Vintage Airplane - Sep 2011

8/20/2019 Vintage Airplane - Sep 2011

1/43

SEPTEMBER 2011


2/43

Our L-4 was based in the US During WWII from 1943 to 1945. We bought

it early this year and have enjoyed every minute of it. The stearman was built

in 1942 during WWII and we have owned it since 1975.

Owning and operating antique aircraft has been a part of our family for 3

generations going back to 1963 when my father Tom bought a Piper Tri-

pacer. Our family has owned aircraft ever since. Our aviation roots rundeep in this family, and that is why we choose AUA as our agency. They

have a long distinguished record of service with the types of aircraft we

operate, and understand our problems and concerns.

— Mark Henley

The Henley’s Mark,Tanner, and Johnathan

■ Mark is an ATP and has beena pilot since 1976

■ Tanner is a student pilot whoflies every chance she gets

■ Jonathan is 18 and has beena private pilot for one year

a

n s A

U


3/43

2 Straight & Level A wonderful week and a heartfelt set of thank-yous by Geoff Robison

3 News

5 Friends of the Red Barn 2011

6 A Handsome 1947 Piper Super Cruiser Paying tribute to aviation’s role in pipeline patrol by Sparky Barnes Sargent

14 Lloyd Stearman His airplanes and his legacy by Philip Handleman

20 Tribute to a Classic Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz reborn in Germany by Stefan Degraef and Edwin Borremans

24 Light Plane Heritage De Havilland’s Little Birch by Bob Whittier

30 The Vintage Instructor It’s all in the feet by Steve Krog, CFI

32 The Vintage Mechanic Engine cowls for drag reduction—Part 2 by Robert G. Lock

36 Mystery Plane by H.G. Frautschy

A I R P L A N E SEPTEMBER

C O N T E N T S

S T A F FEAA Publisher Rod Hightower

Director of EAA Publications Mary JonesExecutive Director/Editor H.G. Frautschy

Production/Special Project Kathleen WitmanPhotography Jim Koepnick

Copy Editor Colleen WalshSenior Art Director Olivia P. Trabbold

Publication Advertising:Manager/Domestic, Sue Anderson

Tel: 920 426 6127 Email: sanderson@eaa org

Vol. 39, No. 9 2011

20

6


4/43

It was really rejuvenating to get

out of town for a good long

while and take some time in

aviation’s mecca. It was great to

visit with all of my wonderful avia-

tion friends from across the globe.

We all experienced many fantastic

events at Oshkosh this year, and it

is always a highlight to share themwith so many of the attendees at Air-

Venture every year, but this was really

one of the best. As Bob Hope always

sang, “Thanks for the memories.”

This year’s event was really fun for

me. We saw some wonderful aircraft

restorations come our way, and they

kept our judges pretty busy. Cap-ping off the week was the spectacu-

lar Saturday night air show; it was

everything it was promised to be. I

have personally witnessed some re-

ally amazing fireworks in my days,

but never have I seen such a unique

pyrotechnics show as we had during

this year’s AirVenture. The devices

they are setting off are far more ad-

vanced than what we normally see at

the local 4th of July fireworks show;

it was nothing short of phenomenal!

Great show, guys! It was a real crowd-

pleaser. Spread the word, and be sure

a single field with at least 100 Cubs

all parked together. The response

from the many Cub owners has al-

ready been quite impressive. Be sure

to come and join in the fun! P.S. If

your Cub isn’t yellow, that’s quite all

right; we’ve got a spot for you, too!

Feel free to join us.

Congratulations to the staff andleadership of EAA for yet again put-

ting together such an excellent event

for us all to enjoy. I don’t know how

you continue to do this each year,

but it just seems to always to be better

than the last one. Of course, I can’t

fail to mention here the many vol-

unteers who show up every year andgive so much of their time to the or-

ganization to assist us in making it all

happen. Your collective and individ-

ual efforts are so greatly appreciated.

We hope to see you all back next year

for yet another week of great fun.

As many of you are aware, each

year the Vintage Aircraft Association

issues two prestigious awards to rec-

ognize our VAA Volunteers of the

Year. This year’s Flight Line Volunteer

of the Year was awarded to longtime

VAA volunteer Dale Masters. Dale,

your dedicated service to this organi-

teers not only food and beverages,

but also her friendly personality and

warm smile. You are greatly appre-

ciated by all of our volunteers, Pat!

Thanks for your service. Along with

the award, each recipient of the Art

Morgan Memorial Volunteer of the

Year award receives a free one-year

membership to the Vintage AircraftAssociation and a commemorative

clock. Congratulations to you both!

I want to close this month’s col-

umn with a personal note recognizing

our past president and now current

chairman emeritus of EAA. As many

of you are now aware, Tom Poberezny

has elected to retire from his respon-sibilities with the EAA. Tom served

our parent organization admirably

throughout his tenure as president

since 1989, and has worked for EAA in

one capacity or another for a total of

49 years of service to the organization

his father founded in 1953. Through-

out many of the years we’ve been in

Oshkosh I have had the distinct plea-

sure of working with him. No one has

ever done more for the Vintage Air-

craft Association than Tom and his

father, Paul. I will sincerely miss work-

ing with him, and my memories of

Geoff Robison

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VAA

STRAIGHT & LEVEL

A wonderful week and aheartfelt set of thank-yous


5/43

training attendance alone does not

satisfy those requirements.

2) Complete Federal Aviation Ad-

ministration (FAA) Form 8610-1,Me-

chanic’s Application for Inspection Au-thorization, in duplicate.

3) Show evidence the applicant

meets the requirements of §65.93(a)

for both the first and second year in

the form of an activity sheet or log,

training certificates, and/or oral test

results, as applicable.

According to the FAA, the re-

quirement for other activity besides

a refresher training course has al-

ways been an FAA regulatory re-

quirement per FAR 65.93(a) that re-

quires the applicant continue to be

“actively engaged” as a mechanic

by meeting FAR 65.91 paragraphs

(c)(1) through (c)(4), but the docu-

mentation for that requirement hasbeen inconsistently applied by the

FAA field offices due to the previ-

ous definition lacking clarity. Part

of the reason for issuing the revised

policy is to make the requirement

for “actively engaged” beyond the

refresher course clearer. When re-

vised the new language clarifyingthe definition of “actively engaged”

within 8900.1 will read:

NOTE: Actively engaged means an

active role in exercising the privileges of

an airframe and powerplant mechanic

certificate in the maintenance of civil

aircraft. Applicants who inspect,

overhaul, repair, preserve, or

replace parts on aircraft, or

who supervise (i.e., direct and

inspect) those activities, are ac-

tively engaged. The ASI may use

evidence or documentation provided

by the applicant showing inspection,

cated and maintained in accordance

with 14 CFR, can be considered ac-

tively engaged. Individuals instruct-

ing in a FAA part 147 AMT school,

who also engage in the maintenanceof aircraft-related instruction equip-

ment maintained in accordance with

14 CFR standards, can be considered

actively engaged.

Read the second sentence care-

fully (we’ve put it in bold type); it

does not quantify the amount of

work that must be done, it simply

states that any of those activities

is viewed by the FAA as “actively

engaged.” In other words, if you

touch an aircraft once a year to per-

form maintenance within the scope

of practice as an A&P-IA, you’ve

met the definition of “actively en-

gaged” and need only to meet the

requirements of 65.91 (the regula-tion under which an Inspection Au-

thorization is initially issued) and

65.93 (a)(1), or (2), or (3), or (4), or

(5) to be eligible for renewal.

65.93 reads, in part:

(a)…In addition, during the time

the applicant held the inspection au-

thorization, the applicant must showcompletion of one of the activities in Sec.

65.93(a)(1) through (5) below by March

31 of the first year of the 2-year inspec-

tion authorization period, and comple-

tion of one of the five activities during

the second year of the 2-year period:

As explained to us by the FAA,

this means that an A&P mechanic

with an inspection authorization

who performs a single annual, re-

places a single part on an aircraft,

supervises A&P activities, etc. each

year (which means they are, as de-

fined by the new note added to the

We’ll continue to monitor the

implementation of the new pol-

icy published for the FAA’s Flight

Standards Management System

FAA Order 8900.1. Members whoare directly impacted by this policy

are encouraged to send us notes

describing their experiences at

[email protected] , or you can

post your comments on the VAA’s

Red Barn section of the new EAA

Forums website, www.EAAForums.org .

Hightower Provides a Look

to the Future

EAA members can expect to see

a Young Eagles-style program for

adults and a national network of

flying clubs, said EAA President/

CEO Rod Hightower at his AirVen-

ture forum.

The jury is still out on what

the “adult eagles” program will be

called, but Hightower noted that

many people have told him they

Rod Hightower talks with members

about EAA’s future during hisAirVenture forum.


