By:      Norm Goyer

The Grumman XF5 Skyrocket was flawed from the very first prototype.

Grumman certainly built some outstanding aircraft including the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, TBF Avenger, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther and on and on. But, their early aircraft, with the exception of the pre-war twin engine Widgeon and Goose, certainly would not have won any beauty awards. One of their first aircraft was the Grumman biplane Duck with the single float designed as part of the fuselage. Their early biplanes were short, stubby and pot bellied. Pilots loved them but aviation purists looked the other way. But none could compare to the ugliest airplane of them all, the Grumman twin-engine XF5F Skyrocket. Instead of christening it with a bottle of Champaign they hit it with an ugly stick. There is an old saying, if looks great it will fly great, and the Skyrocket proved this saying to be very accurate. The model designation tells us that the plane was designed after the Wildcat and probably during the same time the Hellcat F6F was on the boards.

My research book, Planes of the US Navy, tells us that the Grumman XF5F Skyrocket was a prototype of a twin-engine shipboard fighter interceptor.  The  Navy ordered one prototype airplane in June of 1938 designated as the XF5F-1. The aircraft had an unique appearance in that the forward part of the fuselage did not extend forward of the wing. Provisions were included in the prototype for two 23 mm  Madsen cannon. Contemporary British twin engine fighters were armed with four 20, canon

Grumman revised the Skyrocket into the XP-50. This one was designed for land operation. It too was not accepted.

The aircraft flew for the first time in April of 1940. Engine cooling problems arose in the initial flights, resulting in modification to the oil cooling ducts. Further modifications were made to the prototype including reduction in the height of the cockpit canopy, revising the armament installation to four 0.5  machine guns in place of the cannon, redesign of the engine nacelles, adding spinners to the propellers, and extending the fuselage forward of the wing. These changes were completed in July of 1941. Additional changes were needed after further flight tests which were not completed until  January  of 1942. In the meantime, Grumman began work on a more advanced twin-engine shipboard fighter, the XF7F-1, and further testing with the XF5F-1 supported the development of the newer design. The prototype continued to be used in various tests, although plagued by various landing gear problems, until it was struck from the list of active aircraft after it made a belly landing in December of 1944.

During testing of the shipboard XF5F Grumman engineers had modified another version to serve as a land based fighter with the Marine Corp in mind. This version was called the Grumman XP-50. The XP-50 was entered in a USAAC contest for a twin-engine heavy interceptor aircraft. The Army Air Corps placed an order for a prototype in November of 1939 designating it XP-50, but it lost the competition to the XP-49 a revised version of the Lockheed P-38. The XP-49 had experimental Continental inverted V engines which proved to be unsuitable for the aircraft. The Allisons in the P-38 were far superior.

A three-view of the XP-50 shows the unusual aircraft which was dropped when the F7F Tigercat became available.

The Grumman XP-50-was entered into competition alongside proposals from Bell, Brewster, Curtiss, Lockheed, and Vought. The XP-50 design was similar to that of the XF5F-1 with modifications to the fuselage nose to house the nose-wheel of the tricycle landing gear and provisions for self-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. The planned armament was two 20 mm cannon and two .50 in machine guns. During testing, the XP-50 prototype was lost, falling victim to a turbo-supercharger explosion that destroyed the aircraft. The test pilot Robert Hall bailed out while the XP-50 plunged into Smithtown Bay in Long Island Sound.

Based upon experience with the XF5F-1 and the XP-50, Grumman had begun work on a more advanced fighter, designated model G-51, the future Tigercat F7F. Thus, the USAAC decided to replace the XP-50 with the newer design. Consideration was given to combining the Air Corps and Navy requirements into a common design, but the weight and performance penalties inherent in conflicting requirements were considered great enough that separate designs would be needed. Since the Navy considered Grumman one of its major production sources and that producing two different model aircraft by Grumman would impede manufacture of aircraft types the U.S. Navy needed, it was decided that development of the XF7F-1 would continue. The Army Air Force version was dropped.

The Grumman F7F Tigercat was the result of lessons learned with both the Skyrocket and the XP-50. The Navy finally had the twin engine fighter it wanted.

This beauty and beast aerial fable did have a happy ending with the two ugly ducklings growing up into the beautiful Grumman F7F Tigercat resplendent in its blue black Navy colors, still true to the fable.

