Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:07 am
JDK wrote:[Ideally, a trainer should demonstrate an average or normal departure, to enable good standard management / recovery training. Unlike...
Valid point, no argument there.
Obviously there is a line in the sand where something is appropriate for being a trainer and something is not.
Really, the entire point of what I posted is that unsavory handling properties aren't UNKNOWN properties. They're not "unexpected" as you posted earlier.
Nasty Yales and Wirraways
Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:15 am
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.
Wirraway Dive Brake Image supposed to be here! Help JDK!!
I wonder how many wartime pilots were killed becase of these kind of 'family' differences?
A few guys "bought the farm" in Wirraways with dive brakes as the dive brakes were designed to "pop out" in the last few degrees of flap travel. I f you forgot to stop the flap extension before the dive brake extension whilst in the circuit due to being green/busy/etc you would be faced with an aeroplane that suddenly stops flying. For this reason the dive brakes were disconnected. Wirraways also had a very nasty reputation for bad stall characteristics ala Yale. This was improved by fitting "stall strips" to the leading edges of the inboard section of the wing outer panels and centre section as required. I do have the procedure fitting and test flying the Wirraway with said stall strips at home (somewhere!). Eric, PM me if interested.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:37 am
Obviously you've first hand experience of what you are talking about, Randy, and I don't. (As well as a precision of terminology...)
My concern here is that you've taken a modern result-driven training regime that fits within an (agreed) basic military principle and reasoned backwards that that was what happened in earlier periods - including those periods when they were pushing them through schools in less time than it takes to get a driving licence today.
I know (as do you, I'm sure) there not only was there nothing like 'AHC' in the Great War, and in basic flying training, and I'm presuming, often up to basic solo ('Ab Initio' in the Commonwealth, PT in the US) into W.W.II.
So yes, for the W.W.I trainee, even a pretty straightforward stall/spin was 'unexpected' and aircraft like the Camel had characteristics that were talked about but were not demonstrable - the unexpected violence of the Camel's problems killed a lot of new pilots.
In a perfectly reasonable sense, to use the term 'unknown' relating to the sudden and extreme nature of the departure isn't silly, I submit. While the Camel is not a PT equivalent type, the problems I'm talking about were all too common in the Great War.
I'd be interested in any evidence of AHC training, or a good idea of the syllabus of the Empire Training Scheme of the USAAC - do you have any?
I'll be amazed if anyone can prove to us that French trainees were shown the limits of the Yale in the manner that you suggest. Even if they were, it's a waste of valuable training time in a short sylabus for later less unusual aircraft.
Likewise I'd be interested in the Canadian syllabus and how they incorporated the Yale's vices.
Interesting discussion.
Randy Haskin wrote:...With respect to teaching students on an airplane with some bad manners, I guess the difference is the military training philosophy -- in all the aircraft I've ever learned to fly, there is an "Advanced Handling Characteristics" portion of the training. That whole point of AHC is to go out and find those parts of the flight envelope where the airplane does something that is surprising, or different, or dangerous. You expose a new pilot to it right from the start -- explain what it's going to look and smell like, then go out to the airplane and go see it for yourself up at altitude where there is much less danger....
My concern here is that you've taken a modern result-driven training regime that fits within an (agreed) basic military principle and reasoned backwards that that was what happened in earlier periods - including those periods when they were pushing them through schools in less time than it takes to get a driving licence today.
I know (as do you, I'm sure) there not only was there nothing like 'AHC' in the Great War, and in basic flying training, and I'm presuming, often up to basic solo ('Ab Initio' in the Commonwealth, PT in the US) into W.W.II.
So yes, for the W.W.I trainee, even a pretty straightforward stall/spin was 'unexpected' and aircraft like the Camel had characteristics that were talked about but were not demonstrable - the unexpected violence of the Camel's problems killed a lot of new pilots.
In a perfectly reasonable sense, to use the term 'unknown' relating to the sudden and extreme nature of the departure isn't silly, I submit. While the Camel is not a PT equivalent type, the problems I'm talking about were all too common in the Great War.
I'd be interested in any evidence of AHC training, or a good idea of the syllabus of the Empire Training Scheme of the USAAC - do you have any?
I'll be amazed if anyone can prove to us that French trainees were shown the limits of the Yale in the manner that you suggest. Even if they were, it's a waste of valuable training time in a short sylabus for later less unusual aircraft.
