birdofheweek

BirdoftheWeek
The Sandler Vampire, from UL to LSA

The military Piranha, build for the Turkish Air Force, was the basis for the new Vampire. The folding wing was used directly from the military aircraft.

One of the highlights at AirVenture this year, according to various reports I have read, was the showing of the newly-revised Sandler Vampire LSA. I have had an association with this aircraft dating back over thirty years. It is an interesting story.

The Vampire LSA, on display at AirVenture this year, was developed and improved from Sadler’s Piranha light-attack aircraft. It is still a design in-progress.

I was once the owner of a small sail loft, which produced sails/coverings for the ultralight industry and for windsurfers. We also produced ultraviolet-resistant, metallic-coated wing and tail coverings for existing ultralights. We closely followed the growing ultralight business by selling our products at trade shows and airshows in the Southern California area. It was at an ultralight airshow at the old Lake Elsinore Ultralight Park where I first saw a Sadler Vampire, it blew me away. I still have flashbacks to that event.

The military Piranha used a Chevrolet V-8 engine and had outstanding performance. The new Vampire LSA will probably have a Rotax 912 for power.

Tina and I were on the flight line at our company’s booth and watching the demonstration flights between attending to customers. I happened to look up, and saw a small, all-metal, twin-tail-boom aircraft flying at about 800 feet or less. The nose suddenly pitched down and the aircraft headed for the ground. We both gasped as we felt that the pilot was in trouble and headed for a crash.. Wrong; the little 35-hp single-place ultralight kept on tucking in and went on to complete an outside loop, and then another, and another. I thought, this just had to be an excellent pilot either really brave or really stupid. Brave to outside-loop a 254 pound ultralight, and stupid to do it again. But I was wrong; the famous ultralight test pilot, Jack Britton. was at the controls, Britton had added a larger engine and strategic bracing on the 30-foot cantilever wing. He knew exactly what he was doing. Jack went on to demonstrate the Sadler Vampire at airshows around the world.

This is the original single-place Sadler Vampire of the early 1980s. It had a small Rotax two-stroke engine. It had outstanding strength and performance for an early ultralight.

It was one of the most successful well designed true ultralights ever. It was a winner.. In fact, the Sadler Vampire Ultralight was noted for being well ahead of its time. In 1982, it won EAA AirVenture's prestigious Grand Champion Award for its innovation and workmanship. Over 50 of the aircraft were built in both the USA and Australia during mid-1980s. And to this day, many aviation enthusiasts remember the aircraft for its ramp appeal and excellent handling characteristics. Bill Sadler was an MIT graduate aeronautical engineer who set out to build a really strong, safe and appealing ultralight to replace the flying lawn-chair look of the current lightweight aircraft. Mr. Sadler next moved to General Atomics where he worked until the early 90s, Sadler was involved in the early development of the Predator drone project. Out of this project was born the Sadler A22 aircraft and the UAV 18-50 drone.

In 1997, Sadler contracted with Turkish Aerospace Industries to develop the Piranha air-to-ground attack fighter. The Piranha weighed just 1450 pounds and boasted a useful load of the same weight. It was powered by a 450hp water-cooled aluminum-block V8. The power-to-weight ratio was so great that the Piranha was capable of vertical climb rates of over 4000-feet per minute. The Piranha was the prototype, more or less, for the new, highly-regarded Sadler Vampire LSA seen at Oshkosh’s 2009 AirVenture. The LSA Vampire has a wing spar even stronger than that of the Piranha. The double folding-wing technology, trailing-arm, tricycle landing gear, and even most of the airframe construction are the same as used in the military aircraft. The new Sadler Vampire LSA is a carryover from the military design developed by Sadler. The Vampire LSA's main wing spar is actually stronger than the Piranha’s, and much of the technology, including the folding-wing design, landing gear, airframe construction, and control mechanisms, are borrowed directly from Sadler's military craft.

In my opinion, this new LSA Vampire is the beginning of some exciting new LSA designs that will advance lightweight aviation.

The Diamond DA-20 T-tailed Flight Trainer

The Diamond DA20 is a very popular primary trainer. The 125-hp two-passenger, all-composite aircraft is even used by flight demonstration teams. It has an excellent safety record.

At one time, almost 100% of the flight schools in the United States relied on a only a few aircraft for flight training, the most popular being the Cessna 150/152, for many very valid reasons. The most important, it was a good aerodynamic trainer; in other words, it flew like an airplane should fly, and anyone learning on this inexpensive-to-buy-and-to-operate two-place aircraft could go on to fly any other aircraft available to civilian pilots. It is still considered one of the best training aircraft of all time. But Cessna hasn’t built any new ones for decades and those remaining are worn out or wearing out.

