Vintage Airplane - Dec 2010

8/20/2019 Vintage Airplane - Dec 2010

1/44


2/44

Paul PobereznyTom PobereznyRod Hightower

Geoff Robison GeorgeDaubnerDan Knutson

Steve Nesse Steve BenderDave Bennett

Bob Brauer Jerry Brown Gene ChaseDave Clark

Jack Copeland Phil CoulsonRon FritzDale GustafsonCharlie Harris

Buck Hilbert Jeannie HillButch Joyce

Steve KrogBob Lumley

Gene MorrisWes Schmid

John Turgyan H.G. Frautschy

Season’s Greetings!

On behalf of the offi cers, directors, and staff of the EAA Vintage Aircraft

Association, we wish each of you peace and joy during the holiday

season. May your New Year be filled with peace and prosperity, as well as

many days of safe, enjoyable flying!

Theresa Books and the staff of the E AA

Artwork by Lonni Sue Johnson.

Her article Christmas Listens begins on page 8.


3/44

2 News 4 The Antiques in Winter If airplanes could talk . . . by Roger Thiel

6 The 1930 Consolidated YPT-6A From faded history to flying high

by Sparky Barnes Sargent

14 My Friend Frank Rezich, Part III by Robert G. Lock

18 Light Plane Heritage The J.V. Martin K-III Scout by Jack McRae

20 The Vintage Mechanic Elementary theory of flight by Robert G. Lock

24 The Vintage Instructor Taxiing without incident by Steve Krog, CFI

28 Christmas Listens by Lonni Sue Johnson

30 Chapter Locator

32 Mystery Plane by H.G. Frautschy

34 Message from the Founder by Paul Poberezny

40 Classified Ads

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 1

A I R P L A N E DECEMBERC O N T E N T S

S T A F FEAA Publisher Rod HightowerDirector of EAA Publications Mary Jones

Executive Director/Editor H.G. Frautschy

Production/Special Project Kathleen WitmanPhotography Jim Koepnick

Copy Editor Colleen WalshArt Director Olivia Trabbold

EAA Chairman of the Board Tom Poberezny

Publication Advertising:Manager/Domestic, Sue Anderson

Tel: 920-426-6127 Email: [email protected]

Fax: 920-426-4828

Senior Business Relations Mgr, Trevor Janz

Tel: 920-426-6809 Email: [email protected]

Manager/European-Asian, Willi Tacke

Phone: +49(0)1716980871 Email: [email protected]

Fax: +49(0)8841 / 496012

Interim Coordinator/Classified, Alicia CanzianiTel: 920-426-6860 Email: [email protected]

C O V E R S

Vol. 38, No. 12 2010

FRONT COVER: The husband and wife team of Mark White and Mary Wood, of Vero Beach, Florida

completed the restoration of this 1930 Consolidated Fleet YPT-6A at their home at the Indian River Aero-

drome. One of only four of that model that still exist, it’s now plying the skies of Florida. Sparky Barnes

Sargent caught up with them during the Sun ‘n Fun Fly-In this past Spring. Read all about it in her article

starting on page 6.

BACK COVER: To honor the memory of Mystery Plane contributor and co-founder of the modern-day

Flying Aces Club, David A. Stott (1929-2010), we present this wonderfully graphic cover of the October,

1937 issue of Flying Aces magazine. Flying Aces was one of the most popular pulp magazines of the

1930s, and it set many a young boy onto a path to an aviation career that started by building balsa

model airplanes. A doff of the ol’ flyin’ cap to General Dave. “Thermals To Ya!”

6

18

14


4/44

“Actively Engaged” A&P-IAsand FAA Policy Clarification

Preserving the freedom of flight,

reducing regulatory barriers, and

making general aviation affordable

and accessible are what drives the

work of EAA’s advocacy team ev-

ery day. With the assistance of the

Vintage Aircraft Association (VAA)

staff, these freedoms are preserved

and these barriers are reduced by

providing clear solutions and prac-

tical alternatives backed by com-

mon sense, hard work, and dedica-

tion. Recently, the VAA and EAA

staffs reacted to a notice in the No-

vember 5, 2010, issue of the Fed-

eral Register , Docket Number FAA-

2010-1060, http://FederalRegister. gov/a/2010-27834.

The FAA was seeking comment

regarding a “Policy Clarifying Defi-

nition of ‘Actively Engaged’ for Pur-

poses of Inspector Authorization.”

The “clarification” relates to the

application and renewal process

for airframe and powerplant (A&P)

mechanics who also wish to hold

an inspection authorization (A&P-

IA). While not a notice of proposed

rulemaking, the policy and its revi-sion have far-reaching implications

for those who apply their profes-

sional skills as an IA on a part-time

basis. As published in the Federal

Register , the policy is intended to

provide an FAA air safety inspector

(ASI) with a more tightly defined

definition of “actively engaged.”

The FAA intends to enforce the new

policy when the IA renewal cycle

begins on March 31, 2011.

The issuance of the policy changecaused concern that this proposal

would mean the end of inspection

authorizations for part-time me-

chanics. The concern centers on the

perception that the revised policy

would allow an ASI to subjectivelyreject an application for an inspec-

tion authorization or its renewal if

that ASI deems the level of mechan-

ic’s work does not meet the standard

for “actively engaged.”

The VAA agrees with the mem-

bership and other aviation organi-

zations that the specific wording of

the proposed policy is confusing. As

written, most commenters believe

it appears to give the ASI more, not

less, ability to make an arbitrary de-

cision regarding the first-time ap-

plication or renewal of an IA.

EAA believes that this proposed

policy should be revised to main-

tain the current level of part-time

IAs and encourage mechanics that

are eligible to apply for an inspec-

tion authorization.

We recommend the agency clarify

the process for both first-time ap-

plications and renewals within FAA

Order 8900.1, Chapter 5. In thatway an applicant can be assured that

ASIs will make their determination

regarding eligibility by using the cur-

rent Federal Aviation Regulations

as the only criteria, and the agency

should ensure that an ASI cannot

subjectively reject an application

based on nonrelevant information.

We will continue to work with

the agency toward the best possible

solution for EAA members, general-

aviation mechanics, and the pilots

who rely on their professional services.

EAA requested an extension of

the comment period, which was

scheduled to end on December 6,

2010. As we were going to press,

we were advised that the extension

has been granted. EAA members are

2011 Share the Spirit Sweepstakes Up and Running!

Grand prize this year: a new Cessna SkycatcherNow through the end of EAA AirVenture 2011, people can enter the 2011

EAA Share the Spirit Sweepstakes by sending in coupons, such as those

found in last month’s magazine; entering online at www.AirVenture.org/

sweepstakes; or entering at the event itself.

The grand prize is a Cessna 162 Skycatcher with, courtesy of Shell Avia-

tion, fuel for the year.. Other great prizes include a Coleman camper, a Hot-

Seat Flight Sim bundle, a Bose 3·2·1 GSX Series III DVD home entertainment

system, a Canon EOS 50D camera kit with lens, and a Hamilton Men’s Khaki

Pilot watch.

Every donation to the EAA Sweepstakes directly supports EAA programs,

which allow members to share the spirit of aviation among fellow enthusi-

asts and the next generation of aviators.

VAA NEWS

2 DECEMBER 2010


5/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 3

urged to review the proposed pol-

icy, check with their IA, and submit

comments to the Federal Docket no

later than January 17, 2011. We’ll

continue to update this story on the

web at www.EAA.org . For additional

information and continuous con-

versation on this topic, visit the Red

Barn Forum within EAA’s OnlineCommunity at Oshkosh365.org.

Free EAA Student MembershipAnswers ‘What’s Next?’ forYoung Eagles

Thousands of today’s young pi-

lots got their start through a Young

Eagles flight. However, many haveasked, “What’s next for Young Ea-

gles after their first flight?”

The EAA Student Membership

program, supported by Embry-

Riddle Aeronautical University, is

helping answer that question. It

is available free of charge to any

young person aged 8 to 19 who has

completed a Young Eagles flight.

EAA’s new student membership

includes:

•An electronic copy of EAA Sport

Aviation delivered via e-mail each

month and viewable on the Web or

on a wide range of mobile devices

and e-readers.

•Free student membership in

the Academy of Model Aeronautics

(AMA), which provides informa-

tion on how to start building and

flying models, plus access to thou-

sands of AMA Flying Clubs.

•Free admission to more than

300 science and technology muse-ums in the ASTC network.

•Free access to Sporty’s online

Complete Flight Training Course,

designed to take an aviation “new-

bie” all the way through the process

of passing the FAA written exam.

Other EAA member benefits in-

clude a membership card; mem-

ber discounts on merchandise,

flight experiences, the EAA AirAcademy, and EAA AirVenture

Oshkosh; and access to the EAA

members-only websites and other

information resources.

