Real Photo? Pilot fixing engine in mid-air?

[Scruloose]

While cruising through the pics and vids on this site (http://www.micom.net/oops/)*, I came across this picture (http://www.micom.net/oops/AirMaint.jpg) of what appears to be a pilot working on his engine in mid-air.

1. Is this photo real?

2. If so, anyone know the story?

3. If not, anyone have any good guesses as to what's going on here?

4. Failing that, anyone have any really funny captions for the pic?


*linked to in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=396755).

[picunurse]

Your site doesn't support hot links. What is the name of the picture, there are a lot of them.

[Scruloose]

Hey - has anyone seen my GQ thread?

Oh, here it is, in MPSIMS for some strange reason. Could a mod kindly move this to GQ, where I originally posted it? :dubious:

OK, I screwed up. A little help here?

[Scruloose]

Your site doesn't support hot links. What is the name of the picture, there are a lot of them.
Oh. Well, I'm just screwing this thread up by the numbers.

Sorry, it's the pic titled AirMaint.jpg

[Really Not All That Bright]

Your site doesn't support hot links. What is the name of the picture, there are a lot of them.
Just copy the shortcut and paste it into a new window.

[FairyChatMom]

I've never seen that pic before, but I'm guessing PhotoShop or equivalent. A plane like that could glide a long, long way and no pilot with half a brain would try a stunt like that. There's the drag of his body, the force of the wind that doesn't appear to be ruffling his hair, the unbalanced condition with him off to the side like that, and the unlikely situation that anything you could reach without opening the cowling would fix an engine that quit running.

As for a caption: "OK, it's righty-tighty, lefty-loosey, right??"

[Shagnasty]

There is no way that is real or at least it doesn't show what it implies. The plane is high up and suitable landing areas are obvious below. It is a light plane and will literally glide for miles and make a perfectly safe landing if the pilot just focuses on flying the plane rather than worrying about the (dead) engine. An engine-off landing isn't even considered a reportable event to the FAA in most circumstances if there aren't any injuries. All flight students, including myself, have the instructor just reach over and pull the engine to idle with no warning and no explanation from time to time and then he tells us to figure something out. It isn't that difficult over any reasonable terrain because available gliding distance literally lets you have your pick many square miles of landing areas.

Glider pilots consider that even more of a non-event because they never even had an engine at all and can even make trips of hundreds of miles. It isn't that big a deal and no competent pilot would worry about the engine instead of just picking a reasonable place and landing.

[Bookkeeper]

I'm not sure that the background is even an aerial shot. It looks like it might be a picture taken on the ground on the edge of a runway, not even photoshopped other than to clean up any shadow of the plane on the ground.

[A.R. Cane]

I dunno', people have done crazier things. The shadows on the ground seem to match those on the plane. The guy looks nearly bald, so I don't think that's much help., but his pants seem to be blowing appropriately.
I think it might be genuine.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

What do you suppose are the odds that the pilot's engine would quit, he'd try to fix it, and there'd happen to be somebody in another plane that close by with a camera?

If it's not Photoshopped, I'd bet it's staged.

[Captain Carrot]

It seems awfully clear for a B&W photo, and the propeller looks like it's not moving: there isn't even any blur. I call Photoshop.

[Mindfield]

I'd bet good money it's a chop. No pilot worth his license would even consider something as foolhardy as that even ignoring the senselessness of bothering to try and repair the engine when there's every possibility and opportunity to land safely. Even as a deliberate stunt it's pretty bland.

[A.R. Cane]

It seems awfully clear for a B&W photo, and the propeller looks like it's not moving: there isn't even any blur. I call Photoshop.

Hmmmm! Maybe the prop not turning could explain why he's out there?
Since there's no likely way to verify it, these are only opinions anyway.

[casdave]

I wonder if the aircraft is already suspended in some show or something like that, you sometimes see aircraft hung up like that in large exhibitions.

[FairyChatMom]

Hmmmm! Maybe the prop not turning could explain why he's out there?
Since there's no likely way to verify it, these are only opinions anyway.Granted I only have about 275 piloting hours to my credit, and I only have a bachelor's in aeronautical engineering, but my opinion is that it's a fake. <shrug>

[A.R. Cane]

Granted I only have about 275 piloting hours to my credit, and I only have a bachelor's in aeronautical engineering, but my opinion is that it's a fake. <shrug>

You might be right. We often form opinions based on our experiences.
When I was a kid I was in the Civil Air Patrol. We would spend a weekend washing and polishing the senior members aircraft, in return they would arrange flights w/ us as passengers. We would receive practical experience in navigation and aircraft handling, often being allowed to take the controls for a short period. Most of us would take our cameras to record our experience. Mid air pics were common.
I also have a former FiL, now in his early 90's, who spent his entire life earning his living as the owner/pilot of light aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing. He did crop dusting, aerial fire suppression, aerial fish stocking, aerial land surveys, etc. He survived several serious crashes. The stories he's got to tell are spellbinding and he has snapshots to go w/ many of his tales. While I never heard him tell of doing what's shown in the OP's pic, I have heard some things that certainly rivaled that.
I respect your point of view, just remember that it's not necessarily the definitive one.

