By:      Norm Goyer

When the Korean War began our new Air Force was equipped with straight wing Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star and the Republic Thunderjet already obsolete.

The Korean War was an aerial transition from one era to another. It was the last war where propeller powered aircraft and turbine powered aircraft served side-by-side, each needing the other. It was also the first war where helicopters played an increasingly important  role. It was also the last war that did not employ help from outer space, in the form of satellites for navigation and for instant data transfer. When the war first started, it was thought that this would be a war of turbine powered aircraft. They had been introduced during the end of World War II by both Germany and England. The USA lagged a bit, as usual, with the wrong design, Bell XP-59. Our leaders thought that the almost ten year history of jet usage would dictate the use of jets during the Korean War. Our Air Force and Navy had been using them for some time and our pilots were trained in jet aerial maneuvering. Lockheed had produced the F-80 Shooting Star, Republic, the ThunderJet and Grumman, the Panther, all extremely well built and good flying fighting aircraft. But, it didn’t work out that way.

The North Koreans were using the latest Russian MiG-15 swept wing fighters with Soviet trained pilots. Their small jet was far superior.

For some reason the Russians had taken a giant step in jet fighter design, giving their pilots and some Chinese and North Korean pilots, an edge that immediately made our fleet of jet fighters obsolete. To many engineers, the change in wing shape appeared to be minor, but in actuality, it became a major factor in aerial jet dog fighting, In addition the new MiG.15s were small, light and had swept back wings. Our fighters had straight wings and were typical American, big and heavy with lots of armor, guns, bombs, and too small fuel tanks. The MiGs could turn within our aircraft, they could out climb them and out distance them. The well trained Russian pilots literally had a turkey shoot with our now ineffective straight wing fighters. The only immediate solution was to recall some of our better World War II prop fighters from Davis Motham mothball fleet. Mustangs were dusted off, Twin Mustangs were prepared for low level attack duties, Corsairs were already in the fleet and being used as night fighters. The Dash 5 had a radar dome installed on the right wing. The Navy also had an inventory of the new Douglas AD-1 single seat, attack fighter and bomber. This huge aircraft could carry more bombs than a World War II B-17 Flying Fortress. The Navy moved aircraft carriers with Dash 5 Corsairs, Douglas AD-1s and Grumman Panthers into position to pound Korean ground targets.

Boeing B-29 and Douglas B-26 Invader bombers were resurrected from the Arizona bone yard and used to bomb North Korea.

While our Air Force and Navy were doing their best, our aircraft factories were busy modifying our aircraft to modern standards and beyond. The new North American F-86 swept wing jet fighter, the swept wing Republic Thunderstreak and the swept wing Grumman Cougar started rolling off the production lines. The skies over Korea were full of North American aircraft, the P-51,. P-82 and the F-86. The New Sabres were a match for the MiG 15s. With the air war finally under control, the military decided to pound the ground with increased heavy bomber attacks. Davis Motham provided a large number of very tired, but still willing, B-29s for long bombing runs carrying tons of bombs. The ground attack bombing duties were assumed by the outstanding Douglas B-26. This aircraft was called the A-26 Invader during World War II but was changed to a light bomber status for Korea as the B-26. The Martin B-26 Marauder was retired so there was little confusion, except in the minds of aircraft buffs.

North American was finally able to release the production version of the F-86 swept-wing Sabre. This new aircraft rapidly leveled the air war. It became one of our all-time great jet fighters.

It is interesting to note that the aircraft used during the Korean War ended up as some of the best aircraft every built in America. The Corsair flew with the Navy for many years, the B-26 went on to fight again in Vietnam, being the only light bomber that fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Of course the Douglas C-47 did the same in the military transport category. In addition the C-47 became “Puff the Magic Dragon” when it was equipped with modern Gatlin Machine guns raining hell from the open cargo doors of the C-47s down on the North Vietnamese. The F-86 became the best small single engine jet fighter during the Korea time period. It was purchased by many countries as their first line jet fighter. The Douglas AD-1 was modified into many different working aircraft both single and multi seats. The AD-1s were heavily used in Vietnam.

Grumman had to redesign the straight wing Panther into the swept wing Cougar. The F9F along, with the prop driver Corsair and Skyraider fought the war for the Navy.

If you have never seen “The Bridges of Toka Ri” rent it. This Korean war movie features the Grumman Panther and the first use of helicopters as flown by Mickey Rooney with a cigar almost bigger than he is. The B-29s were retired and replaced with the B-47 and B-52 heavy bombers, The Sabre was upgraded to the F-100 Super Sabre and then the McDonald F-4 Phantom for use in Vietnam appeared setting another new standard for jet fighters..

Yes, Korea is often spoken of as the “Forgotten War”, but aviation will forever be grateful for the lessons learned in this transitional conflict, When obsolete propeller aircraft saved our butt during the early years of the conflict.

By:      Norm Goyer

The prototype Corsair was very impressive, some changes were made by the Navy and the production F4U-1 was released a few months after Pearl Harbor.

The prototype Corsair XF4U-1 first flew on May 29, 1940. Chance-Vought and the Navy knew instantly that they had a winner. The aircraft, powered with the new R-2800 Pratt & Whitney radial engine, two machine guns on the cowl shooting through the prop and two 50 cal canon in the wings. The aircraft literally whistled thought the time trails at 403 mph, very fast for a fighter in 1940. The Corsair was destined for star status.

The F4U-4 had a more powerful R-2800 which used a four-bladed propeller.