To learn more, visit www.Sport

Aviation.org .

Sporty’s Next Step Program En-rollment Surpasses 5,000

The EAA and Sporty’s Pilot Shop

Next Step program has enrolled

more than 5,000 EAA Young Eagles,

allowing them to pursue an avia-

tion interest beyond a first-flight

experience. The cornerstone of this

program is free access to Sporty’s

Complete Flight Training Course

online. To date, Sporty’s has do-

nated courses that have a retail

value of more than $1 million.The program’s early success has

sparked additional enhancements

and benefits, including a free first-

flight lesson upon completion of

one of the Sporty’s courses. Numer-

ous scholarships are available to

support continued flight training.

More information regarding

Young Eagles and the Next Step

program is available at www.

YoungEagles.org .

EAA’s Annual Hall of Fame Induction

2011 honorees (l to r): Bill Weekley (Hal); John Vette (Kimberly Award recipient);

Kyle Franklin (for his father, Jimmy Franklin); Morton Lester; and Dean Wilson. On

the podium, EAA’s past and present presidents: Tom Poberezny, Rod Hightower, and

Paul Poberezny.

Nearly 300 people gathered in the Eagle Hangar of the EAA AirVenture

Museum on October 29 to honor six individuals for their contributions to

the world of aviation. Five were new inductees into EAA’s Halls of Fame andincluded Dean Wilson (Homebuilders), Morton Lester (Vintage Aircraft As-

sociation), John Ballantyne (Ultralight), the late Jimmy Franklin (International

Aerobatic Club), and the late Hal Weekley (Warbirds of America).

The evening’s sixth honoree, John Vette, received the Henry Kimberly

Spirit of Leadership Award for his local volunteer efforts on behalf of EAA and

the community. Vette, along with his wife, Susy, has continued his family’s

longtime commitment to EAA by helping develop and grow dynamic programs

that facilitate interest in aviation among youth, ranging from the launch of

WomenSoar to such events as the Gathering of Eagles fundraiser.

We’ll have more on the VAA inductee, Morton Lester, in next month’s Vin-

tage Airplane.


6/44

4 DECEMBER 2010

Wingtip to strut, strut to

tail feathers, tail feathers

to wingtip, and six tail

wheels below them, the

antique civilian lightplanes huddled

together at one end of the large com-

munal hangar on a winter’s night.

Outside, amidst a cadence of wind

gusts, a single stark-white municipal

light cast its monotonous self onto

the modern metal hangar’s sides,

and onto the piled snow—not new

fallen, but growing thick crested and

dirty. Inside, small fissures of its light

came in through eaves and through

edges of doors, making angularshadow shapes and hazy, double

ghosts of the airplanes.

The airport was located not far

from a small city that still sprouted a

water tower near an abandoned rail-

road bed, almost adjacent to a stream

that in summer made a green ribbon

of vegetation, which together with

the small lake at its base had made a

landmark homed onto by thousands

of flight students returning from ner-

vous cross-country flights over mileupon mile of section lines of the wel-

coming American Midwest.

And the highway! The night was

continuously punctuated by a dis-

tant, intermittent engine roar of

trucks, passing a mile away on an

interstate whose path, decades ago,

in bypassing the airport had seemed

to save it, but whose presence now,

sprouting commerce, posed danger.

The engines’ lionlike growling reso-

nated through the night.Over the past weekend, the air-

port’s runway had been plowed, and

all six of the antique airplanes had

been pulled out of the hangar; one

had received an engine run-up, and

two had been flown.

Old age is vigilant, and the an-

tiques—five high-wing types and one

open-cockpit biplane—stayed awake

longer than the modern airplanes. At

the other end of the hangar, the sleek

composite homebuilts, new model

factory planes, and sport aircraft

types had voiced worry and reported

shorter flights by their owners who

proclaimed many words about cost,

about less flying time, of making ev-ery flight count, of filling every seat,

and of passing the hat.

Their owners had also fumed about

“yet another” political meeting over

land use in which they had argued for

the airport and had apparently pre-

vailed . . . for the time being.

For the umpteenth time, the an-

tiques volunteered their stories to

calm the younger airplanes, noting

with chagrin, but no surprise, that

the youth had apparently fallenasleep. In the hopes that some were

still listening, the antiques began

to speak, sharing their stories, one

by one, over the distant, menacing

sound of the trucks.

The Aeronca’s Story

Of the six antiques, the first to

speak was the Aeronca Champion,

and this surprised the others. When

flying, its short exhaust stacks made

a loud staccato noise, and when onthe ground, as if to adjust for this, it

usually remained silent.

“I am a postwar 1946 model, but

my manufacturer’s origins start in the

late 1920s, as its first model was being

developed as a minimum airplane.

This was during the fresh years fol-

lowing the Lindbergh flight of 1927,

when American aviation became ‘writ

large’ and flared with heady image.

The years 1927 to 1929, as my hum-

ble ancestor was developed, saw many

startups of high-end airplanes: planes

for the rich, planes for the powerful,

planes molded in the image of head-

long success, all riding the tidal wave

of blue skies kindled by ‘Lucky Lindy.’“My line’s makers—gray-jacketed,

hard-nosed Cincinnati business-

men—were almost certainly tempted

to join the bandwagon, but they con-

tinued with their ‘low-end’ product,

deciding in rare perspective for the

time to ‘live below their means.’

“Their first design debuted in 1929,

within months of when the eco-

nomic waters rose above flood stage

and aviation was hit hard. The over-

whelming majority of those ‘startups-since-Lindy’ were vanquished, some

gone in just months. But my line had

been designed so modestly that my

makers found themselves in a harsh

but survivable situation.

“Those earliest Aeroncas were

bulbous and ungainly, immediately

provoking humor. They were called

‘flying bathtubs,’ and the joke that

they might always be encountering

head winds was an apt metaphor for

how they fought for acceptance in themarketplace. My line’s manufacturers

The Antiques in WinterIf airplanes could talk . . .

BY ROGER THIEL


7/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 5

played it so close to the vest that they

even built their own engines, rare for

any American airplane.

“And so we persevered. Wise fore-

sight or luck? Take

your p ick, but we

stayed on our bulbous,

weird-looking feet.

“With Aeroncas’ op-erating rates as low as a

small car, we suddenly

became, for many pi-

lots, the only means

they had to fly at all.

We staggered through the Great De-

pression, through times when men

and women felt that merely being at

an airport and watching airplanes was

good, and that if they could buy a cup

of coffee while watching, it was great!

“Inch by inch, nickel by nickel,

year by year, we persevered. In the

late 1930s we could finally buy en-

gines from a mainstream source as

we debuted an airplane on size with

the competition.“In 1946 when I was made, at the

crest of the postwar aviation boom

that went bust, again we persevered,

and then later as well, through more

decades and many other versions

which continue to this day. In the

1960s my line became an airplane

with aerobatic and performance ca-

pabilities. There is almost no time

period in which the Aeronca line,

under one name or another, has not

been manufactured.“Gray-jacketed businessmen who

gritted their teeth and were armed

with frugality fought economic holo-

caust and won. Improbable, clownlike

origins, but a presence that continues

to this day. And how did we do it? By

‘living below our means’!”

The Stinson’s Story

With an upper wing towering so

high that other high-wing aircraft

could be stored underneath it, andthe only antique with more than two

seats, the nominal chieftain of the

group, the Stinson Reliant, spoke up:

“My high, widespread wing and

my round engine and bump cowl

give off a heady look of strength and

chiseled design. We Stinsons were

made for high achievers and for busi-

ness—big business—and a company

who owned me was also making astatement: that they were to be eco-

nomically reckoned with, and that, in

the second half of the 1930s, ‘prosper-

ity is just around the corner.’

“I remember a dozen times when

men in suits and overcoats posed by

my door, with their Depression-era

business name so proudly painted

on my side. And I remember one

time when, arriving with news of a

new industrial plant to be built, that

a press reception was hosted for my

passengers at the airport’s parking

area, and I was the centerpiece as

dignitaries shook hands and a cer-

emony was undertaken.

“I remember flying toward busi-ness destinations with heady, laugh-

ing talk of planned accomplishments

by the men in all of my four seats.

And I also remember the trips home

from those quests, some of which in-

cluded smiling passengers, but oth-

ers in which frowning men huddled

down into their overcoats in an em-

brittled silence. These men were now

edgy to be so close to each other and

avoided eye contact as a heavy gray

hung in my cabin until I set themback on the company’s home field

and they discharged into their cars.