Specifications Grumman XF5F-1

• Crew: 1
• Length: 28 ft 9 in
• Wingspan: 42 ft
• Height: 11 ft 4 in
• Wing area: 303.5 ft²
• Empty weight: 8,107 lb
• Loaded weight: 10,138 lb
• Max takeoff weight: 10,900 lb
• Engines:  Twin Wright XR-1820-40/42 Cyclone nine cylinder radial engines, 1,200 hp each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 383 mph at sea level
• Range: 1,200 mi
• Service ceiling: 33,000 ft
• Rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min

Armament

• 4 × 0.5 in  machine guns
• 4 × 165 lb  bombs

By:      Norm Goyer

The Westland Whirlwind was first used in 1935. It was an excellent low level fighter.

I have always been attracted to aircraft which I thought had beautiful lines from all angles. All aircraft designers are faced with two problems. They know an aircraft has to be appealing to look at and in addition, must be functional in performance and comfort for the intended passenger count. Translation, single seat fighters with a long inverted V or in line engine have the sleekest nose which may end with a spinner which is an extension of the cowling. The best illustration is the all time beautiful, yet functional North American P-51 Mustang. This particular aircraft grew more beautiful as it matured over its World War II years in service. Initially the Mustang had a cockpit which was part of the fuselage. The original P-51 A,  and C did not possess the lines of the D model with the bubble canopy and smaller rear fuselage. It would be hard to find any aircraft that rivaled the beauty of the Mustang. Or would it?

The de Havilland Mosquito was one of Britain's most successful fighter bombers. It was of wood construction.

I was stationed at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, NY for a brief time while in Navy flight training waiting for the next class to start. One day I was on the ramp and a small flight of Grumman F7F Tigercats flew in. Wow, this was a beautiful aircraft. I had built a “shelf model”, now there is a term that many younger folks haven’t heard of. They were also called “solid models” and they were about 12 inches in wingspan and were carved out of balsa or pine and painted. These evolved into the current “plastic models” that were ready to assemble. I had built a solid model of the Grumman XF-5 Skyrocket and it was an interesting airplane but frankly it was just a tad ugly. To me the F7F was the epitome of beauty. That is until I discovered three British twin engine aircraft.

The first one that caught my eye was the  very unusual Whirlwind 1935 design by Westland. The Whirlwind   had a full bubble canopy and a T-tail. The Whirlwind was an outstanding aircraft with four 20 mm cannon which raised havoc with ground targets. Unfortunately, the Rolls 885 hp Peregrine engines were not of the same quality as the larger Merlins in the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang. They were not as powerful and proved to be slightly unreliable. But there were other problems as well. The aircraft had limited range, under 300 miles combat radius, which made it marginal as an escort. More troublesome were the continued failures of the Peregrine engine. It was originally intended to be one of Rolls’ main designs, but the Merlin had become much more important to the war effort and the Peregrine was relegated to a secondary status and development cancelled (there being no other aircraft needing the engine); the first deliveries of Peregrine engines did not reach Westland until January 1940 But the aircraft was a winner in the looks department.

The German Messerschmitt Bf. 110 was a similar fighter bomber.

Aircraft designers in World War II years were hampered by lack of larger engines which they could update the aircraft for more speed and vertical performance. In many cases the answer to success in the air was the ability to climb very fast and to “get out of Dodge” even faster. The maximum sized engine was the Merlin and the double row Wasp radial from Pratt & Whitney. Larger radials such as the corn cob were not available until almost the end of the war. The only answer the designers had was to install more engines and build slightly larger aircraft to carry the extra weight of two engines and the fuel to keep them running. Enter the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the British Mosquito, Hornet and the Whirlwind. Germany had several including the very effective Messerschmitt Bf.110. To me, twin booms such as the Lightning are awkward while the lines of the Hornet are almost flawless.

The de Havilland Hornet was essentially a Super Mosquito with low profile Merlins, laminar flow wing and a large dorsal fin. It was not used in World War II.

There is no doubt that the deHavilland built some beautiful aircraft including the twin engine biplane Rapide.  The de Havilland Hornet was actually the Super Mosquito with lower frontal profile Merlins which added to the streamlining which cut drag. The tail was metal with a larger dorsal fin and the wings were thinner with a laminar flow airfoil similar to the Mustang. The  cockpit was moved forward for better pilot visibility.  The Hornet was designed for use in the South Pacific against the Japanese. The Hornet was also used on British aircraft carriers.  The Hornet did not arrive for duty until 1946 but was involved in aerial combat during the English Malaysian conflict. The Hornet broke many speed records for both twin engine aircraft and wooden aircraft. As you can see by looking at the photograph, it was indeed a beautifully designed aircraft from any angle. The coming jet age wrote the end to prop driven fighter aircraft.

Hanna Reitsch demonstrated the Fw.61 in a crowded indoor sports arena.