Diamond also produces the four-passenger DA40 as a follow-on aircraft for family travel.

Large flight academies, including many military schools, were faced with a financial problem. You don’t need a fuel hungry four-passenger trainer to teach primary training. Two-passenger capability is large enough but there were none available. And then along came the Diamond Katana, and it was and is an outstanding primary trainer and makes a great sport aircraft as well.

Military flight schools, using the DA20, reverse the normal instrument pattern (as shown) and have the instruments on the right side of the cockpit placing the stick in the right hand and throttle quadrant in the left, as used in jet fighters

I first became aware of the Diamond Katana in the early 1990s, when a sales representative wanted me to do an article for several magazines on the new Rotax-powered Katana. This was a primary trainer version of the highly-popular Diamond Motor Glider. I assigned the flying to son Robert while I performed the photo duties. After they had landed from their flight, Robert thought that this was an outstanding little aircraft. At that time Robert had time in Turbo Arrows, Warriors, C-152s and Skyhawks. I was intrigued, so I talked the representative into flying with me as well. I, too, was very impressed. The Katana flew like Piper and Beech wished their Tomahawk and Skipper would behave, but there was no comparison, it was the Diamond hands down.

Over the next ten years, Diamond really polished their gem. They built a special edition for the United States with a Continental fuel-injected 125-hp engine. This was the version that flight schools and military schools purchased by the hundreds. In fact, one of the schools, Embry Riddle, had a contract with the US Air Force to weed out students, who, for any reason, were not considered pilot material. This version had the flight instruments on the right side of the cockpit so the student’s right hand would be on the control stick (no yoke on a Katana) and his left hand on the throttle. This is the normal position for military fighter aircraft. Diamond removed one fuel tank so that the range would be cut in half, but the aircraft wouldn’t be lugging around the extra weight either. Average primary student flight lessons are usually under two hours in duration.

The top-of-the-line Diamond Twin Star features newly-released diesel engines which are now being certified in the USA.

The Diamond DA-20 has a great glide ratio, much higher than that of a 152; this provides an opportunity to locate the best emergency landing area. The DA20 has a higher top speed and superior rate of climb than the vintage Cessna. The DA20 has superior visibility, plus a castoring nose gear; ground control is via differential braking. Cross-wind landings in this aircraft are a fun time for both students and instructors. The DA20 is of fully composite construction. The efficient flaps allow for a very low stall speed of 42 knots. The DA20’s composite construction does not allow for lightning protection so the aircraft is not IFR certified. Follow-up versions are the four-passenger DA40 and the outstanding Diamond Twin-Star with two brand new diesel engines. Flight schools and academies using Diamonds in their flight program are well equipped to teach modern flying methods with modern equipment.

Anything You Can Build, We Can Build Bigger
Messerschmitt Bf.321 “Gigant.” Lousy Airplane, Great Target

The six-engine Messerschmitt Bf.323 was powered with Jumo engines and could carry troops, trucks and tanks.

Troop-and equipment-carrying gliders have always seemed like a great idea to military strategists. The US Army Air Force did use many WACO CG-4 (Cargo Glider) towed behind C-47 transports in the invasion of Europe and other similar campaigns. The glider pilots were minimally trained pilots who learned on engineless Cubs, T’crafts and Aeronca Defenders. One of the glider-pilot training areas was at our nearby El Mirage Dry Lake in Southern California. Thirty years ago, the marked runways on the lake could still be seen where student glider pilots earned their glider wings. The WACO was a large tube-and-fabric troop hauler which had a very poor survival rate. The Germans, who also used gliders would stick poles in all the suitable possible glider landing areas. The C-47s would cut the gliders loose close to their targets, and the glider pilots would then land them on the designated patch of ground, even if it had been “poled” during the night. The glider pilots, and the troops they were carrying, had a very poor chance of survival. Troop-carrying gliders were eventually scaled back so the more successful paratroops could take over. While England and the United States used medium-size 83-ft wingspans, Germany built their “Gigant” with a wing span of 180 feet.

The huge wing, 180 foot, also had machine gun turrets built in for protection.

The Bf. 321 was one of the largest planes used by anyone in World War II. But Germany had an immediate problem. They did not have an airplane large or powerful enough to tow it into the air, even after they designed special tugs just to get the 321 into the air. To get the huge glider airborne required three tractor aircraft. But the large number of losses of planes and pilots, due to mishaps, were not acceptable. Germany then used the only avenue left; they installed six twin-row Jumo radials to haul the fully-loaded Bf.323 into the air. Once airborne, with its huge load of troops and fighting vehicles, the “Gigant” could fly at about 177 mph. The huge Messerschmitt was very hard to fly, with heavy forces needed to maneuver the aircraft even through simple turns.

