Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:09 pm
Imagine driving a ten year old diesel Rabbit that you bought for 150 bucks.
It's the exact opposite of that.
It's the exact opposite of that.
Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:23 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:
HE&LL, Bill,
If I had enough bananas, I could probably teach you to fly the Skyraider.
I don't have any Corsair stick time. I rode in the back once with Howard, and I do remember some vibration. He said it is common to some models. I guess I could learn to fly one, but when I sit up front it feels foreign compared to what I am used to.
HE&LL, Bill,
If I had enough bananas, I could probably teach you to fly the Skyraider.
Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:01 pm
I was MADE to write an article for Cowl Flaps... Honest I was!
The only thing I would add is a P51 is much easier to fly than a T-6.
The T-6 seemed to shake more on take-off but it wasn't as hot and gloriously smelly. Double
I got to fly and log the time in the Commemorative Air Force's P-51 Mustang, "Old Red Nose."
It is a 1944 single seat fighter plane that has an extra seat, stick and rudders added where the old humongous radio stack used to be, behind the pilot. It is a "D" model which has a bubble canopy with THE BEST VISIBILITY EVER!
All of this came about at the 2007 Wings Over Houston Airshow at Ellington Field.
The Dixie Wing is assigned “Red Nose,” which was the first plane purchased by Lloyd Nolen to start what came to be the Commemorative Air Force.
So I laid down my money and got into my flight suit. One must be well dressed for such occasions. Stan Musick gave me the pre-flight brief and was looking at all the patches on my flight suit. I had the good sense to tell him that I was a pilot, tail wheel endorsed, but that I didn’t present myself as any kind of hot stick. So he got me strapped in and further briefed and cranked up the loudest engine I have ever been in proximity to.
We took off and Stan got us pointed towards Galveston Bay and announced, “You have the plane!” Gulp, “I have the plane,” replied I and started grinning.
He checked out my stick and rudder skills by my flying us straight and level out over Galveston Bay, then doing left and right steep banked turns, and seemed to approve by giving me a thumbs up.
I am convinced that this came about because I had been schooled in flying T6s by Dick Harper. Harp taught me how to lead into and out of turns by using rudder first. This reduces the stick pressure, which otherwise is considerable.
Then the fun began.
For some reason I had the inspiration to hand control back to Stan and ask him to, “Show me something, Sir!”
He did some rolls to make sure I wasn't prone to airsickness then he let me do a roll.
Then he did a loop (first time I've ever been in a plane in a loop! 4gs going up 2 gs over the top, then 4 gs coming out! ooof!) He did a 4-point roll and I got a picture snapped.
Then I asked him if I could do a Lazy-8 which involves diving, turning, climbing, turning and maintaining airpseed control throughout. All of this was over Galveston Bay near Mud Island.) He asked for more right rudder on the downward part. In my defense, I didn’t have a slip indicator in the back seat. And on the upward leg he suggested I get the nose down, as I was letting us get too close to “Slow Flight Regime” and if things got out of hand he might not have enough altitude to get us out of trouble.
He seemed to really appreciate my survival instincts by the promptness of complying with his suggestions.
Then he had me fly the plane back to Ellington. He did a low pass and gave it back to me to fly the pattern. He didn't take it back until base to final!
Folks were "wondering what happened to us" when we came back after our sortie…
He is a current CFII and signed my logbook and then I scampered over to a waiting B-24 for a ride in a heavy 4-engine bomber, Ol’ 927.
I was so adrenalized from it all that I woke up at 4:45 AM Sun. grinning!
Sometimes it just pays to be nice (and honest) to people!
dp
The only thing I would add is a P51 is much easier to fly than a T-6.
The T-6 seemed to shake more on take-off but it wasn't as hot and gloriously smelly. Double
I got to fly and log the time in the Commemorative Air Force's P-51 Mustang, "Old Red Nose."
It is a 1944 single seat fighter plane that has an extra seat, stick and rudders added where the old humongous radio stack used to be, behind the pilot. It is a "D" model which has a bubble canopy with THE BEST VISIBILITY EVER!
All of this came about at the 2007 Wings Over Houston Airshow at Ellington Field.
The Dixie Wing is assigned “Red Nose,” which was the first plane purchased by Lloyd Nolen to start what came to be the Commemorative Air Force.
So I laid down my money and got into my flight suit. One must be well dressed for such occasions. Stan Musick gave me the pre-flight brief and was looking at all the patches on my flight suit. I had the good sense to tell him that I was a pilot, tail wheel endorsed, but that I didn’t present myself as any kind of hot stick. So he got me strapped in and further briefed and cranked up the loudest engine I have ever been in proximity to.