6/43

TM

Diamond Plus LevelGordon Anderson

Charles W. Harris

Matt and Ken Hunsaker

Robert “Bob” LumleyBill and Saundra Pancake

Rick Princell

Wes Schmid

John R. Turgyan

VAA Chapter 10, Tulsa, OK

Diamond LevelJonathan and Ronald Apfelbaum

John W. Cronin Jr.

Richard and Sue Packer

Ben Scott

Ronald E. Tarrson

Platinum Level

Al Hallett

Tom Hildreth

A.J. Hugo

Peter Jensen Jr.

John KephartMark Kolesar

Sarah and Bill Marcy

Dan and Denise Osterhouse

Brad Poling

Roger P. Rose

Carson E. Thompson

Dwayne and Sue Trovillion

Bronze LevelLloyd Austin

L. Tom Baker

Lt. Col. (Ret) Hobart Bates

Dennis and Barbara Beecher

Logan Boles

Bob Kellstrand

Rich Kempf

Dan and Mary Knutson

Marc Krier

Lynn and Gerry LarkinJimmy Leeward

Ballard Leins

Barry Leslie

Joseph Leverone Jr.

Gerald Liang

Russ Luigs

Thomas H. Lymburn

Helen Mahurin

Pfizer Foundation

Roscoe Morton

Steve Moyer

Lynn Oswald

Steven and Judith Oxman

Dwain Pittenger

Jan Douglas Wolfe

Dan Wood

Wynkoop Airport

Supporter LevelCam BlazerCharles Burtch

Rolly Clark

Camille Cyr

Bruce Denney

Geff Galbari

Bruce Graham

Richard Heim

Barry Holtz

Keith Howard

George Jenkins

Walter Kahn

Peter Karalus

John Koons

Thank you for your generous donations!

Friends of the Red Barn 2011STEVE CUKIERSKI


7/43

A Handsome 1947Piper Super Cruiser

Paying tribute to aviation’s role in pipeline patrol

BY SPARKY BARNES SARGENT


8/43

You might say

that Jim Ad-

ams of Pon-

tiac, Illinois,

is the proud

“ p a p a ” o f

one handsome Piper Su-

per Cruiser. After all, it’s

been part of his family

since 1963, and he just

completed its five and a

half year, ground-up resto-

ration. A retired Delta pi-

lot who finished his career

by flying Boeing 757s and

767s, Adams is one of thosegregarious fellows whose

affable laughter is conta-

gious. Within minutes of

meeting him, it’s apparent

that he’s, well…just having

too much fun, and loving

every moment.

His affinity for Cubsstarted years ago, and

eventually precipitated his

airline career. He recalls:

“I was a farm boy from

central Illinois, and some

of my earliest memories

are going with my bach-

elor uncle to air shows.

I had to sneak off as a

kid—I was probably 14—

and pay a guy to take

me for a ride, because

my mother would have

had a kitten if she’d have


9/43

got my private license! I soloed

an Aeronca Champ, immediately

followed by a J-3 Cub, and I have

loved Cubs ever since.”

Piper AircraftRight after World War II, Piper

vigorously fulfilled a leading role in

supplying aircraft for the booming

civilian market. The PA-12 proto-

type was test-flown by Clyde Smith

Sr. in the fall of 1945, and the model

entered production in 1946. The

Super Cruiser sold well; there were

In 1947, a pair of these (modi-

fied) Pipers would add new mean-

ing to the model’s name by making

a super cruise all the way around

the globe. George Truman and Clif-

ford Evans departed Teterboro, New

Jersey, on August 9 and completed

their world flight when they landed

back at Teterboro on December

10. Their 25,162-mile flight took

122 days, 23 hours, 4 minutes and

demonstrated to the world the de-

pendability and utility of private

airplanes. (“A 1947 Global Flyer— E S S A R G E N T

SPARKY BARNES SARGENT


10/43

decreased demand and overabun-dant supply.

Super Cruiser NC2827M (s/n 12-1306) rolled

outside the Lock Haven factory

on December 17, 1946, just seven

months after a devastating flood

nearly swallowed the manufactur-ing plant, which was located in a val-

ley alongside the Susquehanna River.

NC2827M was powered by a 100-hp

Lycoming O-235C, with a Sensenich

wood prop, according to the facto-

ry’s final inspection form. Just two

days later, it was purchased by Henry

Brown of Rochelle, Illinois, and it

stayed in Illinois until 1954, when it

went to Wisconsin. It quickly went

through more than half a dozen

owners and remained in Wiscon-

sin until September 1963, when the

Rossville Flyers of Illinois (Jim Adams

Close-up view of the old trim system.

Fuselage with fabric and metalized headliner.

The aft section of the fuselage, af-

ter the old fabric was removed—

note the wood stringers.

P H O T O S C O U R T E S Y J I M A

D A M S


11/43

Restoration InspirationIn 2004, it occurred to him that

it just might be a good idea to thor-

oughly rejuvenate NC2827M. “Ihad flown our grandkids in this

Super Cruiser and thought, ‘This

thing has only been re-covered—it’s

never been completely torn down.

Maybe we ought to look at it.’ So

here it is, Tuesday, July 28 [2010],

at Oshkosh, and we just finished it

Friday! We flew it here on Sunday,and it took us exactly one hour and

eight minutes. The engine and air-

frame total time is 1,368.4, and I

have all the logs, starting right with

the build sheet from the factory—

Clyde Smith Jr. got that for me, and

I’m really tickled with that! I’ve got

every little piece of paper that’s ever

had anything to do with it.”

Adams decided to retain many of

the PA-12’s original features, while

updating it for safety, utility, and

cabin comfort. He also owned a

PA-18 Super Cub at the time, and

The wing and cowling have been painted Tennessee Red. (The pipeline pa-

trol Super Cub that Adams sold to his friend is in the background.)

Updated avionics and radio were neatly combined with the original cream-

faced instruments.

The Super Cruiser, looking brand

new from nose to tail.

P H O T O S C O U R T E S Y J I M A

D A M S

S P A R K Y B A R N E S S A R G E

N T


12/43

your nose was outside watching for

pipeline leaks!”

Adams intended to finish the

PA-12, then restore the PA-18 so he

would have two airplanes to rep-

Romans’ Pipeline PatrolIn 1944, Gleason Romans Sr.

started a flying school and mainte-

nance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

He had five airplanes, which were

ties were pleased with the outcome,

and the engineer was enthusiastic

about this new aerial method of in-

specting pipelines for oil leaks and

encroaching vegetation.Romans then began cultivating

his concept into a thriving business.

His first patrol plane was a Taylor-

craft L2M, which he modified with

an extra fuel tank and an additional

window in the cabin portion of the

fuselage. As he acquired additional

contracts with oil companies, he

continued hiring pilots and buying

patrol airplanes.

This entrepreneur continually

studied ways to enhance the effec-

tiveness of his pipeline patrol, and

he developed some innovative de-

vices. One of his inventions was a

mechanical, electrically stabilized

aerial camera system.“I built a camera and ran a

5-inch-wide raw film across the slit.

It photographed 240 miles of pipe-

line on one roll of film as the aircraft

flew over the pipeline. It was sort

of phenomenal,” recalls Romans

with a chuckle, “and the pipeline

companies liked it. We had to syn-chronize the camera with the air-

craft, so another person would use

a view finder to regulate the speed

of the film as the pilot flew patrol.

We installed a gyro in it, and the

camera was mounted in a gimbaled

ring inside the airplane’s belly, so

the camera stayed straight no mat-

ter what the airplane did. The pilot

flew at 2,000 feet AGL directly over

the right-of-way to take the picture.

That gave us a 1/2-mile width on the

picture, which the pipeline compa-

nies used to count houses along the

The front cover of a Gleason Romans

Pipe Line Patrol Company catalog, the

logo and a photograph taken with the

aerial camera system he invented.

Right: Gleason Romans Pipe Line

Patrol Company logo—note the mul-

titasking bee peering through binoc-

ulars to detect oil leaks, and the oil

derrick in the background.

Fuselage with fabric and metalized headliner.


13/43

mans chuckls and re-

plies, “Oh yes, I was

on standby in Tulsa

to fly emergency pa-

t ro l f l ights . Theycalled me to go out

and find something

wrong with a pipeline. So I set sail in

a J-3 Cub, flying south over this pipe-

line. I came to the top of a little hill,

and I could see that down below, it

was solid black. So I went back and

called them, and they sent a crew

down there, and I went with them.

It was a total black swamp, with oil

inches thick, and we took boots and

waded in there to stop the leak. I was

smoking cigarettes at that time, and I

started to light a cigarette, and there

was dead silence,” he recalls, laugh-

ing and explaining. “That caught

my attention, and I didn’t light up.If I’d lit up we’d all been gone! The

gas cloud over the oil would have

exploded.”