One of the very first practical helicopters was built in Germany in the early 1930s  by Professor Henrich Focke. Focke first experimented with rotary wing development with his licensed copy of the Cierva Autogyro. He had previously built versions of the Cierva C.19 and C.20, which were  autogyros. While working with these aircraft, Professor Focke realized that they were incapable of many maneuvers. He knew the answer was in the development of a true helicopter. Working with engineer Gerd Achgelis, they started the design for their Fw.61 helicopter in 1932. A free-flying model, built in 1934 and propelled by a small two-stroke engine, brought the promise of success. Today, the model can be seen in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. I checked my favorite source for German aircraft, “Hitler’s Luftwaffe”, and discovered further information about the world’s first helicopter.

Hanna Reitsch was one of the best pilots Germany had in World War II. She excelled as a test pilot. Her mother thought she was beautiful.

“During early February of 1935, Focke received an order for the building of a prototype, which was designated the Fw 61, however Focke referred to it as the F 61. Roluf  Lucht, of the technical office of the RLM, extended the order for a second aircraft on  December 19, 1935. The airframe was based on that of a well-tried training aircraft, the Focke-Wulf Fw 44 Stieglitz.

A single, radial engine drove twin rotors, set on outriggers to the left and right of the fuselage. The counter-rotation of the two rotors solved the problem of torque-reaction. The small horizontal-axis propeller directly driven by the engine was purely to provide the necessary airflow to cool the engine during low speed or hovering flight- it provided negligible forward thrust.

The Fw. 61 used the fuselage from an existing fixed wing aircraft and converted it to a twin boom helicopter.

Only two aircraft were produced. The first prototype, the V 1 D-EBVU, had its first free flight on  June 29, 1936 with Ewald Rohlfs at the controls. By spring 1937, the second prototype, V 2 D-EKRA, was completed and flown for its first flight. On  May 10, 1937, it accomplished its first autorotation landing with the engine turned off.

In February 1938, the Fw 61 demonstration flown  by Hanna Reitsch was indeed held indoors at the Deutschlandhalle sports stadium in Berlin, Germany. The Fw 61 subsequently set several records for altitude, speed and flight duration culminating, in June 1938, with an altitude record of 11,243 ft and a straight line flight record of 143 miles.

The Germans were very proud of the first successful helicopter and issued a stamp in its honor.

Neither of these machines appear to have survived World War II, however a replica is on display at the Helicopter museum in Bückeburg, Germany.

• Crew: 1
• Length: 23 ft 11.04 in
• Rotor diameter: 2 × 23 ft
• Height: 8 ft 7.92 in
• Empty weight: 1,803 lb
• Max takeoff weight: 2,094 lb
• Engine: BMW Bramo 314 E 7-cylinder radial, 160 hp

Performance

• Maximum speed: 122 km/h 76 mph
• Cruise speed: 49 kn, 56 mph
• Range: 124 nmi, 143 miles
• Service ceiling: 11,243 ft
• Rate of climb: 690 ft/min

The only true helicopter used in combat during World War II was the twin rotor Flettner. It was used on ships.

I was humming along at about 100 knots flying south following the Connecticut River just over the Massachusetts state line enjoying the open air cockpit in my Fairchild PT-19. It was in the early 1950s and the fall foliage colors were in full bloom. A few miles into Connecticut I noticed a very weird aircraft flying beneath me. It had two rotor blades mounted on the cabin about six feet apart and they were spinning in opposite directions, intermeshing. I had never seen anything like that helicopter before. I was approaching restricted airspace so it was time to do a 180 and head home.

The Kaman Husky, built in the United States, was a similar type of intermeshing twin rotors.

One of my pilot buddies knew what it was immediately,. He told me that Kaman Helicopters were building this type of helicopter and were even testing a jet powered version. He had heard that it had very good lifting abilities and didn’t need a tail rotor as there was no tendency to pivot because the turning forces were cancelled out with the counter rotating rotor blades.  I filed the info onto my hard drive in my head and promptly forgot about it.

The Piasecki helicopter also used twin rotors in a tandem configuration.

Many years later I was writing an article about rotary wing aircraft used during World War II and  found the Focke Wulfe twin rotor helicopter being flown in a large gymnasium by German female pilot Hanna Reitsch. This helicopter was very large and complex looking with two large booms attached to the fuselage with a rotor system at the ends of the booms. Awkward looking  but it was very successful. As I searched further through my Luftwaffe  book I came across another very interesting twin rotor helicopter, the Flettner .In fact, I found that the Flettner was the only helicopter actually used in combat during World War II. It was so similar to the Kaman that I had seen years ago that I dug further into its history. I thought that I had found the inspiration that Kaman had used for his design. I researched both companies and found no association, so it appears that two aeronautical engineers had both come up with a similar concept. I dove into Google and Wikipedia  and this is what I learned.