The Navy wanted some changes in the production model such as more protective armor, fuselage guns removed and three 50 cal guns in the wings. Fuel tanks removed from the wings and added to the fuselage. They also requested a jettsonable canopy to allow the pilot to exit the aircraft more easily. The ailerons were enlarged and the hard points for bombs under the wing were removed. On June 30th 1941, about six months before Pearl Harbor the Navy issued production orders for Chance Vought, Goodyear and Brewster were to build approxiately 5,559 including the newer high cabin version.

The F4U-5 had a modified right wing to make room for a night flying radar module; this version was used extensively in Korea.

It is interesting to follow the various changes to the Corsair, all needed due to experiences while flying in combat. At each junction the  aircraft became even more deadly to the enemy. The first major change came with the model F4-1A. The previous Corsairs had a birdcage canopy which restricted visibilty due to the braces. The Dash 1A had a semi bubble canopy (blown) which had reduced braces greatly improving visibility in all directions including to the rear with mirrors.

The Goodyear Company produced the F2G-1 Super Corsair with a 3,000 hp four bank P & W engine. Only 18 were built. This version had super climb performance and is still used as a Reno Racer.

Early in 1945 the Corsair Dash 1C was introduced. It differed from the 1A due to the six machine guns in the wings being replaced with four 20mm canon for increased fire power in ground attack mode. Vought produced about 200 Corsairs with canon instead of machine guns. The next improvement was in the Dash 1D. This Corsair was considered to be a fighter bomber and needed extra power to carry the added weight. Water injection was added to the R-2800 engines giving an increase in take off power. The injection could be used at full power for up to five minutes, for take off with loads or running away from the enemy. Provisions were made to carry extra fuel tanks, napalm tanks and extra bombs and rockets. The F4U-1P was a field modification allowing a camera to be installed in the rear fuselage to record ground details.

In 1942 the Navy wanted to try out radar for night flying duties. Vought built the F4U-2 with a different starboard (right) wing. The outer machine gun was removed and a radar dome installed about half way out on the outer wing section. These aircraft pioneered radar night fighting. The Corsair F4F-4 is easy to remember, it had the first four bladed prop and was able to fly at 451 mph. The engine was the more powerful P & W 2800-18. The aircraft also had a new cowl chin scoop and a more comfortable cockpit. This version was available with either the six MGs or 4 canon and some were equipped with the right wing radar module. This model was used until the end of the war.

Probably the most interesting Corsair was produced by Goodyear late in the war. The Navy wanted a “Super Corsair” so the F2G was designed. The F2G-1 had hand cranked wings and the dash 2 had hydraulic wings for carrier use. The engine was a Pratt 7 Whitney R-4360 four row corn cob type engine of 3,000 hp. The F2G could climb to 30,000 feet in four minutes. Goodyear only produced 18 of this model before the contract was cancelled due to the war being over.  A number of these 18 became racing aircraft, with at least one still racing over 60 years later. In my opinion the Goodyear F2G-2 was the most beautiful of any World War II aircraft. I have a 1/5 scale version on my workbench at this time. NG

By Norm Goyer

The Cessna Corvalis has a 310 hp dual turbo six cylinder engine.

We were approaching the oil rigs and the small islands off the coast of California north of Los Angeles when I started to put the low-wing retractable composite aircraft into a rather tight turn when my passenger said, “Watch your airspeed. This airplane will accelerate rapidly, when you lower the nose in a bank.” My passenger, owner/designer of the plane, Lance Neibauer, was accompanying me while I flew the new Lancair IV homebuilt for an article in Sport Pilot. We had just taken off from the company’s digs in Santa Paula, California. This flight occurred about 20 years ago, way before the firm moved lock stock and retracts to Bend, Oregon.

This is a Cessna 400 Corvalis which is similar to the one alleged to have been stolen by the Barefoot Bandit.

I have always been impressed with the way Lancairs handled, on the ground and in the air, and I have flown them all including the barn-burning turboprop IV, now that is a piece of machinery. Why are we discussing Lancairs? Because the Cessna 400 Corvalis is a grandchild of the same Lancair IV I flew many years ago with Lance over the Pacific ocean. In fact, it is very closely related to the fixed gear Lancair ES homebuilt kit aircraft. Then I imagine the Barefoot Bandit, an inexperienced pilot, with only two short solo flights in an even more high performance aircraft and I have my doubts, maybe the kid is a genius as his mother claims or a damn prevaricator like many of us believe.

The Cessna 400 started as the Columbia 300 which was itself derived from the Lancair ES kit aircraft.  The Corvalis (named in honor of Corvallis, Oregon, but spelled differently)  is powered by a turbocharged Continental TSIO-550-C engine producing 310 horsepower at 2600 rpm. The Corvalis features a Garmin G1000 glass cockpit. The Cessna 350 also used the same Garmin Glass Cockpit. The Cessna 400’s Continental TSIO-550-C engine can be operated  lean of peak. At 11,000, 50 °F rich of peak turbine inlet temperature, maximum cruise yielded 199 knots true air speed and 24.7 US gallons per hour fuel flow. At the same operating settings and 50-75 °F lean of peak the 400 was measured at 189 knots TAS and 17.8 US gal/h, a great savings of fuel but very little airspeed loss.

The Columbia 400 has been sold with E-Vade, an optional ice protection system, which was not certified for flight into known icing. The system consists of heat-conducting graphite foil panels on the wing and tail leading edges. These panel areas are heated by 70 volt 100 amp electrical power delivered from a additional alternator. The system is controlled by a single switch. Due to its high performance the 400 features optional speed brakes mounted on the wing’s top surfaces.  The 400 nose wheel is non-steerable; the pilot maintains directional control while taxiing by using differential braking on the main wheels.

