Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: T-28A
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:53 am
Posts: 275
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Here's a couple of impressions of flying a T-28A. This "smaller engined" 800hp SEVEN cylinder Wright 1300 in the A model does not have the mind bending power of the later Wright 1820s with 1400 hp, but it also has way less fuel burn and as it turns out, was not that much slower except in accelleration. This plane popped up on my radar scope as the owner said it did 180kts at 36 gph, which is the same mpg as an SNJ, just much faster. Most of this assessment is coming from a T-6 guy flying a T-28 and kind of having no expectations except had heard for years all Wright engines are bad, so keep that in mind.

First off, it's certificated experimental, but has no restrictions such as a 300 mile limit that others do. It also allows an A&P to sign off the annual.

The plane is a lot bigger than a T-6 as you see in photos, and it still has that North American ruggedness about it. One of the surprising things was that while it is a much more complicated plane, it really opens up for maintenence access - both to the engine and monocoque. Lots of opening panels, etc - there is even a 'trap door in the firewall where you can stand in the front wheel well and work on the engine, even while it is running.

The controls are the smoothest and best balanced operating I have ever felt on any non boosted airplane - the balance is stunning. A T-6 is excellent, but you can tell technology had advanced with the T-28. And it is very roomy inside with lots of side room and headroom - I'm 6'2" and I've never been so comfortable in a warbird. And, although possibly imagined, it seemed a little quieter than the 6. (Remember, I'm going deaf).

The owner said that because of the low times on everything (2800 TTAF, 20 hr FWF), there was not that much to do on the annual - especially with the military wiring harness and all ac inverters mostly removed and the 20 hr smoh fwf, new brakes, hoses and tires. He also relayed that at the airplane weighing, she had lost 800 pounds by removing the old radios, inverters and associated civilian unneccesary stuff. Eight hundred pounds!!!!

The hardest thing about this plane is starting the engine - you need three hands or adept at juggling. It starts like any pressure carb radial, but I am all arses and elbows to do it. I suppose it comes with practice.

Like the Yale before, I had always heard poop about Wright engines. Once started, this one did not seem any less smooth than a Pratt nor (at least from the cockpit ) have that Budd Davisson coined 'chicken-pluckin' sound. Maybe it was the three bladed Ham Standard Hydromatic that had replaced the original Aeroproducts two bladed prop - I don't really know. Again, I came away thinking perhaps these smaller Wrights may be better than I had heard. At 1300 cubic inches, it is about the same size as a T-6's 1340 Pratt. The extra 200 horsepower compared to the 1340's 600 comes from the specification of carrying more MAP from the single stage supercharger.

After like riding the elephant to the end of the runway and standard pre-flight checks, I held brakes and advanced the MAP to 30inches and checked the guages. I then released the brakes as advancing the throttle up to 40 inches map at 2550 rpm - and LOTS of right rudder. Rotate at 90 and she flies herself off the ground in about 1200 feet, climbing out at 110 -120 kts. After gear up, back the power down to about 35 inches and 2400 rpm and she goes up at about 1500 fpm.

The overwhelming sensations to this T-6 driver were two: 1. VISIBILITY is incredible with the clear bubble canopy and 2. the contol pressures and harmony are super smooth, much like the T-33s/F-100s and even the F-15s I had the opportunity to fly while a flight surgeon in the AF. 2. While it did not have the absolute power, it pulled stronger than the Texan, but the roll rate and control harmony, response and balance seemed otherworldly. I'M GUESSING IT ROLLS ABOUT 50% faster. I had always read that the A model was sluggish - maybe it was the loss of 800 pounds of mil equipment and a three bladed hydromatic that made the difference.

We set cruise at 29 inches and 2400 rpm and put the mixture in 'auto-matic'. We indicated about 165-170 kts with a gps groundspeed on about 200 mph.

There was about a 25 - 30 knot cross that day in Jacksonville, so I watched him land (I was in the back). Very straightforward, and the wind did not seem to bother it much. Throw the gear down under 140 kts, turn base with 15 flaps at 110, apply more flaps as desired, over the fence a little above 90. Just reach for the ground with those long skinny legs. Once you're on the ground there in none of the sometimes T-6 tailwheel drama in a strong crosswind. Just aerobrake, roll out, and steer the elephant back to the hangar.