The aircraft was partially made of welded tubing with fabric covering to save metal and weight.

The Bf.321 (glider) and Bf.323 (powered) were dropped from production in 1942, another German brainstorm design that simply didn’t work. The problem with both the Stuka and the Gigant was their poor maneuverability and slow speed which made them excellent targets for Allied airman. They became “turkey shoots” for even relatively inexperienced fighter pilots. They were sort of the balloons of World War I.

It took at least two multi-engine aircraft to haul the huge Bf.321 glider into the air, so heavy, it was never successful as a glider.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pratt & Whitney, the Engine that Won World War II

The outstanding Chance Vought Corsair used an R-2800 c.i. Double Wasp for power.

“Yes, I am prejudiced”; as if readers of these columns haven’t already figured out. “If it ain’t round, it ain’t sound,” said the US Navy speaking of their choice of engines. Of course you won’t find a rounder engine than a radial or a jet turbine. I have flown many aircraft powered by radial engines made by Pratt & Whitney, Jacobs, Wright, Kinner, Warner, Continental and Lycoming. In my thousands of hours, I never had a problem with one; yes, other problems with props and propeller controls, but never the engine.

The largest multi-bank radial engine, manufactured by P & W, was the four-bank, R-4360 c.i. Wasp Major.

Round engines were used as early as World War I, but these were rotary engines, not radial engines. Rotary engines have their crankshaft bolted to the firewall and the propeller bolted to the crankcase which rotates along with the cylinders. This is the engine that dominated World War I on both sides of the Maginot Line. These engines were powerful and light, an attribute which followed into the radial type of engine. All single-bank radial engines have odd number of cylinders. There is one vertical master cylinder with its huge master connecting rod which is attached to the crankshaft. The other cylinders have their connecting rods attached to the master cylinder’s connecting rod. Radial engines are known for their reliability, even after being hit by shrapnel or bullets. They can take a huge amount of damage and keep on running.

The P & W Wasp Junior was produced by the thousands. It was a simple, dependable, easy-to-work-on engine. The accessories were attached to the rear and the constant-speed prop hub to the front.

Over the years, there have been many different configurations of radial engines, from three-cylinders to nine cylinders, with the seven and nine cylinder versions preferred. When more power is required, a second engine is bolted at an angle to allow cooling air to reach the second set of cylinders. The famous P & W “corn-cob” engine had four banks of seven-cylinder engines attached to one crankshaft. That’s 28 cylinders, and 56 spark plugs to regularly change.

The all-time reigning king of radial engines is built by United Aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney Division. The man behind the engine was Frederick Rentschler who had designed a revolutionary radial engine for Curtiss-Wright. Rentschler was upset because he thought that Curtiss had put his design on the back burner as they searched for more powerful V-type liquid-cooled engines. Rentschler packed up his design and took it to Hartford and presented it to Pratt & Whitney, manufacturers of some of best machine tools in the world. They welcomed him, gave him the money he needed, and the backing of the aviation community. Their huge facilities and expertise guaranteed that the new Pratt & Whitney radial engines would become a reality.

The first production P & W Wasp engine was shipped on December 17, 1926. The design met all the criteria set by the US Navy. The nine-cylinder Wasp purred its way through the 50-hour acceptance test producing between 410 and 420-hp. Winning the lucrative Navy contract was a given. No other engine came close to the desired power-to-weight ratio. Rentschler and his engineering crew constantly upgraded the engine and produced new, more powerful models. There was the Wasp, Wasp Junior, Twin Wasp, Hornet and the Twin Hornet. From the beginning, in 1926 to 1936, P & W production exceeded 11,000 engines. Besides the US Navy and the Army Air Force, the air-racing industry latched on to the powerful, dependable and lightweight radials and installed them in many winning aircraft including the famous Gee Bee racers.

Over 51 percent of all military aircraft used in World War II were powered by Pratt & Whitneys of various hp. P & W radials powered military aircraft as small as the Vultee BT-13, Lockheed Model 10 and Model 12, Texans/SNJs, Corsairs, Thunderbolts, Hellcats and even in some early Korean-era helicopters. The smallest engine was the R-985 ci 450 hp and the largest the R-4360 c.i. four bank radial of 3500 hp. This huge engine powered the intercontinental Convair B-36 Peacemaker. Why do I love Pratt & Whitney engines so much? We were both born in 1926; we were both born on the banks of the Connecticut River in New England, and they always got my butt home safely. NG

____________________________________________________________________
The Warbird that Couldn’t Fight

This photo shows the size of the Junkers Ju-87 in comparison with the size of its ground and flight crew.