We took off and Stan got us pointed towards Galveston Bay and announced, “You have the plane!” Gulp, “I have the plane,” replied I and started grinning.
He checked out my stick and rudder skills by my flying us straight and level out over Galveston Bay, then doing left and right steep banked turns, and seemed to approve by giving me a thumbs up.
I am convinced that this came about because I had been schooled in flying T6s by Dick Harper. Harp taught me how to lead into and out of turns by using rudder first. This reduces the stick pressure, which otherwise is considerable.
Then the fun began.
For some reason I had the inspiration to hand control back to Stan and ask him to, “Show me something, Sir!”
He did some rolls to make sure I wasn't prone to airsickness then he let me do a roll.
Then he did a loop (first time I've ever been in a plane in a loop! 4gs going up 2 gs over the top, then 4 gs coming out! ooof!) He did a 4-point roll and I got a picture snapped.
Then I asked him if I could do a Lazy-8 which involves diving, turning, climbing, turning and maintaining airpseed control throughout. All of this was over Galveston Bay near Mud Island.) He asked for more right rudder on the downward part. In my defense, I didn’t have a slip indicator in the back seat. And on the upward leg he suggested I get the nose down, as I was letting us get too close to “Slow Flight Regime” and if things got out of hand he might not have enough altitude to get us out of trouble.
He seemed to really appreciate my survival instincts by the promptness of complying with his suggestions.
Then he had me fly the plane back to Ellington. He did a low pass and gave it back to me to fly the pattern. He didn't take it back until base to final!
Folks were "wondering what happened to us" when we came back after our sortie…
He is a current CFII and signed my logbook and then I scampered over to a waiting B-24 for a ride in a heavy 4-engine bomber, Ol’ 927.
I was so adrenalized from it all that I woke up at 4:45 AM Sun. grinning!
Sometimes it just pays to be nice (and honest) to people!
dp
Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:33 pm
I got a bunch of super cub and citabria time until life got in the way of finnishing and it was time to work for a living.
got to log 1.7 hrs of dual from the left seat as a student pilot. Personally I thought it flew like a big Piper cub. I greased my 1st landing like a pro at the tailwheel fly in. But I also bounced the hell out of it returning home. Now I think about it, it bounces like a cub too!!
got to log 1.7 hrs of dual from the left seat as a student pilot. Personally I thought it flew like a big Piper cub. I greased my 1st landing like a pro at the tailwheel fly in. But I also bounced the hell out of it returning home. Now I think about it, it bounces like a cub too!!
car terms
Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:40 am
If one were to put flying a waribird into car terms, to me a Spitfire might be like driving a BMW. I don't have nearly as much time in a T-6, and less than that in Mustang, but they might equate to a Jeep and a smaller Mercedes.
Re: car terms
Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:07 pm
Great thread.
Owwww. The Poms are gonna ROAST you for that.
A 'BMW' is the round engine they put in Focke Wulfs until they could afford decent Russian engines.
For more thoughts on original warbird flying see:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 418#166418
Bill Greenwood wrote:If one were to put flying a waribird into car terms, to me a Spitfire might be like driving a BMW.
Owwww. The Poms are gonna ROAST you for that.
A 'BMW' is the round engine they put in Focke Wulfs until they could afford decent Russian engines.
For more thoughts on original warbird flying see:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 418#166418
Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:46 pm
For me it is the history.
Every time I start 862 I feel the FACs flying with me. I am honored and sobered that my butt is sitting in the same seat they flew combat on. No other aircraft come with that kind of feeling. Running my hands over the patched bullet holes durning preflight, I can almost hear and feel the impact.
I hear the engines, close my eyes, and I am over the Trail.
I am the plane. The plane is me
We are history.
Gunfighter 02, you are cleared in hot. Call FAC in sight. Hit my smoke!
Every time I start 862 I feel the FACs flying with me. I am honored and sobered that my butt is sitting in the same seat they flew combat on. No other aircraft come with that kind of feeling. Running my hands over the patched bullet holes durning preflight, I can almost hear and feel the impact.
I hear the engines, close my eyes, and I am over the Trail.
I am the plane. The plane is me
We are history.
Gunfighter 02, you are cleared in hot. Call FAC in sight. Hit my smoke!
Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:56 pm
oscardeuce wrote:For me it is the history.