[Diddledog]

Could be real.

Don't know anything about this specific photo, but if it's real, it's not as amazing as what the Key Brothers did. Al and Fred Key set the record for non-stop endurance flight in 1935. They stayed aloft 653 hours, 34 minutes -- a record which still stands -- in a Curtis J-1. The plane is in the Smithsonian.
They developed the first in-flight refueling system, and they regularly walked out on a special catwalk to service the engine in flight.

[Llama Llogophile]

It could be real, and here's why:

That's a Piper Cub, in which the pilot-in-command sits in the rear seat. You can't see the rear seat in the photo, so I'm guessing someone is back there flying the airplane. That would leave the passenger, ie: the front seat occupant, free to poke around the engine.

As to whether or not it was staged is another matter. I'd guess it was because, as previously stated in the thread, if you lost the engine you wouldn't generally monkey around trying to physically fix it. You'd just land.

[Johnny L.A.]

That's a Piper Cub, in which the pilot-in-command sits in the rear seat. You can't see the rear seat in the photo, so I'm guessing someone is back there flying the airplane. That would leave the passenger, ie: the front seat occupant, free to poke around the engine.
I popped in here to check the photo and suggest exactly that.

I think it could be real (not necessarily that it is) because there seemed to be a number of 'stunts' staged in the first 30-50 years of powered aviation. Wing walkers have a long history. I can imagine some sort of publicity stunt where a 'wing walker' gets out of an airplane with the engine off, and makes like he's working on the engine.

AFAIK the J-3 Cub sis not have a starter; so if the photo is real I imagine they got the shot and the guy crawled back in, and the pilot then made a dead-stick landing.

Incidentally, ISTM that 'back in the day' people were less finicky about tying stuff outside of the aircraft. (Not that it has anything to do with the photo.) When I was a kid I got a ride in a J-3. The couple who owned it were camping, and tied all sorts of gear to the struts. (The camping gear had been removed when I went for my ride.)

[tomndebb]

According to the StudentPilot.com message board (http://66.70.40.174/interact/forum/showthread.php?threadid=16268), the photo has been around for a long time (and the registratin number has already been re-assigned to a newer plane).

One comment is that the photo predates Photoshop (which does not actually invalidate camera magic which had developed to a fine art using Exacto® knives a many long years ago).

I'm not wholly convinced that the sunlight is in exactly the right position. (Pretty convenient that the plane is over a canal through a desert where there are no trees or towers.) There are two white block buildings where the shadows extending right seem to have been cast by a sun just a bit farther to the left of the photographer than the shadows on the plane might indicate.

Another possibility that occurs to me is a simple staged photo, with an unseen person piloting the plane from the back seat while the pilot steps out just long enough for the photo. (Note that they have plenty of altitude and that the ailerons appear to be just slightly set to roll left, possibly balancing the guy on the starboard side.)

[Johnny L.A.]

the ailerons appear to be just slightly set to roll left
Good eye!

[N9IWP]

N88172 info:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=88172
They dropped the "C" for civilan at some point. Though it certianly could be a different plane. (Though it is interestin that it also owned by Air Ads Work)

Brian

[N9IWP]

Duh. It is obvioulsy a different plane, since N88172 was manufactured in 1974.

Brian

[Johnny L.A.]

Though it certianly could be a different plane.
It's a Bellanca 7KCAB Citabria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citabria).

[A.R. Cane]

Looks like a J-3 to me. I recall flying in one in the mid 50's. It was owned by a C.A.P. member as described in my earlier post. I recall being put in the front seat and thinking that the pilot, behind me, couldn't see shit as we took off.
http://www.bushwhackerair.com/piper%20j3%20cub.jpg

[Johnny L.A.]

Looks like a J-3 to me.
I meant the one in the registry N91WP linked to.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I only flew in a cub once, but damn, that was fun! Like flying in a big old box kite!

Those photos at the site the OP linked to are great, though. I'm tempted to post some of our old Fairchild PT-26 crash pics there!

