Warbird Information Exchange

Thanks, guess the TCDS is incorrect...................you are the EXPERT.

Tom-

I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to be argumentative here... I never said the TCDS is incorrect. I was referencing a stock airplane... do we have a misunderstanding as to what stock is? Perhaps that is the root of our problem.

I don't claim to be the expert... but I do know something about Stearmans... I built mine from little bits.... to be a mostly stock airplane. The TCDS came after the war... after the manufacturing line was shut down. Stock refers to as delivered by Boeing and used by the USAAF/USN during the war.

gunny

_________________
Scott 'Gunny' Perdue
www.scottperdue.com

Gunny-

I was not trying to be argumentative, however your last response seemed so to me. Unfortunately I used quote when I should have used refer in my prior posting.

I too have some Stearman experience, both rebuilding and flying, all round tails, all engines except the rare 600. I'm not sure exactly which configuration you refer to as "stock" given that the TCDS lists 11 different Standard category models (A to E with sub-models) with 10 different engines (each with a different weight). In addition there were considerable variances in standard equipage, night/instrument/etc) when operated by the military, and even more so in post-war civil ops. All of which results in different empty weights and CGs, my posting remains correct in that IF a particular Stearman falls within the TCDS specified CG range it may be soloed from either seat.

The Stearman was originally certified on 6/3/41 when the assembly line was in full swing.

We are arguing over is it possible/legal vs. is it probable.

Tom-

Gunny is right, that is if the Stearman (AKA N2S) is the same as the N3N. I do believe that the TCSD for the N3N says solo from the rear seat. But the USN and the MFG solo was from the front seat only and weight added to the rear seat. Reason being is that the cadet learned to fly from the back but Mixture lock, primer and electrical switches were in the front cockpit only. Thats the way the airplane was built. If solo from the rear seat, the pilot needed to get in the front cockpit, start the engine and then climb out and get in the back.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Jeff-

I think we're now confusing apples and oranges, the Stearman was designed to be soloed from the rear seat, the TCDS allows solo from either seat with an extremely limited empty weight CG range (2 inches vs. 4.9 inches for rear seat only). Gunny is right in that a Stearman will rarely fall within that range but the TCDS does allow solo from either seat if one does.

The stock Stearman has the primer on the LH cowl by the crank, the only electrical switches in most GI Stearmans were night lights and intercom if installed. As previously posted the only front seat solo I've heard of was in USN formation training.

Tom-

Jeff-

This is the official word from the N3N TCDS

Solo Flying Placard. Placard reading "Fly Solo from Front Cockpit Only" to be installed in rear cockpit unless complete
set of engine controls are installed in rear cockpit. , this is one of the requirememts for initial civil certification.

I never realized that a stock N3N was designed for front seat solo and suspect that may be why the USN soloed the Stearman (with ballast) from the front seat for formation training.

Tom-

Jeff-

Just took a quick look at the NAF history, the initial XN3N-1 test flight was with the pilot in the rear and engineer in the front so it appears that rear seat was planned as the primary seat. The CG was so far off they couldn't correct it with a heavier prop or stabilzer incidence change, spin recovery plagued the program also. Interesting that the only solo flights of float equipped N3Ns are rear seat solo, the float probably moved the CG forward.

Tom-

Sorry tom, again I dont know why you would solo from the back when all the stuff is up front. Even with the float attached. Front seat solo!!

A very well known N3N pic


Guess I need to dig out to see what the AFM says.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Here is a pic of the -1. If you note the elevator changes between the 2 pics. It was reported that the tail was heavy to lift off at take off due to that it was inline with the lower wing. The Horizontal was in dirty air esp for slow flight. So a re designed tail was made and the last batch of -1's were converted to -3's at the factory.

They found that the N3N had a very high tendency to flat spin and not recover. I remember hearing something comparable to the N3N about the Pits S2B that the elevator would cancel out the rudder or vise versa. Anyways I have a video that the Navy produced about spinning the N3N. All spin training was to be done inverted.

I will let it be known now.................I like hijacking a stearman thread and making it about a GREAT airplane

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Jeff-

I'm not a N3N pilot and was just commenting on the N3N photos I had looked at, I wasn't making a statement about how the USN operated the plane, my post could have been clearer.

I understood from your original post that front seat solo was the SOP, that explains the TCDS note about installing a complete set of engine controls in the rear cockpit.