Pilots sometimes encountered an-

other problem while patrolling. “We

had a lot of liability problems with tur-

keys,” recalls Romans. “They’d fly one

way and then the other [in front ofus], as we flew over [the line]. But cat-

tle would get accustomed to us; they

wouldn’t run from us as we patrolled at

about 500 feet. You can tell more about

what you’re looking at from 500 feet,

or as close as we could get without it

blurring with the naked eye.”

At the height of Romans’s busi-

ness, he had 21 airplanes flying from

at least eight locations coast to coast

and from the Gulf of Mexico to Can-

ada, serving about 30 oil compa-

nies. By the late 1950s, his aircraft

had flown more than 1 million miles

appeared in The Southern Aviator, Sep-

tember, 2006.]

Modifications

If Romans were here today to see

the PA-12 that Adams has config-

ured to honor the pipeline patrol, he

would likely be quite pleased with

Adams’ interest and efforts to pro-

mote awareness of this unique facet

of aviation history.

The Super Cruiser was Adams’s

first restoration project, and with

the help of two A&Ps—Lovell Pull-

iam and Harry Pick—he included nu-merous modifications to the airframe

and engine. “We increased visibility

by putting a pipeline patrol window

in a seaplane door, which replaced

the original door; installing a skylight

and diagonal cross-brace in the cabin

overhead; and extending the rear

windows by 16 inches. I’m sure theywould have done that for pipeline pa-

trol; Romans was pretty safety con-

scious. And I think they would have

put the ’47 square windshield in it,

like we did, because the ’46 had a lit-

tle round windshield, and man, that’s

right where you want visibility. We

also installed micro vortex generators

and strobes on the wingtips and belly.

I just used the things I thought they’d

use for safety, while having a little fun

with it and honoring them.”

Additional modifications were

made in the engine room, and for

PA-12 trim was notori-

ous for having a cable

slipping—the double

cable of the PA-18 sys-

tem cured that.”O n e g l a n c e i n -

side the cabin reveals

even more customized features. The

updated avionics and radio neatly

combine with the original cream-

faced instruments, giving the panel

a nostalgic yet modern appearance.

“It could be the only PA-12 with

color weather radar,” chuckles Ad-

ams, explaining, “I have the Air-

Gizmos Box, a Garmin 396 and XM

Weather.” Cabin enhancements in-

clude new plywood floor panels, an

Airtex interior, and inertia reel shoul-

der harnesses. A metalized headliner,

finished in plain polyurethane primer

gray, matches the interior.After installing new aluminum

ribs and stringers, as well as a wing

flap kit, Adams tackled the fabric in-

stallation. “I’m so impressed with

the Superflite System VI,” he com-

ments, explaining, “it’s so simple.

I’ve never covered or painted any-

thing in my life, and I’m proud ofthe way it turned out. I used an

HVLP for painting, and it’s just easy

to do, and easy to repair. I found out

real quick how easy it was to repair.

My buddy was using a ratchet screw-

driver, which is like a lawn dart, and

it slipped out of his hand and went

right through the gear. Two hours

later, I had attached the fabric patch

and repainted it with an airbrush. I

couldn’t believe it went that well.”

Adams’ Piper PatrolSmiling happily, Adams declares

MIKE STEINEKE


14/43


15/43Sometimes little things reveal the

most about a person’s character.

which had a nagging squeak.

The letter was succinct and un-

vin Michael, ultimately took three

educational sabbaticals that culmi-

Lloyd StearmanHis airplanes and his legacy

BY PHILIP HANDLEMAN

O ’ H A R A

C O L L E C T I O N / E A A

A R C H

I V E S - B

O B S

T E E L E


16/43

position at E.M. “Matty” Laird’s air-

plane company in Wichita. Lloyd,

a native Kansan, wasted no time in

applying, for he knew by then that

his heart was in aviation.Up to that point, Lloyd hadn’t

had much luck completing what

he had started. His civil engineer-

ing studies at Kansas State Agricul-

tural College were interrupted by

his enlistment in the Navy when

America entered World War I. Sim-

ilarly, his naval flight training in

the Curtiss N-9 flying boat con-cluded prematurely when the war

ended. Moreover,

his one-year stint

as an apprentic-

ing architect at a

firm in Wichita

seemed to be go-

ing nowhere.L a i rd r e c og -

nized underlying

qualities in the

young Lloyd Stea-

rman and hired

him to perform

a range of draft-

ing and engineer-ing duties. Little did anyone know in

those budding days that once in this

groove, Lloyd’s course would lead

eventually to his banding together

with various aggregations of extraor-

dinarily talented aviation trailblaz-

ers. Nor could anyone have foreseen

then that the dusty little prairie town

to which the scant but growing cadre

of air-minded visionaries gravitated

would become the “Air Capital of

the World,” much as Detroit ripened

into the automobile capital.

An eyewitness to the maiden

tractor. As a measure of his determi-

nation, Lloyd completed his flight

instruction at this time in one of

the very planes he was helping to

build.Three and a half years after Matty

Laird founded his company, he de-

parted due to a dispute with his

patron, local oil tycoon and pilot

Jacob Moellendick. Lloyd, who had

been one of Laird’s protégés, was

promoted to chief engineer of the

renamed Swallow Airplane Manu-

facturing Company. Lloyd’s knackfor design soon led to the New Swal-

low. This aircraft was a significant

upgrade of the baseline product.

The New Swallow was also mean-

ingfully differentiated from the

multitude of war-surplus Jennys, in

that it was configured to carry three

people, had only two wing struts per

side instead of four, and featured a

fully enclosed 90-hp liquid-cooled

Curtiss OX-5 engine. Publicity for

the highly regarded plane was en-

hanced by impressive exhibition

flights made by Walter Beech, a

transplanted Tennessean who had

In the face of Moellendick’s intran-

sigence, Beech and Lloyd sought

backing for a new company.

By the end of 1924, the two frus-

trated men had made the roundsand persuaded several people to

support their venture. One was a

much-admired, self-taught pilot

who had been entertaining crowds

at air shows across the prairie land-

scape for a dozen years. Interest-

ingly, that pilot had reputedly

flown the first plane Lloyd had ever

seen when he was growing up inHarper, Kansas. More recently, one

of Lloyd’s New

S w a l l o w s h a d

been purchased

a n d f l o w n b y

the pilot, Clyde

Cessna.

In early 1925,in a convergence

of aviation emi-

n e n c e s r a r e l y

replicated in the

industry’s long

and consequen-

tial history, Lloyd

Stearman, Wal-ter Beech, Clyde Cessna, and as-

sorted other partners established the

Travel Air Manufacturing Company

in the back room of a Wichita mill-

ing plant. Cognizant of his greatest

strength, Lloyd retained his post as

chief engineer in the new company.

Lloyd stayed at Travel Air for not

quite two years, but in that time

he fathered the Travel Air A, BW,

2000/3000/4000 series of biplanes,

and the Type 5000 cabin mono-

plane. These models represented a

technological progression and ex-

Stearman lent his engineering expertise to the twin-boom Stearman-

Hammond Y-1 aircraft built in 1936 as part of the Bureau of Air Com-

merce’s “$700 safe, affordable” aircraft program.

O’HARA COLLECTION/EAA ARCHIVES-BOB STEELE


17/43

a 26-hour flight that spanned the

2,400 miles from Oakland, California,

to Oahu, Hawaii, in a Travel Air 5000

dubbed the Woolaroc .

Yet, amid the triumphs, tragedy

beset the up-and-coming designer/engineer. After a flight test of a

Model A on August 13, 1926, Lloyd

was taxiing to a hangar at Wichita’s

municipal airport when a collision

occurred. The aircraft’s propeller

struck local businessman George

Theis Jr., killing him.

Lloyd had eyeballed the airportgrounds from the cockpit, but simply

didn’t see the man who parked his

car close to the aircraft right-of-way

and then stepped out inattentively.

Lloyd was heartbroken and extremely

apologetic. In the end, the deadly oc-

currence was deemed an accident.

In October 1926, Lloyd moved

to Venice, California. He was drawn

by the desire to start his own com-

pany in the perennially good fly-

ing weather and favorable business

environment then endemic to the

Golden State. Lloyd was further mo-

A distinctively squared verti-

cal stabilizer and rudder became a

Stearman compositional hallmark.

Advances included wheel brakes

and hydraulic shock absorbers in

a fixed undercarriage. Additionally,the main landing gear legs were po-

sitioned to give a wide stance.

The biplane’s wings had differing

spans. In this sesquiwing configura-

tion, the top wing was considerably

longer than the lower wing. The C

series is perhaps best remembered

for its later variants that used pro-gressively more powerful air-cooled

radial engines.