“Although seemingly at the top of

my line, I can all too easily undergo a

unique poverty that might not occur

to the rest of you: I’ll never forget the

times I was left in my hangar because

my big business owners, although ap-

parently at the tops of their respec-

tive games, could not afford to fly me,

and would push me out and run up

my huge engine on the ground forexercise—lying to other men that I

had instrument problems and could

not fly.

“And then came the war—not in-

cidentally, what finally brought an

end to all of those gray economic

days. I was pressed into service with

the Civil Air Patrol, to fly off the At-

lantic Coast with a bomb shackled

under me against invading Germansubmarines. My pilots never saw a

U-boat but patrolled alongside many

convoys and ships, always far beyond

gliding distance to shore. In one case,

they spotted debris on the ocean that

led to the CAP search in which an-

other plane spotted some American

merchant mariners surviving in a raft

following a torpedoing.

“These horrors—within a few min-

utes’ flight of the soft American ex-

perience on its home front shores!

My bomb shackles were taken off in

1943 and the last evidence of them

was gone by a 1952 re-covering. The

information of my war work was not

transmitted to my next owner and has

remained unknown to the present day.

“So now, with my beautiful rebuild

and majestic stance and paint, when

I arrive at an event, all I see, as in the

old days, is the pleasant sight of lev-

eled camera barrels. But am I thereforethe biggest and grandest among you?

Think again: My engine is large and

thirsty, and my present owners, too,

speak of economic considerations.

“And so I appear, to the average

onlooker, as the captain of this han-

gar group—but I could easily find my-

self as the one left behind. Since I am

expensive to operate, my flights are

always calculated, with high-profile

destinations, with each seat taken,

and with an atmosphere of purpose,rather than for little pleasure jaunts

like the rest of you so regularly receive.

“Uneasy lies the head that wears

the crown. And the old unpleasant-

ness sometimes recurs when I am

wheeled out of the hangar and my

engine is started. Each time I receive

such a run-up—but no flying—in

every one of my chiseled, classic

lines—I shiver.”

Next month: The other antiquesjoin in the conversation.

For the umpteenth time, the antiques

volunteered their stories to calm

the younger airplanes


8/44

6 DECEMBER 2010

The 1930The 1930

Consolidated YPT-6A

From faded history to flying high

BY SPARKY BARNES SARGENTJIM KOEPNICK


9/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 7

Sometimes it takes a team of savvy sleuths to solve a conundrum.

In this case, the team is a married couple—VAA members Mark

White and Mary Wood, of Vero Beach, Florida—who purchased

a 1930 Consolidated Fleet biplane project in Ohio and hauled it

home to Indian River Aerodrome back in 2002. They were in the

beginning stages of making it airworthy when the conundrum

arose. There, clearly stamped on the cowling/engine compartment

and cockpit coaming was a distinctive three-digit number, which wasn’tthe same as the three-digit serial number in the aircraft’s paperwork.


10/44

8 DECEMBER 2010

“We were surpr ised that the

numbers didn’t match,” explainsMary, “and we said, ‘Uh-oh! Could

this be an airframe with paperwork

from a different airplane?’” They put

their work on hold temporarily, in

case there was a problem. Then step

by step they skillfully took charge

of the discovery process to uncover

their airplane’s faded history.

But before we delve into their

research, here are some basic

specifications for the biplane,

which was built by ConsolidatedAircraft under Approved Type

Certificate 131 in 1930. This Fleet

Model 2/YPT-6A, Serial No. 325,was built for the U.S. government,

to be used for training. Its first

owner was the Aeronautics Branch,

U.S. Department of Commerce

(Washington, D.C.). The two-place

biplane weighed 1,101 pounds

empty, with a maximum weight

of 1,675 pounds. Its wings were

constructed of spruce spars and

aluminum ribs, and it had a stagger

of 23 inches, with a span of 28

feet. Measuring 21 feet 8 inchesfrom prop to tailskid, it stood 7

feet 9 inches tall. As powered by

its original 100-hp five-cylinderKinner K-5, its top speed was 110

mph, and it cruised contentedly

at 95 mph while sipping from its

24-gallon fuel tank in the upper

wing’s center section. Price was just

under $4,000.

An Air-Minded CoupleIt’s not surprising that this

husband-wife team enjoys hands-on

restoration work. A brief glimpse

into their history reveals that bothMark and Mary were aviators before

C H R I S M I L L E R

C H R I S M I L L E R

A previous owner had adapted theengine for an alternator, but Mark

chose to go back with a wind-driven

generator.

Mary demonstrates how to adjust the windshield.

Inside the front cockpit.SPARKY BARNES SARGENT

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


11/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 9

they married each other 11

years ago. Mark grew up around

aviation; his first ride was in his

family’s Tri-Pacer. At the tender

age of 11, he had already gained

experience flying a Cessna 150,

Cessna 172, and a Citabria.

When he was old enough to

solo, he flew the open-cockpit,parasol -wing, plans-bui l t

Corben Junior Ace built by his

father, Don. Mark reflects that

“I have always been infatuated

with airplanes—especially

biplanes. I worked on a Champ

project with my father, and

that’s how I really learned about

restoration.” He also restored an

Aeronca Chief and a Piper Colt,

prior to restoring the 1930 Fleet.

M a r y s o l o e d a C e s s n a

150 and earned her private

certificate in the 1980s, when

she attended Embry-Riddle. Her

daytime job was working with

the Goodyear blimp—handling

ticket sales, managing mail,

and answering the phones. Her

next aviation-related job was

working with parts in the shop

at Frank Piasecki’s Heli-Stat in

Lakehurst, New Jersey. She thenworked with the crew on the

Resorts International airship.

Now she works with Flight

Safety, in Vero Beach.

Their first date was in a

Piper J-3 Cub. It was a windy

day, but Mark was determined

to fly down from Lantana to

a pancake breakfast at Boca

Raton—primarily because he

knew that Mary was one of the

organizers. “It was very windy;it took me two tries to get it

on the ground,” says Mark,

smiling. “There were about 100

people there, and I was the only

one who flew in.” Mary was

suitably impressed.

N ow , the y ’ r e no t o n l y

devoted to each other, but also

to reviving forgotten facets of

aviation history, as exemplified

by N1P, their 1930 Consolidated

YPT-6A Fleet. The biplane wastheir labor of love for seven

years, and they completed it

in May 2009. Their military

Fleet was a novelty in the

Vintage area at Sun ’n Fun this

spring—as well it should have

been, given the hands-on work

and detective-style research

required to resurrect it to its

original colors and markings.

Determined Detectives

After finding that puzzling

number (384) on the airframe

components, Mark and Mary’s

research started with finding a

website that listed serial numbers

for Consolidated Aircraft. “We

discovered that 30-384 was a

U.S. Army Air Corps (USAAC)

se r i a l number ,” expla ins

Mark, “with ‘30’ representing

the y e a r o f ma nu f a c t u re

(1930) and ‘384’ [being the

military] serial number.” That

number corresponded to the

manufacturer’s construction

number—325—which was

stamped on the data plate and

also recorded in the civilian

aircraft records.

Their research also revealed

that their biplane was one of 16built by Consolidated Aircraft

Corp. of Buffalo, New York, for

the USAAC (an additional six

were built for the Navy). “We

found out that only four of these

aircraft still exist, and since they

built so few of these, and hardly

anybody knows about them…

well, there was no other way to

restore it but as a YPT-6A. That

led to starting the project all

over again, because we decidedto do a lot more work on it,” he

says, laughing and shrugging

good-naturedly. “Now, this is

the only one flying.”

Armed with the knowledge

that their Fleet was an Army

Air Corps trainer, Mark placed

a call to the Air Force’s toll-free

number to see if he could find

out some more information.

“When I called, I said, ‘I hope I’m

not calling the wrong person,but we’ve purchased this old


Note the flat, adjustable glass windshield and

the modern avionics for today’s airspace.

J I M K

O E P N I C K


12/44

10 DECEMBER 2010

airplane, and it turns out it was

used as a trainer in the military.

We don’t know much about it;

is there anybody I could contact

that would help me?’ She said.

‘Sure, you need to call Maxwell Air

Force Base in Alabama—here’s the

phone number.’ So I called them,

and they wanted us to give them

some information to prove thatwe owned the airplane. So we sent

a copy of the registration to them,

and they in turn found several

pages of records relating to the

airplane and sent them to us, free

of charge. Those records showed

that the aircraft was assigned

to Brooks Field in San Antonio,

Texas, in 1930. We then contacted

Sheila Klein at Hangar 9, Brooks

Air Force Base, and purchased a

book from her entitled WingsOver San Antonio. That book had

a photo showing the only Fleet to

be assigned to Brooks Field.”