Cessna originally sold the Corvalis as the Cessna 400, the aircraft was given the marketing name Corvalis TT for twin turbocharged by Cessna on  January 14, 2009. The name is a derivation of the town of Corvallis, Oregon which is west of the Bend, Oregon location of the Cessna plant which originally built the aircraft. Cessna then closed the Bend facility and relocated production to Independence, Kansas in 2009. Production was resumed in October, 2009, at an old Cessna paint facility. The composite construction facility was moved to Mexico In April 2009.

The Cessna 400 is the fastest FAA-certified fixed-gear, single-engined piston aircraft in production today.

Specifications:

• Capacity: I pilot, 3 passengers
• Length: 25 ft 2 in
• Wingspan: 36 ft 1 in
• Height: 9 ft 0 in
• Wing area: 141 ft²
• Empty weight: 2,500 lb
• Max takeoff weight: 3,600 lb
• Power plant: Teledyne Continental TSIO-550-C flat-6 engine, 310 hp

Performance

• Maximum speed: 235 knots (270 mph,)
• Cruise speed: 235 knots (270 mph,) at 25,000 ft
• Range: 1,107 nm (1,274 mi,)
• Service ceiling: 25,000 ft
• Rate of climb: 1,500 ft/min or greater, below 16,000 ft
• Wing loading: 25.5 lb/ft²

By:      Norm Goyer

Newsflash Sunday July 11, 2010: Colton Harris-Moore has been apprehended in the Bahamas in a stolen boat. Coming up next a movie, no doubt, more waste of money. Norm

The Barefoot Bandit was finally captured in the Bahamas while attempting another escape in a stolen boat.

Nineteen year old Colton Harris-Moore, The Barefoot Bandit, alias the AH (Anti Hero), of course I prefer the other definition of AH. Once again the International Media, whom I have always suspected of possessing extremely low I.Q. has fallen in love with a loser, and I mean loser. The six foot five criminal, in jail at 12 years old, and on the lam ever since is not a hero, he is not a genius, as his gravel throated mother loves to insist. She claims her love and respect of her genius son, “only a few points below Einstein. I am so proud of him, flying a plane and he never had a lesson.” Too bad the AH never learned how to land one of them. Let’s discuss this “airplane flying” without a lesson. I am not saying that this didn’t happen, but only that it is highly unlikely that it did. I am assuming a wait and see position of this whole story. Why does the press insist on putting airplane garbage on the front page and burying wholesome aviation stories in the want ads? I guess good people doing good things is not news. Look at Captain Sully, he was the same great pilot many years before he lucked out and splashed down in the middle of the Hudson River. The press has been guilty of this for decades.

He was previously suspected of stealing a Cessna 182 and crashing it while attempting to land.

Remember the fiasco the press caused when they followed the little girl, Jessica I believe, who was going to “fly around the world” or some such nonsense. Well the instructor that was really flying the airplane and keeping Jessica supplied with lolly pops and coloring books wasn’t so hot a pilot either and managed to crash in lousy weather killing them both. For What?  So the parents could bask in their kids questionable accomplishments, the same as the cretin parents who allowed their 16 year old daughter to try to sail around the world and almost died. Joe Jackson and Lindsey Lohan’s dad are others in this category. It takes no skill to be parents, hell, even the dumbest animals in the world are better parents than some of the “reality show” seeking moms and dads. But if the press did not give them front page and prime time coverage, there would be no reason for their actions. Shepard Smith on Fox News Channel last Thursday at noontime PDT, interviewed Lohan and it took about two minutes before Lohan revealed what type of parent he really was, it was one of the most dramatic interviews I have seen on TV in years. The dad even managed to toss the “F” bomb before it could get bleeped out.

He is also accused of stealing a high performance Cessna 400 Corvalis in Indiana and flying it to the Bahamas where he again, crashed it on landing.

Now back to the latest aviation loser, the Barefoot Bandit who reportedly stole three airplanes, none proven so far. I was able to uncover only two, a Cessna 182 and the Cessna 400 Corvalis (Lancair) which he alleged ditched in shallow water in the Bahamas. Now there is no way that an untrained pilot could start, taxi, take off and get back on the ground in a 182 on his second ever flight without killing himself, if he had not had some actual in-the-cockpit instruction. His mother told anyone who would listen that he learned from books and he had a Microsoft flying simulator game, and of course he was a genius. Sure didn’t get his brains from his mother. That short flight was a very remote possibility under some conditions that we do not know about as yet. But stealing a 310 hp low wing speedster with a glass cockpit and complex flight controls and engine management requirements, and then flying it over a 1,000 miles from Indiana to the Bahamas through complex airspace, military restricted zones, airport altitude restrictions requires a lot of knowledge about flying. It almost requires IFR knowledge, from two short flights, I don’t think so. So what happened? Either he has had extensive pilot training, he had someone with him, who knew how to fly these complex airplanes, or he didn’t take them in the first place.  I was talking to son Robert about this guy and both of us agree that taking off a plane is not that complicated whereas getting it back on the ground is very complex. So it is remotely possible that he simply managed to take off, and then ignoring all other rules of safe flight bored a hole in the sky until he was forced to crash land. Nothing he has been accused of so far has ever been proven. Again, these excursions might have happened and for one I dearly hope that they catch this clown and stuff his butt into the AH cage for a very long time. (He was caught a few days ago and is now behind bars) He has been lucky so far, all he is accused of is stealing over a million dollars in property and causing untold property damage, but nobody has been killed or injured, as yet, I don’t believe.