Despite its outstanding prod-

ucts, the company was inade-

quately capitalized. Under the

circumstances, in 1927 Lloyd was

enticed to return to Wichita. Gen-

erous financing was offered by

Walter Innes Jr., a former business

partner. Lloyd’s company, still with

his name on the marquis, moved

into a large facility north of town.

The stylish Stearman biplanes

that had originated in California

constituted the aerial equivalents of

the period’s chauffeur-driven Rolls-

Royce and Duesenberg limousines.

Paradoxically, Lloyd, who was de-

scribed at the time by a Wichita

newspaper as “modest and unassum-ing,” helped to glamorize aviation.

The company’s success prompted

its takeover by the huge United Air-

craft & Transport syndicate. Under

the new ownership Lloyd remained

president of his company, but om-

inously, the transaction occurred

on August 4, 1929, less than threemonths prior to the stock market

collapse that reverberated from Wall

Street to Main Street and represented

the onset of the Great Depression.

At first, the giant holding com-

pany was undeterred. With its

backing, the Stearman subsidiary

proceeded with a major expansion

in Wichita. Operations were relo-

cated to a factory that doubled the

floor space of the existing facility.

However, production receded

unavoidably due to the faltering

economy. Lloyd pressed forward

The Stearman C3 biplane proved its mettle on the airmail routes of

the 1920s. This is Mike Williams’ beautiful restoration of a C3, kept

on a grass field in southwestern Wisconsin.JIM KOEPNICK


18/43

biplane configuration that mani-

fested elegance in its simplicity.

Lloyd’s new aircraft also preserved

the admirable Stearman tradition

of ruggedness and adaptability withpossible future growth in engine

size, weight, and horsepower.

Because of the drop-off in civil-

ian sales, the company looked to

the military as an important poten-

tial source for new orders. In 1930,

the Army Air Corps embarked on a

quest for a new trainer to replace its

Consolidated PT-3. Not coinciden-tally that same year, the Cloudboy

flew for the first time.

A couple of Cloudboys, desig-

nated XPT-912, were evaluated at

Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. By

the end of the year, Lloyd’s design

had sufficiently whetted the ser-

vice’s appetite that a contract wasissued for four additional aircraft,

with the designation YPT-9, to con-

duct further testing. The company

did not receive the hoped-for pro-

duction contract, but the Cloudboy

military trainer prototype was a cru-

cial step toward development of the

fabled Stearman primary trainer.In any case, Lloyd felt crimped

because he no longer called the

shots at his company, which now

was but one entity in a sprawling

conglomerate. For a while he con-

centrated on his forte of research

and development, but by summer

1931 his entrepreneurial impulses

prevailed. He left Wichita once

again for the seemingly greener

pastures of southern California.

In another confluence of aviation

wizards, Lloyd teamed with Walter

T. Varney, an airline executive whose

tors, bought Lockheed for the sum of

$40,000. (Yes, for less than today’s cost

of an F-22 wheel strut, Lloyd Stearman

and his associates bought the whole

company.) The bankruptcy judge re-

portedly said, “I sure hope you fellows

know what you’re doing.”

Meanwhile, back in Wichita, theStearman Aircraft Company was be-

ing run by its new president, Julius E.

Schaefer. One of the priorities was to

apply the lessons learned in the com-

pany’s loss of the Army trainer com-

petition and offer a winning design

for the next round of acquisitions.

Three company engineers—MacShort, Harold W. Zipp, and J. Jack

Clark—logically took Lloyd’s Cloud-

boy drawings and used them as the

predicate for their design work.

Among the changes they incor-

porated in Lloyd’s original layout

were a cantilevered landing gear

and installation of ailerons on the

lower wings only. Wingtips and tail

surfaces were no longer square but

round. For ease of production, they

stuck with the idea of using readily

available materials.

The fuselage was formed by a tu-

that for the aircraft to be an effective

primary trainer it would have to have

a more definitive break when stalled.

Also, it would have to be more re-

sponsive to control inputs in both

spin entry and recovery. Eventually,

these concerns were addressed by the

insertion of stall-spin strips in theleading edges of the lower wings. The

wings’ narrower camber changed

the airflow at high angles of attack,

which produced the desired effect.

An order for 41 of a slightly al-

tered version, known as the Model

73, was placed by the Navy and des-

ignated the NS-1. The first aircraftwas delivered in December 1934.

The door to military sales was open.

It was an eventful time for the

company because a radical restruc-

turing of the corporate parent was

mandated under antitrust laws en-

acted that year. The United Aircraft

& Transport empire was split into

pieces. The Stearman unit was ap-

portioned to the newly freestand-

ing Boeing Aircraft Company.

Once this corporate upheaval

played out, management and de-

sign personnel at the Stearman

Lloyd Stearman (third from left) with fellow executives of Lockheed Aircraft

in 1934. Left to right: Ron King, controller; Carl Squier, sales manager;

Lloyd Stearman, president; Robert Gross; Cyril Chappelet; and Hall Hibbard.

O ’ H A R A C

O L L E C T I O N / E A A A

R C H I V E S - B O B S

T E E L E


19/43

models until fiscal 1936. The initialbatch of 26 trainers had the 220-hp,

9-cylinder Lycoming R-680-5 radial

engine. The Army designated these

aircraft the PT-13.

Thus, a legend was born. The

Model 75 in its various military des-

ignations came to occupy a place of

honor in the chronicle of flight. Thetype is believed to have taught more

American cadets how to fly during

World War II than any other pri-

mary trainer. The many airworthy

examples today serve as a ubiquitous

bridge to aviation’s glorious past.

With war clouds on the horizon,

government leaders recognized the

dire need for more military pilots.

Trainer production was dramatically

ramped up. In the late 1930s and

early 1940s, the Stearman assembly

lines in Wichita were humming. An

astounding 8,585 Stearman train-

skies, preparing cadets to fly in thegreatest aerial armada ever amassed.

Notable students who received train-

ing in the Model 75 included the

members of the Women Airforce Ser-

vice Pilots, the first women to fly U.S.

military aircraft. African-Americans,

later celebrated as the Tuskegee Air-

men, also learned to fly at the con-trols of the splendid biplane.

Dozens of fighter aces and even

Mercury astronaut John Glenn got

instruction in the Stearman train-

er’s open cockpit. And, in the frigid

skies of the upper Midwest, George

Herbert Walker Bush, bundled in a

full fleece-lined leather flying outfit

and far removed from the trappings

of the White House that he would

experience much later in a different

kind of government service, felt the

invigorating rush of air against his

face aboard the Stearman as a rite

lents of the PT-13 were the N2S-2 and

N2S-5; its equivalents of the PT-17

were the N2S-1, N2S-3, and N2S-4.

Paint schemes were a modeler’s

delight. Prewar Army trainers hadregulation blue fuselage and orange-

yellow wings. The rudder was fes-

tooned in patriotic “candy cane”

or “barber pole” stripes that alter-

nated red and white. Navy training

biplanes in those early years were

painted orange-yellow all over to en-

sure visibility. In 1942, the official

paint schemes for primary trainers ofboth services transitioned to an over-

all silver shade. By then, many of the

trainers were already built and were

not repainted unless repair or main-

tenance reasons required their fabric

covering to be replaced.

The company adopted Kaydet

as the trainer’s official sobriquet. Intime, Army brass embraced the nick-

name. For its part, the Navy was

known for its casual usage of the term

Yellow Peril, which applied equally

to the variants of the N2S and the

Navy’s indigenously produced N3N

biplane trainer. Yet, pilots and their

flightline colleagues have a strong in-dependent streak, and the sanctioned

monikers didn’t ring true; they came

across as either stolid or facile.

Students, instructors, and mechan-

ics referred to the formidable biplane

trainer by its pedigree—Stearman.

The usage spread and has survived

through post-World War II genera-

tions to the present. In fact, when an

aviation neophyte visits an airport

these days and is lucky enough to see

a colorfully decorated wartime train-

ing biplane coasting overhead, some

old wag on the ground, if asked,

Interestingly, the aircraft most closely associated with Lloyd Stearman, the

PT (Model 75) series of trainers that became famous during World War II,

had little of the noted engineer’s involvement, since he’d left the company

to run Lockheed before the aircraft was built. His previous design, the

Cloudboy, served as the basis for the design of the Model 7x series.

BONNIE KRATZ


20/43

Electra. In the process, Lockheed was

stumped as to how the aircraft’s sta-

bility problems could be rectified.

A brash University of Michigan

aeronautical engineering studentnamed Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson

determined through wind tunnel

testing that a split tail was the solu-

tion. Refashioned accordingly, the

Electra hatched many follow-on con-

figurations, eventually morphing into

a patrol bomber that sold in quantity

to the British later in the decade. The

deal secured Lockheed’s place as a ma-jor player in the aviation industry.

