Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Little Scrapper, Mar 11, 2019.
You loaned it to me. Here you can have it back:
Let's watch a P-47 doing aerobatics:
I’m sure the P-47 split S was probably also related to weight and speed. 17,000 lbs at 350 kts is not a split S I want to be in. Today who loads one up? Air shows today probably never sees 1000 lbs over empty. The Dr1, DVI, DVII and EV/DVIII were all cantilevered in first iterations. Multi wing planes, the pilots would not trust to fly until they added the struts. Most of the Camel training losses were first and second flights of pilots not respecting the performance. It was more the bigger weight of the rotary. The pups precession with the 80 hp is just a lot less than the 110/130 hp engines. It needed the performance to match the Dr1. The Pup, Tripe, Snipe had elevator trim. The left it off the Camel I’m guessing for weight.
The Jackaroo was an Aussie name on an English plane. They were done in Thruxton England, which I believe is seen by many as their hot rodding hub (kind of like So-Cal in the US). They’re a stately and weirdly anachronistic bird but feel somehow more serious to fly than a Tiger Moth. Must be because they have a cabin, or at least doors that close you all the way in. What’s amazing is that the entire conversion is essentially bolt-on!
The Canadian Fox Moths are interesting critters too. I helped a little with a restoration of one and it was fascinating to see how many Tiger Moth parts they used in it, even if they were assembled differently to fit their new role or just some widget repurposed as something else. It was a clever stop gap until the Beaver hit full production.
Love seeing a proper pilot slow rolling a big plane using top rudder and a bit of forward stick!
Pretty good pirep available here: http://www.airbum.com/Pitts/PirepPittsReplica.html
From Flight Journal magazine. Special edition WWII Fighters, From The Cockpit. 2017.
Page 18-19 author Corkey Meyers ( from the book referenced above ) my copy is loaned out or I'd reference it directly.
"4. Under no circumstances do a split-s at less than 15,000 feet with the power on. The speed builds up at a dizzying rate. If started at speeds of more than 250mph, you can lose as much as 15,000 feet before you can complete a recovery."
"He ( Carl Bellinger, chief production test pilot at Republic ) warned me which aerobatic maneuvers I should not attempt in a P-47: spins, low altitude split-s maneuvers ( a half roll followed by a half loop ), and slow rolls at an airspeed under 150mph. The Hellcat allowed them because of it's much lower wing loading.
Carl didn't have to convince me about low altitude split-Ss: during the winter of 1943, I saw the five holes in the ice of Long Island's Great South Bay that were the results of USAAC P-47B pilots following their leader in a split-S maneuver below 15,000 feet."
then goes on to praise Bellinger for his detailed explanations to a young and overconfident test pilot.
Meyers also noted 4 interesting notations in the pilot's handbook.
1. Never make turns at less than 150mph in the landing pattern.
2. Don't stall; don't ever stall; never, ever, stall; these are the three rules for a forced landing.
3. Spin recoveries. Remember this. When your airplane goes out of control or is out of control at below 4000 feet, jump!
No, that is not what I'm saying. See Mr. Meyers's quote above.
I wouldn't choose to take a RV-8 or Harmon Rocket into a split-S at cruise speed and power on at any altitude. Clean aircraft like that can go past never exceed speed rapidly.
To be honest, I wouldn't do so in a Pitts, either, I'm not qualified. I don't recall ever doing a full split-S, just a very few partial ones when recovering from "unusual attitudes". Very few. My memory of them is overlayed by the loud voice in my head ( Or out loud, I'm not sure ) saying the four letter word for excrement, over & over. I make no claims of bravery. I might be a hero But I was scared, I assure you.
I'm glad that 17:18 into the video they explain exactly what Aesquire was referring to: doing a power-on Split S below a certain altitude is an easy way to turn your P-47 into a tunnel boring machine.
Nice Thruxton Jackaroo clip here:
For those curious, that’s my happy place. I haven’t lived anywhere near that airport for what feels like decades but I still consider it home.
Yes, but it's understandable why someone would call BS when you left out two very important words: "power on."
As the video shows, you can easily do a split ess in much less that 15000 feet....as long as you use correct technique. Full throttle, high speed into the dirt is not "correct technique".
One time at 10.5 K in a work C-172, I had to leave the space I was occupying as quickly as possible( ATC just let me know) because a Lear was at 2 O clock low and went from a black speck not moving to seeing the Mickey Mouse Ears in a split second. The job required a 90 knot ground speed, and I hit full left rudder, full left aileron and full down elevator as hard as I could as quickly as I could and never took my eyes off the Lear. When the wings were vertical with the nose very well down the tip fuel tanks of the Lear went under my right wing at some God awful speed. The girl running the cameras hit the ceiling hard, I was inverted and nose down about 45--50 degrees, off power and went to up elevator to split S out the bottom. When I did that there was another very hard thump as the girl hit the floor hard. It was a balance in pulling G's and trying to keep the speed from going to far past VNE. Lost 1k and made a 180 heading change. I ask the girl if she was OK. That's when she start screaming. ATC was calling but he would have never heard me answer for her screaming. Got her calmed down enough to answer. He was very upset and told me that he would take care of the pilot of the Lear. Mechanic didn't find any damage. Out of rig after that. Girl, OK, just bruised up. She even didn't quit her job.
I should have quoted directly, instead of off hand by memory. My excuse is that the book wasn't at hand, but I do stand corrected. It's a small, but important detail.
I was able to find the magazine, after I "offended", to get the quote correct.
Mr. Meyers also had comments on the P-40 ( spin prone, and recovery took a lot of altitude ), the P-51 ( ditto ), and the Seafire ( lovely, great flying machine, cockpit lay out horrible ). I assure you, He says it better, with more detail, in the book.
A 1/72 scale model of a DH-83 Kiwi Fox Moth is available from Avi Models. Two sets of decals portray it in NZ civilian or RNZAF service. Avi Model kit number 72007. Injection molded plastic for static display.
I expect some of those handling details to differ depending on which version of an aircraft one is flying.
This is the same manoeuvre devised to get any EA off the tail of a Hawker Hurricane, except that it was done at full throttle...
My project isn't going to be a replica. hopefully it will be regarded as semi-scale. One big reason that I picked the Hurricane as full size one was one of the easier WWII planes to fly. Apparently easier than the Harvard trainers. Scaling to down to 103 will slow it down a lot, too... As others have said a lot of WWII, if not most, were a real handful. Even the much vaunted Spitfire was described as being "like trying to fly a butterfly".
I agree that the Hurri is a great choice in terms of a more docile WWII type to replicate, though I am curious to see if any of that translates to a Part 103 version due to scale effects and a host of other factors.
I do have data for U.S. WWII aircraft that show the rates of accidents per flight hour of various types. Not surprisingly, training in operational types is most dangerous but there are some surprises.
The same table is reproduced here as a web page: http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Loss-Figures-Aircraft-USA-Training.shtml
For example, compare the numbers for the F-4/5 (P-38 photo recon) and F-6 (P-51 photo recon) with their fighter/fighter-bomber equivalents. Clearly, photo recon training was a lot safer than bombing, strafing, dogfighting. It's also interesting that the A-36 (P-51 dive bomber) had more than double the accident rate of the fighter 274 vs. 105 per 100,000 hours but a much lower fatal accident rate (9% vs. 16%).
I wish we had the numbers for the trainers, too. :-(
Incendiary bullets were originally developed to shoot down hydrogen-filled zeppelins and static, artillery observation balloons.
Funny how ground troops always shoot at artillery observers first!!!!
Funny how forward artillery officers have such a high casualty rate!!
Separate names with a comma.