[don't ask]

Am I being stupid here? Isn't that clearly a fake in that the shadow of the tail is in a 90 degree different plane to the shadow of the pilot?

[don't ask]

I meant to say the sun is ahead of the plane for the tail shadow and behind it for the pilot's.

[lazybratsche]

Am I being stupid here? Isn't that clearly a fake in that the shadow of the tail is in a 90 degree different plane to the shadow of the pilot?

The shadows look consistent to me... in both cases, it looks like the sun is straight to the right of the plane, and maybe 30 or 40 degrees up.

[lazybratsche]

Am I being stupid here? Isn't that clearly a fake in that the shadow of the tail is in a 90 degree different plane to the shadow of the pilot?

Elaborating a bit... Consider that leading edge of the tail isn't a vertical line but is swept back, so the the shadow looks "behind". Also, the nose is curved, so the man will cast a shadow that looks a bit "ahead" of him.

[Broomstick]

Looks like a J-3 to me.
Probably.

The Citabria has a much more angular rudder and stabs.

[Johnny L.A.]

Probably.

The Citabria has a much more angular rudder and stabs.
Here's what N9IWP posted:
N9IWP]N88172 info:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinq...Numbertxt=88172
... Though it certianly could be a different plane.
I was only pointing out that N88172 is a 1974 Citabria, which makes is a different airplane from the one in the photo, and which I'd already mentioned was a J-3.

(Sorry, I get cranky before coffee.)

[A.R. Cane]

Here's what N9IWP posted:

I was only pointing out that N88172 is a 1974 Citabria, which makes is a different airplane from the one in the photo, and which I'd already mentioned was a J-3.

(Sorry, I get cranky before coffee.)

Sorry Johnny, I'm the one who misinterpreted your post in the first place. After you called my attention to it I understood what you were saying.

[LSLGuy]

Pilot type & long-time airshow devotee ...

I bet the photo is real, but certainly a staged stunt.

NC registration numbers became obsolete in the late 50's IIRC.

The back seat pilot is definitely flying; if the guy we see was the only one aboard, the airplane would roll right & dive aggressively from the asymmetrical weight & drag.

It is not hard to stop the prop in flight, so that is not a useful clue.

Shadows on the airplane & the ground objects are well-correlated, at least well enough that we can't say they're wrong.

Before computers, photo compositting was done with a knife, touchup & re-shoot. My grandfather was a commercial artist who did a lot of that for advertising copy. But they'd avoid compositions like this; getting it to look good around the round tires & narrow wing struts was VERY difficult. If anyone can find a source for this photo from before computers (an old book say), that'd pretty well prove it was real.

[Scruloose]

Some good info here - thanks all. I never would have guessed that the pilot is actually in the rear, out of sight, doing the actual flying. Why the 'pilot in the back' setup on older planes?

That being the case, I can see this being a real pic, albeit most likely staged for some reason. If that were the case, how likely is it that they would intentionally stop the engine for the purposes of taking a photo? Any way to restart it in flight? Or was this engine manually started by hand?

[Scruloose]

Eh - belay that last question, as I see Johnny already answered it.

[Johnny L.A.]

Why the 'pilot in the back' setup on older planes?
Semi-informed guess: Weight and Balance.

[A.R. Cane]

Am I the only one who tried blowing the pic. up? It's to blurry to tell for sure, but it looks as if the guy has something in his hand. A scewdriver maybe? His fingers appear to be extended, as if holding something and there may be a straight object extending from them.

[Scruloose]

Am I the only one who tried blowing the pic. up? It's to blurry to tell for sure, but it looks as if the guy has something in his hand. A scewdriver maybe? His fingers appear to be extended, as if holding something and there may be a straight object extending from them.
I did the same thing, and noticed the exact same thing as you did.

I don't know jack about a/c engines, but I can't imagine that there's anything external, within reach, that someone could 'fix' with one extended hand or tool. Further leading me to believe that the pic, while likely real, is staged for some unknown reason.

Some people have a really warped sense of humor, and I certainly wouldn't rule that out here.

[Quartz]

What makes me think it's fake is that the guy doesn't have a parachute on.

[Johnny L.A.]

What makes me think it's fake is that the guy doesn't have a parachute on.
Lots of people have crawled out of an aircraft without a parachute. Also, notice the man's left leg. It appears that it's still in the cockpit, and that he has it hooked over the sill.

[Quartz]

Lots of people have crawled out of an aircraft without a parachute. Also, notice the man's left leg. It appears that it's still in the cockpit, and that he has it hooked over the sill.
I doubt that would stop him falling.

[Johnny L.A.]