Lloyd left Lockheed in 1936. A

succession of jobs followed. For a

while he partnered with Dean Ham-

mond to redesign the twin-boom,

pusher Hammond Model Y light-

plane under the new Stearman-

Hammond banner. Sales of the newmodel were anemic, so in 1938 Lloyd

moved yet again. For the duration of

the war, he was employed as an avia-

tion engineer at the Harvey Machine

Company, which produced engine

cowlings for military planes.

In 1945, Lloyd set out to harness

the old magic he had ignited years be-fore. He established the Stearman En-

gineering Company in California and

channeled his energies into the design

of a purpose-built crop duster. Ironi-

cally, it wasn’t able to compete with

the aircraft that already bore his name,

the Model 75. A spate of Army and

Navy Stearman trainers inundated the

postwar civilian market at incredibly

low government surplus prices. The

tried-and-true biplanes made incom-

parable agricultural applicators.

Rather than resist the obvious

and overwhelming tide, Lloyd spent

he filled out an application, as would

anyone coming in off the street. The

form included a question about past

employment at Lockheed. Lloyd

marked the “Yes” box. The subse-quent question pertained to former

position. Lloyd, not a man of many

words, filled in the blank line with

his old job title: president.

For the next 13 years Lloyd worked

as an engineer for the company he

once headed. One of his assignments

involved work on the needle-nosed

F-104 Starfighter, a Mach 2 intercep-tor conceived and masterminded by

the same Kelly Johnson of Electra re-

design fame. By the time Lloyd retired

from Lockheed in 1968, the industry

he had helped to cultivate looked be-

yond the sky to the heavens. It was

a remarkable genesis from open-

cockpit flying over the windsweptprairies of Kansas to enabling sleek

jets to nibble at the edge of space.

Lloyd and his wife, Virtle Ethyl,

had two children. Son William was

a naval officer in the Pacific during

World War II. With advanced degrees

in international affairs, he went into

the Foreign Service and served bothbehind the Iron Curtain and in Viet-

nam. For 17 years, he worked in the

White House as a member of the Na-

tional Security Council staff, includ-

ing time as an assistant to Secretary

of State Henry Kissinger. Daughter

Marilyn married and had five chil-

dren. One of them, Patrick, learned

to fly and not surprisingly developed

a soft spot for the planes originated

by his grandfather.

Ever the restive dreamer, Lloyd

continued to pursue his concept for

a crop-dusting airplane during retire-

were influenced by Lloyd Stearman.

Only some of the trainers leaving

the Wichita factory had manufac-

turer plates with the Stearman name

etched on them, for in the late sum-mer of 1941 it became Boeing’s

practice to refer to its Stearman unit

as the Wichita Division. Neverthe-

less, the end-users, the people who

flew and maintained the aircraft,

branded the product as they saw fit.

Today, in the absence of a multi-

million-dollar marketing campaign

or a “customer loyalty” programtouted by a sports superstar, the

brand hasn’t been diluted. Rather,

with the passage of time, it has so-

lidified. Conjoining the man with

the machine seems natural, even

destined, for there could hardly be a

better way to immortalize the name

of the aviation pioneer whose visionfostered the venerable airplane.

To fly the Stearman is to connect

with the spirit of an exalted yore.

The cockpits are not hollow, but

overflow with timeless memories

of good flights and happy landings.

The wings don’t weary, but hold the

wind for climbs to where the birdsflutter free and independent. With

each ascent, the charmed ship nur-

tures camaraderie among the souls

privileged to soar in its solid yet airy

frame and burnishes its namesake’s

enduring and proud legacy.

Sources and Further Reading

Stearman: A Pictorial History by

Jim Avis and Martin Bowman,

Motorbooks International, 1997.

Stearman Aircraft: A Detailed His-

tory by Edward H. Phillips, Spe-

cialty Press 2006


21/43

Tribute to a Classic


22/43n July 1943 Erich Brunotte, Fliegerverein, a Hamm-Lippewiesen FFS A/B 71 colors to honor its most

Focke-Wulf Fw.44JStieglitz reborn

in Germany

PHOTOS AND ARTICLE BY STEFAN DEGRAEF AND EDWIN BORREMANS


23/43

Verkstaden in Västeras as one of the

Swedish air force’s (aka Flygvapnet )

85 Fw.44J training aircraft.

In Flygvapnet service, the Fw.44J

design—an export version basedon the 1935-developed Focke-

Wulf Fw.44D—became known as

Sk12 (“Sk” stands for Skolflygplan

or training aircraft) . Twenty

aircraft, capable of wearing skis

for snow operations during the

winter, were built by AB Svenska

Järnvägsverkstäderna at Linköping

in southern Sweden. The aircraft

department of the Swedish Railway

Workshops, ASJA was incorporated

into SAAB in 1939. The initial batch

of 14 Fw.44Js was delivered factory-

fresh from the Focke-Wulf factory

Various par ts, including original

cockpit instruments and panels,were bought from various collectors,

using Internet/online auctions.

Built in 1940 as “Werknummer 45” in Västeras, Sk12 received Swedish

air force military serial Fv633 and entered operational service with the

Kungliga Krigsflygskolan, as part of Flygflottilj (Air Wing) F5 at Ljungbyhed.

The seven-cylinder Bramo Siemens SH-14 radial engine was stripped,

overhauled, and rebuilt by Dirk Bende of Motobende Gmbh. This company,

based at Köningswinter-Sassenberg near Bonn, specializes in the overhaul of

German-built World War II-era engines and the remanufacturing of engine parts.


24/43

Museum für Naturwissenschaft

und Technik (German Museum

for Physics and Technology) in

Munchen, Bavaria, as part of thiswell-known museum’s permanent

collection of (West) German-

designed and -built biplane aircraft.

Motivation, Patience, Crafts-manship: Stieglitz Overhaul

In November 2001 the aircraft,

wearing a circuslike reddish colorscheme, was integrated in the

“biplane armada” of the Quax-

Verein zur Förderung von historischem

F l u g g e r ä t , b a s e d a t H a m m -

Lippewiesen near Dortmund,

Westphalia. In need of some in-

depth overhaul and the replacement

of authentic aircraft parts, the

redesignated “D-ENAY” was sold to

three active Quax members by its

owner. Immediately after this transfer

of property, the new owners initiated

an in-depth overhaul, restoration,

and rebuild of the aircraft, aiming to

plating is made of aluminum.

Non-genuine parts, built into

the aircraft during previous less

in-depth overhauls in 1963 and

1976, needed to be removed, with

new safety and radio equipment

installed without jeopardizing the

overall classic internal and external

look of the aircraft. It proved to

be a real challenge for everyone

collectors, using Internet/online

auctions (especially eBay).

After nearly three years of

planning, hard work, patience,

and sheer craftsmanship, the

reborn, almost factory-fresh Focke-

Wulf Fw.44J Stiegli tz D-ENAY

(aka Fv633) made its successful

and uneventful maiden flight

at Hamm-Lippewiesen. Shining

The overhauled Stieglitz D-ENAY was painted with

colorful unit markings of Luftwaffe’s World War II-era

Flugzeugführerschüle A/B 71 pilot training school, basedat Prossnitz, Mähren (aka Prostejov, Moravia, in eastern

Czech Republic). Erich Brunotte fl ew the silver-colored

Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz biplane advanced trainer.

To highlight the in-depth overhaul of their vintage—butalmost zero-houred—Fw.44J Stieglitz D-ENAY, Quax

pilots wear original World War II wool flying suits, ideally

optimized for open-cockpit operations.


25/43

Light Plane Heritage

published in EAA Experimenter April 1992

DE HAVILLAND’S LITTLE BIRCHBY BOB WHITTIER

EAA 1235

O

ver the years several com-

petitions have been orga-

nized for the purpose ofencouraging people to put

their knowledge of aircraft design to

work to create airplanes able to ful-

fill certain needs. In 1929 there was

a Guggenheim Safe Airplane Com-

cal, homebuilt airplane design.

We have to face the plain fact

that such contests have not exactlyproduced the hoped-for results for

their sponsors. Some entries were

just too freakish to appeal to ulti-

mate users; others were too com-

plicated or expensive. For example,

this contest was going on, sales of

conventional but well-designed

and good-flying Cubs, Taylorcrafts,and Aeroncas grew at a steady pace.

Equally unexpected and dis-

appointing results came out of a

contest held in England in 1923.

Military planes left over from


26/43

Mail newspaper and other parties

sponsored a design competition to

encourage the development of eco-

nomical light airplanes.