Once again the public is presented with a negative, stunt type, criminal type of activity that is 100% wrong for aviation at this time. The Red Bull races, really time trails, stunt flying at air shows and the balloon boy exploding all over the front pages is not the way to attract young or old people to become pilots. NG

By:       Norm Goyer

My first surplus aircraft was a $450 Ryan PT-22. it was not a very good airplane.

Our nations birthday was celebrated a few days ago on July 4, 2010, my birthday is July 11. For many years are family has celebrated Father’s Day, July 4 and July 11 as a single holiday with a huge family gathering, barbeques and often a trip to the airport to celebrate our love of aviation. As time caught up with many of us, we are no longer able to do that, our family is scattered from Massachusetts to Hawaii with other waypoints in Texas, Nevada, Oregon and California. But one thing they cannot take away from me are my memories of raising a flying family. And fly we did. I soloed in a J-3 Cub with 6.2 hours total time. Daughter Elise started her flying lessons at 16 years old in a Piper Cherokee. Roger soloed in a Cessna 152, Peter soloed in a Cub at 16, that he will admit to. He went on to an ATP, A & P and IA. Robert soloed in a Piper Warrior and went on to become the Senior Editor at Flying Magazine. My late wife Tina passed her Private Pilot written in addition to running our four fixed base operations. She was a whiz on the Unicom and kept harmony with our large staff of instructors, mechanics and aircraft sales personnel. As our nation celebrates I thought that I would travel back through time and remember some of the American military aircraft I had the privilege of flying.

The Fairchild PT-19, PT-23 and PT-26 were great fun to fly. I owned one of each of these mostly wood primary trainers. One of the easiest planes to fly, ever.

During my training I flew in Navy N2S (PT-17), SNV (BT-13) and SNJ (T-6). But it was the surplus aircraft that abounded post war that really were fun and an education to fly. My first purchased aircraft was a Ryan PT-22, I was happy to have survived that little aircraft, not the pride of the training fleet, that’s for sure. I paid $450 for it and sold it for $300 and glad to get it. Next I picked up a Fairchild PT-26. That is a Fairchild PT-19 with a 200 hp Ranger engine and a winter hatch. Nice airplane and it was in this that I gave Tina a ride on our first date. I always took my dates for an airplane ride, if they complained there was not a second date. Obviously Tina loved flying and we had a great life of 62 years together. I belonged to a small club and we had a BT-13, 2 SNJs, a B-25 and an FM-2 Wildcat. The SNJs were mine. At the time I belonged to the CAP as a search pilot. I flew many missions with their Stinson L-5, Aeronca L-16 and Piper  L-4 Cub. We also had two military Schweitzer all wood two-place training gliders, great fun to fly as long as the termites continued to hold hands.

My all time favorite surplus aircraft is the outstanding North American SNJ-6 (Texan). This aircraft was so highly regarded that the new military trainer, the Texan II, was named in its honor.

For almost ten years I was the New England aviation stringer for ABC and CBS News. In this capacity I managed to get my hands on the controls of a Lockheed T-33, Convair T-38, C-47 Dakota, Boeing B-52 and yes even a B-36 Peacemaker. I also flew in a Cessna L-126 which I liked so well, I tracked down a civilian version, the Cessna 195 and restored it, one of my all time favorite aircraft. I eventually ended up in Southern California and was operating four FBOs, Apple Valley, Barstow-Daggett,  29 Palms and Needles. During this time span I owned two more SNJ-6s, a PT-23, (PT-19 with a Continental radial engine), and had control of a BT-8, now in the Air Force Museum, a B-25, a Hollywood Zero, Val and Kate, all modified BT-13s and AT-6s. These were all owned by Challenge Publications.  In our main hangar we had an Douglas A-26 used by North American for instrument testing. It was an On-Mark conversion. At times I felt like a pilot in a time warp. I realized that after flying some of America’s most famous aircraft it was a bit of step down into a Cessna 150. These wild flying times will never occur again, aviation has changed, pilots have changed and as we speak, the year 2010 will be considered by many to be the kick off of yet another sweeping aviation change, new fuels, new avionics, new propulsion systems and new aircraft, all very similar in looks, performance and price. I guess my fellow greatest generation pilots are very thankful to have been born when the average pilot could own and fly some of the best aircraft in the world for pennies on the dollar. Happy Birthday to America and yes to me, an old bold pilot. NG

One of the first jet trainers was the Lockheed T-33 which saw acceptance by air forces all over the world.

I even managed to go along on a nine hour training flight in a B-52, shown here carrying an X-15 rocket test vehicle.

By:       Norm Goyer

As part of our nation’s Birthday Celebration, I thought that I would honor, in my opinion, some of America’s most famous aircraft, not the most historical, as in the Wright Brothers Flyer, but in staying power. Let’s start our trip during World War I.

One of the first American designs that was a huge success was the Curtiss JN-4 Jenny. Many are still flying and in museums worldwide.

The most memorable aircraft during the World War I period was the Curtiss JN-4 Jenny. This aircraft taught almost all of our early pilots how to fly, when they became surplus they provided the motion picture industry, in its infancy, the means to showcase daredevil wing walkers, early parachute jumpers and of course the barnstormer’s great finale of crashing a Jenny into a flimsy barn. In 2010 the Curtiss can be seen in all of its restored glory at air shows around the country. Curtiss built thousands of them in upstate New York and powered them with a Curtiss OX-5 V-8 engine complete with exterior overhead valves which required almost hourly greasing to keep the engine from self-destructing. Most of sport flying needs, until the mid 1930s, were supplied by surplus Jennies and Standards.