Every time I start 862 I feel the FACs flying with me. I am honored and sobered that my butt is sitting in the same seat they flew combat on. No other aircraft come with that kind of feeling. Running my hands over the patched bullet holes durning preflight, I can almost hear and feel the impact.
I hear the engines, close my eyes, and I am over the Trail.
I am the plane. The plane is me
We are history.
Gunfighter 02, you are cleared in hot. Call FAC in sight. Hit my smoke!
Kick ass post..............
Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:46 pm
If we must put it in automotive terms, the Skyraider is a MACK truck that thinks it's a Mclaren.
Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:56 pm
Eric,
Can you give a rundown on the Yale? I understand the engine makes it a bit more 'interesting' than a T-6. An American friend of mine had a go in a CAC Wirraway (essentially a NA-16) and his first remark was about its 'Limeyfication' compared to the T-6. Presumably the Yale wasn't 'Fracofied'?
TIA,
Can you give a rundown on the Yale? I understand the engine makes it a bit more 'interesting' than a T-6. An American friend of mine had a go in a CAC Wirraway (essentially a NA-16) and his first remark was about its 'Limeyfication' compared to the T-6. Presumably the Yale wasn't 'Fracofied'?
TIA,
Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:56 pm
JDK wrote:
The Yale actually has very little in common with the T6. First of all, it is much more challenging to fly than the T6. It has a Wright 975-E3, at 440hp and @400lbs lighter than the T6 it is under powered. It has a different wing than the T6, the wing span is slightly shorter, more dihedral and stronger ailerons. Much better roll rate. The stall charesteristics are viscious. Clean it stalls just like a T6, dirty the flaps blank out the tail and it snaps over on it's back every time. The gear is two feet narrower than the T6 and the Vertical CG is a little higher so it's also challenging to land well. Crosswinds are also challenging.
In his book, Ragwing to Heavy Iron, by Martin Caidin, there is a passage interviewing Tom Crevase about which of the WWII era airplanes were the most challenging to fly. He said he thought the Yale was. He restored my Yale for himself and flew it quite a bit.
With everything written above, one might question why I enjoy flying it. In the air it handles as well as any airplane I have ever flown. Seldom have I found anything in life that gives me as much satisfaction as flying the Yale well. I learned to fly tailwheel in it, and can't imagine ever selling it.
Eric,
Can you give a rundown on the Yale? I understand the engine makes it a bit more 'interesting' than a T-6. An American friend of mine had a go in a CAC Wirraway (essentially a NA-16) and his first remark was about its 'Limeyfication' compared to the T-6. Presumably the Yale wasn't 'Fracofied'?
The Yale actually has very little in common with the T6. First of all, it is much more challenging to fly than the T6. It has a Wright 975-E3, at 440hp and @400lbs lighter than the T6 it is under powered. It has a different wing than the T6, the wing span is slightly shorter, more dihedral and stronger ailerons. Much better roll rate. The stall charesteristics are viscious. Clean it stalls just like a T6, dirty the flaps blank out the tail and it snaps over on it's back every time. The gear is two feet narrower than the T6 and the Vertical CG is a little higher so it's also challenging to land well. Crosswinds are also challenging.
In his book, Ragwing to Heavy Iron, by Martin Caidin, there is a passage interviewing Tom Crevase about which of the WWII era airplanes were the most challenging to fly. He said he thought the Yale was. He restored my Yale for himself and flew it quite a bit.
With everything written above, one might question why I enjoy flying it. In the air it handles as well as any airplane I have ever flown. Seldom have I found anything in life that gives me as much satisfaction as flying the Yale well. I learned to fly tailwheel in it, and can't imagine ever selling it.
Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:18 am
Thanks a lot Eric. Yes, I appreciated it was a lot more than a T-6 with fixed gear and a weeny engine, but your insight's great. It's not often you can write: "First of all, it is much more challenging to fly than the T6." 
about something in the trainer line! Kind of not a good idea, I'd have thought. D'you think it was a good trainer for the era?
Another thing (apart from the Swordfish) to thank Ernie Simmons for. There's not a lot of Yales flying, IMHO. One in Europe, yours; and others?
There's a great drawing of a French example here:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.j.o/skyraider/naa-57_4.htm
Nice! Cheers,
about something in the trainer line! Kind of not a good idea, I'd have thought. D'you think it was a good trainer for the era?
Another thing (apart from the Swordfish) to thank Ernie Simmons for. There's not a lot of Yales flying, IMHO. One in Europe, yours; and others?