Reference your second post when first flown the XN3N-1 had a smaller rudder and shorter engine mount than the production N3N-1. The N3N-1 spin recovery problem was exacerbated by the fact that there was very little rudder below the stabilzer hence the raised stabilizer on the -3. It would certainly be thrilling for a fresh NavCad to be doing all inverted spins.

I've heard good things about the N3N and have a friend who preferred working them over a Stearman. In the mid-60's there was a fleet of N3N's towing banners at Bader Field.

Tom-

I was going on information given to me by a Factory Worker that I talked to 5 years ago.

I will do some digging about the -1 development. I am not so sure that the engine mount being longer is also just part of the -8 Wright installation. Earlier -1 were installed with a smaller Wright engine that was surplus from a previous contract. The new -8 engine was produced at the NAF factory for the production N3N's

You might have got your information from a site on the net, I have had a couple of issues with its information. Eventually I will get it straight as I work on the registry for WIX.

Your friend who worked on N3N's in the 60's. Would this be Nocky Nordheims in Atlantic city???? Does he have pics????? One of his banner tow N's is being restored in TN.

I would like to find out more information about his operation. One of our engines is from him.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Jeff-

While I have known people who worked at the NAF I never got any details from them but am looking at "Wings of the Navy" which is the history of the NAF, unfortunately the N3N has a poorly documented history.

I have seen mention on the internet that the N3N used structural members left over from the dirigible program, given the dramatically different weight of the N3N members I doubt that is correct but the method of construction is similar.

All references I have show the engine mount lengthened on the XN3N-1 after failing to resolve the tail heaviness with a heavier prop and changed stabilizer incidence. The mount was lengthened again on the XN3N-2 and I suspect that was the mount eventually used on the N3N-3.

The engine installation is interesting, I show all but the last 20 of the -1s leaving the NAF with the J-5s, there are indications that many of the -1s were eventually reengined with R-760s and all of the -3s had -760s, were the mounts changed again when the later engine was installed?

My references indicate that in addition to the earlier upright spin recovery problem there was a problem recovering from inverted spins through the service history.

My friend was dusting with them in AZ. I always found it interesting that on the East Coast we used Stearmans but on the West Coast East Coast built N3Ns were popular. Never met any of Nocky's people, it was a busy operation, a daily airshow at Bader.

Tom-

Ok, you saved me a trip by looking at "Wings for the Navy". I know there is not much out their for documentation but more has surfaced since the printing of that book. Sadly when the NAF buildings were taken over, all the records rooms were still intact!! I was told that this was as recent as the 80's and that its rumored to have just been thrown out!!! There are a couple of us in the N3N circle that are working on finding the info.

Yea, tho built like a blimp, I have seen no proof that actual Derigible metal was used. Tho if it had, the Spars would have been it. The top wing spars are all one piece, all 32 feet of it! Makes it hard to move a N.

I am not using my computer so I can post pics. But if you see a Early production -1, you can see the shorter engine mount. This was used with the J-5. In mid production of the -1, the early R760 was made and the longer mount was installed. There was also a Gear design change.
For the -3, the mount stayed and the later produced R760 was used.

What sucks is that for what few N3N pics that are out there, there are even less of the early ones. What really sucks is only ONE dash 1 survives and its not in this country so we cant go look at it!!!

On the inverted spining??? Where did you read about the issues with it??? This backs up a older argument that I have had in the past!!! Tho that video that the navy shows, you dont spin the N upright. It is to be done on her back!!! My past argument has been the name of the N3N being called "yellow Peril". The Stearman was called it because it was yellow. But somewhere in my life of breathing N3N's, I had read that it was given that nickname "Yellow Peril, meaning Yellow Danger" because of the spin not recovering.

Its funny how when the NAF built her, they had all these issues. Even the Vibration issue was just dealt with in other ways instead of fixing it until they got it right. Guess becaus of reasons like these help drive the N production costs WAY higher than your purchase price of a N2S.

Lot of N projects still available out WEST which sucks for me being on the east. OOOH if I win the lottery!!

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Your friend have any pics of N3N's as dusters??????? Which company was he with. I am making a list of who had them. Some day, this all might end up in a book for us N3N guys.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Vlado, and it seemed like such a simple question, didn't it. Now what are you going to do when the experts can't agree?

There's only one solution, you should give up on flying as a pilot in EITHER, seat, because according to someone you are bound to be wrong.

Take up wing walking, we know where that person stands or sits on the Stearman.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK