Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:49 am
WWIIABN wrote:The L-4 might have seemed a step up after the L-3. Once airborne, the L-3 was faster and flew slightly better, IMHO. It could NOT however takeoff and land nearly as short as an L-4. Still, I seriously doubt the Army considered it such a big leap. L-3 or L-4 to L-5, yep. Big difference.
True enough, but the L-3 certainly wasn't that much smaller than an L-4 - like the Wiki implied....
Ryan
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:41 am
I have time in all three of the 65hp grasshoppers -- L-2, -3, and -4. I found all three fun little airplanes to fly and none have any particularly nasty handling traits.
Part of the reason why the L-2 and L-3 got bad reputations was that the Army, in my opinion, viewed all three types as interchangable when they are/were three distinctly different airplanes, despite the common powerplant. Each has its own handling traits and jumping around between them likely caused many crashes.
In relative terms, the L-2 is hands-down the fastest of the bunch (cruise 105mph) and probably the least forgiving at slow speeds for someone not familiar with it. Pilot sits up front all the time with no visibility issues on the ground. The later L-2M with closed cowl and spoilers is more than equal to the L-4. Still not as well behaved at slow speeds but, with spoilers deployed, ridiculously steep approaches with near-zero ground rolls are a breeze. By the time this model came out, the Army had already made the L-4 standard.
The L-3 I flew felt much heavier than it really is and I always felt like it took forever to get off the ground. Nice to fly but not as fast as the L-2 and not the docile low-speed traits of the L-4.
The L-4 is extremely docile and forgiving of the most ham-fisted operation. I didn't care for sitting in the back for solo flights. I understand the late-model L-4s had the pilot up front.
Given what is was asked to do as an artillery spotter, the L-4 was the best choice. It didn't really have to cover a lot of distance and most of its missions were less than an hour long. Low speed handling is superb down to and into a stall. This translates well into very short landing rolls.
Part of the reason why the L-2 and L-3 got bad reputations was that the Army, in my opinion, viewed all three types as interchangable when they are/were three distinctly different airplanes, despite the common powerplant. Each has its own handling traits and jumping around between them likely caused many crashes.
In relative terms, the L-2 is hands-down the fastest of the bunch (cruise 105mph) and probably the least forgiving at slow speeds for someone not familiar with it. Pilot sits up front all the time with no visibility issues on the ground. The later L-2M with closed cowl and spoilers is more than equal to the L-4. Still not as well behaved at slow speeds but, with spoilers deployed, ridiculously steep approaches with near-zero ground rolls are a breeze. By the time this model came out, the Army had already made the L-4 standard.
The L-3 I flew felt much heavier than it really is and I always felt like it took forever to get off the ground. Nice to fly but not as fast as the L-2 and not the docile low-speed traits of the L-4.
The L-4 is extremely docile and forgiving of the most ham-fisted operation. I didn't care for sitting in the back for solo flights. I understand the late-model L-4s had the pilot up front.
Given what is was asked to do as an artillery spotter, the L-4 was the best choice. It didn't really have to cover a lot of distance and most of its missions were less than an hour long. Low speed handling is superb down to and into a stall. This translates well into very short landing rolls.
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:51 am
Shame the L-6 wasn't given a chance as it out performed the others (2,3,4) handily. Not having the availability of the major manufacturers' engines probably doomed it from the beggining but it did quite well on the geared Franklin (just not reliable).
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:59 pm
Obergrafeter wrote:Shame the L-6 wasn't given a chance as it out performed the others (2,3,4) handily. Not having the availability of the major manufacturers' engines probably doomed it from the beggining but it did quite well on the geared Franklin (just not reliable).
Not really a fair comparison. At 115hp, the L-6 had nearly twice the engine of the small grasshoppers. It sort of bridged the gap between the 65hp artillery spotters and the 185hp L-5. Not sure it there was a mission for it?
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:19 pm
L2Driver wrote:I have time in all three of the 65hp grasshoppers -- L-2, -3, and -4. I found all three fun little airplanes to fly and none have any particularly nasty handling traits.
I've also flown all three. Yes, they are all certainly pretty docile airplanes. The L-4s ability to get out of small spots better than the L2 and L3 certainly gave it an edge. Not a great deal of utility if it can't get out of the place it just landed.
They could all get in pretty well, but the L2 and L3 were ground lovers by comparison.
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:02 pm
JBoyle wrote:After reading Wakefield a few years back, I would have gladly said what the others here have said...and repeated the conventional wisdom that only L-4s and 5s were used overseas (except for the French).
...And then you run into stuff like the following on page 2, last paragraph...
http://www.caftulsa.org/gallery/Newslet ... Letter.pdf
And if the former is true, how did a L-3 get to Korea? More from Stegall
http://homepage.mac.com/ravnhaus/Stegall/korea2.html
Thanks for the pics and flight qualities info folks!
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:52 pm
airnutz wrote:And if the former is true, how did a L-3 get to Korea? More from Stegall
http://homepage.mac.com/ravnhaus/Stegall/korea2.html
Thanks for the pics and flight qualities info folks!