Likewise I'd be interested in the Canadian syllabus and how they incorporated the Yale's vices.
Interesting discussion.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:25 am
If I may.....
Trainers as they evolved from the 30's to the 50's also added something to the basic of learning to fly and respect the "envellope" of whatever model you are in.
Systems......And these became more & more complex to learn & manage. Equivalent if not even more than learnign to simply fly within the limits of the bird itself.
A T-28 is a very good example of one of the last modern radial / prop driven trainer. I think even a T-6 is pale in regards to system management.
But I disgress, as I do have a question. Whom with better experience could quantify the ratio of "Danger" ? I.E. how do you dial in the danger equation ?
% Bird design
% Pilot experience
% Maintenance
For every flight happening today, the mix will be different. But for sure warbirds are at a perticular mix from the bat.
Trainers as they evolved from the 30's to the 50's also added something to the basic of learning to fly and respect the "envellope" of whatever model you are in.
Systems......And these became more & more complex to learn & manage. Equivalent if not even more than learnign to simply fly within the limits of the bird itself.
A T-28 is a very good example of one of the last modern radial / prop driven trainer. I think even a T-6 is pale in regards to system management.
But I disgress, as I do have a question. Whom with better experience could quantify the ratio of "Danger" ? I.E. how do you dial in the danger equation ?
% Bird design
% Pilot experience
% Maintenance
For every flight happening today, the mix will be different. But for sure warbirds are at a perticular mix from the bat.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:32 am
My understanding of the ME163 is that is really wasn't too hard to fly. If I could fit in one and there was one, I'd try it.
Mark H
Mark H
Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:39 am
Great discussion!
Randy, how much time do you guys spend near the edge of the envelope in the Eagle? Is it just ACM that puts you there or are there other phases of flight that demand a bit of extra attention?
It's the engine and landing that would worry me...
But flying one might be fun.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Messerschmitt-Me-163B-Komet/1379219/M/
Randy, how much time do you guys spend near the edge of the envelope in the Eagle? Is it just ACM that puts you there or are there other phases of flight that demand a bit of extra attention?
P51Mstg wrote:My understanding of the ME163 is that is really wasn't too hard to fly. If I could fit in one and there was one, I'd try it.
Mark H
It's the engine and landing that would worry me...
But flying one might be fun.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Messerschmitt-Me-163B-Komet/1379219/M/
Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:21 pm
JDK wrote:My concern here is that you've taken a modern result-driven training regime that fits within an (agreed) basic military principle and reasoned backwards that that was what happened in earlier periods - including those periods when they were pushing them through schools in less time than it takes to get a driving licence today.
Completely valid point -- I don't know what the syllabus was in any of those aircraft.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:02 pm
Randy and JDK wrote:
Another interesting aspect of this to ponder is "flight characteristics expectations" in general. For most of the cadets in question, there must have been very little other frame of reference, meaning that what we would look at as ill behaved today was purely common place in their training realm. If your sum total aviation experience was Stearman, then, Yale, all you could probably conclude from that experience that the heavier, more powerful aircraft all gave little or no stall warning and rolled on their back when they did stall. That certainly doesn't make it any easier, but the old "you just don't know what you don't know" probably made it seem more normal.
I have no way of knowing but I would guess there was a fair amount of "just don't do that" or "let it get there" taught in those days.
Clearly a period of "the men were men and the boys were scared to death" (or dead).
And to think I thought learning to fly "the bag" in the AH-64 was tough.
JDK wrote:
My concern here is that you've taken a modern result-driven training regime that fits within an (agreed) basic military principle and reasoned backwards that that was what happened in earlier periods - including those periods when they were pushing them through schools in less time than it takes to get a driving licence today.
Completely valid point -- I don't know what the syllabus was in any of those aircraft.
Another interesting aspect of this to ponder is "flight characteristics expectations" in general. For most of the cadets in question, there must have been very little other frame of reference, meaning that what we would look at as ill behaved today was purely common place in their training realm. If your sum total aviation experience was Stearman, then, Yale, all you could probably conclude from that experience that the heavier, more powerful aircraft all gave little or no stall warning and rolled on their back when they did stall. That certainly doesn't make it any easier, but the old "you just don't know what you don't know" probably made it seem more normal.
I have no way of knowing but I would guess there was a fair amount of "just don't do that" or "let it get there" taught in those days.