The rules which were drawn upspecified that entries be powered

with an engine of not more than

750 cc displacement, which equals

45.75 cubic inches. There were to

be cash prizes for the greatest dis-

tance covered on one Imperial gal-

lon of petrol (which contains 5

quarts), the greatest number of cir-cuits around a 12.25-mile course on

one such gallon, the greatest speed

and altitude attained, and the best

short-field performance. This con-

test was described in an article ti-

tled “The Search for Perfection”

by George A. Hardie Jr. in the July

1987 issue of EAA Experimenter .As an outcome of inexperience

in planning such competitions, the

idea of offering such varied prizes

backfired in that some entrants were

after one price and others after other

prizes. The planes they created were

thus engineered to give the kind of

performance most likely to win in

a chosen category. Some were de-

signed for speed, some for economy,

some for range, and so on. Most of

them were thus “specialist” planes,

and while the best of them did win

the contests they were designed for,

most of them were rather poor gen-

eral-purpose ships. Some were so

light that they could do well only in

still air, for example.

To be fair, some very interesting

designs were created, which taught

everyone valuable lessons in goodand poor approaches to the prob-

lem. And the contest as a whole did

get much publicity and served to

generate interest in economical pri-

vate flying.

The most significant outcome

of all, however, was that everyone

present agreed the plane that im-pressed them as being the very best

for all-around general sport flying

was one which won none of the

prizes. This was the de Havilland

53, which came to be known as the

Humming Bird.

The story goes that one of the pi-

lots who flew it during the Lympnecompetitions was named Hemming

and that people started referring

to his plane as “Hemming’s bird.”

From there it was a short and nat-

ural step to Humming Bird. While

definitely a very light airplane, it

looked acceptably like a “real” air-

plane, rather than the result of some

engineer’s hallucinations. It didn’t

have enough power to capture the

speed prize, it had too much drag

to win the fuel consumption prizes,

and could not reach the 14,400-foot

height that won the altitude prize.

Actually two Humming Birds were

entered at Lympne, one being flown

by Hubert Broad and the other by

Alan Cobham, both very experi-

enced and well-known professional

pilots employed by de Havilland.

The converted 750 cc horizon-tally opposed Douglas motorcycle

engines of 26 hp that powered these

planes gave endless mechanical

problems, as a result of being forced

to work too hard in flight. But when

in the air, these two pilots gave

very impressive demonstrations

and showed convincingly that theHumming Bird was the best gen-

eral-purpose sport plane present.

The various planes entered in the

Lympne contest were designed by

professional aeronautical engineers

employed by prominent firms such

as Avro, Gloster Aircraft Company,

Handley Page Limited, VickersLtd., and, of course, de Havilland

Aircraft Company. The engineer-

ing and production facilities at the

factories were at their disposal, and

it’s intriguing to speculate how the

competition might have turned out

if it hadn’t been divided into differ-

Lead photo: Shown outside the

shops at de Havilland’s Stag Lane

establishment, the first DH 53 flew

in September of 1923. Shortness

of the overhead wing struts left a

substantial portion of the wingspanunaffected by disturbed airflow over

the top surfaces.


27/43

ent performance categories.De Havilland people discussed

at length the design features they

should incorporate in their entry.

For acceptable rapid and economi-

cal construction of the two planes

to be entered in the contest, they

chose easily tooled wood as the

primary material. In some of theirlarger commercial designs, they had

had good results from a new type of

wooden fuselage construction.

In most World War I planes,

wooden longerons and cross-

members were trussed together

with numerous criss-crossed steel

cables. The many eye splices, turn-

buckles, and end fittings neces-sary in this construction called for

much tedious hand labor.

In the new method, spruce lon-

gerons and cross-members were

also used, but the entire fuselage

wide use for aircraft work, it tendedto show unsightly wrinkles if ex-

posed to damp weather for several

days.

The tail surfaces were framed

with wood and covered with doped

fabric, as were the wings. Rudder

and elevator cables all ran outside

of the fuselage, and all were double.This to us seems like overbuilding,

but we have to remember that in

1923, perhaps due to the memories

of having control cables parted by

Albatros and Fokker bullets, British

airworthiness officials had a phobia

about the inspectability and reli-

ability of control cables.

Control horns on the rudder andright and left elevators were posi-

tioned well out from the fuselage.

This was because the spruce strips

that formed the leading edges of

these surfaces were not as well able

surfaced with grass that was kept

mowed, it was felt there was little

likelihood of such a low-riding axle

dragging in tall grass. A useful ad-

vantage of the straight axle was that

it automatically put both wheels

into perfect alignment. Shock struts

originally made use of bungee cord,

but when this proved too bouncy,

firmer rubber discs working in com-

pression were substituted.

The radius strut, which secured

the axle against drag loads, ran

from fittings at the firewall downand back to the outboard ends of

the axle. To the modern American

eye this arrangement makes it ap-

pear as if some mechanic had in-

stalled the landing gear backward.

But de Havilland engineers had a

good reason for using this layout.

Because the drag struts were in ten-sion, lighter tubing could be used

than if they were in compression.

Originally designed to be bolted

to motorcycle frames, the Douglas

engine’s crankcase had a rectangu-

lar bottom with bolt-holes at each

corner. A cast aluminum plate was

designed and made, onto which theengine was bolted, as can be seen

in Figure 2. Wider than the crank-

case, its outer edges bolted to the

fuselage longerons. By creating a

wider base for the engine, it helped

the longerons to take up the two-

cylinder engine’s torque impulses.

Both high-wing and low-wing

designs were discussed at length.A high wing was initially favored

because it could be secured with

struts fastened to its lower side.

This would keep the lift—creating

an upper surface of the wing free of

Location of the Humming Bird’s cockpit gave good view of the ground im-

mediately in front of the wheels, an important thing when taxiing on grass

fields likely to have soft spots, animal burrows, and other traps for the

unwary pilot.


28/43

would benefit from ground effectand probably help to give both

quick takeoff with low power and

a slow landing speed. Since the

proposed airplane would be quite

light, it was also feared that a high-

mounted wing would make for a

rather unsteady airplane when run-

ning crosswind on the ground.As things worked out, the fin-

ished Humming Birds with Douglas

engines weighed only 326 pounds

empty and 524 pounds loaded. De-

spite the rather light wing loading

of 4.08 pounds per square foot, the

planes proved to be quite manageable

on breezy days. Another advantage

of the low-wing design was that insuch small planes, there was no over-

head structure to make getting into

and out of the cockpits awkward. It

was acknowledged that a high wing

would afford more protection to the

As finally decided upon, the over-head wing struts attached to fittings

on the top surfaces of the wings

only 4 feet out from the fuselage.

The angle between the wing sur-

faces and the struts was thus open

enough to minimize the squeezing

effect of air flowing through this re-

gion. At the same time the outer 9feet of each wing worked in air not

affected by overhead strut interfer-

ence. Since the struts would all be

fairly short, their air drag would be

as low as possible.

Since this arrangement would

create considerable bending stresses

on the spars at the points of strut

attachment, deep spars were indi-cated. In 1923 the thin RAF 15 air-

foil was well-known to designers

and still much in use, but it was too

shallow to house deep spars. The so-

lution to this dilemma chosen by de

considered an acceptable extra cost.Remember, they were after aerody-

namic efficiency in hopes of win-

ning a substantial cash prize.

To get adequate strength com-

bined with low weight, tapered

box spars were used. These called

for more labor than the straight,

solid spars so often used on lightairplanes for the sake of low labor

cost, but again with contest money

the aim, box spars seemed the way

to go. Each spar was made up with

top and bottom spruce cap strips

and plywood side webs. Having had

much experience in the use of wood

for aircraft, de Havilland engineers

hit upon a simple but clever way toshape the cap strips. In Figure 3 you

can see how a semicircular groove

has been routed in the inner surface

of a cap strip. This saved a worth-

while amount of weight. Calcula-

The DH 53 had a landing gear of typical de Havilland

style. Note doubled rudder control cables. What ap-

pear to be single elevator cables here were actually

duplicated on the other side of the fuselage.

Details of installation of the original 750 cc Douglas

motorcycle engine of 26 hp. Note mounting plate un-

der crankcase. Long exhaust pipe cut the loud exhaust

bark to an agreeable purr.

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2


29/43

short and therefore rigid enough

to handle the compression loads to

which they would be subjected in

flight. End fittings were designed

with generous area to take those

loads off the wood and transferthem to the fuselage fittings. These

fittings were robust enough to en-

able them to handle the mild ten-

sion loads they’d experience when

a Humming Bird was operating on

the ground. And, of course, inverted

flight was not contemplated.

The inboard ends of the wing

struts attached to the fuselage aftof the cockpit, an arrangement that

seems curious today. One would

think they’d attach at a point

ahead of the cockpit so as not to

interfere with getting in and out.

root fittings. The tips of the wings

folding back around such pivot lines

would easily clear the tail surfaces.

But as finally built the wings were

made detachable by pulling three

pins for each panel, and perhapsthe odd-looking strut arrangement

was just left as shown on the plans.