“Intermeshing rotors on a helicopter are a set of two rotors turning in opposite directions, with each rotor mast mounted on the helicopter with a slight angle to the other, in a transversely symmetrical manner, so that the blades intermesh without colliding. The arrangement allows the helicopter to function without the need for a tail rotor. This configuration is sometimes referred to as a synchropter.

Boeing purchased the rights to the Piasecki design and used it in the Vertol series of helicopters used in great numbers by the military.

The arrangement was developed in Germany by Anton Flettner for a small anti-submarine warfare helicopter, the Flettner Fl 265 and later the Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri. During the Cold War the American Kaman Aircraft company produced the HH-43 Huskie, for USAF firefighting purposes. One example of the Kaman K-225 experimental synchropter was fitted with a small turboshaft engine in late 1951, becoming the world’s first gas turbine powered helicopter of any type. Intermeshing rotored helicopters have high stability and powerful lifting capability. The latest Kaman K-MAX model is a dedicated sky crane design used for construction worK.

Hmm….now I know why 80% of RC model helicopters use two rotors, one mounted on top of the other but turning in opposite directions. They are far simpler to fly than a scale helicopter with one rotor and a tail rotor. This concept also answers the reason why aeronautical engineer Piasecki developed the “Flying Banana” which was purchased by Boeing and is now known as the Boeing Vertol. Same principal, cancelled torque forces. I decided to learn a little more about the Kaman Company which appears to be well known in the lifting industry but not used in personal transportation that I can recall.

“Charles Huron Kaman was a 26-year-old engineer in 1945 when he founded Kaman Aircraft Company in the garage of his mother’s West Hartford, Connecticut home with $2,000 invested by two friends. He started the company to demonstrate a new rotor concept he devised to make helicopters more stable and easier to fly. Over the next half-century, Mr. Kaman built the company into a worldwide leader in the aviation industry. Kaman Aircraft, now Kaman Corporation, has become a billion-dollar company.

A pioneer in rotary-winged flight and one of Connecticut’s great inventors and innovators, Kaman achieved many breakthroughs, including the first gas turbine-powered helicopter, the first twin-turbine-powered helicopter, the first remotely controlled helicopter and the first all-composite rotor blade. Over the years his helicopters set numerous records for performance and altitude.”

It appears that there are two helicopter industries at work in this country, and Kaman is the one known for heavy duty work horses or the truck version of a helicopter. I also learned that it was Kaman who finally perfected the remotely piloted helicopter to join our fleet of drones which, like it or not, have already changed the face of aerial combat.

Red Tails Movie Poster

1944. To help win the war, the Pentagon brass has no choice but to consider the untested African-American pilots of the experimental Tuskegee training program. Just as the young Tuskegee men are about to be shut down and shipped back home, they are given the ultimate chance to show their courage. These intrepid young airmen take to the skies to fight for their country – and the fate of the free world. — (C) Official Site

Veiw the official Trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpA6TC0T_Lw&feature=colike

Red Tails Trailer

During World War II, Germany used rotary wing kites towed behind ships to raise antennae and provide improved distant vision.

At least every year or so some entrepreneur gets a brilliant idea. “Let’s market an auto gyro. They can do everything that a helicopter can do except maybe VTO, hover, fly backward  and they cost a whole lot less.” So they dig up non aviation investors, sink millions into the latest Whiz Bang Gyro and everybody loses money, ’cause autogyros do work as ultralights, but cannot compete with helicopters. When Sikorsky finally perfected a simple helicopter in early 1930s he effectively killed off the autogyros that were in use at that time. Two firms Kellett and Pitcairn were building auto gyros and having minor success with them. During the early years of World War II the German’s invented or adopted the auto gyro principal to a rotary wing kite which they towed behind surfaced submarines. This provided an eye in the sky to spot surface craft that could not be seen from the submarine. The high flying copter glider would also tow an antenna high in the sky to greatly increase the range of radio signals. The simple rotating wing kite could be assembled on the deck of the submarine and towed aloft. When the mission was complete the kite would be retrieved, dismantled and stored for its next use.  A simple solution for a complex problem.

This is a drawing of the forces needed to create motion from the rotary blades.

