At another air show.
Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:42 pm
Here is another view from a different air show in Arizona.
Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:50 pm
Does anyone remember/know the specifics on why Delmar sold the plane in the first place? I remember seeing him fly it in 1999 at Oshkosh, and he put on a heck of a show. I remember the announcer saying that on one of the first test hops, he found out the hard way that once the plane gets behind the power curve, the ailerons enter a region of reverse command. After tapping a wing tip while trying to land, he figured out what happened and managed to get the plane on the ground safely.
I know that Delmar is/was a Montana boy, but I don't hear much about him up here. Anyone know where he's at/what he's doing nowadays?
I know that Delmar is/was a Montana boy, but I don't hear much about him up here. Anyone know where he's at/what he's doing nowadays?
Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:51 pm
Delmar was always a huge fan favourite (and photographer favourite) at Reno! He is still talked about there ...
Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:41 pm
I found a couple short video clips on youtube that show Delmar back in his hayday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwqYh995YhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDQ3XUsVivA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwqYh995YhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDQ3XUsVivA
Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:54 am
I did some test flying on Scott Crosbys very accurate Gee Bee E, including stalls, rolls, and full stall three point landings. I fould no flutter or aileron reversal, but this is another model, and another speed range. None of them are tame. The E model was the version that killed Granny Granvil. He was the main brother behind the Granvil Brothers (thus G.B.) company. Both of the E replicas that have been built recently have been wrecked now, one of them twice.
The "Z" that Kermit has is the one that was built by Kevin Kimble in Florida, not the first replica that was built by Bill Turner in California (just in case anyone is interested).
The "Z" that Kermit has is the one that was built by Kevin Kimble in Florida, not the first replica that was built by Bill Turner in California (just in case anyone is interested).
Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:59 am
That should read Granville brothers.
Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:39 pm
I am learning my lesson. Next time I won't post at all since it's spelling is so important. Imagine the input we are not getting because.........
Gee Bee
Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:28 pm
Eric Presten wrote:The "Z" that Kermit has is the one that was built by Kevin Kimble in Florida, not the first replica that was built by Bill Turner in California (just in case anyone is interested).
Just to clarify a few details... Yes the "Z" that Kermit has was built by Kevin Kimball AND also Jeff Eicher. I believe the "Z" was the one that Kermit wanted to have the flutter tests on because it was thought that it brought down the original. Kermit did fly the "Z" after he purchased it.
Gee Bee E and Granny...
Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:46 pm
Granny was in Bad weather and trying to get back on teh ground when he noticed the construction crews, pulled up too slow and classic Stall/spin in. Eric you've flown the "E" other than the "walking gear" as you described to me at Grimes one year, how are the stall/Handling Characteristics overall?
Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:34 pm
No real surprizes, sharp but predictable. The back seat of a two-place Pitts is a good place to get Gee Bee E comfortable. Here's the Pirep I wrote for Roger Cains story in Pac Flyer.
Gee Bee Test Flight
March 1st 2004
I showed up after flying my Piper Clipper Amphibian over from Sonoma with Randy Reyes. We almost turned back at Lake Barryessa when we realized that the wind was blowing a good 30 MPH in the Central Valley. I thought it would be too windy to fly the Gee Bee, but Randy wanted to keep going to go see Scott Crosby. When we turned final at Lincoln, I realized that the wind was not gusting and was directly down the runway centerline. The 30 mph wind was not a negative factor (and could be, in fact, a positive one) as long as it was not gusting.
Jim Teal left the decision up to me, and I chose to try an abbreviated test flight. I had intended to check the airplane out in the air, and then do three take offs and landings. But with the wind, I thought one landing would be enough.
After shoehorning myself into the airplane, I found the cockpit to be snug but comfortable. The brakes are very sensitive, and you have to make a concerted effort to stay off of them. After the run-up, I taxied into position and stopped to take in the sight picture for the three point attitude. I added full power, and after the torque had time to do its thing, I released the back pressure to pick up the tail (and increase the visibility over the nose). With the wind, and the airplane’s amazing acceleration it almost came off the ground as the tail came up. The airplane was soon climbing out smartly, and as the ground adjustable prop was set too flat, I had to come right back on the power to keep the Warner from over speeding.
I climbed to a safe altitude to do some cranking and banking, and put the airplane through some stalls. It stalls at about 75 mph indicated. I found the airplane maneuvers, stalls, and rolls nicely, and it was soon time to go shoot a landing.
As I approached I realized that the gusts had picked up considerably. I approached slightly fast so that I would have plenty of time to feel for the ground while burning off the excess airspeed. I intended to do a three point landing, but on the first one the mains touched while I was still in a tail low wheel landing attitude, and I got a relatively good balloon (about three feet). The airplane responded quickly to a little release of back pressure to cap the balloon, and now that I knew where the mains hung in the extended position it was quite simple to hold the airplane off for a full stall three point touch down. With it's wing so close to the ground in ground effect, a full stall landing seems to pay out at about 62 mph (needless to say I was not looking at the airspeed at this point). It floats longer than you would expect for an airplane with its wing loading.