The gull-wing, fixed-gear German Junker Ju-87 Stuka is probably one of the most remembered and recognized aircraft of World War II. When Germany was invading the easy to conquer, neighboring countries, movie newsreels, radio newscasters and newspaper headlines told of entire populations being terrified by hordes of Stukas screaming down out of the sky, shrieking like infuriated banshees, ready to obliterate the citizens of the target countries. This was indeed true reporting of the events of the early invasions. But history has also proved the Stuka was a cowardly bully. A loud-mouth whose terror manifested itself from sirens powered by wind-driven propellers mounted on the wheel pants. The fast-diving Stuka dive-bomber was using psychological warfare to help subdue the enemy. The Ju-87 started life in 1935, powered by a British Kestrel engine and had a twin finned tail section with a tubular “hanging-out-in-the-breeze” fixed landing gear. The Ju-87A dumped the twin fins and mounted one large vertical stabilizer. The British Kestrel engine was changed to a German Juno 210. The multi-strut landing gear was fitted with wheel pants and fairings, giving the Stuka a much better look. However, the aircraft was still underpowered with the Juno 210, so the Juno 211, double the horsepower of the 210, was installed in the new Ju-87B.

The siren with the attached propeller is seen on the left wheel leg on this Stuka drawing. Note the 500-pound bomb and the trapeze that swung it down and out of the prop-arc.

The Ju-87B was used successfully in campaigns in Greece, Crete, Poland and during the beginning of the Russian invasion. Basically, the Stuka worked very well when it had the skies to itself. But the German bully couldn’t fight; it ran away. This was not the fault of the German pilots; it was the aircraft that was simply too predictable. A primitive autopilot was installed to automatically pull the aircraft out of a dive. While testing the aircraft in the Spanish Civil War, it was discovered pilots were blacking-out causing the aircraft fly to itself into the ground. Dive bombers must also be super-stable, so the target can be tracked until the trapeze swings out and releases the 500-pound bomb. Then the plane can be safely pulled out, but, very carefully, thus the autopilot. When the Stuka was introduced into the Battle of Britain, it didn’t take the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots very long to figure out they could predict the flight paths the Stuka would be taking. They maneuvered into position and shot them down, one after another. The toll was so great, the Stukas had to be removed from service to prevent total elimination. The mean-looking, screaming-warbird was a lousy fighter. By September of 1944, production had ceased, with over 6,000 Stukas of various configurations being delivered. During the waning years of Nazi Germany, the surviving Stukas were used for training or shuttle purposes. They even towed gliders with the once-feared Stuka. But the two gull-wing birds of World War II, the the US Navy’s Corsair, and the Junker Ju-87B Stuka will never be forgotten.

The Nakajima B5N2 seated three, carried 1700 pounds of either bombs or a torpedo hung beneath the fuselage. It single-handedly practically destroyed our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

To say we were caught unprepared with obsolete weapons would be the understatement of the decade. We ignored diplomatic messages, many of our troops were at church and only small numbers were manning the guns. We had obsolete aircraft all tied down in a row, just waiting for an attack, we had our battleships and destroyers in a bottleneck harbor. By sheer dumb luck, our carriers were out at sea. December 7^th, 1941 was not our shining hour.

This excellent artist’s rendition shows the long lines of the Kate with the gear retracted, and no ordinance attached.

The first wave of Japanese aircraft, including 144 Nakajima B5N2 torpedo bombers, which had taken off from Japanese carriers, attacked Pearl Harbor and devastated the Pacific Fleet. Flying at wave-top level, with almost zero opposition, the Kates dropped their torpedoes. The torpedoes sped into the sides, just below water level, of the anchored Navy ships sending numbers of them, including the Oregon and the Arizona, to the bottom with resulting great loss of life. Then the Aichi Val dive bombers and Zeros came in and bombed and strafed Pearl Harbor and other military installations in the vicinity. But it was the torpedo bombers which had caused the most damage to our fleet. How did Japan come to have such a powerful weapon while our Navy only had the obsolete Douglas Devastator? It is a long and interesting story.

This photo was supposedly taken of a Kate taking off headed to attack Pearl Harbor.