After the war the autogyro was basically dead in the water with all development being invested in helicopters which did what autogyros wanted to do but couldn’t. Never say never! Igor Benson, an aviation scientist in North Carolina, took the German rotary wing kite and started manufacturing kits for the glider. He them added a small two stroke drone engine as a pusher and a whole new industry was launched, the Benson gyrocopter. It was a fabulous success with young and old alike. It was super easy to build or assemble and very inexpensive to buy. The rotor head was very simple and used flexible blades to handle the various air loads blades are subjected to. Direction control was  obtained by shifting or moving the whole rotor head in the direction you wanted to go. Yaw was handled with the rudder pedals. Vertical movement was controlled by application of power or lowering of power which slowed down the forward motion of the gyro reducing lift. The blades of an autogyro are unpowered during flight but are spun by air passing from beneath them up and through the blades causing them to spin. A helicopter is a true rotary wing which uses powered blades which are moveable to change pitch. When the power is cut on a helicopter it reverts to autogyro status and as it falls downward air rushing up through the blades keep them spinning. When the unpowered helicopter is close to the ground the pilot increases the angle of attack of the rotor blades which provide a short period of lift as the helicopter settles to the ground. It is called autorotation as explained above. The pilot has one chance at it as the application of angle of attack will eventually stop the blades. In order to rotate the helicopter must be traveling forward at a certain minimum speed or be high enough to auto rotate. A pilot can use a combination of forward speed and height to auto rotate to a safe landing. I apologize to rotary wing   pilots for the simplified explanation of a complex subject.

Dr. Igor Benson used German glider principles to design and market his successful Benson Gyrocopter. Hundreds are still flying.

The military has been perfecting various combinations of helicopter and fixed wing aircraft. Designers have used auxiliary engines in the rear turning a pusher prop to increase the speed. They have pivoted the rotor heads so that they can be used for forward propulsion once in the air. It is safe to say that the entrepreneurs have not given up on trying to sell the obsolete autogyro and it appears that many hybrid aircraft/autogyros and helicopters are being designed as we speak.

I personally learned about autogyros over 60 years ago when I built a four foot model of a de Ciervo autogyro. I tried every combination possible of slanted pylon and various degrees of positive angle of attack and no way could I get the rotors to spin. One day I accidently put on the rotary wing upside down (negative angle of attack)  and when I launched it the darn think flew, and it flew very well. I still have copies of 1950 magazines with pictures of my auto gyro flying.  For model builders reading this it was powered with a McCoy .29 engine and was control line but, this model was so stable that it flew without any lines attached. By luck  I had used flexible steel wire to attach the blades to the rotor, this allowed them to move in all directions. No skill was involved just dumb luck.

Many firms in the 1920s and early 1930s produced their versions of the Cierva autogyro.

All around the world homebuilders and ultralighters are having a blast flying their small gyrocopters, either solo or with a passenger. They love them for what they are.

The Quicksilver is the grand daddy of the ultralight movement. The Mk II has conventional controls and is a great flying aircraft. Hundreds were sold around the world.

I know that anyone who really wants to fly can attain his or her goals by creative pursuance of current aviation practices and policies. You need to know what you don’t need to learn to fly, that’s right, what you want and what you need are two widely separated variables. For example you do not need glass cockpits or expensive navigation systems to enjoy flying, in fact, too much technology detracts from the joy of flying. One way is to join a local club at your nearest FBO, savings, about 10% by buying blocks of time. Partnerships and cooperative ownership, hard to determine if any money is saved because your share of the airplane is not available to you when you want it; a whole lot of cooperation is needed in shared ownership, yet, with the right mix of owners  these cooperatives do enable one to own a more expensive aircraft. However, I cannot recommend this for anyone learning to fly. Much too complicated.

The Avid Flyer is one of a series of ultralights which were and still are very popular. It is a very good flying aircraft.

My all time favorite way to get into the air is still with a form of alternate aviation. A few years ago I wrote a book called Air Sports for McGraw Hill on the various types of flying, many didn’t even involve an aircraft. I have flown every type of an aircraft from a single place ultralight to a B-52, and they are all fun to fly. If you’re pissed at anyone a B-52 will vent your anger in a big hurry. I found that I did have some preferences and some downright dislikes, such as powered parachutes. But, let’s start at the beginning. An aircraft is an aircraft and a balloon is a balloon. A helicopter is a rotary wing and a gyro copter is a non powered rotary wing which gets its lift by air passing from the bottom to the top. Balloons are referred to as lighter than air while a parachute is a form of a wing in which the air is gathered in the envelop which slows down the descent. rectangular chutes are a form of a wing and produce some lift as they descend again slowing down the descent as well as allowing the chutist to maneuver the envelope. These are not of any use when it comes to learning to fly, but they do get you into the air, briefly.