The rollout was interesting. I was never forced to use any braking and the airplane is not to difficult to keep straight, but I can see how you could get into trouble with it. It does nothing for you, and it expects you to stay awake until it’s cylinders are cold. It has no shortage of control effectiveness, but I believe that not only is the directional control envelope relatively narrow, the airplane gives you the feeling that it would be difficult to get back into that envelope if you ever let it out. It has a very narrow landing gear, is short coupled, and is also somewhat top heavy (which would give it a tendency to want to roll off of it’s landing if it was side loaded).
After the first landing, (the touchdown of which probably did not look that nice from the grandstands) I felt that I could not end the day with just one. I did two more full stop landings before calling it a day. These were nicer three point landings, and I was happy with the way the airplane quickly responded to control inputs. It is almost the direct opposite in flying characteristics to the 1918 Curtiss “Hisso Jenny” that I have been flying, and I believe that it would be easier to over control the Gee Bee than to under control it.
It was a real thrill and an honor to get to fly a Gee Bee (thank you Jim Teal and Scott Crosby) and as Scott said it enters you into a very small group of pilots that have had the privilege of flying a Gee Bee and yet have not damaged one.
Eric Presten, as written for Roger Cain, April 11th 2004.
Gee Bee Test Flight
March 1st 2004
I showed up after flying my Piper Clipper Amphibian over from Sonoma with Randy Reyes. We almost turned back at Lake Barryessa when we realized that the wind was blowing a good 30 MPH in the Central Valley. I thought it would be too windy to fly the Gee Bee, but Randy wanted to keep going to go see Scott Crosby. When we turned final at Lincoln, I realized that the wind was not gusting and was directly down the runway centerline. The 30 mph wind was not a negative factor (and could be, in fact, a positive one) as long as it was not gusting.
Jim Teal left the decision up to me, and I chose to try an abbreviated test flight. I had intended to check the airplane out in the air, and then do three take offs and landings. But with the wind, I thought one landing would be enough.
After shoehorning myself into the airplane, I found the cockpit to be snug but comfortable. The brakes are very sensitive, and you have to make a concerted effort to stay off of them. After the run-up, I taxied into position and stopped to take in the sight picture for the three point attitude. I added full power, and after the torque had time to do its thing, I released the back pressure to pick up the tail (and increase the visibility over the nose). With the wind, and the airplane’s amazing acceleration it almost came off the ground as the tail came up. The airplane was soon climbing out smartly, and as the ground adjustable prop was set too flat, I had to come right back on the power to keep the Warner from over speeding.
I climbed to a safe altitude to do some cranking and banking, and put the airplane through some stalls. It stalls at about 75 mph indicated. I found the airplane maneuvers, stalls, and rolls nicely, and it was soon time to go shoot a landing.
As I approached I realized that the gusts had picked up considerably. I approached slightly fast so that I would have plenty of time to feel for the ground while burning off the excess airspeed. I intended to do a three point landing, but on the first one the mains touched while I was still in a tail low wheel landing attitude, and I got a relatively good balloon (about three feet). The airplane responded quickly to a little release of back pressure to cap the balloon, and now that I knew where the mains hung in the extended position it was quite simple to hold the airplane off for a full stall three point touch down. With it's wing so close to the ground in ground effect, a full stall landing seems to pay out at about 62 mph (needless to say I was not looking at the airspeed at this point). It floats longer than you would expect for an airplane with its wing loading.
The rollout was interesting. I was never forced to use any braking and the airplane is not to difficult to keep straight, but I can see how you could get into trouble with it. It does nothing for you, and it expects you to stay awake until it’s cylinders are cold. It has no shortage of control effectiveness, but I believe that not only is the directional control envelope relatively narrow, the airplane gives you the feeling that it would be difficult to get back into that envelope if you ever let it out. It has a very narrow landing gear, is short coupled, and is also somewhat top heavy (which would give it a tendency to want to roll off of it’s landing if it was side loaded).
After the first landing, (the touchdown of which probably did not look that nice from the grandstands) I felt that I could not end the day with just one. I did two more full stop landings before calling it a day. These were nicer three point landings, and I was happy with the way the airplane quickly responded to control inputs. It is almost the direct opposite in flying characteristics to the 1918 Curtiss “Hisso Jenny” that I have been flying, and I believe that it would be easier to over control the Gee Bee than to under control it.
It was a real thrill and an honor to get to fly a Gee Bee (thank you Jim Teal and Scott Crosby) and as Scott said it enters you into a very small group of pilots that have had the privilege of flying a Gee Bee and yet have not damaged one.
Eric Presten, as written for Roger Cain, April 11th 2004.
Hmmm interesting bird
Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:53 pm
Sounds like it could be fun!