Mark and Mary , the eve r -

resourceful sleuths, took their

research to the national level, by

contacting the National Museum

of the U.S. Air Force, Wright-

Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton,

Ohio. “They were extremely

helpful, and then we contacted

their r estoration facility. Theylooked up the information that

had been painted on the side

of the YPT-6A, because we had

no idea what should be there,”

elaborates Mark. “They provided

us a lot of very thorough, very

deta i led information—at no

charge—and sent us two 8-1/2-by-

11 photographs of one of these

airplanes that was at Wright-

Patterson in 1930. They helpedus determine the colors from the

black and white photo; the wings

should be this yellow, the fuselage

olive drab, the fin yellow, and

the rudder olive drab and blue,

with red and white stripes. The

Smithsonian had the Air Corps

markings, and t hey referenced

each page in a book that pertained

to what we were doing. In the

back of that book, there were real

paint chips, so we got the colorsthe same and were also able to get

the stars the proper size.”

From Military to CivilianShedding even more light on the

history of their YPT-6A, Mark and

Mary explain, “Basically, it’s the

military trainer version of a Model

2 Fleet, and the ‘Y’ designation

stands for a design which is under

evaluation. [PT denotes primary

trainer.] There was one experimentalXPT-6 model produced, and then

five YPT-6As were produced; our

aircraft was one of the five used

to evaluate the design. Ten PT-6A

production models fol lowed.

After its evaluation process at

Brooks Field, ours was reassigned

to Long Beach, California, in May

of 1931. In August of 1931, it was

re-designated a PT-6A. In 1933, it

was re-designated as a PT-6A Special[Governmental Aircraft License No.

NS-50] and was operated with the

front cockpit designated for cargo.”

The Department of Commerce

sold the airplane to Waco Sales of

New York Inc. in February 1934,

as a Fleet PT-6A Special, Fleet

Model 2. It was flown to Roosevelt

Field, bearing civilian registration

number N13927. It was registered

and operated as a Model 2 Fleet

from that point forward. In May1934, the Fleet was sold to a

private owner in Houston, Texas.

In August 1937, the aircraft was

purchased by Aldrich F ly ing

Service of Houston and used for

pilot instruction. Interestingly,

a note in the aircraft records for

1937 reveals a rather unusual

m a n d a t e : “ T a i l w h e e l s a r e

required on all ships operating at

the Houston Municipal Airport,

Houston, Texas, on account ofdamage to shell runways by tail

CHRIS MILLER


13/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 11

skids.—signed by M.F. Clark,

Aero. Inspector.”

The Fleet’s registration number

(N13927) was changed to N1P in

1953. The aircraft remained in

Texas with various owners until

1988, when Kenneth Carder

purchased it and took it home to

Ohio. Mark and Mary purchased

N1P from him in 2001, after Mary

spotted an ad for it in Trade-A-Plane.

After completing their research on

this unique Fleet, they purchased

myriad supplies, donned their shop

clothes, and began the years-longrestoration process.

Hands-on Restoration

“We did everything hands-on

ourselves; we didn’t hire anything

out, although we had some help

from other folks,” recounts Mark.

“A couple of longtime friends and

members of the local EAA Chapter

99 group gave us helpful insight

to the restoration process. The

folks at EAA headquarters were

also very helpful.”

Overall, they found the airframe

to be in excel lent condition,

which saved quite a bit of time

that otherwise might have been

invested in structural repairs.

The most challenging aspect of

their hands-on restoration, they

say, “was handling the one-piece

upper wing during the re-covering

process. The upper wing is very

fragile, and must be handled with

care when removed from theaircraft, and when rotating it from

top to bottom.”

They replaced all of the hardware

in the aircraft and covered the

a i r f rame wi th Ceconi te and

finished it with Randolph butyrate

dope, using an old-fashioned,

40-year-old compressed air spray

system. That was also a challenging

process, thanks to the Florida heat

and humidity. The forward portion

of N1P’s fuselage was or iginally

fabric-covered, but at some point

in its history, the fabric from the

aft portion of the front cockpit

to the f irewall was replaced with

Husband–wife aviators and

restoration team: Mary Wood

and Mark White.

P H O T O S M A R K W H I T E

The cockpit sheet metal coaming, ready for its hand-stitched leather trim.

Mary works on one of the biplane wings.

The couple used original paint chips for accuratemilitary colors.

The YPT-6A is ready for its wings.



14/44

12 DECEMBER 2010

sheet metal. “We chose to retain

the metal, because it serves as

protection from fire,” shares Mark,

“and it also makes the aircraft

much more durable when entering

and exiting the cockpit area.”

They wanted to make the

biplane as authentic as practical,

yet still be able to enjoy flying it

to any airport they’d like to visit.

Hence, the layout of the front

panel is original, while the rearpanel sports modern avionics and

radio equipment. “The rear panel

is for safety and practicality; it

has a radio, transponder, encoder,

and intercom to make it practical

to fly in today’s airspace,” Mark

comments. “We know that takes

away from its authenticity, but we

wanted to fly it and enjoy it.”

They a l so chose to re ta in

the swivel ing ta i lwheel , and

the Kinner 160-hp R-56. Thispart icular F leet Model 2 was

allowed a gross weight increase

f rom 1,575 pounds to 1 ,740

pounds when the 100-hp Kinner

K-5 was removed and the 160-hp

Kinner R-56 was installed in 1962.

Large tail surfaces were installed

at that time, as well. Additionally,

a previous owner had adapted

the engine for an alternator, but

Mark chose to eliminate that and

installed a wind generator instead.(He does have the original but

cannot find replacement blades

for it, so he’s using a WWII-era

generator.) “We’ve rece ived a

great deal of priceless information

to help keep our Kinner running,

from Mr. Al Ball of Antique Aero

Engines in California,” shares

Mark. “There are very few people

with his knowledge of the Kinner

and its characteristics.”

Mark and Mary contacted

Sensenich, who reviewed theaircraft engine horsepower and

aircraft specifications. “They

recommended and built for us

the W92HA77 propeller, which

we are extremely pleased with,”

states Mark.

“My cruise speed is 105 mph

at 1650 rpm, and it burns 10 gph.

We stop for fuel after one and a

half hours—just in case the fuel

pumps at the [destination] airport

don’t work—this gives us plentyof fuel to fly to [another airport].

This airplane used to have a

31-gallon auxiliary fuel tank that

was strapped on the belly, and I

tracked down the blueprint for it,”

says Mark. “It stalls very gently

at 50 mph, and the horizontal

stabilizer is adjustable in flight—

it has a jackscrew trim like a Piper

Cub. You have to reach down and

pull the cable with your hand—

there’s no lever for the trim—andyou don’t have to make any trim

adjustment from cruise to power

off for landing, because the trim

does not change that dramatically.”

F in i shing touches for the

cockpits included a hand-stitched

leather coaming and original-style

windshields. A curved Plexiglas

windshield is installed for the

front cockpit, and Mark located

and purchased a flat, adjustable

glass windshield—along with

s e v e r a l c o p i e s o f o r i g i n a lblueprints perta ining to the

biplane—from John Sommerfeld

in Texas.

Flying HighM a r k a n d M a r y v i r t u a l l y

lived with their project, since its

restoration took place in their

hangar workshop, right next to

their home. They both laugh

good-naturedly as they share

that it was challenging, at times,to work together. Yet they feel

that the completed, airworthy

Consolidated YPT-6A was well

w or th the s e v e n y e a r s the y

invested on the project, and the

interpersonal learning curves they

mastered. They worked primarily

on the weekends and occasionally

more frequently, depending upon

the task at hand. In retrospect,

Mary emphasizes, “Perseverance

is very important.” And Markreflects, “Everybody has their own

This 1930 YPT-6A had a tailskid and 24-inch

air wheels when the Army Air Corps used it

as a trainer.SPARKY BARNES SARGENT


15/44

idea how to tackle something. They

usually end up with the same end

result, but it’s sometimes difficult

to agree on the same process—yet

neither one is wrong.”

Smiling, Mark recounts the

project: “There were times you

wish you’d never started on it,

but you get through that. I thinkyou feel better when it’s finished,

and you’re flying it. There’s also

just the satisfaction of knowing

you’ve done it!” In the midst of

the restoration, both Mary and

Mark experienced thei r own

personal transitions when they

each lost their respective fathers.

Mary poignantly shares, “The

most important miss ion the

aircraft has performed recently

is when we used it to scatter the

ashes of Mark’s father over his

favorite fishing area on an early

Sunday morning.”