Speaking of 'Real Or Fake?', here is footage of a Caribou crash (Warning: Footage can be disturbing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8EiiHR_igY

A startling number of commentors say the footage is fake. However, this site has a citation (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920827-1) that it is real.

[Johnny L.A.]

I doubt that would stop him falling.
What, you never hung off the monkey bars? Certainly the man's position is dangerous; but it does not strike me as being particularly precarious.

[Richard Pearse]

Speaking of 'Real Or Fake?', here is footage of a Caribou crash (Warning: Footage can be disturbing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8EiiHR_igY

A startling number of commentors say the footage is fake. However, this site has a citation (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920827-1) that it is real.

To be fair, the commentators asserting it is fake are clearly idiots. I'm not sure why they think it is fake, there is nothing particularly unrealistic about it.

[Zebra]

I think the photo is real but staged.

Obviously staged for the reason that a second airplane, that just happened to have a photographer in it, happens by the 'emergency repair'.



It's a stunt.

[GusNSpot]

The guy on ( out ) of the Piper Cub = real

Staged = Yes

In that type of airplane if the engine is in good shape, it is not difficult to stop the propeller. On the that Cub, starting the engine is always done by hand as there is no starter. When by your self at a place where there is no place to tie the plane down, ( or you are to lazy or in a hurry ) standing there on the right behind the propeller is how it was usually started. You are near the throttle and mag switches, you probably will not get run over, you can physically hold the plane back if the RPM is a little to high, ( No emergency brakes nor anyway way to 'set' the little heel applied wimpy brakes anyway.) and that engine starts very easily if it is set up correctly and in good condition.

I have shut down and completely stopped many single engine aircraft and restarted them using the electric starters or by diving them to a speed that would start the engine to 'windmilling'. With a freshly overhauled engine in a Cub that could involve an unsafe diving speed, even if you had room, and would not be sufficient to get the engine to spin due to the compression.

So, gliding along at 50 MPH or so, going outside as he is doing with the pilot controlling the glide and reaching out to flip the engine through to get it to start windmilling is quite plausible and doable.

Yes, it was done as a stunt ( IMO ) but that does not change that it would be easy to do if the guy going out has the stones to do it.

The ground in the background is freshly cleared land and the small square thing is a water reservoir with at least one cement wall. ( IMO )

I always try to restart my engine even as I am flying the plane (always the # 1 job), looking for an emergency landing site, and messing my pants.

Most engine stoppage in general aviation is due to lack of fuel. It is much easier to switch to a tank that has fuel and restart the engine than it is to make an emergency landing. ( You may not ask me how I know this. ) YMMV

The freedom we had in flying from 1945 to 1970 is almost impossible for pilots who have only flown after that and especially after 2001 to comprehend.

[Quartz]

What, you never hung off the monkey bars?
Not off monkey bars at a few thousand feet.

[WhyNot]

Not off monkey bars at a few thousand feet.
Right, but as any tight-rope walker will tell you, it's no different. The landing might be different, but the balance and strength required to stay put is identical. :D

[Broomstick]

The freedom we had in flying from 1945 to 1970 is almost impossible for pilots who have only flown after that and especially after 2001 to comprehend.
You know, whenever one of you old codgers say that I get really, really depressed.

(It certainly doesn't help I got weathered out this weekend, too)

[Cardinal]

And as rock climbers will tell you, there's precious little difference between 30 feet up and 500 feet up. Your chances of dying from 30 feet are very high.

[brewha]

Just adding my $.02

It is a Cub (if there is any doubt) you can tell by the cub logo on the tail if you know what you are looking for.

I have almost all my flight time in a Taylorcraft - which is basically a cub with side by side seating instead of tandem - and I can tell you that restarting the engine in flight is possible but dangerous. You have to get the plane up to about 140 MPH to get the prop windmilling. The VNE (velocity - never exceed) on a Taylorcraft (the cub is probably similar) is 145 MPH. So, you wouldn't want to risk those kinds of speeds unless it was necessary. With all that open terrain, it would be much safer to land.

The pilot in command sits in the back seat for weight and balance issues (as it was suggested earlier). The saying is that a nose heavy airplane flys poorly, a tail heavy airplane flys once.

By putting the passenger in the front seat, it makes the plane slighty more nose heavy which is better than the alternative.

[GusNSpot]

Sorry [b]Broomstick[//b], I was not trying to be mean.

I get depressed when I think about how much flying you have in front of you as compared to what I will be able to do.

Just do not ever lose the joy.

[GusNSpot]

What I should have posted............ :: my bad, was not using the 'check list' like I should. ::;

Sorry Broomstick, I was not trying to be mean.