The RV S-12 is an excellent kit to build an LSA legal homebuilt. The RV is highly regarded as a two place sport aircraft.

Now my favorite; conventional controlled ultralights. Some of the early ULs used shifting weight to control flight much like a hang glider does, ignore these. Some early Quick Silvers had spoilers on the wing controlled by the rudder pedals and the rudder and nose gear was controlled by the stick, left or right. If there are any of those still around avoid them. Later versions of the Quick Silver had conventional controls and were very good flying aircraft.  Nothing is ever perfect and any flying time you log in an Part 103 UL is non logable for flying time. Why? The FAA does not recognize ULs as aircraft but as airborne vehicles. But, in fact you will be getting some of the best flying experiences ever. Flying time logged in the newer LSA (light sport aircraft) is legal and logable however. There has been many changes in the rules for Ultralight Part 103 flying especially with two place training aircraft. Don’t attempt to do this by yourself. Find a club or a group and start participating on weekends with them.

There are some very nice ultralights around that are small aircraft with sailcloth wings and aluminum frames, some are even all aluminum. Engines, now that is the problem. Here are some thoughts on UL engines. Don’t even attempt to overhaul a single or twin cylinder two stroke Rotax which has been in storage. You should replace it with a modern four stroke engine of almost equal weight and horsepower. There are literally thousands of ultralights stored in hangars around the country. Replace the covering, simple on an ultralight, as they are sailcloth, no dope required. Replace the engine or have a firm such s Lockwood in Florida overhaul the four- stroke engine. Don’t fool around with a two-stroke.

This LSA is one of the top selling brands in the world. the Flight Design CT-2K is ready to fly, great way to learn to fly, and for sport flying for years to come.

The best way to get into aviation with a certified homebuilt or an LSA kit is by hooking up with an EAA Chapter in your area. I suggest you build or restore an aircraft that is LSA legal. Club members will help you get started. Modern kits such as those offered by RV are excellent and easy to build. Don’t give up your dream of learning to fly, search it out. All the info you need is right on your computer. Go to Google and type in: Ultralights, EAA Chapters, Homebuilt LSA aircraft. Experimental Aircraft, Building your own aircraft and all the info you need will be right in front of you. You can also look online for used LSA aircraft; they are starting to hit the market now at greatly reduced prices. Don’t give up, go for it. NG

The Cessna 162 is Cessna's entry level LSA. It was recently priced at $160,000.

Flying is one of the few hobbies, sport or fun activities that does not have an entry level event or objects needed to participate at affordable lower end price ranges. In other words you have to have a large amount of money just to try out the sport to see if you like it. Not only that, you have to devote a lot of time and money, maybe only to find out you are not suitable for the sport or activity and the money is wasted. Even the services during World War II had a weeding-out process, before they spent thousands teaching young folks to be military pilots. It didn’t take the Navy long to figure out if a cadet was going to be pilot material or would be happier as a navigator or bombardier. The PT-17 and the J-3 Cub quickly figured that out. Today there are very limited methods that a potential pilot can determine if he really wants to be a pilot. There are ways but not very attractive prospects in everyone’s mind. The problem of high cost flying continues to plaque the industry.

The Cessna 162 has a glass panel which increases the price.

For instance I have just finished reading the latest Cessna release regarding a price increase on their made-in-China entry level LSA, the Cessna 162. They sure named it correctly, as the new price is approximately $162,000. This is so out of whack with what entry level aircraft should cost that they might as well pull the plug on the whole LSA program. The only possible sales of this overpriced airplane is to large flying schools who want to put it on their line for the very occasional LSA pilot. To be profitable the 162 will have to fly from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm  every day and we all know that is not going to happen. In fact, the whole LSA program has been suspect in my mind for a very long time, way too much money for a certificate that is really pretty restricted. Everyone knows this except the FAA who believe that more controls, more avionics, more technical cockpit training is the answer. Wrong! Just the opposite is true. The feds have managed to kill any desire to learn to fly in thousands of young people. Let’s go back to the big boom in pilot starts that occurred in 1946 to 1950. Huge numbers of returning service men and women headed for the local airport with proof of service and they were taught to fly FREE. At that time, the world thought that every house large and small would have a garage/hangar complete with a $800 new car and a $900 new airplane. Literally hundreds of new aircraft companies were setting up shop. City governments were planning on installing new runways at housing developments. But nothing like that ever happened. A huge number of veterans learned to fly. And then a huge number of the same veterans forgot all about flying. It was fun when it was free, but fairly useless when it cost them money to either buy a plane or rent one.

The Piper J-3 Cub is LSA legal and makes an excellent sport aircraft to restore.