He says he gets 36 - 40 gph at 180kts indicated as mentioned, and plans on a gallon of oil per hour. That's 5 mpg at about 200 mph, as opposed to the T-6 5 mpg at 150 mph. Interesting.

One other thing was the ABSENCE of AD's that you see on aircraft this old (besides the standard Hydromatic propellor AD) - there is really only one that calls for a special inspection on the gear leg trunions. The T-6's took a big AD hit recently on the wing attach angles as everyone knows, but not near as scary as the plethora of T-34 wing spar troubles. The T-28A just doesn't have any signifigant outside the one gear AD I could find.

Having been in the market for a Yale or another SNJ, I absolutely was blown away by this chance encounter with this T-28A, not at all expecting what I found. The parts support is excellent, and of course there is the brilliant NATA (I'm member #666 - go figure). With much less fuel burn and complication of the larger engined planes, this A model and it's amazing handling, feel and visibility sure were impressive.

Again, just my opinion - all comments welcome.
best.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:03 am
Posts: 958
Location: Creve Couer, MO
SNJ5 wrote:

Quote:
The owner said the dreaded Wing Attach AD did not apply to Yales,


True enough, however, only because they are experimental, they use the exact same wing attach angles. I did the complete AD procedure on mine. If you think it through, the Yales were made on the same asssembly line in CA, before the T6s, metallurgy and heat treating were even less perfected then. It really doesn't cost much to do the AD, and my life is definitely worth it.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:27 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6880
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Thanks for the posts, SNJ5 and Eric.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 895
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
I don't have any PIC time in the heavy iron like the P-51, F4U, Sea Fury, or Skyraider types but I've got about 750 hours in a Stearman and 250 or so in an SNJ. Most of the rest of my time is in odd ball antiques and most of that time is in the pattern. I've always considered a plane's flying characteristics as a "complete package". What does it do or feel like from the time you taxi out until the time you taxi back in. You don't really get to know an airplane until you've stalled it, spun it, rolled it, landed it in a strong crosswind, simulated a dead stick landing etc. At least that's my take on this stuff. I've had a few people tell me that "no airplanes fly badly, some of them just fly differently than others" That's like saying "there is no bad beer, some beer is just better than other beer" Bullsh*t! I've had some really bad beer and I've flown some really crappy airplanes.

Ah, the Yale. Let me tell you about that little gem.

So Eric Downing is busy in the hangar one day and his buddy John Lohmar is headed back out in the Yale by himself. "Hey Albert" says Eric, have you ever been in my Yale? The next thing I know, I'm sitting in the back seat of the Yale, headed down the runway. Hmm, seems like our SNJ, smells like our SNJ, about the same view as our SNJ, the controls sure look like our SNJ, and in level flight it sure handles like our SJN. Gear down and welded, minus 150 HP, but other than that, it's a T-6/SNJ.

Sure it is.

So John Lohmar says, "hey Albert, I got it", "Let me show you something". With that, John cranks down some flaps and starts to pull off some power. No problem, I'm just along for the ride, I guess John's going to show me a stall. I start to enjoy the nice view of St. Charles/St. Louis, Missouri area below and by this time I'm resting my head against the canopy. WHAM! My head bounces off the inside of the canopy and we're in a half snap, up is down and down is up and I'm really pissed off. "Hey John, what the hell was that?" "Sorry Albert, I just thought you would like to see how different this thing stalls compared to the SNJ". So I'm thinking, ok, smart a$$ airline pilot/warbird pilot is trying to see if he can bring back the hangover that I've spent most of the day trying to get rid of. I know John's five times the pilot I am but this time, I've got him. I've got lots more time in this kind of stuff. I'll show him. Right on cue comes John on the intercom. "Hey Albert, want to try it?". "You bet, rack em, set it up just like that last one but this time let me show you what happens when you keep the ball centered and the wings level" (all said to myself). So up we go, I've got the flaps half down, I'm pulling a bit more power off, now I'm cranking in the rest of the flaps, I'm watching the airspeed, balls in the middle, wings level....WHAM!!! *&#*@!% What the F*%K! Holy Sh*t! How did that happen! no buffet, no noise, no warning. Now I'm really mad and a bit embarrased but I regain my composure and ask for another try. We climb back up and I try it again, this time with a bit more power but this time I'm like a cougar ready to pounce on it's prey, my lightning quick Judo like reflexes had been lulled to sleep by our sightseeing trip over the Missouri corn fields but two "head smacks" against the canopy have awakened the crouching tiger within me.....WHAM! *&^%!*$ Pineapple upside down cake again. I recover after loosing about 900 feet of altitude and roll out on a heading of 425 degrees somewhere over southern Indiana. Little did I know that John had the ball dead centered and the wings perfectly level on the first demo, probably better than I did on either attempt. Try that with a T-6/SNJ and it will shudder and shake long before it departs. It will scream "let go dumb a$$" long before you manage to snap into a spin, inside or over the top. Not the Yale! It sits in the corner, coiled up like a rattle snake, ready to bite when you are paying the least attention. Oh, and then there's that landing gear. Taller and more narrow than the T-6/SNJ's, when combined with a stiff cross wind and the Yale's considerable wing dihedral, it's a real party to land. The Yale reminds me of a peach of a plane that I once owned, a SOKO 522. Another type that belongs in a static museum! But that's another story.