It appears that Japan had been planning for this day for years. In 1932 their military issued orders for several aircraft companies to come up with a design for an attack bomber that could carry at least 2000 pounds of bombs or a torpedo. Mitsubishi, Nakajima and Aichi produced prototypes for evaluation. The winning aircraft was not exactly what the military wanted, so they placed a minimum stop-gap order and once again sent out new specifications for the attack bomber they wanted. It needed to seat three, have a retractable landing gear and folding wings for carrier operation. It had to have a top speed of 207 mph at 6500 feet. The Nakajima B5N1 nailed the specifications and then some. It even had Fowler flaps and a variable-pitch propeller. It could carry the required load of 1764 pounds of bombs or a torpedo. The B5N2 production model used standard flaps rather than the previous Fowler type along with a larger engine and a constant speed propeller. The Japanese Navy finally had the attack bomber they had requested. The Nakajima saw intense service from Pearl Harbor through the entire extensive Pacific campaign. It was used for every conceivable mission. It fought for the entire war ending as a training aircraft for the more modern attack bombers that appeared in 1944 and 1945.

This artist’s view of the Nakajima B5N2 shows the landing gear down with a 1700-pound torpedo in its sling.

There were only three torpedo-carrying aircraft in the Pacific Theatre, the Douglas Devastator, the Grumman Avenger and the Japanese Nakajima N2B5, a type of aircraft that is no longer needed. Missiles have taken over.

The aircraft resembling Nakajima Kates seen in “Tora Tora Tora” and “Pearl Harbor” were replicas built from North American Texans, with extensive modifications. They did indeed look like the real Kate. A large number of these aircraft now reside with the Commemorative Air Force and are seen at airshows reenacting the Pearl Harbor attack.

Clyde Cessna’s Penny Racers

The first small Cessna racer used a Cirrus in-line engine to qualify for Cirrus prize money.

There aren’t many readers who know that Clyde Cessna designed some pretty interesting, small, inexpensive, racing aircraft. Money was very tight and many aircraft manufacturers were going bankrupt. Then in 1930, engine manufacturer American Cirrus offered $25,000 in prizes for the 5,541-mile Cirrus All-American Air Derby. Clyde had some strong ideas about a small streamlined aircraft that he thought would be competitive, so he designed his first racer, the GC-1, powered by a Cirrus 90 hp, 310 c.i. Cirrus (a requisite for the race) fitted with a supercharger. The sleek, mid-wing airplane was dubbed the "Winged Torpedo" by the press, but ironically suffered from so many engine problems that it could only earn seventh-place money. Sans supercharger, however, it placed fourth in a 1930 National Air Races event at a respectable 137.4 mph average. This same engine was also installed in the first of the Great Lakes Biplanes and other light aircraft of the time. Brother Eldon won $1200 for his winning efforts.

The Cessna CR-2 had a retractable landing gear which rotated up and into the fuselage.

Using the prize money to get started, Cessna’s next design was a radically small monoplane, the CR-1 (Cessna Racer). The plane was tiny, barely 12 feet in length; it had a full 16-foot, cantilever, wooden, shoulder-wing. Its most innovative feature was its retractable landing gear. Cessna didn’t think that the wings were strong enough, so he manually-retracted the gear into the fuselage. The gear was stowed just aft of the NACA-cowl-equipped, seven-cylinder, 110 hp Warner radial engine. If an aeronautical engineer had examined this aircraft, he would believe it might be rather scary to fly. Actually, the airplane's power-to-weight ratio was more than adequate, but the tiny 40-square-foot wing area could provide only marginal lift. In addition, the short distance between propeller and empennage would surely lead to longitudinal control problems.

This Cessna CR-3 was built especially for Jonathon Livingston after a much smaller CR-2 almost beat his famous Monocoupe Special.

On the morning of flight test day, Eldon climbed bravely into the cockpit of the CR-1’s. When he started his takeoff the CR-1 bounced across the field. Finally the plane became airborne at 100 mph, thanks to a mound of dirt that acted as a catapult. The pilot struggled to keep the racer in control. Quickly Eldon decided that discretion was more important than valor, and returned as quickly as possible, making his approach at 130 mph and landing the CR-1 on its first and only flight. They should have listened to the non-existent engineers.

In 1928, Cessna had a larger racer which bore a striking resemblance to much later designs, such as the Airmaster and the C-195, with its radial engine and cantilever high wing.

