Discussion in 'Military Aviation in General' started by Deven Bolding, May 9, 2017.
I wasn't a fan of the SNJ, other than flying open canopy.
No clue as to the accuracy of old training pipelines or when/how they changed. Uncle would've gone through sometime in the 60s and said he flew 34s out of Saufley for initial solo and then went 28s.
I remember (or not) a T-28 IP telling me at the Cleveland Air Show that the SNAs got to choose whether to start in the T-34 or T-28. But that was a while ago, and I may be remembering it wrong.
Long time ago, but my dad did the same......also, first CQ in the -28, advanced CQ in the S-2.
The T-28 has very docile flying qualities, but the engine management... holy cow. Busy!
It is a very humbling airplane to fly, especially for those of us raised in jets.
All of the big pistons are like that, unfortunately. I think it is part of the attraction of flying 'em, personally.
Found some old Mustang flight manual pages online. Seems like all the engine settings referenced 3000rpm. Did they fly the thing T-34C style, where you just set max on the condition lever and use torque/manifold pressure to control power?
I think it may have also been a result of "doctrine"/design philosophy. I've seen a report on comparison test conducted between F4Us and FW190s by USN Test Pilots either during or shortly after WWII. The authors stated that the FW190's engine controls were highly automated and that operating it was done by operating one control that combined and automated the pitch, throttle, and fuel mixture inputs. American airplanes were designed with each of those inputs as an independent control that gave the operator the ability to make more adjustments. The authors of the report preferrred the American method but they were American pilots who were used to flying using American controls.
While at TPS, I found the controls on the U-6 Beaver much easier to manage than the controls on the T-28B. Some of that was probably familiarity (several flights in the U-6 vs. one flight in the T-28), and some was undoubtedly the owner's preferences on the to minimize wear on the T-28 engine- he was understandably very particular. The B-25 was the biggest eye-opener. With 2 radial engines and 6 levers, practically the entire job for the non-flying pilot is managing the engines, especially in the pattern. Either way, the radials are manageable, but a major difference in workload coming from something like a T-6B. If you're used to flying aircraft with piston engines and variable pitch propellers, the mechanics probably aren't that different. But man, those radials are cool. Like drive a muscle-car to work, hack your mechanical watch, land on a straight-deck, and debrief over whiskey in the ready room kind of cool.
CQ was part of Primary until mid or late 70's - as was gunnery, regardless of pipeline I believe.
I thought they were all comparable in that they were a pain in the ass. Although maybe the Beav and Otter were less touchy, they were still a lot of work. The B-25 was more intense, but I didn't think greatly so. The concepts of the other radials were the same, but they were overly protective (and justifiably so). I remember they'd flip their shit if you even tapped the brakes. The most eye-opening thing to me about the B-25 was the fact that after rotate and until I think 140-145 mph you didn't have enough airspeed for Vmca or even climb out I think.
One of the coolest moments on the TPS line was when the B-25, T-28, U-6 and U-1 were all there spinning up, oh yeah that was fun.
Imagine handling four of them. 17s and 24s .......flying form.....under fire from FLAK. 108s and 190s........and being 23 years old.
How much did the flight engineer help with the engine management workload?
Too busy in the top turret fending off the 109's and 190's.
Separate names with a comma.