I get depressed when I think about how much flying you have in front of you as compared to what I will be able to do.

Just do not ever lose the joy.

[N9IWP]

And just for the record I did notice my link was not the plane in question a short while later. (though I should have looked at the manufactured date before posting)

Brian

[ElvisL1ves]

I can't open the link either, but assuming it's the familiar picture of the guy hand-propping a J-3 in midair, that's Roland Maheu of Lewiston, Maine, a stunt pilot who did it to get into "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" in 1946. The clip is on the wall of the diner at KLEW even today.

[Richard Pearse]

The pilot in command sits in the back seat for weight and balance issues (as it was suggested earlier). The saying is that a nose heavy airplane flys poorly, a tail heavy airplane flys once.

By putting the passenger in the front seat, it makes the plane slighty more nose heavy which is better than the alternative.

Not quite right. If there's a passenger then both seats are occupied and it makes no difference which one is the pilot. With no passenger, having the pilot in the back moves the CofG aft. So the reason can't be to move the CofG forward. More likely, with just the front seat occupied, the CofG is too far forward.

Later cubs weren't designed like this. I flew a PA18-100 (100hp Rolls Royce engine) and it was flown from the front.

[Richard Pearse]

Piper Cub PA18-100 (http://ace-aviation.co.nz/aircraft.htm)

[Broomstick]

It's not just the early Cubs that were flown solo from the back seat, a number of planes from that era are the same, including the Stearman I got to fly. I'm not sure why they balanced them out that way, but they did.

[Scruloose]

I can't open the link either, but assuming it's the familiar picture of the guy hand-propping a J-3 in midair, that's Roland Maheu of Lewiston, Maine, a stunt pilot who did it to get into "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" in 1946. The clip is on the wall of the diner at KLEW even today.
Wow - thanks for providing that info. Could you elaborate any? Did he actually re-start the engine? Was he alone in the plane?

[Johnny L.A.]

Wow - thanks for providing that info. Could you elaborate any? Did he actually re-start the engine? Was he alone in the plane?
I found this (http://www.pipercubforum.com/handprop.htm):
Don't try this at home! Merle Larson prepares to start a J-3 engine in flight over Concord CA in 1946. Gladys Davis is flying the Cub from the rear seat. Larson was a WWII B-24 veteran, airshow pilot, and aircraft designer—"and no circus daredevil," says Bill Larkins, who took this photograph.

[Johnny L.A.]

And here is Bill Larkins's webpage (http://home.earthlink.net/~wtl/).

[brewha]

Not quite right. If there's a passenger then both seats are occupied and it makes no difference which one is the pilot. With no passenger, having the pilot in the back moves the CofG aft. So the reason can't be to move the CofG forward. More likely, with just the front seat occupied, the CofG is too far forward.

Later cubs weren't designed like this. I flew a PA18-100 (100hp Rolls Royce engine) and it was flown from the front.


Unless the plane is designed so that it is balanced with one person in the back seat. Which is the case for the cub and most tandem planes.

With one person in the front seat, it is too nose heavy. With two passengers, it is a little nose heavy.

As I re-read your post, you are pretty much saying what I did - in different words.

[Richard Pearse]

Unless the plane is designed so that it is balanced with one person in the back seat. Which is the case for the cub and most tandem planes.

With one person in the front seat, it is too nose heavy. With two passengers, it is a little nose heavy.

As I re-read your post, you are pretty much saying what I did - in different words.

Yeah I think I might have.

It's not just the early Cubs that were flown solo from the back seat, a number of planes from that era are the same, including the Stearman I got to fly. I'm not sure why they balanced them out that way, but they did.

Keep in mind that in a biplane you have a better all round view from the back as it's not obstructed so much by the wings.

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind that in a biplane you have a better all round view from the back as it's not obstructed so much by the wings.
Yes, because it's so important to be able to see the tree after you fly through it. :rolleyes:

Seriously, that was probably my biggest complaint about the airplane, after the ground handling - how hard it is to see where you're going.

I've flown a tandem airplane designed for solo flight from the front seat, and seen a couple others. It's not impossible to design them that way, though perhaps there are some technical issues that make it harder

[Mangetout]

To be fair, the commentators asserting it is fake are clearly idiots. I'm not sure why they think it is fake, there is nothing particularly unrealistic about it.False or unfounded cries of 'Obvious Photoshop!" happen a fair bit on the web and it's really annoying.

[Johnny L.A.]

