Entry-level Warbirds...

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2011 12:56 pm

As most of you probably know, I went to the Hondo Fly-In as well as a bunch of other guys from WIX - most of them CAF, but a few from other organizations. A few of us had a conversation about the L-5 I fly, as well as the organization that I am a part of as a board member, and the topic of entry-level "warbirding" came up.

So here are some questions (and if we need to, maybe we should break this into a couple of threads);

For Warbird Pilots:

1. If you are a current "warbird" pilot - what was your "aviation path" as far as aircraft types - for instance, did you fly a Cessna 172, then a Cub, a Maule, then a T-6, etc... ?

2. Where was the biggest leap in your training, and what things did you do before that that either helped or hurt the transition?

3. What suggestions do you have for wannabe warbird pilots?

Note - non warbird pilots are allowed to ask questions, but please do not ridicule or harass in any way. I have a Mod specifically watching this thread. I'm looking for a civil discussion.

For organization members or representatives:

1. What entry level aircraft do you have?

2. Where are they located?

3. What are the pre-requisites to fly one? (Pilot Certificate aside)

4. How much should a "newbie" be prepared to spend if not given a golden opportunity?

5. What would the training program (if any) look like?

I think that this could be a productive conversation, and I plan to chime in later.

Ryan

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2011 6:47 pm

1. If you are a current "warbird" pilot - what was your "aviation path" as far as aircraft types - for instance, did you fly a Cessna 172, then a Cub, a Maule, then a T-6, etc... ?

C150-C172-C150-L-5

2. Where was the biggest leap in your training, and what things did you do before that that either helped or hurt the transition?

C150-L-5. I recommend training Glider-Tailwheel-then whatever. Nose gear airplanes are okay to teach flying but you have a lot to un-learn if you get accustomed to them. My oldest son starts his Glider training in a few months.
I'm going to do it with him.

3. What suggestions do you have for wannabe warbird pilots?

Learn how to maintain your airplane before you buy it. And I don't mean doing owner-assisted annuals; I mean getting into EVERY system on your airplane. If you aren't mechanically oriented, and aren't willing to physically endure and appreciate the time and effort it takes to make your airplane airworthy, you shouldn't own a warbird. Maintenance is going to take up much more time than flying. The previous 2 months involved 1.9 hours of flying, and 30-40 hours of maintenance on the L-5 (including annual inspection). Flying them is REALLY fun, but I also have to say that I felt pretty good a few years ago after I spent two days trying to figure out my tail wheel problem, then fixed it on my own after a slew of people looked at it and threw up their hands.

Make sure you use validated resources of information when working on your airplane. Like is seen here on WIX, there is a lot of urban legend regarding warbirds. And it gets promulgated over and over again. If you don't watch out, one day you're going to hear an urban legend, go apply it to your airplane, and then spend a few hundred or thousand fixing what some "expert" told you. I have a war story regarding that. When I was disassembling my BT-13 center section, I had a few "helpers." I was going to take a break and go home for dinner before starting up again after the meal. But I decided to stay because I was having trouble with the internal wrenching nuts which fasten the bolts between the center section and outer wing panel. There are four big aluminum forgings which are incorporated on the spar ends. One of the helpers asked me if I wanted him to go home and get his Oxy-Acetylene rig, to burn off the stubborn nut. I have lots of experience with welding and torches, so I politely declined his offer. Had I gone home, I would have come back to at least two very expensive forgings heat damaged or destroyed.

If you really want to know about the glorious life of owning warbirds, you need to go hang with Tom Reilly, Larry Kelley, Sam Taber, or anybody who maintains their own or other peoples' stuff. You would not believe what these guys go through to own their stuff and to maintain it.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2011 7:21 pm

Thanks for our first reply ForgottenFields. I have to say I'm partial to the L-5 myself.

Ryan

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2011 7:50 pm

Does Tom Reilly still do the "hands on" seminar to teach people about working on warbirds?

Russ Blow · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2011 8:56 pm

1. If you are a current "warbird" pilot - what was your "aviation path" as far as aircraft types - for instance, did you fly a Cessna 172, then a Cub, a Maule, then a T-6, etc... ?

Currently flying the L 4. Also have a Cessna 140 now. Started out age 15 in Champs and C 150's. Soloed at 16 flew Citabrias and C 172 and got my PP at 17. Have owned Citabria 7 ECA, C 150, C 172, PA 28 140, Mooney M 20 C, C 140 and now the L 4. Now age 51 have around 1600 hours around 900 or so is TD.

2. Where was the biggest leap in your training, and what things did you do before that that either helped or hurt the transition?

Honestly other than routine bi annuals the last instruction I had was when I was 16, 35 years ago.