The second big jump in aviation participation was in the early 1970s when a few inventive pilots took their little two-stroke engines out of their homebuilt go-carts, put a propeller on them and installed them on their hang gliders. Talk about instant aviation growth, the number of minimum aircraft doubled and tripled almost overnight. Everyone had to have an  ultralight. Why? They were fun to fly. They were cheap and the FAA had bowed out; let the damn fools kill themselves. The FAA would not even call them aircraft, they were vehicles that could take off. But the fatal accidents continued to rise. The nationally broadcast 20/20 magazine news show crucified the entire ultralight movement. Then the opposition came out f the wood work condemning the sport as way to dangerous. The FAA was then forced to put in place the new Part 103 rules  in an attempt to coral the mavericks and downsize the accidents. The opposite happened, the movement slowed to  a standstill . Only a handful of diehards kept it going on a very limited basis up to and including today.

During this era, I was the editor of several ultralight magazines and I wrote about these little airplanes. I flew them all, and you know what? I had a ball. A large number of the surviving pilots, who had taught themselves how to fly, were remarkably good pilots. They didn’t know much about aeronautical science but they knew how to fly the plane and they flew them very well. Many made the homebuilt crowd look like amateurs as they skillfully piloted their tiny craft through complex maneuver; then at the end of the flight greased them on the runway. They had no license, no insurance, their planes were not certified or inspected, but they flew and they flew well. Certainly many were killed or injured, but they knew the risks when they started. But the good news was that a huge number became certified pilots and bought or built their own aircraft.

The CGS Hawk Sport is a very nice flying ultralight. There are many around just waiting to be restored.

You want to revitalize flying? Drastically reduce the price, red tape and let the young people get started in aviation. It’s that simple. I am sure that there are more folk killed or injured while snow boarding or off-roading or even rock climbing, than flying ultralights. But nobody seems to care about these folks.

The Polish fighter was used during the invasion of Poland by the Germans. It was not successful.

Over the years there has been some very interesting gull wing airplanes and some unusual ones. But, why a gull wing? Let’s look at some of the most well known and some rare gull wing aircraft. My first association with a gull wing aircraft was a model airplane I built of the prewar 1930s Polish Fighter the PZL P1 gull wing monoplane.  A large number of my 5th grade class were Polish and I instantly became their hero for building “one of their airplanes.” When the newspaper or Movietone News showed a Polish Fighter downing a Stuka  (very rare occurrence) the house exploded. My Polish friends were fanatics. I built it because the gull wing added to the dihedral effect and lowered the center of gravity which made the rubber band model fly better. Years later my late friend Harry Apoian built a quarter size Polish Figher on floats and told everyone that it had participated in the battle of Warsaw Harbor. That was Harry.

The Curtiss XP-10 was built to give better visibility to the pilots of biplanes whose view was restricted by the upper wing.

The gull wing profile was chosen for both the Polish Fighter and the Curtiss XP-10 for the simple reason that by raising the wing with a middle gull section the visibility both forward and upwards was greatly increased for the pilot. I have built many Stinson Reliants with gull wings and everyone was an exceptional flyer. But the interesting part is that the Stinson Gullwing is the most widely known is not a gull wing at all. The shape of the wing is the result of a highly tapered main spar which greatly reduces the height of the airfoil where it attaches to the cabin, this was the reason for the change in spar size. The result was that the wing had a gull wing look and was an instant hit with buyers of large five passenger business aircraft. I have flown many Stinson Reliants over the years and it is a fine flying aircraft, slow but comfortable. During WWII Stinson built large numbers of the V-77 for England who used the big gull wing for executive transport. These were repurchased after the war and converted by Stinson back to SR-10s from their V-77 configuration.

One of my favorite biplane manufacturers has always been Curtiss. This firm knew what a biplane was supposed to look like, they had some real sexy biplanes making the Grumman and Boeing versions look like flying fire plugs. The XP-10 was first flown in June of 1929. it was supposed to be a great improvement over their regular Hawks by providing improved visibility down and up for the pilot. The aircraft had the very powerful Curtiss V-1370 600 hp engine. The plane proved to be a bit faster than a stock Hawk but not fast enough to warrant the extra work needed in fabricating the gull portion of the wing. The XP-10 was scrapped, what a shame. Once again the designers trying to save a little work for themselves installed the poor performing wing surface radiators which didn’t work properly before.

The World War II Vought Corsair was the most famous gull wing fighter.

