Warbird Information Exchange

Bill:
Agreed.....bada-bing!
(Still, good reading & info. Thx!!)
VL

Jeff-

I've looked closely at remaining dirigible structure and it is all much lighter weight than the N3N members. I suspect the top wing deters some rebuilders.

Wings of the Navy is interesting but not enough detail to be positive about exactly when some of the changes occurred. It is the source of the info about the difficulty recovering from inverted spins. Like the Vultee Vibrator there are many reasons given for the name Yellow Peril, I've always assumed the first one I heard was the correct one and that it was a generic term for both the N3N and N2S because of their use as primary trainers.

I suspect some of the failure to correct issues were because it was the NAF and the customer had no choice, doubt that Boeing would have been given a pass on similar issues. I've always been intrigued by the NAF but it was a bit of a boondoggle.

Tom-

Well a boondoggle that may be. But the navy Built a good one, she went from 1940 to 1959 in military service. She withstood engines from 220hp to 600 & there are some duster pilots out there that probably would not be here today if it was not for the toughness of the N3N.

Ok, I am done hijacking the stearman thread. On to discussions on the flying termite hotel.

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

According to Joe James' (WW2 USN Primary Flight Instructor) book "Teacher Wore a Parachute", the student sat in the rear and the instructor up front. A review of the "US Navy Flight Training Manual - No 2, Primary" indicates this also.

Then, here's a famous Boeing picture taken in April 1942:


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/st ... 6/scan.jpg

You decide.

Dan-

As noted it was SOP in both the USN and USAAF to have the instructor in the front , student in the rear, solo rear seat. The exception is that the USN soloed from the front seat with ballast in the rear for formation practice, there is a photo described exactly that way in Teacher Wore a Parachute (next to last photo page).

All best are off with a factory PR formation, any time I did formation I preferred the front seat also.

Tom-

I'll have to pull the books out and see where my c of g would sit. I've never soloed the airplane from the front seat as I've always found that seat fairly blind - even for formation work. When I did a fairly marathon ferry flight with her in 2001 I had probably fifty or sixty pounds in the baggage pit, and at least as much survival gear tied down in the front seat (and an axe lashed to the right hand, fwd interplane strut) and she took abit of room to get her tail in the air on take-off. When the airplanes were flown in the service front seat solo and required ballast, was there a standard ballast package or did you just lash a few sandbags in the rear seat and go?

My point, I guess, is that from a flying standpoint, a stock, WW2 era PT-13/-17 or N2S aircraft would be flyable solo from either seat and probably were flown from either seat solo fairly regularly.

Jeff: as long as my termites keep holding hands...

Dan-

The overhead view is somewhat limited so I always liked to have an experienced and briefed back seater but the view is different more than limited.

Suspect there was a standard ballast, doubt that it was sandbags given the leakage.

Tom-

True - sandbags would suck. I'll have to try the front seat solo thing next year and see what happens. Flying season is over up here. The snow should be showing up any day!

Dan

Vlado,

Is this the pic?

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 0674_n.jpg

-Glenn

PS - The Serv-Aero STC for the 450hp installation requires a "SOLO REAR SEAT ONLY" placard.

I fly a lot of Stearman formations, can't imagine the front seat being easier than the back. Just like the J-3, you get much better peripheral cues and as Gunny said, better drift cues from the back seat being at the end of the lever, even if the forward view sucks. Although when I'm giving dual in my Stearman and I'm in the front all I see is cylinders with the bottom wing hampering my peripheral vision.

In any case, if you're using the Stearman as a lead-in trainer for a T-6, the back seat will do a better job at honing your skills. To cover all the bases Jeff, I've often thought an N3N with a R-985 was a hell of an airplane!

Mike-

_________________
[b][color=#0000BF]Silver Wings Flying Company,
Stewart Airport, NY (KSWF)

Mike, the 300 Lyc is the perfect engine for a N3N or a Stearman. Good horsepower and it will burn 13-15gph in cruise.The N I fly is about 10kts faster than a stock N with the same fuel burn. A 985 just makes them too nose heavy and burns too much fuel. The Sanders brothers put a 975 Wright on their N3N. Looks cool with the front exhaust collector. And I agree, back pit for any formation work although for some reason I make better landings from the front. Don