There's a great drawing of a French example here:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.j.o/skyraider/naa-57_4.htm
Nice! Cheers,
Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:36 am
There are about 10-12 that I know of. I don't know how many are actually flying. It was a mixed bag as a trainer, on one hand it probably taught you everything you need to know to get in to a fighter from a stick and rudder standpoint, on the other hand 2/3 of the airframes that went to Canada crashed in training accidents.
I didn't mention that Tom Crevasse ground looped mine and got the wing tip a year after he restored it. At the time he had flown the 51, corsair etc. A funny thing about the Yale is how it seperates those who know warbirds from those who bought T6s. I was at Osh Kosh with it one year and Walt Ohlrich came over and we spent several hours talking about it and removing panels and looking it over. At the same Osh Kosh, I over heard a T6 guy parked close to the Yale tell someone "it's the starter version of the T6" and refered to it as "the T6s little brother", I corrected him by telling him "actually, it's your Daddy, bi%^tch". I am always the diplomat, you know.
I didn't mention that Tom Crevasse ground looped mine and got the wing tip a year after he restored it. At the time he had flown the 51, corsair etc. A funny thing about the Yale is how it seperates those who know warbirds from those who bought T6s. I was at Osh Kosh with it one year and Walt Ohlrich came over and we spent several hours talking about it and removing panels and looking it over. At the same Osh Kosh, I over heard a T6 guy parked close to the Yale tell someone "it's the starter version of the T6" and refered to it as "the T6s little brother", I corrected him by telling him "actually, it's your Daddy, bi%^tch". I am always the diplomat, you know.
Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:40 am
I just had the good fortune to fly in a Yale recently as well. A big surprise to me was how smooth the conventionally maligned Wright engine was. While it did not pull like a 1340, it did just fine. Most have had the backwards Gallic throttles Anglicized, but on this plane the mixture was still reversed. Contrary to what I expected, the Wright fired up immediately after 6 shots of prime into a surprisingly smooth and not too loud idle as compared to a 6.
While the physical dimensions are similar as a T-6, with the smaller Wright 440 hp R-975 the plane feels smaller as you walk up to it. That said, it is still obviously built like a locomotive tough as you look closer. The flaps are manual (cranked down), and the only hydraulics are the brake system, one part shared with the T-6 according to the owner.
The cockpit is pure early T-6, cozy and very friendly to big guys like me. The Yale is even a bit more friendly, like a Champ, as things are very simple even compared to most T-6s and nothing much to distract you from the flying of the plane.
The propellor is a two speed, not a constant speed. You have a choice of fine or course pitch. Actually kind of cool as it again simplifies things with respect to the prop: take, off climb and land in one setting, cruise in the other - that's all.
She taxies just like a big friendly taildragger. Applying 36" take off power, she does not pull like a R-1340, but the tail comes up and you are climbing out at 110 mph in about 1000 feet plus some change. This plane is 1000 pounds or more lighter than a T-6, and it really shows in maneuvering with less inertia. Very light controls, and the plane feels very light. The ball is easy to keep centered, and it just feels like a lighter, friendlier plane. We showed about a 120 - 125 mph clip at about 27 inches in course pitch, burning about 16 - 20 gallons/hour.
Entering down wind, you can crank down 30 degrees of flap below 124 mph, bring the power back to about 20" in fine pitch, and go base to final at about 100, bringing to 90 over the fence. again, being lighter, my impression was that she liked to float a bit compared to the six, which starts coming down in no uncertain terms when the power is pulled. No more squirelly on the ground roll out than any other tailwheel plane at least to me, again much like T-6 but lighter. Think a very large Champ/Cub, at least to me this one time. Like all tailwheel planes, you have to be very attentive and focused and keep ahead of the plane.
Overall, I was very favorably impressed, only wishing it was a bit faster. The owner said the dreaded Wing Attach AD did not apply to Yales, OBTW. I would also have to get a bit more familiar with the Wright to have a definitive position, but after flying behind this W975 and a W1300, I am beginning to think the smaller Wright engines may be a lot better than I have heard in the past. All comments welcome on this.
best.
While the physical dimensions are similar as a T-6, with the smaller Wright 440 hp R-975 the plane feels smaller as you walk up to it. That said, it is still obviously built like a locomotive tough as you look closer. The flaps are manual (cranked down), and the only hydraulics are the brake system, one part shared with the T-6 according to the owner.
The cockpit is pure early T-6, cozy and very friendly to big guys like me. The Yale is even a bit more friendly, like a Champ, as things are very simple even compared to most T-6s and nothing much to distract you from the flying of the plane.
The propellor is a two speed, not a constant speed. You have a choice of fine or course pitch. Actually kind of cool as it again simplifies things with respect to the prop: take, off climb and land in one setting, cruise in the other - that's all.
She taxies just like a big friendly taildragger. Applying 36" take off power, she does not pull like a R-1340, but the tail comes up and you are climbing out at 110 mph in about 1000 feet plus some change. This plane is 1000 pounds or more lighter than a T-6, and it really shows in maneuvering with less inertia. Very light controls, and the plane feels very light. The ball is easy to keep centered, and it just feels like a lighter, friendlier plane. We showed about a 120 - 125 mph clip at about 27 inches in course pitch, burning about 16 - 20 gallons/hour.
Entering down wind, you can crank down 30 degrees of flap below 124 mph, bring the power back to about 20" in fine pitch, and go base to final at about 100, bringing to 90 over the fence. again, being lighter, my impression was that she liked to float a bit compared to the six, which starts coming down in no uncertain terms when the power is pulled. No more squirelly on the ground roll out than any other tailwheel plane at least to me, again much like T-6 but lighter. Think a very large Champ/Cub, at least to me this one time. Like all tailwheel planes, you have to be very attentive and focused and keep ahead of the plane.
Overall, I was very favorably impressed, only wishing it was a bit faster. The owner said the dreaded Wing Attach AD did not apply to Yales, OBTW. I would also have to get a bit more familiar with the Wright to have a definitive position, but after flying behind this W975 and a W1300, I am beginning to think the smaller Wright engines may be a lot better than I have heard in the past. All comments welcome on this.
best.
Last edited by snj5 on Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
BT-13
Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:52 am
Had the opportunity to go fly in a BT-13 about 3 months ago. Overall feeling a bit smaller than a T-6, the overall experience was much like a Texan in sounds and feel. Like all BT-13s, there was a small tank leak - this particular one at he back of the starboard flap. One new comment I heard about this BT-13 leaking tendency was that it was a lot due to the twisting stress the flap put on the aft spar if the flaps were overspeeded. Only way to fix it is to go through the access panel in the bottom and slop arouond the tank joints. Other than that and crappy radios, the plane was VERY nice and original and polished.
The mid-time P/W 985 started much like its big brother 1340. It was the first time I had used an inertial starter - While it sounds good spinning up, I think the direct drives are a bit safer as you can cotinue to crank in case of a stack fire instead of re-spinning up. Interestingly, once started, although it sounded like a 1340, it seemed a bit quieter to me.
Then again, I could be just going deaf.
The cockpit was as big if a bit romier than a T-6; the view over the nose taxiing was fine, and it was quite easy to steer. With no hydraulics other than the brakes, no hydraulics systems check for gear and flaps (the flaps roll down with a crank on the left hand side).
Take off run with 20 flaps got us off pretty quickly and climb out was a bit over 100. Once stabilized at about 4600 feet and a density altitude of 6K, she indicated a solid 130 at about 26" and 1800 rpm. Fuel burn was stated to be about 20 gph. Very nice control harmony, much like a T-6 with response and pressures - easy to coordinate.
Approach and landing was very straightforward with about 90 over the fence with a straight forward roll out.
At about half the price of a t-6, it seems only let down by the wet wing tank issues. Other than that, it seems a fairly maint. friendly a/c, requiring about 20 hrs for annual.
Very impressive.
The mid-time P/W 985 started much like its big brother 1340. It was the first time I had used an inertial starter - While it sounds good spinning up, I think the direct drives are a bit safer as you can cotinue to crank in case of a stack fire instead of re-spinning up. Interestingly, once started, although it sounded like a 1340, it seemed a bit quieter to me.
Then again, I could be just going deaf.
The cockpit was as big if a bit romier than a T-6; the view over the nose taxiing was fine, and it was quite easy to steer. With no hydraulics other than the brakes, no hydraulics systems check for gear and flaps (the flaps roll down with a crank on the left hand side).
Take off run with 20 flaps got us off pretty quickly and climb out was a bit over 100. Once stabilized at about 4600 feet and a density altitude of 6K, she indicated a solid 130 at about 26" and 1800 rpm. Fuel burn was stated to be about 20 gph. Very nice control harmony, much like a T-6 with response and pressures - easy to coordinate.
Approach and landing was very straightforward with about 90 over the fence with a straight forward roll out.
At about half the price of a t-6, it seems only let down by the wet wing tank issues. Other than that, it seems a fairly maint. friendly a/c, requiring about 20 hrs for annual.
Very impressive.