Vought Corsair and Junkers in Germany used the gull wing with great success on the Stuka dive bomber and /Corsair Navy and Marine fighter. Both used the gull as a method of raising the propeller without the use of overlong landing gear legs. The Stuka also had a huge bomb slung beneath the engine and used a fixed gear. Corsair had retracts but suffered from shock absorber problems until new struts were redesigned.

Yes, Mother Nature already figured out that gull wings were indeed a great asset to good flying qualites, aviation engineers simply borrowed the master’s design.

Curtiss XP-10

General characteristics Curtiss XP-10

• Crew: one pilot
• Length: 24 ft 6 in
• Wingspan: 33 ft
• Height: 10 ft 10 in
• Wing area: 238 ft²
• Empty weight: approx. 2,900 lb
• Max takeoff weight: 3,400 lb
• Engine:× V-1570 Conqueror water-cooled 12-cylinder vee, 600 hp

Performance

• Maximum speed: 150 knots 173 mph
• Cruise speed: 113 knots, 130 mph
• Range: 195 mi 170 NM
• Service ceiling: 19,610 ft
• Rate of climb: 1,940 ft/min

Oil millionaire Cox commissioned Curtiss to build a racing monoplane which morphed into the Texas Kitten triplane.

World War One was noted for biplanes and triplanes of all varieties you could think possible. Everyone has their favorite theory of why triplanes did so well in aerial combat, AKA dog fighting. Two words defined the reasons, quick maneuvering and fast climbing ability. Efficiency of wings and a powerful engine will provide a fast climb and short wings with high aspect ratios will provide fast maneuvering. Not many folks realize that it wasn’t Anthony Fokker’s well known DR-1 Triplane which was responsible for three wing fever but the 1916 Sopwith Tripe which convinced the Germans to build their own triplane to level the playing field, the Sopwith Tripe was that good. It was rather a weird looking bird due to the different type of wing construction and attachment to the fuselage which was basically the same as the Sopwith Pup  biplane. The answer was in the wings.

The Sopwith Triplane preceded the Fokker Triplane. Its success prompted Fokker to build their own.

The most effecient wings in the world are those found on high performance gliders. They are very long and very narrow which gives them the high aspect ratio needed for efficiency.  These wings are not fast as they offer to much frontal drag due to their length. But they excel at finding lift and have inherent very high glide ratios. Sopwith took these specifications and designed a set of three wings for use on the Pup fuselage. He also mounted the top wing very high. By adding short narrow wings, he was able to tap into the high lift of the aspect ratio and the quick turning ratio of shorter wings. He needed the extra third wing for the added lift. It worked. The Tripe was a climbing fool and could whip around almost in its own length and evade the early German fighters. The Fokker triplane was designed and built very rapidly because of the Tripe and had an almost immediate impact on the air battles of World War I. It is odd that by the time 1918 came along the Germans had gone in the opposite direction and had built their new Fokker D-VIII monoplane parasol fighter. This was the ultimate dog fighter but, the Germans had lost the air war and the armistice was only months away. When the war had ended, the aircraft that everyone remembered was the Fokker Triplane. It had found its place in aviation history.

When peace had finally settled around the world the aviation community turned to what it loves best, air racing. In 1909 Glenn Curtiss had won the Gordon Bennet race in one of his biplanes. In 1920 a Texas oil millionaire contracted with Curtiss to build him a racing monoplane to enter in France’s Gordon Bennet race to be held in September 1920. He chose Curtiss due to their racing experience and their new 400 hp Challenger engine. The Texas Wildcat was a high wing monoplane with an unusual thin elliptical airfoil. The wing had struts that attached to the end of the wheel axels. In addition, the Wildcat had a cockpit with a forward sliding canopy which preceded its use in military and racing aircraft by ten years as did the symmetrical wing. The Wildcat was state of the art, but it didn’t work. The test flight revealed a super long take off roll and in flight instability which the test pilot blamed on the wing section. Curtiss engineers, working on orders from Cox, had the Morane factory in France build them a new set of biplane wings. This proved to solve the problems but the prototype aircraft was rolled up in a ball due to landing gear failure. Everything Cox and Curtiss was shipped back to the United States.,

The Fokker Triplane ended up being the most recognized aircraft of World War I.

The owner of the Texas Wildcat then decided to change the name and to transform it once again. Enter the Sopwith and Fokker triplane influence. The new Cox Kitten was a triplane using cut down biplane wings. The new Cox Kitten was entered in the 1921 Pulitzer Trophy race and came in second. The winner was a Curtiss racing biplane. Cox decided to go back to producing money via oil wells and sold the Cox Kitten triplane to the US Navy for a dollar. They used it for training for upcoming Navy seaplane races. That ended the triplane era of our aviation history.