The second all American airplane that is still almost number one in overall sales is the Piper J-3 Cub designed by Taylor and marketed as the Taylor Cub, then the Piper J-2 Cub then the Piper J-3, L-4 liaison Grasshopper and finally the Piper Super Cub. You can still buy various types of Cubs almost 80 years after the design first took the skies. What a great aircraft. This time period also produced the sensational Douglas DC-3 which rewrote the book on early airline travel.

The Vought Corsair is one of the most readily recognized aircraft ever, due to its unique inverted gull wing.

Before the days of World War II, the Thompson Trophy races produced another American aircraft icon, the Granville Brother’s Gee Bee R-2 which carried another American icon, Jimmy Doolittle, to victory in 1932. It is probably the most recognizable racing aircraft of all time.

World War II was the smorgasbord of single purpose aircraft design. The North American P-51 Mustang, Vought Corsair, Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, Douglas C-47 Dakota, North American B-25 Mitchell led us to victory in the skies.  Boeing B-17 and B-29 Fortresses, and many others, provided the world with long-distance bombing capability. World War II also provided sport aviation with thousands of surplus aircraft for pennies on the dollar. The best civilian flying of all times were during these post war years. Read this week’s Under the Radar for more on this subject. All of the above aircraft can be seen at air shows around the country and in many aviation museums.

Cessna produced the C-195 Businessliner complete with huge radial engine, cantilever wings and plush seating for five, one of the America's finest aircraft. It is still hugely popular with restorers. I owned one for many years and flew it all over North America.

Post World War II flying was dominated by two and four passenger training and family transportation aircraft. The Cessna 195 was one of the best aircraft ever produced for family and business transportation. Some may believe that this big radial engine tail dragger was too hard to land, wrong, this plane was light years ahead in design and quality. This was followed by the Beechcraft Bonanza with its distinctive “V” tail. The Cessna 180/185 four and five passenger utility aircraft are still in very high demand although they have been off the market for many years. Mooney aircraft have a huge following for those who like to go fast on thimbles of fuel. I found that the Mooney had a cabin that was too small for big people and routine engine maintenance was super hard due to very cramped engine quarters. Both Cessna and Piper had very popular heavy haulers with their 206 and Cherokee 6 offerings, both are outstanding aircraft, take your pick, low wing or high wing.

The overall most popular and useful aircraft ever designed for student training has to be the great American Cessna 150/152 series of two-place trainers, no other aircraft even came close to their rightfully earned popularity. The most popular family aircraft is the Cessna 172, which also possesses one of the best safety records of any aircraft. For larger families and small business owners, the Cessna 310 series and Piper’s Seneca light twins have taught more multi-engine pilots than any other. I earned my rating in a Seneca, great aircraft.

Piper's Cherokee 6, along with the Cessna 206, provided American aviation with aircraft capable of lifting huge loads, plus the ability to operate from primitive runways.

Modern military aircraft have to include the SR-71 Blackbird, F-4 Phantom and the single engine F-16, the Fighting Falcon. These are all true American proven fighting machines. We finish our tribute to all-time great American aircraft with the absolute greatest achievement, the Space Shuttle. Happy Birthday American Aviation, long may you dominate.

By:       Norm Goyer

In 1934 this aircraft broke all existing speed records with a sizzling 440 miles per hour flight. The overall record stood for years but the seaplane category still stands in 2010.

I have always loved seaplanes of any type and any size. I have had a seaplane rating since 1947 and have owned many float planes and flying boats, I love flying off water. Every chance I get I haul out my one quarter size Super Cub RC electric powered float plane for a day of fun on the water. Sometimes it turns into fun in the water, but a few hours in the sun and all is forgiven.  Other aviation favorites are the 1930 Thompson and Bendix Trophy races. I grew up very close to the Springfield, Massachusetts, airport where the Gee Bees were built and, thanks to an indulging father, saw them all fly. I even met James Doolittle when he was checking out his winning ride in 1932. His good luck logo on the cowl was a pair of dice and the numbers 7 & 11. Now that happens to be my birthday as well. For many years every giant scale aircraft I fly has this logo on the cowl. Jimmy Doolittle also won the Schneider Cub Trophy for seaplanes in the late 1920s flying an Army Air Force Curtiss biplane racer on floats. But the hero of this International racing event never proved itself until the races were over. This magnificent Italian aircraft was years ahead of anything every flown before. It was the Macchi M.C.72 designed by Castoldi and build by Macchi Aeronautica. The Schneider events came to a halt in 1932 when a Supermarine S-6 (the start of the Spitfire series) on floats won the event and retired the trophy. Everyone knew that luck was with the English that year when the Macchi M.C.72 had engine trouble and could not compete.

The M.C.72 was built by Macchi and designed by Castoldi. This three-view shows its conventional design.