They’ve also been flying their

YPT-6A to local fly-ins, proudly

transforming what was once

faded history into vibrant reality,

as together they fly high through

the Florida skies. Throughout

the week of Sun ’n Fun, Mark

and Mary always seemed to havean inquisitive crowd gathered

around their biplane, and the

couple was bubbling over with

enthusiasm as they answered

m yr i a d qu e s t ions . P e rha ps

equally rewarding as the interest

they received was the fact that

the judges took special note of

their restoration endeavors and

selected N1P as the Outstanding

Open Cockpit Biplane Antique.

The YPT-6A is the first aircraftr e s to ra t i on the y ’v e t a c k l e d

together, but i t won’t be the

last. As for the future, “We plan

to hang on to the airplane right

now and wor k on our other

project—a 1929 Cessna AW,” says

Mark. This hardworking couple is

enthusiastically looking forward

to yet another opportunity to

revive early aeronautical history—

and no doubt will be sharing it

with others who also appreciatethe early days of aviation.

What Our Members Are

RestoringAre you near ing complet ion o f a

restoration? Or is it done and you’re busy

flying and showing it off? If so, we’d liketo hear from you. Send us a 4-by-6-inch

print from a commercial source (no home

printers, please—those prints just don’t

scan well) or a 4-by-6-inch, 300-dpi digital

photo. A JPG from your 2.5-megapixel (or

higher) digital camera is fine. You can burn

photos to a CD, or if you’re on a high-speed Internet connection, you

can e-mail them along with a text-only or Word document describing your airplane. (If

your e-mail program asks if you’d like to make the photos smaller, say no.) For more

tips on creating photos we can publish, visit VAA’s website at www.vintageaircraft.

org . Check the News page for a hyperlink to Want To Send Us A Photograph?

For more information, you can also e-mail us at [email protected] or call us at

920-426-4825.

r

f t

’

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 13


16/44

14 DECEMBER 2010

In 1940, Frank Rezich took

his skills to the Howard fac-

tory where he worked on as-

sembling the models DGA-12

and -15 and even worked on the

DGA-18. He was paid “piecemeal”wages. Frank remembers, “You got

paid by the job—the quicker you

put it in, the more money you

made. But it didn’t work out for

us because we didn’t have a pro-

duction line. We turned out cus-

tom airplanes for buyers.” By the

age of 19, Frank was supervisor

of assembly and flight testing at

Howard, quite a position for such

a young man. Frank’s great talent

was just beginning to bloom atthis time.

Howard developed the model

DGA-18 to satisfy a requirement

of the Civilian Pilot Training

Program for advanced aerobatic

training. The ship was designed

by Gordon Israel, who had previ-ously designed the DGA-4 Ike and

Mike racer and the famous DGA-

6 Mister Mulligan. Frank was put

into a position of foreman of

production from experimental

to licensing. The ship eventually

earned Approved Type Certificate

No. 739.

Frank headed the group that

conducted the static load test on

the model DGA-18. Frank remem-

bers, “I had to raise my arms oc-casionally to get the blood [back

My Friend Frank Rezich

Part IIIBY ROBERT G. LOCK

PHOTOS COURTESY OF REZICH FAMILY COLLECTION

Above, a rare view inside the

Howard factory, showing the “dope

crew,” those hardy individuals who

sprayed clear, silver, and pigment-

ed dope onto all surfaces before

final assembly. Two of Frank’slifelong pals are shown, Mike

Bernat (kneeling) and Bud Johnson

(second from left). Frank recalls

some of the names but comments

about Eddie Brooks (standing left).

Frank remembers that “…Eddie

Brooks was so strong he could pick

up a 55-gallon drum of dope!” Note

the full face shield so the painter

wouldn’t breathe noxious dope

fumes. Five-gallon pails of pigment-

ed dope can be seen on the left inthe background.


17/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 15

into] my shoulder after lifting bags

of weight to load the structure.”

Only a few Howard model DGA-

18 ships were produced, but they

did see service in the Civilian Pi-

lot Training Program (CPTP) when

the curriculum eventually called

for advanced aerobatic training.

Frank recalls being sent to setup the Howard final assembly

line at DuPage Airport when the

firm received a Navy contract for

Army Air Forces model UC-70

and the Navy models GH-1 util-

ity, GH-2 ambulance, and GH-3

instrument trainer. These ships

were all variants of the civilian

1942 model DGA-15. During his

time at Howard, he helped build

the DGA-12 and DGA-15.

When Howard received a mili-

tary contract for DGA-15, the

Chicago municipal factory was

too small for a production line, so

they moved the facility to DuPage

Airport in Saint Charles, Illinois,

about 45 miles from Chicago.

Frank commuted from Chicago

every day as he set up the first

assembly line at the new plant.

At the Howard factory with the DGA-18 crew, with a very young Frank Rez-

ich standing on the far left with the prototype -18 ship in background.

In this original factory brochure

photograph of 1940 for the first

edition of the Howard Aircrafter , a

publication for Howard aircraft own-

ers, is one of the aircraft Frank was

assembling for the corporation.

A well-dressed Frank Rezich hand-props the Warner-powered DGA-18 air-

craft at the factory in Chicago, Illinois. After the first test flight, some prob-

lems were revealed, one of which was flutter in the tail assembly. Gordon

Israel proposed splicing the aft fuselage to change the angle of incidence

of the horizontal stabilizer. Additional tubular bracing was welded to the

aft fuselage structure, and by morning the ship was ready to fly. Besidesbeing an expert mechanic, Frank was an outstanding gas welder.


18/44

Howard was also building PT-23

trainers under contract to Fair-

child at that time. He was only

there for the first five ships, as

he was notified to prepare to be

drafted into World War II.

When Howard received thesecontracts, Frank recalls, “I heard

that I might be drafted into the

military. I said, how come, since

I am in charge of a military air-

craft production line. What the

---- is going on?” Thus a dilemma

appeared, and Frank had to deal

with the situation. “So we had

a good friend, Pat Mullins, who

used to be chief pilot for Blue-

bird Air Service—he was a good

friend of Nick and I,” Frank says.“He used to come to our house

for dinner. He goes down to Mi-

ami and gets hired as chief pilot

for Pan American Ferry Division.

They were trying to get a bunch

of pilots together to deliver all

those British airplanes to North

Africa. The Army has no pilots, so

Pat says, ‘Come on down, Frank.

We need mechanics and flight en-

gineers.’ So I hop down to Miami

and get a job as a civilian. So we’reflying these things every day out

16 DECEMBER 2010

Before leaving his job

at Howard, Frank had

established himself as aleader and thinker at age 19.

When he left Howard in

1943, he was only 20 years

old but had garnered the

equivalent of manyyears of experience.

The prototype DGA-18 was powered by a 125-hp Warner Scarab radial engine and proved to be underpowered,

particularly for aerobatics for which it was designed. The ship was modified into a DGA-18W powered by a

145-hp Warner engine and the model DGA-18K powered by a 160-hp Kinner engine. Approximately 60 ships

were produced.


19/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 17

of Miami, Dinner Key, and Opa-

locka. We put long-range tanks

in these airplanes and conducted

endurance runs to see if we could

make North Africa. We had ev-

erything from Martin Baltimores,

A-20, B-25, and C-47—whatever

the British had. I guess I spent six

months there. The military came

and said that they were going to

induct all of us. So I decided to go

home. I got home for about seven

days when I got drafted. I was sent

through basic school and wound

up in the Air Transport Command,

Ferry Division. We took two C-46s

and a C-47 to India.”

The Army Air Forces obviously

had looked at Frank’s background

and training in aviation very care-

fully because they assigned him to

essentially what he was doing as a

civilian prior to being inducted intothe service. The year was 1943.

Before leaving his job at How-

ard, Frank had established him-

self as a leader and thinker at age

19. When he left Howard in 1943,

he was only 20 years old but had

garnered the equivalent of many

years of experience. Frank is now

considered a one of a kind, a per-

son who comes along just once in

a lifetime with basic smarts and a

knack for getting things done!

Next month, we’ll delve into

the war and postwar years as

Frank shares his experiences fer-

rying Consolidated Vultee C-109s

to North Africa and flying over

the dangerous Himalaya Moun-

tains on missions we refer to to-

day as “flying the Hump.”

A Howard DGA-18W damaged during CPTP flight instruction at Bishop,

California, circa 1943 to 1944. Markings on the side of the fuselage were

required after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when flying was restricted along

the East and West Coasts.

Landing accidents were common during CPTP flight instruction. This may be the same Howard DGA-

18W as shown above, moved to another position with the left wing propped up. Under the left wing

the landing gear is broken, and missing from the photo is the Warner engine. Very few of these shipssurvived CPTP advanced flight training.