3. What suggestions do you have for wannabe warbird pilots?

There is an old saying with muscle cars. " speed costs money, how fast can you go." I guess its the same with warbirds. I had focused on the L Birds and the Fairchild PT's. Realistically it was what I could afford and I wanted to fly it a lot so per hour costs factored in. My L 4 really required no specialized training. It has a very low cost per hour to operate and begs to be flown...a lot. Of course I harbor no illusion that flying it would make me ready to solo a AT 6 tomorrow just because it is OD and sits on its tail. I have seen a few folks with more money than sense buy into aircraft and they believed because they could afford them they could fly them. Sadly they and their aircraft often did not fare so well with that attitude. If you are going to step into a type of aircraft you are not experienced in training would be a necessity.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Fri May 27, 2011 12:01 am

Thanks for the replies so far, let's see some more folks...

Ryan

EDowning · **Posted:** Fri May 27, 2011 12:57 am

For Warbird Pilots:

1. If you are a current "warbird" pilot - what was your "aviation path" as far as aircraft types - for instance, did you fly a Cessna 172, then a Cub, a Maule, then a T-6, etc... ?
Army was my first flight experience after I had been enlisted for 4 years. TH-55, Uh-1, Cobra, OH-58, Apache, 1100 rotary wing the 10 hours in a 172 and I had a fixed wing license. Got 17 more hours in a 172 then got out of Army. I didn’t fly a single hour for six years because I couldn’t afford to rent a 150. I did absolutely focus on building my business so I could afford to fly. I thought it would take 4 years and it took 6.
I bought a Bonanza flew it for a year, bought a Yale and learned to fly tailwheel. Flew the Yale a bunch and bought a C140 and flew it as well. Then I went down to Warbird Adventures and bought some T-6 time. Flew the Yale some more and then bought a Skyraider, flew it a bunch and bought a T-6 as well. Still have all the airplanes except the C140, I sold it and bought a C150 and set it up as an instrument trainer so my wife could use it to get her instrument rating.

2. Where was the biggest leap in your training, and what things did you do before that that either helped or hurt the transition?
Obviously, for most warbirds the TW time is going to be the most important time. It’s also the biggest leap if you do it in a T-6. The T-6 is the most important leap forward, but not because of the skill as much as the fact that insurance really dictates what kind of warbirds you get to fly more than any other factor except money.

3. What suggestions do you have for wannabe warbird pilots?
Get tailwheel time anyway you can. Avail yourself of the CAF and spend time trying to get into a T-6. It makes more sense to focus on organizations that need help AND have an entry level warbird that you could work your way into flying. Get a CFI, if you can. An A&P can be helpful but I think more pilots have gotten into the warbird pilots seat through instruction rather than maintenance. Don’t forget to focus on your career, no matter which path you end up taking, warbirds cost money.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Fri May 27, 2011 11:09 pm

Hmmm. 5592 users and we get all of three replies from pilots and no organization members reply at all? Surely there must be someone here from the CAF who can talk about their entry level aircraft as well as other groups...
I'm holding out on my comments until sometime next week.

Ryan

Tiger Tim · **Posted:** Fri May 27, 2011 11:28 pm

I'm not the most current of warbird pilots, in fact I don't really even think of myself as such but here goes...

1.
Schweizer 2-33, Cessna 172, Zlin 242L, 100hp Clipwing Cub, Taylor E-2 Cub (if anyone offers a chance to fly one of these, TAKE IT!), Tiger Moth, then other various boring modern types. I got into it both by being in the right place at the right time (but I figure if you spend all your time in the right place you're sure to be there at the right time), and also by doing a whole lot of grunt work which I will still happily do. These old birds take love and care to stay flying and I don't expect anyone else to do it for me, although anyone who pitches in with the cleanup can come help me get the plane all dirty the next time out...

2.
The biggest leap was probably the transition into the Moth. It's a gentle and sweet flying airplane for sure but it certainly lets you know when you're putting in anything less than perfection and that just bugs me. Forces me to be better though, so I give it the respect it deserves.

3.
In my experience, don't have big expectations. Just get involved and if you're the right person the airplane will come to you. Hint: the right person probably isn't the one who's there to show off how awesome they are. I fly for me and I try to bring professionalism to what I do through consistency and the understanding that there is always room for improvement which I think (hope) the owners appreciate.

