointing fingers and calling names. A hardheaded dutchman and a voluble Italian with the only injuries being to their egos.Both of them...
idiots
They both extricated themselves from the wreckage, climbed down the tree, and walked away, still pointing fingers and calling names. A hardheaded dutchman and a voluble Italian with the only injuries being to their egos.
A ship with a 52 foot wingspan, a 38 MPH best glide speed, and a max gross less than 900 pounds just doesn't spin into a tree all that hard.
Not so much as you might think. John Daamen, the dutchman, bought it military surplus for (I think) $4-500 in 1959 from a warehouse where it had been sitting since 1945. It was a WWII training glider from the glider training base in Fulton NY which is now Oswego County Airport (NOO), a classic diamond shaped flat country USAAF fighter base replicated all over the country in WWII. There were only 67 TG2s built, and they had rugged fuselages and fragile wings so there are probably 67 TG2 fuselages out there and and only a few pairs of wings.Still a lot of money down the drain though .
Actually the sweat equity was limited to assembling and disassembling, which is pretty simple with a glider, and a little bit of fabric patching and doping. The real sweat equity was in building the glider's launching winch and its transport trailer, neither of which was damaged in the mishap. When he gave up on trying to repair the ship, he sold the winch and trailer for $1,000, thus turning a tidy profit.You mean he's got sweat equity in it , and he let some a-hole wreck it ?
That is essentially what happened to my midshipman. He got distracted trying to work out the rudder to use and didn't notice that we were leaving the field behind us. I pointed it out to him so he turned too quickly, lost all co-ordination in the controls, the glider started to shudder which panicked him, he froze and the rest as they say, is history.I noticed as a glider instructor that powerplane nosedragger pilots habitually don't use enough rudder in a glider (myself included) until they realize what's missing and then use too much. They wind up chasing the yaw string (world's first HUD, BTW), testing the CFI's nausea threshold, until they begin to get it together. Taildragger pilots don't seem to have that problem. Funny thing about that!
I used to be crew chief on the only flying Douglas B-23 Dragon in the late 80's. We were coming back from the Livermore Airshow with about 1,000 gallons of fuel onboard. Denny, our chief pilot decided to do some power off stalls. I was kneeling between the pilots and watching the airspeed indicator. It got down to 45 when the stall occurred. The nose dropped and Denny relaxed the back pressure on the elevator. The a/c just flew right out of the stall. Very gental stall characteristics. Denny was a check airman on DC-3's and he told me of a pilot who wanted to do a power on stall (which is prohibited). After much discussion, Denny fianally agreed only they went up to 10,000 feet. The DC-3 was empty with no seats in the back. Denny also said that if he calls " my aircraft" he is to immediately release control back to him. So the pilot does a power on stall. When the a/c stalled, it rolled left to the inverted position and the nose dropped 30 degrees. Denny called "my aircraft" and recovered the a/c. He said the pilots eyes were as huge as saucers. Denny said to him "that's why you don't do a power on stall in a DC-3.
Agree. Would the stall/spin characteristics of a P-39 been better if the plane was lighter?A number of post war or even jets in the 60s had artificial stall warning devices installed, like stick shakers, that would artificially shake the control column if the airspeed got too close to the stall speed.
See. Stick shaker - Wikipedia
In many pre WW II or WW II aircraft the aerodynamic forces were such that the ailerons would snatch and shake the stick side to side near the stall, in others the elevator would oscillate givng a for and aft shake to the stick. Other aircraft just have part of the aircraft vibrate or make drumming noises(?). Some planes just sort of mushed. Obviously on aircraft without powered flight controls (which are almost always irreversible (moving the flight control surface outside the plane will not move the stick in the cockpit) it was a lot easier for the pilot to feel these movements of the control surfaces through the stick giving the pilot warning of the impending stall.
The F4U might have had a worse stall than the P-39 (dropping one wing rather sharply) but may have given more warning.
Agree. Would the stall/spin characteristics of a P-39 been better if the plane was lighter?
Uh, yes, the CG would have to be maintained.It would depend on where you removed the weight .
Not maintained; improved!! It seems most P39s in combat trim, or even in training command, were flying around with CG at or near the aft limit, which may have itself been not conservative enough. A more forward CG increases the pitch-down tendency in a Departure From Controlled Flight (DFCF), reducing the probability of a flat spin. Given the concentration of mass in the core and the lack of polar inertia (a deliberate attempt to improve maneuverability), the impetus needed to get rotation started in a stall situation was pretty low. Add to that the easily blanked rudder and elevator configuration and you've got a potential booby trap for the inept or unwary pilot. Intuitive fliers like Yeager or Brown would naturally fly through a stall with precise coordination, thus avoiding yawing into the asymmetric stall condition that sets up a spin. Eagles of that caliber would of course enjoy the very light stick force gradients and the light "feel" of the plane, and would have the finesse to not overcontrol it as a more ham-handed pilot would.Uh, yes, the CG would have to be maintained.
Point I was making was that 1942 P-39s could have been a lot lighter. Could have easily weighed 7150lbs instead of 7850lbs.
*SNIP*
So get that CG forward, if you can, and make it a better flying machine!