False or unfounded cries of 'Obvious Photoshop!" happen a fair bit on the web and it's really annoying.
As was seen in the link of the crash I posted. I poked around and found 'real or fake' debates about it, and people were really getting worked up about it. I wonder why that is?

I have a feeling that if people didn't see it on The Nooze, then they think it must be fake. (Notwithstanding NBC's infamous 'exploding Chevy trucks' exposé where they used model rocket engines to get an explosion.) Or perhaps they think that in spite of the millions of video cameras floating around, nobody can happen to be on-scene when tragedy occurs. Or they can't come to terms with the fact that sometimes the feces hits the rotating oscillator and in real life people die. Or they hold themselves out as having 'Special Knowledge' that makes them superior to others. 'What a dolt! Are you too stupid to see it's fake?' Or they're trolling.

In the case of the photo in the OP, it seems ludicrous to some that someone would crawl out of an aircraft in flight. Ergo, it must be fake. However in this case we have the name of the man outside, the name of the pilot in the back seat, the year and location of the photo, and the name of the photographer who is still alive. (I didn't have that information in my first post, which is why I said it's not necessarily real; however I hope it was clear by my reasons that it could be real made it clear I thought it was.)

[Richard Pearse]

Yes, because it's so important to be able to see the tree after you fly through it. :rolleyes:
Yeah it's no better for forward vision (though only slightly worse) but from the back of the biplanes I've flown you have a much better view of other air traffic, the general scenary and so on when compared to the front seat.

Seriously, that was probably my biggest complaint about the airplane, after the ground handling - how hard it is to see where you're going.
The problem with the Steerman is that not only is it a taildragger but it has a radial engine so it's wide and not so easy to see along the side of the fuselage. Something with an inline engine, like a Tiger Moth, you can open the door, stick your head out, and get a good view forward

I've flown a tandem airplane designed for solo flight from the front seat, and seen a couple others. It's not impossible to design them that way, though perhaps there are some technical issues that make it harder
Aside from the J3 Cub, all of the tandem aircraft I've flown from the back have been biplanes and all the ones I've flown from the front have been monoplanes. I'm not sure if it is then related to the vintage of the aircraft or if someone decided it is best for the pilot to not be sitting directly between the wings of a biplane.

False or unfounded cries of 'Obvious Photoshop!" happen a fair bit on the web and it's really annoying.
It is especially annoying when people have already posted clear evidence that the footage/photo is real.

[ElvisL1ves]

It's not just the early Cubs that were flown solo from the back seat, a number of planes from that era are the same, including the Stearman I got to fly. I'm not sure why they balanced them out that way, but they did.I understand the original Cub, and its Taylor and Piper relatives, has the fuel tank behind the engine, so a solo pilot has to sit in the back for balance. The new Legend Cub LSA has the tanks in the wings, in the middle of the CG range, and can be flown solo from the front.

[Boulter's Canary]

A 'crawling about on the outside of a flying aircraft' story that is almost beyond belief. Except that it is 100% true. This guy redefines the meaning of the word 'courage' (as well as the word 'loony') :eek:

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbjackso.htm

[Cartooniverse]

As for a caption: "OK, it's righty-tighty, lefty-loosey, right??"


You really are an engineer, aren't you??? :p

Righty Tighty Lefty Loosey works for almost all things and when I hit something reverse-threaded it drives me insane. The bolt for a circular hand-held saw is the reverse because of the blade direction.

[Johnny L.A.]

Righty Tighty Lefty Loosey works for almost all things and when I hit something reverse-threaded it drives me insane.
This is why my wheel hubs (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/llaaksonen/DSCN0129.jpg) have arrows on them with 'UNDO' next to them. ;)

[Rick]

Damn those chrome wires look good!

[Bookkeeper]

Aside from the J3 Cub, all of the tandem aircraft I've flown from the back have been biplanes and all the ones I've flown from the front have been monoplanes. I'm not sure if it is then related to the vintage of the aircraft or if someone decided it is best for the pilot to not be sitting directly between the wings of a biplane.
This may be linked to the original design of the aircraft (like the Stearman) as a military trainer, with the instructor seated in the rear cockpit.

[Cartooniverse]

This is why my wheel hubs (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/llaaksonen/DSCN0129.jpg) have arrows on them with 'UNDO' next to them. ;)

See?? You're a wise man, Johnny. Nice tires, too.

[Richard Pearse]

This may be linked to the original design of the aircraft (like the Stearman) as a military trainer, with the instructor seated in the rear cockpit.

The instructor would be seated in the front wouldn't they?

[Johnny L.A.]

No, in tandem aircraft the instructor sits in the rear.