Italians are very proud of their racing heritage, cars, boats, Sophia Loren and aircraft. Mussolini poured state funds into the M.C.72 project with the orders, “break the speed record or I breaka your legs”, which is how the Mafia probably got started. The aircraft that Macchi and Castoldi came up with was the record smashing M.C.72. The aircraft had standard lines but was loaded with engineering firsts, plus a 24 cylinder Fiat engine with contra rotating props. The power plant was basically two 12 cylinder Fiat engines installed in tandem, each swinging a huge prop in opposite directions. Thus the enormous torque was cancelled out. A huge supercharger unit was added to stuff the cylinders with high octane fuel. The design of the Macchi M.C. 72 was unique with a fuselage consisting mostly of metal to the cockpit and wood monocoque bolted to the front tubular portion by four bolts. (probably not from a local hardware store)  The streamlined nose contours enclosed an oil tank with its outside wall exposed to the airstream. The wing was all metal with flat tubular water radiators smoothly faired into the wings. The twin pontoons had three smoothly-faired radiators on the outer surfaces, the forward radiator for water and the center and rear radiators for oil cooling. The float struts also featured water radiators and another radiator was fitted during hot conditions under the fuselage running from cockpit to tail. ^[It was built in 1931 with the idea of competing for what turned out to be the final Schneider Trophy race, but due to engine problems, the plane was unable to compete.

The secret to the outstanding performance was the 24 cylinder Fiat engine swinging contra rotating props

Various problems continued through two years of testing which included several fatal crashes. Finally the problems were solved and after 35 test flights, the engines were overhauled in preparation for a record attempt. The aircraft finally lived up to expectations when it set a new world speed record (over water) on April 10, 1933, with a speed of 424 mph. It was piloted by Warrant Officer Francesco Agello (the last qualified test pilot). Not satisfied, development continued as the aircraft’s designers thought they could break 430 mph with the M.C. 72. This feat was in fact achieved on 23 October 1934, when Agello piloted the plane for an average speed of 440 mph over three passes. This record remains as of 2010 the fastest speed ever attained by a piston-engine seaplane. After this success, the M.C.72 was never flown again.

The huge engine was essentially two 12 cylinder Fiat engines, in tandem, each swinging a very high pitch prop in opposite directions.

Specifications:

• Crew: 1 pilot
• Length: 27 ft 3.5 in
• Wingspan: 31 ft 1.25 in
• Height: 10.83 ft
• Wing area: 151.46 ft²
• Empty weight: 5,512 lb
• Loaded weight: 6,409 lb
• Max takeoff weight: 6,669 lb
• Power plant:  Fiat AS.6 Liquid-cooled V24 engine, 2,850 hp

Performance

• Maximum speed:  440.681 mph, world speed record

By:       Norm Goyer

The new ELT ruling will only monitor signals from an ELT broadcasting on the 406mh frequency. These ELTs cost from $700 to $1500.

“On June 15, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released for publication a change to 47 CFR Part 87 that will “prohibit the certification, manufacture, importation, sale, or continued use of 121.5 MHz emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) other than the Breitling Emergency Watch ELT.” Meanwhile, the FAA in 14 CFR Part 91.207, stipulates that U.S.-registered civil airplanes are required to have an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter in operable condition attached to the airplane. The FAA does not specify either 121.5 or 406 MHz, but the overwhelming majority of aircraft are equipped with 121.5 MHz units, meaning they would be in violation of federal law when it goes into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.”

The alphabet mafia is at it again, this time the target is 121.5 ELTs. For the past 50 years lost aircraft were located by signals from the required ELT beacon installed in every certified two seat or larger aircraft by law. The little yellow box was usually installed in the tail of the aircraft in hopes that in a serious crash the box would not be damaged, so it could start broadcasting its location via 121.5. Airliners, other pilots and law enforcement monitor this frequency and many lost aircraft have been located, thanks to this FAA requirement. But, the system was not perfect. I can attest to that. At one time I owned and operated four FBOs based in the High Desert. I was awakened numerous times by calls from the local Sheriff’s Department asking me to go to the airport and shut off a rogue ELT that was blasting away, possibly blanketing out a legitimate signal. A real hard landing could set off the alarm and unless the pilot had his radio tuned to 121.5 he would not know that his ELT had been activated. There is a new requirement pending publication, that prohibits sales of 121.5 ELTs and the use of any that have been installed must be replaced by a yet undetermined date. But, it appears that this is going to be a very fast moving requirement, if it gets through the various aviation group protests.  I believe that this is a very good change. I do know that pilots and aircraft owners are really not very interested in spending more money than they must to keep enjoying their flying hobby. A huge number of aircraft owners are at an advanced age, fly aircraft that are also of an advanced age and they are perfectly happy the way things are; they do not want to see 94 octane UL fuel, they don’t want to retrofit their 50 year old aircraft with an expensive new “gadget” to find them if they crash. We all know that the feds are control freaks, and in most cases they should be. They want to control every aspect of flying. In my opinion, the grandfathers who are flying should be grandfathered in. What would be the consequences? The pilot has to make an emergency landing in the boondocks. He is slightly injured. His 50 year old ELT is squawking away on 121.5 but nobody hears it. So? He knew that when he took off. If he wanted the latest in lost airplane finding technology he would have installed a modern compatible ELT. I fail to see why the feds insist on protecting everyone from their own actions. Nobody on the ground is affected, it was the pilot’s choice. We all know the fed’s like placards posted on aircraft. If you are flying a homebuilt, there has to be a huge EXPERIMENTAL sign posted in the cockpit area so that any passenger will know that they are about to fly in a homebuilt aircraft. I’ll buy that. So why not add another sign? “This aircraft is not protected with an approved emergency locater beacon.” Don’t hold your breath, it isn’t going to happen. The new ELT requirement will be signed into law sooner or later and more aircraft owners will simply give up, Big Brother is just too expensive and controlling. But, it really is time to make use of new locating technology.

The FAA is considering allowing an increase in LSA weight limits so the roadable Terrafugia can still qualify as an LSA aircraft.