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:29 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6880
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Best post of the week, Albert.

Quote:
....WHAM! *&^%!*$ Pineapple upside down cake again...


:D Champagne all over the keyboard. (I wish.)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:53 am
Posts: 275
Location: San Antonio, Texas
astixjr wrote:
The Yale reminds me of a peach of a plane that I once owned, a SOKO 522. Another type that belongs in a static museum! But that's another story.

Great story!
I heard similar from another Soko 522 guy - he said that it the controls were crappy, it was slower, stalled much higher and poorly and was no fun at all to fly - other than that it was like a t-6. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6880
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Touching on the differences between the Yale and the T-6 due to the wing, the CAC Wirraway (based on the NA-16) has a tough reputation for a number of reasons, but one is the fact it's got a different geometry of a similar wing to the T-6 (straight trailing edge, rather than fwd sweep) and some were fitted with dive brakes, a split training edge flap arrangement like the SBD but without the holes. Apparently that was a problem, and I understand they were wired shut.

Image

I wonder how many wartime pilots were killed becase of these kind of 'family' differences?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 192
Location: Camdenton MO
As an Aviation Cadet in 1953-54 I got about 25 hours and a complete ground school in the T-28A.

The A model had the 2 bladed Aeroproducts prop and the Wright R-1300 was rated at 900hp, not 800. I don't particularily remember any great exhileration with the T-28. It was an instrument and formation training step between the T-6 and the B-25 and I wanted in the B-25 ASAP. Since the nosewheel steering was de-activated pending a fix for sand found in the steering cylinders only the good forward vision and no S-turning while taxiing was a benefit but brake wear was horrendous. There was also a problem with prop shafts failing right after takeoff necessitating a immediate straight ahead forced landing. And it had the new-fangled VOR Nav installed but the instructors said not to trust it.....stick with the tried and tested LF Range! When demonstrating spins, the stick would swing back and forth making for sore thighs if they were too close. The IPs said that spins also had a tendency to go flat after a turn or two so they were prohibited for us multi-engine types althought the single-engine guys had no restriction. It was nice to have a new airplane with a goods heater in it during the Oklahoma winter weather. I remember it being quieter than the 6 and silent compared to the B-25.

_________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all, that counts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:53 am
Posts: 275
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Jack Frost wrote:
As an Aviation Cadet in 1953-54 I got about 25 hours and a complete ground school in the T-28A.

The A model had the 2 bladed Aeroproducts prop and the Wright R-1300 was rated at 900hp, not 800.


Do you have a source on that? Every written AF and factory source I have, including the USAF pilot manual ("dash one") T.O. 1T-28A-1, says it is 800 hp. On page 1-1 it says:
"The aircraft is powered by a Wright Cyclone seven-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, model R-1300-1B. The engine develops approximately 800 horsepower."

It would be interesting if your a/c had different ratings or you were taught something different.

best


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:34 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 2275
Location: Vancouver, BC
Can anyone tell me what a Tiger Moth is like to fly? And how about and Hurricane drivers out here?

Oh, and another one I'm curious about how an N3N flys. And how it compares with a Stearman.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

David


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:40 am 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
daveymac82c wrote:
Can anyone tell me what a Tiger Moth is like to fly?