20/44

18 DECEMBER 2010

Light Plane Heritage

published in EAA Experimenter November 1990

Editor’s Note: The Light Plane Heritage series in EAA’s Experimenter magazine often touched on aircraft and concepts

related to vintage aircraft and their history. Since many of our members have not had the opportunity to read this se-

ries, we plan on publishing those LPH articles that would be of interest to VAA members. Enjoy!—HGF

THE J.V. MARTIN K-III SCOUTBY JACK MCRAE

T

he Martin K-III Scout was one of several in-

teresting airplanes built by James V. Martin,pioneer aviator and inventor. Although this

little biplane built in 1919 was described as an

altitude fighter, it appears to have been much closer to our

present concept of an ultralight airplane.

Martin, a former navigator in the Merchant Marine

and associate of Gen. Billy Mitchell as consulting engi-

neer to the U.S. Air Service before World War I, claimed

to have been granted 47 aircraft patents, including 25 on

basic devices such as the retractable landing gear, slotted

wings, and floating wingtip ailerons. In 1911 Martin held

the world’s speed record of 70 mph. In 1912 he proposed

a trans-Atlantic flight in a five-engined biplane of 100feet span that was generally accepted as being possible

at that time. He operated aircraft factories in Garden

City, New York, and Elyria, Ohio, from 1914 where he

designed and built several successful airplanes. During

World War I he became a controversial personality when

he refused to accept a $10 million order to build DH-4

airplanes, which he considered obsolete and unsafe.

By the Act of Congress of July 1, 1918, aircraft patents

were made available to a patent pool known as the Man-

ufacturers Aircraft Association. Martin refused to join theassociation and several times in the following 20 years

unsuccessfully sued it for alleged patent infringements

for sums ranging from $51 million to $150 million.

The K-III Scout of 1919 incorporated many advanced

features for that time, such as a retractable landing gear,

floating ailerons, K-strut wing truss, and steerable tailskid

mounted inside the rudder.

Using a 45-hp ABC Gnat engine, the maximum

speed was estimated to be 135 mph, which no doubt

was very optimistic. The airplane was very light, hav-

ing an empty weight of only 350 pounds. The span was

20 feet 2 inches, and overall length was 13 feet 3-1/2inches. Construction was of wood and plywood with

fabric covering. The fuselage was a plywood frame-

work braced with diagonal wires. The landing gear

was retractable by means of a hand crank and a worm

gear. A novel feature was the use of Ackerman spring

wheels, which were supposed to act as shock absorb-

ers through flexible spokes. The 9-gallon fuel tank was

mounted in the wing center section and was supposed


21/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 19

to give a range of about two hours. It was claimed that

the airplanes could be operated from a country road if

necessary and could fly 22 miles per gallon of gasoline.

In addition to its many interesting design features, the

K-III Scout is an example of excellent workmanship

and simplicity of construction. At present it is on ex-

hibition at the Garber facility of the National Air and

Space Museum.

In his 1982 book The Aircraft Treasures of Silver Hill,

Walter J. Boyne tells of the attempts to fly the K-III

Scout. Flight testing was done at Dayton in 1919 by

Lt. W.F. Gerhard, who found the airplane so tail heavy

that it was necessary to add 75 pounds of ballast in the

nose. The engine was not powerful enough to allow the

airplane to climb out of ground effect at about 4 feet al-

titude. Also, the floating ailerons were found to be com-

pletely ineffective. Sixty short hops were made. Boyne

suggests that a redesign of the Scout into a safely flyable

airplane would be a project for the homebuilder who

has done everything.

AERO CLASSIC“COLLECTOR SERIES”

Vintage Tires New USA Production

Telephone: 800-247-8473 or323-721-4900 FAX: 323-721-7888

6900 Acco St., Montebello, CA 906403400 Chelsea Ave, Memphis, TN 38106

www.desser.comIn Support Of Aviation Since 1920….

Show off your pride and joy with afresh set of Vintage Rubber. Thesenewly minted tires are FAA-TSO’dand speed rated to 120 MPH. Somethings are better left the way they

were, 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 average

tread life and UV treated rubber resists aging.First impressions last a lifetime, so put these jewels on andbring back the good times..…New General Aviation Sizes Available:

500 x 5, 600 x 6, 700 x 8

Desser has the largest stock andselection of Vintage and Warbirdtires in the world. Contact uswith your requirements.

J.V. Martin K-III Scout

Specifications

Total wing area 105 square feet

Ailerons 5 square feet

Stabilizer 9.5 square feet

Elevator 6.7 square feet

Rudder 4.9 square feet

Overall height 7 feet 4-1/2 inches

Equipment Weight

Engine 85.50 pounds

Wings 60.75 pounds

Ailerons 9.50 pounds

Landing gear 16.38 pounds

Wheels 17.50 pounds

Struts and wires 8.25 pounds

Oil and gas tanks 9.75 pounds

Rudder and tailskid 7.75 pounds

Horizontal tail surfaces 14.50 pounds

Fuselage, complete 106.50 pounds

Propeller and hub 13.62 pounds

Total weight empty 350.00 pounds


22/44

20 DECEMBER 2010

BY ROBERT G. LOCK

Elementary theory of ight

THE VintageMechanic

When I was instructing airframe and general subjects

for the airframe and powerplant mechanic certificate

at Reedley College, three of my favorite subjects were

theory of flight, weight and balance, and assembly

and rigging. You really can’t talk about one without

talking about the other two. Over my 50-year career in

aviation, these three subjects played an important role,

primarily because all three involve safety by providing

stability and safety of the airplane in flight.

So, this installment of The Vintage Mechanic is

“Elementary theory of flight,” specifically tailored to

the biplane. I’ll do my best to make this interestingand easy to understand. A glossary of terms used in

this article appears at the end of the column.

First let’s discuss what happens when air flows over

a curved airfoil. Air molecules are speeded up over

the top of the surface, and physicist Daniel Bernoulli

discovered that with an increase in air velocity there

will be a decrease in lateral pressure. Therefore an

envelope is on the upper surface of an airfoil where

ambient pressure is slightly reduced. Air on the lower

surface of the airfoil, which is slightly increased, pushes

the surface up, thus the production of lift.

With the production of lift on the surface, there’sa corresponding increase in drag. This drag caused

by the production of lift is called “induced” drag.

Induced drag varies as to the amount of lift the surface

is producing; thus the more lift the surface produces,

the more induced drag is produced. The formula to

determine just how much drag a particular airfoil will

produce at a certain angle of attack is called coefficient

of drag and abbreviated as CD.

The amount of lift that a particular airfoil will

produce depends on air density, speed of air over

surface, shape of the airfoil, and angle of attack. This is

called coefficient of lift and abbreviated as CL.All lift forces will be concentrated on a certain

point on the chord line, much like if one balances

a pencil on the finger. The point where the pencil

balances is where all weight is concentrated. This

point on an airfoil chord is called center of pressure

and abbreviated as CP.

As the angle of attack of an airfoil increases, the CP

moves forward on the chord line toward the leading

edge. The CL increases, as does the CD. Angle of attack

is given in degrees, and at the critical angle of attack,

airflow over the airfoil will become turbulent, the air

will burble, and the airfoil will stall.

The stalling angle varies among airfoil shapes, butmost older airfoils stall around 16 to 18 degrees angle

of attack. Don’t confuse the stalling angle of the airfoil

with the pitch angle of the airplane. These are two

different subjects.

There was little wind tunnel testing of airfoils in

the early years of aviation. I can relate some really

interesting stories regarding civilian aircraft design in

the 1920s as told by Albert Vollmecke, chief designer

for Arkansas Aircraft, later Command-Aire Inc. Albert

designed my model 5C3 and provided me with quite a

bit of technical data about design and construction in

those early days.When one studies old biplanes, several things can

be observed. They were all similar in size, shape,

wing area, and general layout. They all used similar

engines—whatever was available at the time. Certainly

the Curtiss OX-5 and Wright J-5s were the mainstays of

early civil aviation. Wing and power loading for those

airplanes were all similar. The method of construction

and rigging were also all similar, so their flying

characteristics were alike. With that in mind, let’s put

together a biplane and see how it flies.

Most biplanes of the early era were designed with

positive stagger in the wings. If the airfoil gap (thedistance between the wings) was close together, there


23/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 21

was a liberal amount of stagger. Conversely, if the gap

was far apart, there was less stagger. Stagger is important

because it establishes where the center of pressure is

located on the mean aerodynamic chord, which needs

to be aft of the center of gravity location (CG) in all

flight attitudes. Remember that the center of pressure

will move forward as the angle of attack increases, so

we don’t want the CP to move too close to, or forward

of, the CG. Only a few biplanes had negative stagger,and perhaps the most famous is the Beech Model 17

Staggerwing. Most often, positive stagger was used in

the design. If the aircraft had positive stagger, the upper

wing leading edge was placed forward of the lower

wing leading edge. Negative stagger is the opposite.