While I am picking on the FAA, here’s the latest questionable action. They are considering a weight increase for the TerraFugia, the roadable car, so that it can remain in the LSA category. It is an outstanding concept, but it is a compromise and we all know compromise aircraft along with aircraft designed by committees are not as efficient. Their reasoning; the roadable aircraft must meet highway safety concerns so they are considering the weight increase. LSA seaplanes have also been elevated in gross weight due to the weight of the floats or flying boat construction requirements. Okay, here is my dilemma; if the feds granted a weight increase to the Cessna 150/152, Piper Tomahawk, later model Ercoupes, Citabrias and other two place 115 hp aircraft they would significantly advance the cause of aviation. Now there would be far more popular inexpensive aircraft flying under the LSA banner than the TerraFugia. There would be a huge number of new students, a number of private pilots who could remain flying inexpensive aircraft with only a driver’s license. I am still not convinced that anyone who flies with a Private Certificate needs a third class medical. The statistics don’t prove it and neither can the medical profession prove it. Which is more dangerous a speeding 4,000 pound car driving through traffic and crashing into a neighborhood home, or an 1400 pound airplane crashing? The airplane will cause far less damage than the speeding car. Most airplanes crash in uninhabited areas. To increase student starts, we must be creative in our thinking, we have to bring the cost of flying down to the level of an SUV, or the number of new pilots will continue to decline.

The huge number of Cessna 150/152s still flying would logically make excellent LSA aircraft with a very simple weight limit change.

As a final note to this week’s happenings, Roger Atwood of Northampton, Massachusetts, died the other day after 70 years of active flying. Roger was 88 years old and still flying. He obtained his commercial certificate on his 18th birthday. He spent World War II in the back seat of an SNJ teaching future Navy pilots how to safely fly the advanced trainer. Roger typifies the “Greatest Generation.” Roger was my lifelong friend. He is a legend in the Northeastern part of our great country. NG

By:    Norm Goyer

A Wankel rotary engine makes a dependable power plant for Experimental aircraft and drones.

“The Wankel rotary engine was invented by German engineer Felix Wankel. He began its development in the early 1950s at NSU before completing a working, running prototype in 1957. NSU then licensed the concept to companies around the world, which have continued to improve the design.” Wikipedia

This animation shows the workings of a Wankel engine, simple, light and powerful.

Wankel rotary engines were first used in NSU cars built in Germany during the late 1950s and early 1960s. They are still being used in certain Mazda vehicles and have proven themselves over many years of operation. When they first appeared, they did have a problem with the seals on the rotor wearing out prematurely, or not holding contact with the case, causing slight loss of power. Another problem was overheating. The overall size of the physical engine is very small and that restricts the amount of heat that can be transferred from the engine.  If for some reason a hose from the radiator sprung a leak, the engine temperature would rise immediately. If the engine continued to run, even for a short time, the heat would destroy the engine. Friend Walter Schomburg owned a high performance auto repair facility and maintained cars powered with Wankels including NSUs and Mazdas. Another fact of the inherent design of the Wankel was its need for more fuel than reciprocating engines. This has been reduced by new technology but it is still above average. That is one reason why Mazda installed them in their special purpose sports cars, whose owners normally don’t consider miles per gallon as the ultimate deciding factor for purchase. Keep this point in mind as it also affects their use in aircraft.

This Diamond DA-20 has been retrofitted with a Diamond Wankel engine for testing purposes. There are many homebuilts flying with Wankel power.

Wankel engines have a high power-to-weight ratio and a very small frontal profile. Their design is such that addition power can be achieved by banking several engines together, similar to the multi bank radials of World War II. These huge engines were called “Double Row”. P &
W even manufactured a quadruple engine , the four row Pratt and Whitney Corn cob engines which powered the last of the reciprocating powered airliners. I have always thought that Wankel engines should have been further developed for aviation but other than modified car Mazda rotary engines that are used in a large number of homebuilts, there has been no real movement in that direction. Several large companies including Curtiss Wright and Rolls did build experimental Wankels however.  Why haven’t Wankels been certified? General aviation has always favored air-cooled horizontally opposed engines. But, Wankel engines are very well suited for aircraft use, because they are almost immune to catastrophic failure. A Wankel engine which loses compression, cooling or oil pressure will lose a large amount of power, and will die over a short period of time; however, it will usually continue to produce some power during that time. Piston engines under the same circumstances are prone to seizing or breaking parts that almost certainly results in major internal damage of the engine and an instant loss of power. For this reason, Wankel engines make dependable engines for aircraft and to snowmobiles, which often take users into remote places where a failure could result in frostbite or death.

Pictured is the Mazda Wankel powered racing car which has won several 24 hour Le Mans races. The engine is very powerful and reliable.

Wankel engines also have been popular in homebuilt experimental aircraft, due to a number of factors. Most are Mazda 12A and 13B automobile engines, converted to aviation use. This is a very cost-effective alternative to certified aircraft engines, providing engines ranging from 100 to 300 horsepower at a fraction of the cost of traditional engines. These conversions first took place in the early 1970s. With a large number of these engines mounted in aircraft the NTSB has only seven reports of incidents involving aircraft with Mazda engines up to 2006, and none of these is of a failure due to design or manufacturing flaws. During the same period they have issued several thousand reports of broken crankshafts and connecting rods, failed pistons and incidents caused by other components which are not found in the Wankel engines.