Clearly a period of "the men were men and the boys were scared to death" (or dead).
And to think I thought learning to fly "the bag" in the AH-64 was tough.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:18 pm
Ztex wrote:Randy, how much time do you guys spend near the edge of the envelope in the Eagle? Is it just ACM that puts you there or are there other phases of flight that demand a bit of extra attention?
The Eagle actually has quite a few nasty habits when operating near the edges of the flight envelope. Most of them have to do with high AOA maneuvering (e.g., near the left side of the chart near the lift limit line) and incorrect use of the rudders and ailerons.
The recent fatal F-15D crash out at Nellis AFB was the result of aggressive maneuvering at high AOA with a fuel imbalance. That put the jet into essentially an accelerated flat spin that was not recoverable.
Operating in accelerated stalls, or post-stall with high AOA, is pretty regular when fighting in the visual arena. Fortunately, the jet has huge flight control surfaces that allow the jet to continue to maneuver even when the wing itself has stalled.
How much time do we spending doing that? Probably about 10-15% of the time. We have many missions that we practice for, but most of them don't require us to be right at the left side of the chart. We spend a lot of time bumping up against the G and AOA limits when we do maneuver, though.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:20 pm
Eric -
I'm going to take you up on that offer to go flying in your Yale sometime!
I'm going to take you up on that offer to go flying in your Yale sometime!
Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:29 pm
I spent about an hour chatting with Chuck Wentworth about varying things at last year's Chino Airshow. One of the topics we discussed was the flight characteristics of the WW1 fighters he has flown over the years. When I asked what the stall characteristics of these early aircraft were like he said he didn't know. He said he would never get them close enough to that area of the envelope to find out... This from a very accomplished antique, warbird, display and movie pilot that owns and flies both a TBM and a Corsair.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:34 pm
I heard the XB-19 was a b!tch to fly.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:34 pm
Randy wrote:
Anytime. You wouldn't have to twist my arm too hard to do a comparison of the T6 and Yale, with a little Skyraider thrown in for good measure.
Eric -
I'm going to take you up on that offer to go flying in your Yale sometime!
Anytime. You wouldn't have to twist my arm too hard to do a comparison of the T6 and Yale, with a little Skyraider thrown in for good measure.
Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:36 pm
Randy Haskin wrote:Eric -
I'm going to take you up on that offer to go flying in your Yale sometime!
Not before me ....
BTW in my most simple of mindedness of research (internet nonsense) I seem to remember reading that the Mossie was / is a very tempermental and extremely non-forgiving airplane to fly. Any input?
BTW, BTW, would it be too far a stretch to offer the assumption that many front line warbirds are very few or extinct because of dangerous handling characteristics? And that even though many would have served a valuable resource after the war, they simply were deemed too hard to fly?
Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:00 pm
Bright red Me163B, plainly in the air recently...what the...!! More details please.
Re the RCAF's employment of the Yale, the 119 NA-64s Canada took on strength in 1940 were a somewhat unintentional acquisition, occasioned by the fact that France fell before most of their second order of NA-16 series trainers could be delivered; Canada was ramping up the BCATP in a big way at the same time, and 119 modern trainers were manna from heaven whatever their foibles! A couple of BCATP schools (the one at Borden, for instance) actually tried running an advanced training syllabus in both Yales and Harvards simultaneously. Fairly quickly it was realized what an awful idea that was...two lookalike types with sharply differing handling characteristics, being operated as though they were interchangeable! Most of the Yales were eventually converted to train radio operators rather than future fighter pilots...of course by that stage (1942-43) there were plenty of Harvards available.
S.
Re the RCAF's employment of the Yale, the 119 NA-64s Canada took on strength in 1940 were a somewhat unintentional acquisition, occasioned by the fact that France fell before most of their second order of NA-16 series trainers could be delivered; Canada was ramping up the BCATP in a big way at the same time, and 119 modern trainers were manna from heaven whatever their foibles! A couple of BCATP schools (the one at Borden, for instance) actually tried running an advanced training syllabus in both Yales and Harvards simultaneously. Fairly quickly it was realized what an awful idea that was...two lookalike types with sharply differing handling characteristics, being operated as though they were interchangeable! Most of the Yales were eventually converted to train radio operators rather than future fighter pilots...of course by that stage (1942-43) there were plenty of Harvards available.
S.