It was then time for Clyde and Eldon to engineer away the racer's bad habits. They had to continue using the Warner engine because it was the only power plant they owned. The revised wingspan was now 18 ft., 4 in. Fuselage was lengthened to 14 ft. 10 in., and the tail section was enlarged to increase stability. When it was finished, the new airplane weighed only 677 lbs. empty. The new Cessna CR-2 was piloted by Roy Liggett, a friend of Clyde's, and a successful earlier Cessna AW pilot. The first flight in May was flawless, and in the succeeding weeks leading up to its debut at the Omaha Air Races, speeds of 190 mph were attained. What was amazing was that the CR-2 only had a small portion of the horsepower (500 c.i. maximum) used by the competition. In its first race, the CR-2 placed fourth in the 500 cu. in. event, and fifth in two unlimited races just seconds behind such famous racers as the Gee Bee Y, Benny Howard's "Mike," Keith Rider, and Johnny Livingston's clipped-wing Monocoupe. When Livingston was almost beaten by a Cessna in his Monocoupe Special he was so impressed he ordered a CR-2 to be built to his specs by Cessna. This was the famous Livingston CR-3 which was super successful. Clyde and Eldon Cessna had proven their point about minimum racers. Cessna left the racing business to others and concentrated on their new radial engine cantilever-wing C-34 and C-37 Airmaster, which looked very much like their 1928 racer, which looked a lot like the upcoming Cessna 195 series. Who said that racing was a waste of time and money? It sure put Cessna on the map for efficient small aircraft.

I have flown many geared-engine aircraft, including the C-175, Twin Bonanza, Golden Eagle, Helio Courier and dozens of geared Rotax two-and four-stroke-engine powered homebuilts. My experience boils down to some simple advice; read the owner’s manual, and follow the engine operating parameters exactly. The Cessna C-175, which was basically a slightly modified C-172 with a geared 175 hp engine and a different cowling, was a very nice aircraft. Unfortunately, pilots tried to operate the engine along the same guidelines as the non-geared O-300 in the C-172. How, or why, did they do that? I know that I am going to get some 172 pilots upset with me, but many of thrm shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car in Fargo, North Dakota, on a very slow day. A large number of less-than-natural pilots I have known seemed to be C-172 owners. Now, in my opinion, this plane was an excellent choice; the easy-flying Skyhawk probably kept them alive. I often had nightmares about selling a pilot the wrong airplane, thereby causing an accident. Before I would sell a new plane to a prospective owner, I would have our Chief Pilot fly with the person and evaluate his true flying capabilities. If my retired Colonel, a retired Vietnam F-100 and L-19 pilot had doubts, I would not sell the aircraft. On two occasions, the person went elsewhere and bought a similar aircraft and within a year had a fatal accident. One was a F4 POW pilot who wanted a Super Cub; another, a Cessna pilot who purchased a Cessna Aerobat.

Operator troubles with the Continental GO-300 started with imbedded sound and vibration instincts. Pilots were used to the sound that an O-300 made at a 2400 rpm cruise. Those vibration levels seem to be stored in their memory. The geared GO-300 engine was designed to cruise at approx 3,200 rpm. The gearing would reduce the propeller rpm to 2400. The lower prop rpm was very efficient. The engine, including the oil pressure, was designed to work best at a steady engine rpm of 3,000 to 32000 rpm. But the engine didn’t sound right to the O-300 pilots, so they brought the throttle back to what they remembered as being the sound and vibration levels of the smaller engine. This produced a lugging-effect on the geared engine and possible resulting low pressures. Failures occurred constantly until Cessna was forced to pull the engine from their lineup. These same pilots bad mouthed the engine as a piece of junk, when it was their errors that caused the problems. Meanwhile, geared engines, which were being operated correctly by experienced high-performance pilots, racked up hours of trouble-free flying.

The slower propeller rpm was a very distinct advantage, and the ability to swing a longer-diameter prop was another. We had a Beech B-55 Twin Bonanza on the line and its high-legged landing gear was needed due to the Lycoming GO-480 geared engines which were swinging huge two-bladed props for increased efficiency. Cessna also used two geared Continental GTSIO-520 six-cylinder engines in their top-of-the-line C-421 Golden Eagle cabin-class twin. These engines were geared down, so the props could operate in the 1600 to 1900 rpm range. The lower rpm greatly reduced cabin noise. Early versions of this engine did have quality control problems with the gear boxes. Later versions had a reputation of being very reliable.

One of the most popular light four-cylinder engines currently powering a huge number of Experimental, and now the Certified LSA aircraft, is the Rotax four-stroke liquid cooled 912 and 914 engines. This is a geared engine operating in the 2,000-to-5,600 rpm range with the prop swinging in the normal 2000-to-3000 rpm range. They are reaching TBOs once reserved for well-cared-for Lycomings O-360 engines. These engines can also use auto fuel for increased savings. The gearbox is rated as 1.2 to 2.275 reduction ratio.

Many of the Cessna 175s have had their GO-300 engines replaced with Lycoming O-360 180 hp engines. This is a highly desired conversion.

___________________________________________________
Points to Check When Buying a Used Cherokee

The first Cherokees used variations of the Lycoming O-320 engine.