In my opinion, the main reason that these engines are popular with homebuilders is their initial cost, compared to a new Continental or Lycoming the resurrected car engines are cheap, real cheap, and they are an excellent dependable engine. Homebuilders usually don’t fly their aircraft on business or take long family trips, so the added cost for the fuel hungry rotaries is not a determining factor.  Pilots flying certified engines in their aircraft are extremely fuel conscious, they take pride in running their engines, looking for the smallest fuel consumption per hour. They are flying aircraft valued in the hundreds of thousands yet they strive to save a few dollars on gasoline, you figure it out, I have never been able to. (Yes, Mooney owners belong in this group)

Rotary engines make fascinating reading, I suggest you Google Mazda Rotary, Wankel Rotary engine and read the pages and pages of technical data on a great engine concept.

By:      Norm Goyer

Fueling an airplane may become quite different if 100LL is dropped in favor of 94UL.

“Wichita, we’ve got a problem.” You should also add Vero Beach and Duluth, Michigan. The problem is not new, and everyone in the aviation industry knew it was coming, but very little has been done to resolve the problem. Many believe that a huge fuel availability change is coming and an even larger financial burden. The problem, leaded aviation fuel; the feds don’t want it, the EPA doesn’t want it and our Air Force and the airline industry don’t need it. The military switched to diesel/Jet fuel years ago as did the airlines. The auto industry solved their own problem by building their engines to be able to run efficiently on unleaded gasoline blends. Not so in the aviation industry, the anti-detonation qualities of lead are still needed in a large number of the engines that power most of the light business fleet. The minimum octane remains at 100LL (low lead.) The number of aircraft using 285 and 300 hp range of six cylinder air cooled engines demand 100 LL to prevent damage to the engines. Fortunately the large number of sport aircraft with smaller four cylinder Lycoming and Continental engines can run on auto gas, with some modifications. But it is the larger airplanes that wealthy, often influential pilots prefer. They are the Bonanzas and Barons, Cessna 206s, Cessna Golden Eagles, Piper  Piper Malibu, Mooneys, Cirrus and the Cessna 400 Columbia. All of these brands have pilots and owner associations who are fighting the bureaucracy demanding the end to 100 LL fuel. This group rightfully believes that the 94 octane UL (essentially 100LL without the lead) will damage their engines.  The aviation press has been reporting these problems for the past year or so and it appears that it might be coming to a head. What if anything can be done? Problem number one is that auto engines are liquid cooled and run very slowly. My 1500 Suburban will cruise at 60 mph at 1200 rpm. Airplane engines bang away at 2400 rpm, hours at a time, and depend on air flowing over the cylinders for cooling. According to recent findings, the problems seem to be pre detonation which can cause failure of engine components. Hot spots in the cylinder, mostly around the exhaust valves, cause pre detonation when using no lead fuel which can cause valve failure, often taking the whole engine with it.

Cirrus just announced a new low- compression engine with a powerful turbo charger which should be able to use a lower octane fuel.

Diesel engines seem like a very good idea, but acceptance by the flying public has not been good. Several of the new diesel engines that have been brought out have developed problems and they have been withdrawn from service. These problems are not fuel related, but related to the extreme stress that diesel engine components suffer from the high compressions needed and the explosive nature of the fuel. One of the recent diesel engines that had been installed in several certified aircraft was not re-buildable, the whole engine had to be replaced, and this was expensive. The latest diesel aircraft engine that is making the news is a rotary (Wankel). This type of engine is not technically a reciprocating engine, components don’t move up and down rotating a crankshaft, instead it is more like a jet engine in that the main section of the engine rotates and wipers control the opening and closing of the heads and the valves which are non moving. Mazda has been successful for years marketing a Wankel type engine in their sport model cars. This new engine, which is still under certification testing, has the possibility of operating with diesel fuel. At this time it is being tested with no lead auto fuel. Many years ago, I flew an experimental aircraft that used a two bank Norton liquid cooled modified motorcycle engine that was a Wankel. It put out about 100 hp and was very smooth in operation. Again it simply faded into oblivion.

This Piper PA-46 has an engine which will need modifications to run properly with any fuel less than 100 octane low lead.

It is obvious to anyone  dealing in reality that the true solution is about 70 years old, a small turbine that is in the 200 to 300 shp range. Remote control aircraft have been using miniature jet engines for many years and they are outstanding, reliable and fast. Pratt & Whitney built some of the best large radial engines ever at their huge plant near Hartford, Connecticut, for many decades now, they only build turbines. I refuse to believe that Continental and Lycoming do not have the capability to build small turbines for general aviation, but, they just keep on building a dying breed of engines that are soon to become paperweights. I have flown Bonanzas and large Pipers with retrofitted prop jet engines, no comparison, they do everything better. I have flown all of the Experimental Aero Comp aircraft with prop jet engines, outstanding power and quietness and they simply don’t need 80, 100, 100LL or auto fuel, they run on jet A. As my farmer ancestors often reminded me, “Why kick a dead horse?”

The owner of this Beechcraft A-36 Bonanza installed a Tradewind propjet engine conversion.

Lurking in the wings is the lure of electric motors powering aircraft. As the battery industry progresses, so will the use of outrunner type of electric motors using Li-Ion cells arranged in batteries of high voltage. Electric cars are a reality, testing is underway using motors in aircraft and the motorcycle drag racing record is held by an electric motor powered motorcycle. About three years ago I switched from large gasoline and methanol powered engines to even more powerful lighter, very reliable, outrunner electric motors for my fleet of giant remote control aircraft. Electric power is fantastic, and, it’s on its way for general aviation aircraft.

If any readers have requests for special topics please let us know. Email us at theradar@acmp.com