If the ailerons were on the upper wing, then the

designer would design the lower wing attach points

with more angle of incidence than the upper wing.

Conversely, if the ailerons were on the lower wing, the

upper wing would have more angle of incidence. This

is called decalage; if the ailerons were on the lower

wing, the designer would want to cause the upper wing

to begin to stall before the lower wing. In that way, the

pilot will have aileron control through the stall. Lloyd

Stearman designed the model 75 with 4 degrees of

incidence in the upper wing and 3 degrees in the lower

wing. The ailerons were mounted on the lower wing. If

the airfoil stalls at 18 degrees angle of attack, when the

upper airfoil reaches that point, the lower wing angle

of attack is 17 degrees. The opposite would be true if

ailerons were mounted to the upper wing. Aha! It’s the

stability thing again.

Having discussed decalage, let’s focus on gap. MyCommand-Aire has 80 inches of gap. That’s a lot of

gap, but the airplane only has 9 inches of stagger! Gap

is important because it separates the decreased pressure

envelope on the top of the wing surface from the

increased pressure on the bottom of the wing surface.

Figure 1

If the gap and stagger were small, the increased

pressure envelope would bleed into the increased

pressure envelope and degrade lift forces. Gap

measurement is set by the length of the interplane

and cabane struts and is therefore not adjustable.

Figure 1 shows effects of stagger and gap onbiplane interference.

The next subject is wing stagger, which is adjustable

on most biplanes. Figure 2 shows stagger. Stagger is

set by the placement of cabane struts on fuselage

longerons. Perhaps one of the best instructions ever

written for biplane rigging comes from the Boeing

PT-13/17 manuals. If you can rig a Stearman, you can

rig any biplane! Figure 2 shows positive and negative

stagger on a biplane.

Positive stagger is measured by dropping a plumbbob over the upper wing leading edge so it drops at the

interplane strut attach point on left and right lower

wings. The diagonal cabane strut or stagger wires in

the center section should be adjusted until the correct

stagger is reached, plus or minus 1/8 inch. If the stagger

is adjusted per factory specs (if you can find them),

the center of pressure should be correctly located on

the mean aerodynamic chord. I always rig to factory

specifications. I don’t like to “fudge” stagger forward

or aft to compensate for nose- or tail-heavy conditions.

That must be addressed during restoration.

Figure 2

Now let’s discuss stability.

Lateral stability is stability against a rolling motion.

This is primarily provided by wing dihedral. My

Command-Aire has no dihedral in the upper wings and

2 degrees in the lower wings. The New Standard D-25

has 1/2 degree in the upper wings and 2 degrees in

the lower wings. The Boeing Stearman has 1/2 degree

in the upper wings and 1-1/2 degrees in lower wings.

So most all biplanes are quite similar in the riggingdetails. For a set of biplane wings, dihedral is set by the

landing wire(s).

Longitudinal stability is stability against pitching

motion. It’s primarily set by the horizontal stabilizer

and its arm from the lateral axis to its position on

the aft fuselage. “Short coupled” airplanes tend to be

touchy in pitch, while airplanes with a long arm from

the lateral axis to the stab position tend to be very

mild in pitch.

Directional stability is stability in yaw. The vertical

stabilizer provides this stability. Also in the mix is the

arm of the vertical axis to the centerline of the engine.The longer the arm, the more the airplane will yaw. The

Interference

Wings without

stagger

Staggered

wings

Positive stagger Negative stagger

S t a g g e r

The effects of stagger and gap on biplane interference.

Different configurations of wing stagger.


24/44

22 DECEMBER 2010

New Standard biplanes I fly have different arms where

the engine mass is located. The yaw characteristics are

totally different between the D-25 and D-25A. The

D-25A has a 4-inch longer arm to the engine center of

mass. So the fuselage and engine cowling forward of

the vertical axis has something to do with the aircraft’s

yawing stability. Figure 3 is a simple sketch of an

aircraft’s primary flight control system.

Figure 3

Lateral control is provided by the ailerons, which

control roll around the longitudinal axis of the

airplane. Most common was the Englishman Frise

(pronounced Freeze) or the German Lachmann slotted

aileron. This aileron gave good lateral control at low

airspeeds because there’s a slot between the wing

and aileron. At high angles of attack the air would

begin to burble and separate from the region at the

wing trailing edge. But airflow on the bottom of the

wing was still moving, so this air would flow throughthe slot and over the top of the aileron. But in level

flight, the penalty was a small amount of drag, as air

flowing over the top of the slot would tend to curl

back into the slot, thus creating drag. A few aircraft

manufacturers covered the slot with a sheet metal or

fabric strip, which eliminated drag but reduced the low

speed effectiveness. This photo is a rare picture from

the Command-Aire files of Albert Vollmecke. It shows

Albert’s design use of the Lachmann’s slotted aileron.

Adverse yaw was another nemesis that plagued early

airplanes. When banking the airplane, adverse yaw

worked opposite the entry into the turn; if the airplane

was rolled to the right, the nose would rotate to the

left. Thus a generous amount of rudder was required to

get the airplane into a coordinated turn.

Adverse yaw is simple to explain. When an aileron is

moved down, it effectively increases the camber of thewing, changes the angle of attack, and increases lift,

and the wing rises. On the opposite wing the aileron

moves up, thus taking away the angle of attack to help

move the wing down. The bank angle is created and

the aircraft rolls around the longitudinal axis.

To help offset adverse yaw, aileron differential was

developed, which aided somewhat. Aileron differential

required the up-moving aileron to have more travel

than the down-moving aileron. Typical travels were 18

degrees down and 25 degrees up. The Frise aileron also

had an aileron leading edge that would drop slightly

below the lower surface of the wing when moving up.

This plus the added travel up was an attempt to cause

additional drag on the downward moving wing to

counteract adverse yaw.

Modern aerobatic aircraft utilize “spades” attached

to the lower side of ailerons. Spades effectively remove

all aileron adverse yaw problems.

Longitudinal control is provided by the elevators

and is movement around the lateral axis. The elevators

effectively change the camber of the horizontal

stabilizer. Up elevator changes the angle of attack of

the stabilizer/elevator surface, and more downwardlift is created, thus raising the nose. Conversely down

elevator creates more of an upward lifting force causing

the nose to move down. Also incorporated in the

stabilizer or elevator is the longitudinal trim. Either the

stabilizer pivots to change the angle of incidence (and

therefore angle of attack) or the elevator is provided

with tab. Both controls are actuated from the pilot’s

cockpit. The trim tab actuator is designed to move the

same direction as the control stick. That is, moving

the control forward causes the nose to move down,

and rearward movement of the control causes the nose

to move up. The purpose of longitudinal trim is toremove stick forces in various flight regimes. Trim tab

trailing edge movement up will move the elevator

down, thus moving the nose down. Trim tab trailing

edge movement down will move the elevator up, thus

moving the nose up.

Directional control is provided by the rudder and is

movement around the vertical axis. Normally rudder

travel is the same in both left and right directions.

Typical travel is 23 to 30 degrees left and right

depending on the type of aircraft and manufacturer’s

instructions. If the aircraft is to exhibit proper spin

recovery, the rudder must be rigged according to themanufacturer’s instructions. The rudder works like

The basic three-axis control system of rudder, elevator,

and ailerons.


25/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 23

an elevator; it’s a variable-camber airfoil that changes

camber in relation to the vertical fin and causes an

increase or decrease in lifting force. Right rudder

input changes the camber, causing more lift to the

left side of the vertical stabilizer, thus moving the

nose right. Left rudder works on the opposite side of

the vertical stabilizer.

Tail wheel and rudder cable interconnect: Many

aircraft use a steerable-type tail wheel. When therudder pedal is moved to the right or left the airplane’s

nose moves accordingly. A word to the wise—the tail

wheel steering should work in a positive manner.

Normally there’s a spring connecting the control cable

to each side of the steering arm. Jack up the tail, move

the rudder left and right, and make sure the tail wheel

moves accordingly.

Many aircraft have been damaged in a ground loop

accident due to poor tail wheel steering. Other aircraft

use a locking tail wheel; it locks in the straight position

for takeoff and landing. Jack up the tail, neutralize the

rudder, and check to see if the tail wheel tracks straight.

A symmetry check is used here. Measure from the axle of

the tail wheel to a point on the main landing gear axle.

Both measurements, left and right, should be the same.

Now, let’s put the airplane level flight at cruise

power and see in detail how stability and control work.