A stout steel tube passed through

the fuselage just aft of the pilot to

take wing strut compression loads.

The pilot stepped on a foot plate

mounted atop the left rear spar root,

hauled himself up by grasping the

rear strut, and swung his feet overthe struts to get into the cockpit.

The ailerons were quite large, and

it’s easy to deduce that de Havilland

people felt this would provide gener-

ous control at the fairly low flying

der the wings. Perhaps de Havilland’s

stock room already had these seem-

ingly heavy and complicated units in

stock, so they were used as a matter

of expediency. Today we would weld

together short pieces of steel tubingto make simpler, lighter bell cranks.

Note the stud on the lower surface

of the sprocket. This location gave it

arcs of travel such as to impart differ-

ential action to aileron movement.

In turns, the outboard aileron moved

down a smaller amount than the in-

board one did, to reduce the adverse

yaw effect.Although the Humming Birds

won no prizes at Lympne, the ob-

vious overall practicality of the de-

sign got people to thinking about

these planes. In those days, the Brit-

Routed wing spar cap strips saved a useful amount of

weight but left generous area for secure glue lines.

The aileron control mechanism looks heavier and more

complicated than necessary. Location of aileron push-

pull tube stud gave differential action to the ailerons be-

cause it traveled farther in one direction than the other.

FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4


30/43

Since the baggage allowance wasa paltry 7 pounds, the Birds proved

to be of rather slight use in ferrying

parts and supplies from airfield to

airfield. But pilots had great fun ca-

vorting about in them. Some even

ation, and so one Humming Birdwent to that land. Another went to

Czechoslovakia and a few to Aus-

tralia. One of the Australian Birds

ended up being sold to someone in,

of all places, the remote island of Sa-

a few years later of the two-seater

60-hp Gipsy Moth biplane—and

when that appeared on the scene, de

Havilland fortunes soared!

Because the original Douglas en-

gines proved unreliable, other engines

were fitted to Humming Birds. These

include the V-twin, 697 cc Blackburne

of 24 hp, the 32-hp Bristol Cherub,

the 35-hp A.B.C. Scorpion, and the

40-hp opposed-twin Aeronca.

Some of these engines were fit-

ted with stub exhausts, and when in

flight, sounded like noisy motorcy-cles. Others had long exhaust stacks

running down under their fuselages

and terminating at a point below

the cockpits. People who heard

these in flight saw that engine noise

was thus reduced to a slightly loud

but quite agreeable purr.

A replica powered by a 40-hpContinental A-40 engine was built

in Alberta in 1967. This might get

some readers to thinking that it

would be a fascinating project to

build yet another one today and

power it with one of the new 35-hp

opposed-twin Mosler engines. That

would combine the very best of an-tique and homebuilt planes in one

ship. But here we run into a jolting

example of how sensitive large cor-

porations have become in recent

years about product liability. The

successor company to de Havilland,

British Aerospace, has the original

Humming Bird plans on file, but

even though this design dates backto 1923 and only a few very dedi-

cated people would want to build

replicas, it refuses to sell copies of

these plans—because it is so con-

cerned about product liability.

Large enough to be a docile flier, small enough to be cute, the de

Havilland 53 “Humming Bird” marked a step forward in the devel-

opment of small sport planes. Headrest behind cockpit was actu-

ally an auxiliary fuel tank to increase the cruising range.


31/43

Not long ago I had a young and fairly new private pilot

enroll for a tailwheel endorsement. This person, a very en-

thusiastic pilot, had accrued about 70 hours’ total time in

the previous 18 months. After a preflight briefing, cockpit

briefing, and doing some taxi Figure 7s on the ramp, it was

time to move to the runway. All proceeded as expected un-til we positioned the airplane for takeoff. An instant before

adding full power, I looked down to en-

sure the pilot had correct foot placement

on the rudder pedals. To my surprise the

pilot had removed her feet from the ped-

als and had placed them flat on the floor.

When asked why she had done so, she

replied that her instructor had told herto do that!

At first I thought it was an attention-

getting prank to test me, but she was

dead serious. After the flight I gave this

some thought and mentioned this situ-

ation to another instructor. All we could

come up with was “unbelievable!” How

could a student obtain a private certifi-

cate using this method?Transitioning from a tricycle to a tail-

wheel (conventional) gear airplane is

great fun, somewhat challenging, fre-

quently frustrating early on, and almost always humor-

ous. I’ve experienced this and more while training new

Proper Foot Position Is Vital

Before ever starting the engine, it is important to have

the student get settled in the rear seat. The first thing he

usually does is place his feet on the rudder pedals so that

the arches of his feet make contact with the pedals. It is

very important at this stage to reposition his feet so thatthe ball of each foot is lightly making contact with the

rudder pedals. This allows the foot to

pivot at the ankle when applying rud-

der input. Rudder inputs will be much

more fluid and more easily coordinated

with aileron inputs, as it requires only

ankle pivot. If the arch of the foot is in

contact with the rudder pedal, the entireleg has to move to provide rudder in-

put. This action leads to uncoordinated

inputs when applied with the ailerons,

and we’re always striving for smooth,

fluid, coordinated control inputs.

The first question a transition pilot

will usually ask is, “I can’t access the heel

brake pedals with the balls of my feet

positioned this way. How do I do that?”My response is, “You only use the brakes

three times for a Cub flight: when start-

ing the engine, when doing the engine

run-up, and when stopping in front of the hangar at the

flight’s conclusion. Yes, there are exceptions, such as when

BY Steve Krog, CFI

THE Vintage

Instructor

It’s all in the feet

How could

a student

obtain aprivate

certificate

using this

method?


32/43

usage will also cause severe leg cramps

later in the day.

Toe-Tickling Touch: This in-

volves just barely touching the rudder

pedals for fear of “breaking” some-

thing. This input or lack thereof leads

to significant adverse yaw whenever

attempting to bank the airplane.

Monster Mash: Slamming the

rudder pedal to the floor with a size

14 steel-toed work boot whenever a

slight bit of rudder input is required.

Severe skidding turns are the usual

result, followed by an equally hardskid in the opposite direction when

rolling out of a turn and returning to

straight and level flight.

Arch Pivot Push: Placing the

arches of the feet on the rudder

pedals so as to cause unusual ankle

contortions with little or no rud-

der response. Shin splints are some-times the result of this method of

rudder application.

Footrest Roost: Attempting to

fly a tailwheel airplane with tricy-

cle-plane inputs. For someone at-

tempting to taxi using this method,

the rudder pedals serve as footrests,

never to be moved except when taxi-

ing. One will usually see a lot of rapid

foot movement in search of the toe

brakes, which are not there.

Fluttering Fish: Rapidly moving

the rudder from stop to stop, think-

ing this will help maintain direc-

tional control on takeoff or landing.

Watch for this type of rudder move-

ment at the next pancake breakfast,and you will see that the rudder is

but a blur until the airplane becomes

airborne or comes to a complete stop

on the runway.

Around-the-Clock Rock: The

the phrase “tap and release.” With

the stick or yoke back and the aircraft

aligned with the runway centerline

for takeoff, rest the balls of your feet

very lightly on the rudder pedals. Do

not yet exert any pressure. As you be-

gin smoothly applying full power,

the plane will generally want to yaw

or swerve slightly leftward. Tap and

release the right rudder pedal one or

more times. Do not push the right

rudder and hold it, as this will im-

mediately cause an overcorrection

and the nose of the plane will nowbe pointed rightward. In order to

keep the plane tracking straight for-

ward, the right rudder may need to

be tapped and released several times.

As the control stick or yoke is

moved slightly forward, raising the

tail about a foot above the ground,

you will again experience a slightleftward movement of the nose.

Tap and release the right rudder

as needed to correct this move-

ment, keeping the aircraft tracking

straight forward.

One common mistake I see when

teaching takeoffs to both transition

and first-time tailwheel students is

the attempt to move the airplane

back to the runway centerline after

the aircraft has been allowed to yaw

leftward. In my opinion, this should

never be done. Rather, straighten

the ground track of the plane and

continue the takeoff from that point

forward. Attempting to move the air-

plane back to the centerline will usu-ally induce an interesting S-turning

ground track, often leading to a spec-

tacular trip between and sometimes

over the runway lights.

Once airborne in a proper climb

enced pilot on a tailwheel transition.

Every time he turned, he applied and

held the rudder until completing the

turn. When I corrected him, he told

me that his instructor had taught him

to do that. Once the desired angle of

bank has been established, the con-

trol stick and rudder should be neu-

tralized. By that I mean move the

stick to the center, removing the ai-

leron input, and take your foot off

the rudder. Most of the light single-

engine airplanes we fly have a fair

amount of positive stability designedinto the aircraft. Few or no control in-

puts are needed after establishing the

bank angle to complete a 90-degree

shallow-bank turn until rolling out

to a wings-level attitude at the turn

completion.