Some older Cherokees make better family aircraft than other models. The best value has always been with the Cherokee 180. This model has a Lycoming O-360 engine which is considered one of the most reliable engines ever made. But pre-1970 engines had the trouble-prone 7/16” exhaust valves. Most have now been replaced, but there still might be some out there. These engines have an AD requiring a 500-hour inspection of these valves. These engines are TBO rated at only 1200 hours. Engines with the ½” exhaust valves do not have this AD and are rated at a TBO of 2000 hours, a significant increase. Personally, I wouldn’t consider any Lycoming 320 or 360 engine still equipped with 7/16” valves. Cherokee 180s built prior to 1970 also have an engine-redline rpm restriction of between 2150 and 2350 rpm. Engines operating in this rpm range could develop torsional vibration, which can cause propeller failure (blade breakage) under certain circumstances. Many other engine-propeller combinations also have this restriction. However, it shouldn’t alter the value of your aircraft.

The Lycoming O-360 engine had 180 hp and was installed in the outstanding Cherokee 180, a “best buy” in used aircraft

All existing Cherokees have a very varied history. The lucky ones were hangared and pampered; many others have spent their life camping out in nature, left where their owner stopped using them. Outdoor storage differs, from the acceptable very dry arid areas of the Southwest, to the unacceptable rain forests of the Northwest. Those stored near salt water can have significant corrosion damage to the interior structure. A 40-year-old Cherokee, with low total time, can be in worse condition than one with high-time, if it were flown often and well maintained. An aircraft needs to be flown; sitting on the ramp for months or even weeks at a time, and then run up for a few minutes is doing more harm than good. An engine needs to be flown for at least 45 minutes to an hour to insure that the oil reached a temperature that will burn off all the impurities and moisture caused by condensation from varying temperature extremes.

The Cherokee 235 used a IO-540, 235 hp engine. The engine illustrated is a modern 300 to 350 hp, TIO-540, used in many high performance aircraft.

The most important rule to follow when purchasing an aircraft is to have a well-qualified, certified mechanic evaluate the airframe, engine, instruments, interior of the rear fuselage and wings. This is necessary to check for corrosion or hidden damage history. It is also very important to check log books for AD compliance and proper logging of weight and balance for any added components. Do not attempt to do this yourself, unless you have a background in this type of aircraft inspection. Be prepared to spend up to a $1000 for a complete check on the aircraft’s current condition and past history. Believe me, if the plane is okay, you will have the peace of mind of knowing it; if not, you will have saved yourself what could end up being thousands of dollars.

The honor of building the largest, most powerful reciprocating engine ever belongs to Lycoming for its XR-7755 c.i., liquid-cooled, multi-bank radial engine, designed for the B-36, but never installed. A Pratt & Whitney was used instead, along with auxiliary jet engines. This restored 5,000 hp Lycoming is on display at the Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
I recommend that you, or your agent, eyeball the aircraft first to get an easy “no way.” If the plane looks like it is in good condition, then call in the cavalry to really check it out. Don’t get suckered-in by a very low asking price. If the plane needs an engine overhaul, minor damage repair, paint and interior and an upgrade to instruments and avionics, the final “in-the-air-price” could be way beyond its real value. Don’t get upside down, on the ground, in any purchase, house, boat, car or airplane. You cannot believe how much it costs in 2009 to have others restore your dream airplane. A Cherokee is not and never will be a highly desired classic, like a Beechcraft Staggerwing. Even the lowly Cub could bring more money than a Cherokee Cruiser. Check out the current price Cherokees are being sold for, not the “asking price” but the “getting price” for a similar aircraft. That figure should be your absolute maximum restoration or purchase price. This plane will never exceed future active-market value.

The famous mid-1930s Cord auto, built by Auburn, had a very powerful Lycoming V-8 engine.

Lycoming also built an O-720 eight-cylinder, horizontally-opposed engine for their Piper Comanche 400. It was never used in any Cherokee model.

One of my companies owned a small fleet of new Cessna 152s we used in our Cessna Flying School course at Apple Valley Airport. This Southern California facility had an elevation of 3000 feet. At that time, we had one 6500 X 150 foot runway which was basically north and south. At the southern end, the elevation was 2950, at the north end it was 3050, a rise of 100 feet. Prevailing wind blew from 220 degrees which gave pilots a constant cross-wind factor. Winter-time morning temperatures ranged from 20F degrees to 40F degrees, in other words; cold. Our fuel farm was owned and serviced by Texaco. Just before the 152 was released, Texaco dropped their 80 octane fuel and substituted 100 LL. (We also supplied Texaco Jet fuel to our turbine customers.)