-Tim

Mike Halbrook · **Joined:** Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:42 am **Posts:** 106

I learned to fly with the intention of flying warbirds. I've done that to some extent, though nowhere as much as I would have liked. I got my private ticket in a Piper Tomahawk. I transitioned right after that to tailwheel in the L-2 Tailorcraft. It was very good transition aircraft in that it reacted to any type of slipshod flying. It taught me to use my feet and to be very aware of my "seat of the pants". I then began flying Citabrias and Decathhlons, mostly doing Akro. I got my complex, high power endorsement in 250 Commanche, and then was able to join a club with an AT-6 and a P-51 (this was in the mid 1980's). I got about 20 hrs in the AT-6, with emphasis on minimum controllable air speed (A/C clean and dirty) and the stall recovery series in the 1954 F-51 handbook. Things were going along and then I bought a Pitts Special, and it ate me out of house and home. I've also taken the stick in a Spitfire and a P-40 (did some rolls in that) and a couple of Stearmans.
From my view point, a good tailwheel trainer that makes you work hard is vital, and a high power complex aircraft that requires a lot of re-trimming for each flight mode is also important. Time in light aircraft like the 152 or 172 does not show your mistakes well enough to be of much help.

dtpitcairn · **Posted:** Sat May 28, 2011 11:20 pm

I think of the Stearman as more of a Vintage aircraft but here goes:

1. C-152 C-172 DA-20 Citabria Champ Cub (repeat last three for 30 hours) Decathlon Stearman

2. Decathlon to Stearman was the biggest jump because of the weight and lack of visibility in the Stearman. The gap from Citabria to Stearman was 10 years, yet in preparation, I flew from the back seat during the tailwheel checkout. The Decathlon was a good stepping stone because the touchdown speed is similar to the Stearman and landing speed control is extra important with symmetric airfoil.

3. It really helps the frustration level to have an idea how to work on your own plane given the age and condition of many parts in warbirds. Make small steps up and make part of every flight a training flight, Airwork, landings, dutch rolls, crosswinds, pavement etc. Coming up with creative ways to increase skills before the transition will save money and possibly heartbreak in the future by becoming a better pilot in the lower cost airplane. It is impressive how blind a Citabria is from the back seat. Try landing on a 50 wide paved runway from the back, with an instructor to keep you safe. One last thing, other ratings. Even a few hours of glider and Seaplane training can be invaluable for increasing tail dragger skills.

gunnyperdue · **Posted:** Sun May 29, 2011 9:31 am

Well, whatever you call the airplane (Vintage/ Warbird/ whatever) I think it is instructive to reference what the USAAF/USN did for training back in WWII... as far as trying to work out a path to fly piston warbirds.

The Stearman (PT-13/17, N2S in all their variations) was the primary trainer used by all the services. Of course the PT-19 - 26 was also used, but not in as great a number. These airplanes were designed to teach folks to fly the fighters and bombers and transports of the day.... I would suggest time in these amazing airplanes they are still extremely relevant. Each has it's quirks... the Stearman is a delight to fly in the air (well harmonized controls that take effort and coordination... a bit slow on the roll rate and underpowered) but it is a bear on the ground. The PT-26 family is easy to handle on the ground, but that wing has a very interesting accelerated stall. They both teach a pilot to fly the airplane and do it in a way that prepares you for bigger, more powerful airplanes.

Don't get me wrong... I love the Citabria/ Decathalon/ Champ/ Cub series of airplanes... but they don't have serious quirks that make... no force you to be a better pilot.

Folks say that flying a P-51 is a good trainer for the T-6.... in a way it is true... ground handling is a huge issue and the T-6 is, can be, just plain squirrelly on the ground... but it is a delight to fly and it's biggest quirk is the stall break.... 100 hours in the T-6 will sharpen your game for sure... if you master these airplanes you are indeed ready for a P-51 or even a DC-3.

My nickel is go the old fashioned route.... fly the Stearman... then the T-6.

gunny

Mike Halbrook · **Joined:** Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:42 am **Posts:** 106

Good input, Scott. There would be a few older planes that might work as transition planes, but the Cessna 190 is probably as hard to find or harder than a Stearman, and if a guy has access to a Beech Staggerwing he would have most of us trying to bum a ride.

There needs to be some mention of the need for good understanding of the engine management needed in these old planes. A radial engine or large inline engine requires more and different pilot knowledge than a flat four or six.

Russ Blow · **Posted:** Sun May 29, 2011 12:23 pm

Looking at my dads log book it is interesting to see how much time was spent in each aircraft. And then to realize in how short of time it was done.

PT 19 soloed in 11 hours TT 65 hours
BT 15 TT 83 hours
AT 17 TT 105 hours

So from 2/11/44 to 8/22/44 he had logged 254 hours flight time before heading out to Reno for C 46 training.

gunnyperdue · **Posted:** Sun May 29, 2011 2:38 pm

Mike-

You're absolutely right.... what we need is a way to focus on training in these airplanes and all the aspects of operations. Gotta think on that one...

gunny

Warbird Information Exchange

Entry-level Warbirds...

Who is online