No clue where the Tulsa CAF came up with the "grounding" of all L-2 and L-3s. Obsolete and not for front line usage, perhaps.
As for the Korean photo, that looks like an Aeronca L-16 (civil 7AC Champ) in the photo and not an L-3. The L-16 was a postwar design.
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:14 am
WWIIABN wrote:No clue where the Tulsa CAF came up with the "grounding" of all L-2 and L-3s. Obsolete and not for front line usage, perhaps.
As for the Korean photo, that looks like an Aeronca L-16 (civil 7AC Champ) in the photo and not an L-3. The L-16 was a postwar design.
Taylorcraft L-2's certainly were grounded - for a time. I wasn't aware of the L-3 ever being grounded.
I second that looking like an L-16, not an L-3.
Ryan
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:45 am
The Taylorcraft L-2s were grounded very briefly following a series of fatal crashes. Mostly involving stalls while low/slow in the pattern -- i.e. relatively inexperienced pilots trying to tighten their turns onto final.
Unlike the others, the L-2 has a thinner, slab wing with little/no washout. While stalls are pretty straight-forward, the airplane definitely drops a wing unless stalling from straight and level and you're perfectly in trim. The airplane gives ample warning of its unhappiness but when it stalls, the whole wing stalls. Mine typically goes over onto its side or, less often, onto its back. If this occurs while low/slow and turning onto final, there is some recovery time but not a lot. If it goes on its back in the pattern, it's game over.
IF someone were flying L-3s and L-4s and hopped into the L-2, its behavior at low speed could be a surprise. As I mentioned earlier, the Army tended to view these airplanes as being the same/interchangable. It was common to have all three types on the ramp at training bases.
Operationally, neither the L-2 or L-3 were ever deemed obsolete. Rather they were considered "Limited Standard". Basically this meant "we'll continue building and maintaining these but we're not sending all three types overseas". The L-2 remained in use throughout the war with the 900 L-2Ms being produced.
The only wartime grasshopper actually deemed obsolete was the Interstate L-6.
Unlike the others, the L-2 has a thinner, slab wing with little/no washout. While stalls are pretty straight-forward, the airplane definitely drops a wing unless stalling from straight and level and you're perfectly in trim. The airplane gives ample warning of its unhappiness but when it stalls, the whole wing stalls. Mine typically goes over onto its side or, less often, onto its back. If this occurs while low/slow and turning onto final, there is some recovery time but not a lot. If it goes on its back in the pattern, it's game over.
IF someone were flying L-3s and L-4s and hopped into the L-2, its behavior at low speed could be a surprise. As I mentioned earlier, the Army tended to view these airplanes as being the same/interchangable. It was common to have all three types on the ramp at training bases.
Operationally, neither the L-2 or L-3 were ever deemed obsolete. Rather they were considered "Limited Standard". Basically this meant "we'll continue building and maintaining these but we're not sending all three types overseas". The L-2 remained in use throughout the war with the 900 L-2Ms being produced.
The only wartime grasshopper actually deemed obsolete was the Interstate L-6.
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:27 pm
L-6 didn't see combat, but were used overseas.........some were sent to the Canal Zone (France Field) for patrol duty.
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:59 pm
I have been fortunate enough to solo the Taylorcraft L-2, Aeronca L-3, Piper L-4, Stinson L-5, and Interstate L-6 as well as their civilian counterparts, the Taylorcraft DC-65 Tandem (not solo), Aeronca TL-65 Defender, Piper J-3 Cub, Stinson 108-1 Voyager (a bit of a stretch, might be closer to the Stinson HW-75/10 that I just went for a demo flight in) and the Interstate S-1a Cadet. My favorites in both categories are the Interstates (and I am a big time Piper guy). I must confess however that the L-6 I flew had a 150 HP Lycoming conversion, and that is so much of a step up that it would just about disqualify the one I flew for direct comparison.
I have soloed the Interstate S-1a Cadet with a 90 hp Franklin and both the 75 and 100 HP Continental (all in the same airplane) and the Interstates are really nice airplanes to fly. They have very nice responsive, but yet forgiving controls, are great short field airplanes (especially the L-6 with its big flaps) and are good load carriers.
Each of these airplanes have very different flying characteristics, and at the risk of starting a war, I must say that the L-3 is my least favorite of the types.
I have soloed the Interstate S-1a Cadet with a 90 hp Franklin and both the 75 and 100 HP Continental (all in the same airplane) and the Interstates are really nice airplanes to fly. They have very nice responsive, but yet forgiving controls, are great short field airplanes (especially the L-6 with its big flaps) and are good load carriers.
Each of these airplanes have very different flying characteristics, and at the risk of starting a war, I must say that the L-3 is my least favorite of the types.
Re: Speaking of L-birds.....
Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:35 pm
Interestingly enough, at least one or two of the guys down at Cannon like the L-3 better.
Ryan
Ryan