The new 100 LL fuel had a blue coloring so the pilot could visually check the type of fuel in his tanks.

The new 100LL produced a tremendous problem for the new Lycoming O-235 engines in our Cessna 152s. It seems that Lycoming had not thoroughly tested this series of the O-235 with the new 100 LL. First, the engines would not start. They would grind away without firing; the 28 volt batteries did not have the staying power of the 12 volt systems. If you cranked it too long, the battery died. Globules of lead would attach to the electrodes of the plug, grounding it out. Our chief mechanic worked out a system for shutting down the engines by pulling the mixture, thus evacuating the remaining fuel to minimize any raw gas in the heads. When an engine simply would not start, we had to remove the spark plugs, put rebuilt ones in and then, hopefully, it would start. We would send 50 to 100 spark plugs at a time to a rebuilder in Van Nuys who would send us back rebuilt plugs. The average life of a spark plug was 25 hours. For some reason; it might have been the compression ratio; the 150, 180 and 200 hp Lycomings in our large fleet of Piper and Cessna aircraft did not have a problem. I ran the 100 LL in the 600 hp Pratt & Whitney engine of my SNJ-6 with no problems. The 200 hp Lycomings in our Arrows and Senecas never missed a beat, but those 110 hp Lycomings did not run well at all. Our chief flight instructor insisted that the Cessna 150 was, by far, the better airplane. He insisted the old 150 plane flew better; he loved the 40 degree flap extension, and of course, the Continental O-200 would run with any type of fuel.

The Lycoming O-235, 110 hp engine, installed in the C-152, had the valve push rods on top of the engine.

Many of our over 200 tie-down customers flew older aircraft with 80 octane fuel- burning engines. We almost had a revolution on our hands with their constant complaints, Not one even owned a Cessna 152 and the 100 LL ran perfectly well in their aircraft, but still they constantly complained. Texaco turned a deaf ear to our demands to resurrect 80 octane fuel.

The Continental O-200 in the earlier 150 was an upgrade on the C-65 to C-90 series of four-bangers installed in thousands of aircraft; in fact, it is still being used in large numbers by homebuilders. It is a very reliable and economical engine, but in 1958, Cessna owned Lycoming. The Lycoming O-235 LL engine was a questionable upgrade on the earlier excellent Lycoming O-235 used in many other aircraft.

Our FBO serviced all aircraft with two Texaco fuel trucks, one for 100 LL, the other for jet fuel.

We also found out the Cessna 152 did not make a good seaplane; you had to install a Lycoming 150 hp engine to get acceptable performance on floats. A Texas company also produced a kit to turn a 152 into a tail dragger. This conversion also specified a Lycoming 150 hp engine. This STC could also be used on a Cessna 150 which resulted in the quite popular Cessna 150-150. Cessna had a winner with its 150, but were not so lucky with the Cessna 152. Yet, this airplane retains its immense popularity. Other fuel suppliers did not eliminate their 80 octane fuel.

During World War II, many Navy ships were equipped with catapult-launched Curtiss observation planes like this Curtiss SO3C Seamew.

For the past year I have been saving some of our reader requests for profiles of various aircraft. Many letters are very interesting and I wish that more readers would voice their desires. I believe that an author should know who his readers are. It is always a great idea to write what your readers want rather than write what you want. Many a car manufacturer, clothing company and yes, aircraft company has gone down the tubes for not listening to their customers.

The Curtiss C-46 Commando was used extensively in “flying-the-hump”, supplying the 14^th Air Force in China. The Commando could carry huge loads when compared to the Douglas C-47 (DC-3).

It seems that for the past year, we have had several requests for more information about large single-engine turbine-powered aircraft, such as the Cessna Caravan. One reader in the great Northwest even wanted to know more about large prop-jet seaplanes. We responded with articles which indeed did research these aircraft. But, the winner of the biggest response for the past year were from our Bonanza “V” tail owners who took exception to my statement that this airplane, unless flown with rudder input, sort of wiggled its way across the sky. Now that really upset them. What bothered me is that I had owned both V’s and straight-tailed Bonanzas and loved them both. But to me the V-tail version was more of a sales gimmick than an aerodynamically-stable airplane. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be, but in this case, I didn’t think so. Up to the airport I went to ask questions of owners of the very popular Beech product. It seems that many “V” owners were rudder pilots, their feet, either by command or by instinct, kept the plane on a straight course. The feet-on-the-floor V-tail pilots simply ignored the slight rocking back and forth. Which ever tail you owned, Beech Bonanzas are terrific aircraft and the F-33 I had for several