In level flight there are four forces acting on the

airplane. Thrust = drag, and lift = weight. Thrust

provided by the engine equals drag, which is both

induced and parasitic. The weight of the airplane in

pounds is equal to the lift produced in pounds. If the

center of gravity is located forward of the center ofpressure, the horizontal stabilizer provides a positive

lifting force down. Therefore, anytime the speed is

decreased, that lifting force will decrease and the nose

will drop. If the pilot adds a small amount of back

pressure on the stick causing nose-up movement, then

releases the control, this is what should happen:

Nose up, and the airplane begins to slow down, and

the lifting force on the horizontal stabilizer is less; the

nose moves down, and airspeed increases, increasing

the lifting force on the tail down, pulling the nose

up. This is repeated until the aircraft regains straight

and level flight. The time involved in the nose-up andnose-down oscillations indicates positive static and

dynamic stability. If these oscillations neither increase

nor decrease, then the aircraft is neutrally stable in

both static and dynamic stability. If these oscillations

increase over time, then the aircraft displays negative

static and dynamic stability. Hopefully, after this

dissertation, one can see the importance of having the

CG forward of the center of pressure (CP).

The same kind of test can be made by inducing a

slight roll, releasing the stick and seeing if the aircraft will

return to wings-level flight. Dihedral should help bring

it back to level flight. And moving the rudder to inducea yaw should result in the aircraft returning to straight

flight in a relatively short period of time with just a few

oscillations back and forth. The vertical stabilizer (fin)

should help bring back the original heading.

Many older biplanes may have positive static and

dynamic longitudinal and directional stability but may

exhibit neutral static and dynamic lateral stability.

The New Standard is that way. Once the roll has been

induced (by turbulence), the airplane won’t return

to wings-level flight. The pilot is always working theailerons to maintain wings-level flight at cruise.

These stability and control tests can be conducted when

the air is calm and there’s no turbulence of any kind.

Hopefully this discussion will give pilots a little

more insight into why the biplane does what it does

in flight. Keep in mind that the older the airplane, the

less designers knew about stability.

Terms

Longitudinal axis—the axis of roll. An imaginary line fromnose to tail through the fuselage.

Lateral axis—the axis of pitch. An imaginary line fromwingtip to wingtip.

Vertic al ax is—the axis of yaw. An imaginary vertical linethrough fuselage center intersecting both longitudinal

and lateral axes.

Chord line—a line through an airfoil from leading edge totrailing edge.

Mean aerodynamic chord—an imaginary chord line locatedbetween a biplane’s upper and lower wing chord lines

that, if an airfoil was superimposed, would give the

same pitching and rolling moments.

Center of pressure—a point on the chord line where alllifting forces are concentrated.

Angle of incidence—the angle formed from the wing chordline and longitudinal axis. Usually a fixed angle but

sometimes adjustable.

Decalage—the difference in angles of incidence of upperand lower wings of a biplane. Greater incidence in upper

wings = positive decalage. Greater incidence in lower

wings = negative decalage.

Angle of attack—the angle formed by the relative wind andchord line (sometimes the lower surface) of a wing.

Relative wind—impact air on the wing sur face fl owing inthe opposite direction as the line of flight.

Stagger—the distance (usually in inches) upper wing leadslower wing, or lower wing leads upper wing, for a biplane.

Gap —the distance (in inches) between chord lines of abiplane.

Camber—curvature of an airfoil. Upper camber has morecurve than lower camber. If camber is the same on

top and bottom surfaces, the air foil is said to be

symmetrical.

Induced drag —drag produced when the air craft iscreating lift.

Parasite drag —drag produced by a portion of the

aircraft’s frontal surfaces that tends to impede itsforward movement.


26/44

24 DECEMBER 2010

BY Steve Krog, CFI

THE Vintage

Instructor

Taxiing without incident

Several days ago I watched an individual

taxi away from the hangar, headed for

the runway. The pilot, who was quite

experienced, was excited about the

flight—it was the first time in many years that his

eldest daughter was going for a ride with him. The

daughter, too, was excited about making the flight

(good father/daughter bonding time). The day was

bright and sunny with a surface wind of about 10-12

mph, gusting to about 15 mph. These winds were

nothing unusual to the pilot, as I had flown with him

for several hours previously, and we had flown inwinds considerably stronger.

As they began taxiing away from the hangar I

shouted to them: “The toughest part of the entire flight

will be getting the airplane to the runway.” The pilot

nodded and smiled.

Taxiing required traveling about 150 yards with a

direct crosswind before turning downwind onto the

hard-surface taxiway. The controls were positioned

properly, slight power was added, and they began the

trip to the runway. At the point where a 90-degree turn

downwind was required, the pilot stopped and cleared

the taxiway for any other traffic. Power was thenapplied along with full right rudder, but the airplane

didn’t want to turn. The direct crosswind was hitting

the left side of the airplane broadside, preventing the

turn. A touch of brake was applied and a bit more

power added. Still nothing. And still more power was

added, along with more right brake but no response.

Then the pilot made the cardinal sin of taxiing with a

brisk wind. He pushed the stick forward!

Instantly the tail came up and the distinctive ting,

ting, ting of prop tips glancing off the taxiway was

heard! By the time I had walked to the taxiway, he had

shut down the engine and had exited the airplane. He

stated simply, “I feel terrible about this, and I know

exactly what I did wrong.”

Together we moved the airplane back to the hangar

and sat down for a cup of coffee. I could see that he

was quite upset with himself, and I didn’t want him

leaving the airport without talking about the incident

(and lowering his blood pressure). Before he departed

I suggested he return the next day, and I would make

an airplane available for him to fly. He needed to

get back in the saddle before convincing himself he

should no longer fly.

After the individual left the airport I began thinkingof all the taxi incidents I had observed at the airport.

I recall watching a Stearman go up on its nose (after

suggesting to the owner/pilot that it wouldn’t be wise

to fly it until he fixed the sticky brakes), a Citabria

and a Waco attempting to taxi through the wooden

runway markers, numerous airplanes taking out

runway lights, and a Cub with Cleveland hydraulic

brakes go on its nose three times. There are a number

of other instances, but these are the most vivid.

What, if any, was the common denominator in

each of these mishaps? Wind? Unfamiliarity with

the airport? Pilot inattentiveness? Pilot unfamiliaritywith the aircraft systems? After giving thought to each

situation, I arrived at the conclusion: It was usually a

combination of all the above.

Very little space and explanation is given to proper

taxi techniques in any of the flight-training handbooks

commonly used today. A lot of that is due to the use

of tricycle airplanes, I’m sure. However, there are still

thousands of tailwheel airplanes being flown and new

tailwheel airplanes, thanks to the light-sport aircraft

movement, being added to the general-aviation fleet

every day. It certainly appears this is a gross oversight

by publishers of today’s training manuals. This


27/44

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 25

oversight also carries over to many of the younger

instructors providing tailwheel training today.

I’ve collected flight-training manuals, current

and historical, for years, and I had to go all the way

back to a manual published by the Civil Aeronautics

Administration in 1943 before I could find more than

a paragraph devoted to ground handling of a tailwheel

airplane. The ability to taxi an airplane successfully is

a key part to any successful flight, but little time andeffort is devoted to proper taxi methods. In the past

12 months I’ve had the pleasure of flying with more

than 100 individuals in the pursuit of flight training,

tailwheel checkouts, and biennial flight reviews. I can

attest to the fact that most individuals are very lax

when taxiing! As a result, I’ve developed a list of things

that every pilot should practice whenever attempting

flight, but which are especially important when flying

a tailwheel airplane.

Some of the key points made include:

When taxiing, look for other airplanes andground obstructions. Your visibility is extremely

limited when on the ground. While taxiing, make

S-turns so that you can see what is directly ahead of

your airplane. Be careful that the blast of air from your

propeller (prop blast) doesn’t blow dust on spectators

or endanger other airplanes on the ground.

The rudder is the most important control

when taxiing. On the ground, most of the pressureon the controls is exerted by the stream of air from

the propeller. Ailerons are ineffective because the prop

blast does not reach them.

If your airplane has a steerable tail wheel, the rudder

control will be rather stiff while the plane is on the

ground. More pressure on, but less movement of, the

rudder pedals will be used in taxiing than if directional

control is dependent on the rudder alone.

In taxiing, the stick is used to keep thetail on the ground. When taxiing into the wind

(upwind), keep the stick back of neutral, and when

taxiing with the wind (downwind), keep the stick

forward of neutral. When taxiing into the wind, the

elevators should be raised by holding the stick back,

so that a sudden gust of wind will only serve to hold

the tail on the ground. When taxiing with the wind,

the elevators should be lowered by holding the stick

forward, so that a sudden gust of wind from behind

the airplane will force the tail down.

Use the throttle gently. In taxiing, the engineshould be kept running only fast enough to keep

the plane moving

Vintage Airplane - Dec 2010

Documents

Transcript of Vintage Airplane - Dec 2010