[Richard Pearse]

I'd thought the student would sit in the pilots seat (front or rear depending on the aircraft) as this is where they're seated on any solo flights.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/tigrmoth/flying.htm

A Tiger Moth is a biplane - it has two wings. The airplane is built out of metal, wood and canvas. It was built just before World War II to help teach British Royal Air Force pilots how to fly. It has two seats - the instructor's seat in the front, and the pupil's seat at the back.

and,

http://www.stearmanflyin.org/pt17.htm

Note the tandem seating: one seat in front and one in back. The Stearman is flown solo only from the rear seat because of weight and balance considerations, so the instructor traditionally rides in the front cockpit.

however,

http://www.tuskegeeairmenlachapter.org/tuskegee_aircraft.html

The instructor sat in the rear, the student in the front. Its open cockpit let the student feel at one with the air hearing all the sounds of flight.

[Johnny L.A.]

On the other hand:

http://hometown.aol.com/abnerd/boojum.html
We flew Stearman P.T 17's, a by-wing with front and aft cockpits. The instructor sat in the rear seat.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X10875&ntsbno=IAD98FA103&akey=1
The pilot-in-command (PIC) was seated in the rear seat, and the pilot receiving instruction was seated in the front seat.
http://www.cebudanderson.com/jerome03.htm
This was done with an instructor in the rear seat.
http://www.constable.ca/harvard.htm
The standard crew in the Harvard was two, student in the front, instructor in the rear seat.
Unless you're talking specifically about Stearmans, in which case I'll defer to Broomstick who has actually been in one. It makes sense that a student pilot would be seated where visibility is greatest. Although in an aircraft designed to be flown solo from the rear seat it makes sense to put the student there.

[Richard Pearse]

I'm not saying that in all tandems the instructor would sit in the front, only the ones where the pilot sits in the rear. In all your examples other than the Stearman, the pilot sits in the front. My googling of the Stearman showed a number of examples of the instructor sitting in the rear however I'm not sure if that was normal for military tandem seat aircraft that were flown from the rear solo.

In my own experience I've only been a student in the usual pilots seat so when I was learning to fly a Tiger Moth, Pitts, or a Skybolt, I sat in the back, and when I was learning in a Harvard, Chipmunk, Piper Cub (modern version), Citabria etc, I sat in the front. Out of those, only the Tiger Moth is an ex military trainer flown solo from the rear. It could be that the military put the students up front of their initial trainers, even if they were flown from the rear, I don't know.

[GusNSpot]

Of those, the Skybolt and the Chipmunk are the two I have never been in.

Is the Chipmunk as sweet to fly as I have been told?
Also rate it's landing characteristics as to compare with other tail draggers you have flown.

Please.......

[Richard Pearse]

Disclaimer: I only had one flight and it was about 7 years ago.

I don't remember the specifics of how it felt to fly other than that the controls were light and well balanced.

Landing characteristics were benign, much like the Cub I suppose but without the hassle of using the heel brakes.

The brake system took some getting used to. It had a hand brake with a bias system through the rudder pedals. With the rudder neutral the brakes would be applied evenly to both wheels. With rudder applied to the left, then brake would be applied to the left and vice versa. The hand brake had a ratchet so you could pull it on and it would lock in place. With only a couple of notches of brake applied you would get no brakes with a neutral rudder and light braking with a deflected rudder.

This was then the technique for landing it. Pull on a couple of notches of brake and then you get some automatic brake assistance when trying to keep straight on the landing roll before your hand had moved from the throttle to the brake lever. It was just enough brake to give the impression that the rudder was more effective.

I felt most comfortable landing a Pitts. For one, it was the aircraft I was flying the most, but also it had such positive controls that as long as you told it to do the right things, it would do them without hesitation and you'd be ok. I'd rather have been in a Pitts than a C172 in a cross wind.

[Johnny L.A.]

In all your examples other than the Stearman, the pilot sits in the front.
Good point.

[GusNSpot]

Disclaimer: I only had one flight and it was about 7 years ago. ::: snip:::

I felt most comfortable landing a Pitts. For one, it was the aircraft I was flying the most, but also it had such positive controls that as long as you told it to do the right things, it would do them without hesitation and you'd be ok. I'd rather have been in a Pitts than a C172 in a cross wind.

Thanks, I appreciate the reply.

[Zebra]

Does anyone remember the SNL bit

What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?


IIRC Spartacus just flew over the Romans and yelled taunts at them. But I think, he sat in the front seat while a pilot sat behind him.

[Broomstick]

I have flown in three tandem-seating taildraggers.