Well, I'm by far no expert, as I've only flown one once...and consider myself quite fortunate to have done that. While visiting New Zealand a couple of years ago, I was introduced to a fella that had one out at his own private strip. He asked if I wanted to fly it, which I readily said YES to, and he jumped in the front seat just as a safety pilot. He let me do everything, and I was plenty nervous about it. I didn't want to tear up his beautiful airplane! Here we are as we were about to launch...

Image


I'll start with the most difficult thing to me during this whole excersise, was taxiing it. Originally, this airplane had only a tail skid, and ours just had a small tail wheel. But that didn't help much. You have to plan ahead and make big arcs when turning around. Oh, and did I mention that there were no brakes?!?

But once we got lined up on his grass strip, I added power and everything felt really comfortable to me. The airplane is obviously not gonna set you back in the seat with massive G forces from the acceleration, but it just kind of putts along, slowly gaining speed. I found it to be incredibly easy to keep straight down the runway, but the trees about 20 feet from either side of each wing were incintive for that.

You're not going to break any time to climb records with the Tiger Moth, but it doesn't matter, as you simply cannot have any other emotion besides happiness while slowly climbing to altitude........

Image


After climbing three thousand feet or so up, I went through some stall series with the airplane (with the owner making sure I didn't screw anything up). The Tiger is just as docile as it looks. Oh, and we had no intercom, so to talk, we would simply pull the power back to idle and yell at one another. For some reason, I couldn't help but laugh when we were doing that, so I'm sure it was tough for him to understand me. Plus, they talk funny down in those parts of the world, so I was struggling to understand him as well. I eventually did manage to make out what he was trying to tell me and made out the words, "Wring it out a bit, mate!" So who was I to not heed his instructions. ;-)

Since we already had the power back to idle to talk to each other and had plenty of altitude, I told him I'd start with a one turn spin, followed by a loop, roll, wingovers, etc. He gave me the thumbs up and we went for it! The airplane handled absolutely fantastic! The spin was a non-event and was completely controllable all the way through. I don't recall ever thinking "what have I gotten myself into here?" The loop was like any that you'll do with an underpowered airplane. Kind of pinched at the top, as I didn't want to push too much at the top and go negative. The roll was quite slow in it's rate, but just an absolute blast to perform. I'm sure there are people out there that may not agree with me, but I found it to be a complete joy to fly throughout all of it's realms of flight. As a matter of fact, I'd say it was Stearman like in it's roll rate and height & style of it's loop, only it didn't have the heavy stick forces that a Stearman has.

After I did my maneuvers, David took over the controls to repeat what I'd done (only he did them MUCH better), so that I could snap some pictures during the sequence. After that, he decided to go do a "river run" as well.....

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Once we got done playing, we headed back to the strip. Like all biplanes, this one is quite blind on landing, and with his strip being so narrow, I wanted to make sure I got it right. I made a fairly high approach and just side slipped the airplane down. That enabled me to see the strip all the way down to about 20 feet or so. I then straightened the airplane out and simply "plopped it" down on the grass surface. The Tiger just rolled straight forward with very little need for correction with the rudder.

Man, I kind of wish I hadn't written this report now, as I just want to go fly a Tiger Moth again....NOW! :D And now that I think about it, the taxiing wasn't the worst part about flying the airplane. Having to get out was.......

Image
:wink:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:27 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:10 pm
Posts: 4173
Location: Pearland, Texas
One more time, Gary, you've done it again. Great read ! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm
Posts: 718
Location: Johnson City, TN
Hard to beat Gary's excellent PIREP and dashing good looks as a swashbuckling aviator/babe magnet, but just for another opinion here's
Budd Davisson's version:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepTigermoth.html


Steve G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:24 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
Well, like I mentioned in my report, there are surely folks that won't agree with my pleasant experience in the Tiger Moth, and Budd Davidson is surely one of them. Seems to me that he was more concerned with what his airspeed indicator was showing than just enjoying the opportunity to fly such a neat old airplane. But that's just my take on it. :wink:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:58 am
Posts: 469
Location: Montreal
Here's a couple of pics from the Yale at Pima:

Image
Image

Very similar looking as the T-6 indeed...

Edit: Have just read Gary's account. Great read, again !!! Awesome. But hey, your description almost sound as a description of my 1948 Cessna 140: Slow fun, all the way !

8)

_________________
Michel C
Thousands of a/c pics at Passion-Aviation


Last edited by Michel C-GNCJ on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JohnH and 84 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group