When landing, it is important to

take a deep breath while on shortfinal so that your muscles are re-

laxed. This is where one of the

seven rudder mistakes most often

occurs. Unknowingly, we allow

ourselves to get tense in prepara-

tion for a tailwheel landing.

Keep the airplane aligned with the

runway during the level-off and flare

by using slight rudder inputs, again

tapping and releasing the pedal each

time pressure is applied (except in a

crosswind landing). Upon touching

down, tap and release the appropri-

ate rudder pedal, keeping the plane

on a straight-line track throughout

the rollout phase of the landing.

Pushing and holding the rudder willcause overcorrection, leading to an-

other series of runway S-turns. Just

tap and release and repeat as neces-

sary to keep the airplane straight.

Again, if the airplane is allowed to


33/43

Parasite drag is defi ned as the resistance to forward

flight caused by airflow striking the frontal parts of the

air frame. When radial engines aren’t faired, the drag is

substantial, as shown in this NASA sketch in Illustration 1.

Fred E. Weick, who headed the National Advisory Commit-

tee for Aeronautics (NACA) Propeller Wind Tunnel section,conducted early experiments on streamlining the engine

installation and focused initially on the Wright J-5 engine.

His wind tunnel work and computations showed that a re-

markable increase in airspeed could be achieved by fabri-

cating an aluminum cowling and attaching it to the engine.

Illustration 2 shows Weick’s team in the sheet metal

shop, fabricating a cowling for a radial engine at the Lan-

gley Research Center in Virginia. All experimental cowls

were handmade, most likely constructed from drawings

made by Weick and his associates. Whenever experiments

such as Weick’s work on cowlings were conducted, the

data was assembled and placed in a NACA Technical Re-

port. A description of the work accomplished, computa-

tion tables, sketches, and photographs accompanied the

report. The report was made available to manufacturers

who desired to build and market the product. Today these

NACA reports are available at the NASA website (http://

NTRS.NASA.gov/search.jsp ).

BY ROBERT G. LOCK

Engine cowls for drag reductionPart 2

THE Vintage

Mechanic

Illustration 1 NASA


34/43

Illustration 3 shows craftsmen installing a ring cowl to a U.S. Navy ship in preparation for flight tests.

These experiments took place from 1925 to 1929 and were funded by the government, just as NASA is

funded today. NACA was established in 1915 and charged with coordinating research in aeronautics. It

quickly became the prime research organization pushing the boundaries of flight from the early stagesthrough the first supersonic aircraft in 1947. NACA passed the torch to NASA in 1958 and expanded

the role of aeronautics research into space exploration.

In Illustration 4 is a cover sheet for a NACA

Technical Note authored by Weick in July 1928

regarding wind tunnel tests to determine the

drag of a Wright J 5 radial engine The data

Illustration 3NASA


35/43

Illustration 5 is a NACA photograph of the propeller wind

tunnel at the Langley Research Center around 1928. The

aircraft being tested was a Sperry Messenger, a mock-up

of a cabin monoplane with the radial engine fully cowled.

Note that the wind tunnel was constructed of wood. It

was this early research that led to fully cowled engines

in the late 1920s, particularly the famed Lockheed Vega.

The early ships were constructed with the most advanced

monocoque fuselage design of the day; however, their

Wright J-5 engines were uncowled and created a substan-tial amount of drag.

Illustration 6 shows a standard 1928 Lockheed Vega, a

wood monocoque fuselage and cantilever wing design byJohn Northrop. The Wright J-5 engine cylinders protruding

from a streamlined fuselage are quite evident.

Weick’s NACA research

provided a substantial reduc-

tion in parasite drag of an

aircraft. The photos below

are all from NACA/NASA and

With the installation of a NACA pressure cowl as

shown in Illustration 7, airspeed and range were im-mediately increased. On February 4 and 5, 1929, Frank

Hawks, a famous barnstormer and stunt pilot, estab-

lished a new Los Angeles to New York nonstop record of

18 hours and 13 minutes flying a Lockheed Air Express

equipped with a NACA low-drag cowling that increased

the aircraft’s maximum speed from 157 to 177 mph.

The day after the feat, the committee received the fol-

lowing telegram:“COOLING CAREFULLY CHECKED AND OK. RECORD

IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT NEW COWLING. ALL CREDIT DUE

NACA FOR PAINSTAKING AND ACCURATE RESEARCH.

(Signed) GERRY VULTEE, LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT COMPANY”

Illustration 6

Illustration 7

Illustration 5 NASA

LOCKHEED

LOCKHEED


36/43

AERO CLASSIC“COLLECTOR SERIES”

Vintage Tires New USA Production

Show off your pride and joy with afresh set of Vintage Rubber. Thesenewly minted tires are FAA-TSO’dand speed rated to 120 MPH. Some

things are better left the way theywere, and in the 40’s and 50’s, these tires were perfectly intune to the exciting times in aviation.

Not only do these tires set your vintage plane apart fromthe rest, but also look exceptional on all General Aviationaircraft. Deep 8/32nd tread depth offers above averagetread life and UV treated rubber resists aging.

Intercylinder baffles or deflectors serve to direct air

around the cylinders, thus ensuring pressure air cooling

for the rear of the cylinder. Illustration 9 shows a Pratt &

Whitney Wasp engine complete with all baffling in place.

The baffling actually sealed against cowling, thus forcing

air around cylinder fins for cooling. Also there were scoops

that directed cool flowing air on magnetos and sometimes

the generator to keep those components cool. Illustra-tions 9 and 10 show engine baffl ing. These illustrations

were taken from Aircraft Engine Maintenance .

Illustration 9BRIMM & BOGGESS


37/43

Our June Mystery Plane came to

us from John Schwamm of Carefree,

Arizona. It was a true Mystery Plane,

as John’s father owned the hangar

in the background, but John didn’t

know the identity of the little air-craft. Wes Smith, of Springfield, Ari-

zona, did. Here’s his answer:

The aircraft in question is the 1936

Mendenhall M-1, aka Special. A

Send your answer to EAA,

Vintage Airplane, P.O. Box 3086,

Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086. Your

answer needs to be in no later

than October 10 for inclusion

in the December 2011 issue of

Vintage Airplane.

You can also send your re-sponse via e-mail. Send your

answer to mysteryplane@eaa.

org . Be sure to include your

name plus your city and state

in the body of your note and

put “(Month) Mystery Plane”

in the subject line.

This month’s Mystery Plane comes from W. Duffy Thompson of

Lakeland, Florida. It is of foreign manufacture, but the photo was

taken on the East Coast of the United States.

MYSTERY PLANE

by H.G. FRAUTSCHY

J U N E ’ S M Y S T E RY A N S W E R


38/43

other photos, but I’m hard-pressed to

find them. Aerofiles.com has a fair

write-up, which I used. What tipped

me off were the hangar markings and

origin. At the time, LeVier was flying

in Arizona and California, so it makes

perfect sense that the photo came out

of Arizona. Aside from his name, there

is: “…nt …ction.” There’s also that

big monster sticking out of the hangar.

After receiving the answer, John

added some details, noting that the

answer made perfect sense:

Tony was a good friend of my dad’s.

ternational Airport.

He flew in many

o f t h e H o w a r d

Hughes’ movies, and

one picture I have

shows several of his

World War I Thomas

Morse Scouts in front

of the hangar.

And by the way,

that “…nt …ction”

actually reads “stu-

dent instruction.”

The top reads “TONYSCHWAMM,” under

that is “aerobatics,”

and to the left is “stu-

dent instruction.”

From John Un-

derwood, another

longtime Lockheedman and Califor-

nia aviator, comes

th i s a dd i t i ona l

information:

Your current Mys-

tery Plane is Gene

Mendenhall’s M-1

Special, 16097, which Tony LeVier

flight-tested at Muroc and Rosa-

mond, near what is now Edwards

Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert.

These flights were very brief affairs,

because the 25-hp Cyclomotor two-

stroke pusher was prone to overheating

and quit after about five minutes. The

M-1’s final airing was at Telegraph &

Atlantic Airport, where the motor quit

again one Sunday late in 1936, re-

sulting in a crash-landing in soft soil.

The little plane dug in and stopped so

abruptly that Tony’s seat belt snapped

and he kept going. He went halfway

through the nose and was totally im-

mobilized by the surrounding struc-

ture. He was frantic to get out but

could barely move and was sure the

thing would burn before anyone could

reach him. They had to cut it apart to

get him out. He had a few minor cuts

and bruises, but the M-1 was DBRand never flew again. That’s Tony

Schwamm’s hangar at

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aviationspace-history-library
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Vintage Airplane - Sep 2011

Documents