Where you sat to solo the thing was based on weight-and-balance issues. In the case of the Drifter and Citabria the instrumentation in the passenger/instructor seat was so minimal as to be nearly non-existant. In either one you can't even start the engine from the rear seat.

In the Stearman I flew both seats were pretty well outfitted with avionics (such as they were - this IS a 1943 airplane, after all). Solo is always done from the rear seat because (again) of weight and balance requirements. When I flew it I was in back and the instrutor/babysitter up front. Strictly speaking, there's no reason in that particular airplane that instructor and student couldn't swap, and I think some of the regulars do just that from time to time although I haven't paid much attention.

So, what it comes down to, is that where you sit while flying solo is determined by physical requirements and limitations. Normally the student/pilot sits in the same seat they would solo from, just as in side-by-side seating the student/pilot normally sits on the left (except in helicopters, where PIC is traditionally on the right I'm told) but it's not required.

[Valgard]

Not off monkey bars at a few thousand feet.

I used to skydive, we'd get out and hang off the wing strut of Cessnas in flight all the time. The guy in the photo has both feet and at least one hand to brace himself with.

Not saying that I'd do it without a some kind of safety wire or parachute but it's quite doable. I've seen film of wingwalkers climbing all over planes with no safety.

[Raguleader]

Just a random thought here, re: photoshopping before photoshop:

I know people who do composite photo stuff in the dark room, directly onto the paper using multiple enlargers and negatives. Using an exacto knife and some glue, and reshooting would probably be easier though. Also, the aforementioned composite method would be a pain in the ass for something that was supposed to have stuff visible through it, like the ground as seen between various parts of the airplane.

[David Simmons]

In 1935 the Key brothers (http://mlsandy.home.tsixroads.com/Corinth_MLSANDY/rt125.html) set an endurance record for most continuous time in the air. They had special catwalks installed so that they could reach the engine to add oil or make minor adjustments. As far as I can tell, they were the aerial refueling pioneers. One guy flew while the other, on the catwalk, grabbed a hose lowered from a refueling plane and did the fuel transfer.

[David Simmons]

By the way, the Roscoe Turner (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/turner/EX22.htm) mentioned in the link's news accounts was, along with Jimmy Doolittle, a famous racing pilot of the 1930's and the Major C.L. Chenault who joined the fun when the endurance record was set was Gen. Claire L. Chenault of Flying Tigers renown.

[A.R. Cane]

By the way, the Roscoe Turner (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/turner/EX22.htm) mentioned in the link's news accounts was, along with Jimmy Doolittle, a famous racing pilot of the 1930's and the Major C.L. Chenault who joined the fun when the endurance record was set was Gen. Claire L. Chenault of Flying Tigers renown.

That was very interesting to read. I caught the passing reference to "C.L. Chenault" as well as the digs at Lindbergh and Post. Pretty funny stuff.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

At least one of the old "flying boat" airliners before WWII had top-mounted wings more or less flush with the crew compartment. There were crawlways that allowed the flight engineer to actually reach the wing-mounted engines in flight, and effect simple repairs.

[David Simmons]

At least one of the old "flying boat" airliners before WWII had top-mounted wings more or less flush with the crew compartment. There were crawlways that allowed the flight engineer to actually reach the wing-mounted engines in flight, and effect simple repairs.That would be the Boeing (314 and 314A) Clipper (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4515/clipper.html)The Model 314's were Powered with four twin-row Wright Cyclones rated at 1500 h.p. 1600 h.p for the 314A (Take off power) Wright Cyclone 709C-14AC1 double row 14 Cylinder radial air-cooled geared engines, in semi-monocoque nacelles in the leading edge of the wings. Engine access during flight was through wing companion ways. Hamilton standard full- feathering constant speed proppellers. Fuel tanks in wing and Hydro stabilizers.

[Diddledog]

In 1935 the Key brothers (http://mlsandy.home.tsixroads.com/Corinth_MLSANDY/rt125.html) set an endurance record for most continuous time in the air. They had special catwalks installed so that they could reach the engine to add oil or make minor adjustments. As far as I can tell, they were the aerial refueling pioneers. One guy flew while the other, on the catwalk, grabbed a hose lowered from a refueling plane and did the fuel transfer.

Just like I said wayyyy up in post #17. ;)

[Richard Pearse]

You know, whenever one of you old codgers say that I get really, really depressed.

(It certainly doesn't help I got weathered out this weekend, too)

Don't be.

The freedom of flight is still out there, you just have to know where to look.

[David Simmons]

Just like I said wayyyy up in post #17. ;)By golly, you're right. Welcome to the club of people whose posts sometimes get missed. :smack: