Airport Stories: Broomstick Flies a Boeing

Normally, I’d string everything together in one post with fancy formatting and stuff but it’s been a rough week at work, I’m exhausted, and I’ll be lucky to do this without so many typos the replies become illegible. So get ready for a lot of little posts. :stuck_out_tongue:

How do you know when it’s your turn to merge onto the freeway?

The flow of air traffic around an airport is called a “traffic pattern” because it does follow a pattern. Without getting too elaborate, there is a “standard pattern” that you can default to most of the time without getting into trouble, as well as frequently updated reference guides (available in several thousand places across the US as well as the internet) that give you more detail and tell you where and what the exceptions are.

You approach the airport in a safe manner - one that will not interfere with traffic flow. You observe the traffic. You enter the pattern in a manner very similar to merging onto a freeway. Everyone (is supposed to) keep watch to avoid everyone
else.

Another driving analogy here: Some roads are really busy and have elaborate traffic lights directing drivers. Some even still have live human traffic cops maintaining order. But other streets, out in rural areas, do just fine with stop signs. And some not even that.

All of this is dependent on traffic loads. An airport like O’Hare requires a very intensive level of traffic control because you have very big, very fast jets using multiple runways, each runway having and arrival or departure (at peak, in prime conditions) every 90 seconds. That’s really fast and heavy traffic.

There are airports in rural areas that might go days between take offs and landings.

It would be foolish to maintain air traffic controllers at the latter - a waste of their time and talents, not to mention expensive.

So, again, without getting too technical, you have different levels of air traffic controls. You have the huge hubs, smaller towered airports, then airports without towers. Morris and Cushing are non-towered and traffic control is handled by the pilots themselves. (The no-radio/radio failure procedures for towered fields have already been covered in prior posts.) This is done through a combination of right-of-way rules - for example, traffic in the air has right-of-way over all ground traffic, whoever is on final has right-of-way over others in the air, and if someone yells “MAYDAY!!!” they get to go to the front of the line - negotiation, and (one hopes) common sense and courtesy. In that, we have the advantage over car drivers in that, assuming everyone has a radio, we are actually able to talk to each other.

So, I might say “Morris traffic, Citabria 8503 3 miles west of the field at 2000 feet inbound for landing on 36” to let folks know I’m coming. If there’s more than one Citabria I might add “orange and white” to “Citabria” to help distinguish myself from others. Once in the pattern, I might say “8503 on downwind, 3rd for landing, traffic in sight, Cessna on base and Piper on final.” But now someone says “Mooney on downwind, I thought I was 3rd for landing.” OK, everyone looks around and figures out who is really 3rd and who is 4th. If I’m in the Citabria and I’m actually really 3rd, and there’s a Mooney behind me, then I have right of way over the Mooney… but I might (and I have, once) yield to the Mooney because he’s significantly faster than I am and either I’ll have to speed up or he’ll have to slow down a lot – neither alternative being comfortable to those of us involved. And remember - airplanes can only slow down so much before they stop flying entirely. There are sitautions where the minimum speed of someone else in the traffic pattern may exceed the maximum speed of what I’m flying. If someone pipes up and declares themself a student pilot on a solo flight nice folks might give them more room or yield to them. Learning to evaluate and manage these situations is part of learning to fly.

Some pilots are not comfortable with the above. They stick to airports with towers and air traffic control. Some pilots aren’t comfortable with towers - they stick to pilot-controlled fields. Me, I try to stay comfortable with both, thought I lean towards non-towered fields because of the sort of flying I do.

Anyhow, radios are not required at non-towered fields (details, exceptions, and regs omitted from this explanation under the assumption most would find such excruiciatingly boring - there are exceptions, but don’t worry about them). At some non-towered fields, such as the one near my home in Indiana, virtually everyone carries a radio anyway. Even so, you can’t assume - if someone was flying into Gary Regional (a towered airport) and had a radio failure my home field is one of the first places they’d considered diverting to land, if they chose to go that route. And some people do drop in without radio from time to time.

Cushing has a unicom/traffic frequency, but it’s almost never used. I’ll announce flying in, because there might be someone listening, but if it’s obvious no one is there or no one there has a radio I’ll stop bothering to use mine. Cushing has a lot of ultralights, which typically don’t have radios, and hang gliders. Although you could probably carry a handheld on a hangglider, and there are no rules against it, I’m not aware of anyone who actually does that. You could carry a radio on a parachute, too, but the only skydiver I ever met who did so was blind - he needed the radio so someone could yell “FLARE!” in his ear when when he got close to the ground. (That, by the way, is a 100% true story. Hinckley, Illinois, 1996). The point, I guess, is that not only is a radio optional at Cushing, even if you had one it would be largely useless because no one is listening anyway.

Morris gets a lot of traffic from Cushing, being located conveniently close and having food and flush toilets available. Some days the traffic is running 50% no radios, between the ultralights and things like the Stearman. Then you’ll hear things like “Does that blue highwing have a radio or not?” or “There is a flight of trikes, probably no radio, northwest of Morris” or “Comanche on downwind, there’s a biplane behind you and he doesn’t have a radio”

This sounds more chaotic than it really is. It really isn’t that different than pulling onto a busy freeway, and folks do that all the time without needing a car-to-car radio.

If you are flying without a radio it is even more important than ever to watch for other people, since you won’t be able to hear the traffic around you. You also have to be ready to get the heck out of the way of other people who might assume that if they can’t hear you, you aren’t there. But that’s also true if you have a radio, because there are a few idiots flying up there.

I have a hand-held. It plugs into a standard aviation headset. It also has this cool push-to-talk button with a velcro strap just the right size to wrap around one’s hand, allowing one to fly with two hands and talk at the same time.

I have heard “Stearman 809 on downwind” or the like from time to time over the radio, so folks do occassionally bring one on board. However, I suspect that it may be difficult to hook the handheld in with the on-board intercom, which would make it impossible to hear the other person in the airplane with you. So… do you want to talk to the person in the airplane, or to the traffic? Decisions, decisions…

That was too pretty a sentence not to note - Yes, Misery have a great time (because we wouldn’t want Misery to be miserable, right?)

Flying only accepts submissions for “I learned about flying from that…” from freelancers - everything else is staff writers.

I’ve considered the other two… but if I’m going to submit something I’ll have to spend some time on the ground polishing it up, sending it off, etc. instead of flying all the time, won’t I? If anything comes of it I’ll let ya’ll know.

I also considered the idea that it might be to encourage agressive use of the controls, because if you learned on one of those you certainly would learn that.

Or it could be that these things were designed 70 years ago when folks just plain didn’t know as much about aerodynamics and aircraft design so some of the characteristics were “it just turned out that way” rather than planned in advance.

Or what you said.

Or the fact it has three or more times the mass of a typical light airplane these days but strictly mechanical controls might have something to do with it, too. It literally is a heavier airplane.

Can’t be the weight. The control pressures on a B-26 were no higher than on any other plane that I flew. It weighed about 20 tons fully loaded and had cable control surface attachment throughout.

We weren’t encouraged in aggressive use of control. Nice and easy does it. Just think pressure not movement on the controls. Yes you can yank the stick to one side, but the plane can only respond so fast so you get as quick a turn and a lot smoother if you just rapidly apply constant pressure.

Hmm… you don’t suppose the controls were stiff to compensate for younglings who thought yanking was the way to proper banking? (Yes, I know it’s not).

Either that, or it’s stiffened up over the last few decades? (Goodness knows, I’ve stiffened up a little over the years…)

Or the B-29 had a better design team?

Or I really am a wimp?

Personally, I dunno. It is what it is.

The Mooney I’ve flown was pretty stiff and heavy on the controls… but the way it was rigged you didn’t need more than a twitch to make it roll or pitch.

Mostly, it was an effort on the ground - airborne at cruise it wasn’t that different from anything else I’ve flown.

The B-26 had a high wing loading and high stall speeds, making excessive control movements a Very Bad Thing (and killing more than a few underexperienced pilots). The Stearman has to be more forgiving - or maybe it just has a small ratio of aileron area to wing area?

You know, now that you mention it, I only recall ailerons on the bottom wings, which would mean it does have rather small control surface vs wing surface areas. Maybe not an excess of rudder, either. Have to take another look at my pictures… yep, ailerons on just the bottom wings.

Add in some fatigue from my activities earlier in the day, the fact that the first time I taxi an airplane I tend to keep it slow (which means more steering effort in any airplane) and there could be a number of factors accounting for my perception “this airplane is a workout”

I refer back to your statement in Post #25: “Mostly, it was an effort on the ground - airborne at cruise it wasn’t that different from anything else I’ve flown.”

If that referred to your Stearman flight then there isn’t any difference of opinion. Ground handling doesn’t have anything to do with ailerons. And “airborne it wasn’t that different” duplicates my experience. In fact all the planes I ever flew from Piper Cubs to A and B-26’s pretty much felt the same.

The neat thing about the Stearman is that you are out in the open and since you solo from the rear seat you have all that airplane out in front of you. With a plane like the B-26, for example, you are essentially flying a windshield since almost everything else is behind you.

First one to the crash site is usually the pilot.

Tip of the arrow.

I wonder if I have the stones to fly a breezy?

Don’t know if you do, but I certainly do - I’ve been on one.

The jerk owner flying it wouldn’t even let me touch the controls, though - he didn’t believe I was a pilot! Nevermind my three buddies telling him I was. Finally consented to take me for a ride, but clearly expected me to freak out. Never did, of course. My first two years of flying were in a Quicksilver and a Drifter which are even more minimal than a Breezy.

So why was I putting up with the jerk? It was Carl Unger, the original designer. I wanted to pick his brains. Wasn’t terribly successful. Sad to say, but he’s one of the few troglodytes I’ve met in aviation and clearly doesn’t think much of women pilots. Or at least this woman pilot. Hate to say it, but his attitude has sort of put me off that particular model of airplane. >sigh<

Hate to hear of that. Not good for aviation in general and bad behavior in particular.

I don’t mind minimal, I have a problem with vertigo and to sit out there with nothing on any side would be a great problem for me. I do not want to work the high steel or climb tall cliffs. Upside down in an open cockpit is fine, but sitting in a chair in open space would not be. Remember that guy that floated off in a lawn chair using balloons? Well, knowing I was just sitting in a lawn chair 1000 feet up would stop my heart I think. Maybe the seatbelt on a Breezy would make the difference. Never had the opportunity to find out. Maybe a parachute jump would let me know if I could do it.

I have fallen off /out of many things in my life and so I am kinda sensitive to being way off the ground without being strapped in.

If your self-assessment is accurate… nope, the seatbelt in a breezy wouldn’t be sufficient. You really are out there with the sheer drop to each side. If you do have a problem with vertigo/unsupported at heights I don’t recommend it, although you are, as always, free to do what you want.

Way ta go, Broomie!

<<sigh>>

I miss my Stearman.

Ah, yes, wasn’t that the one that ended in a traumatic break-up and you rather forcefully biting your tongue… or was that a different airplane?

No, that was the Fairchild PT-26.

Pops Mercotan and I bopped around in the Stearman together for nearly 15 years. But Pops passed on, and without his skills as chief mechanic and plane maintainer, my options seemed to shrink to “keep the Stearman” or send the kids to college. Besides, without Pops, it just wasn’t so much fun anymore.

For a vignette on the B-26 wing loading go here.

In the above OP’s, I mentioned taking some pictures during the flight. Well, here are some links to them (and a couple of before-flight pictures)

Another thing I mention in that rambling tale is how pilots look way too freaking serious even when they’re having fun. Here’s proof I do it, too:

Oooo…! Putting on a headset! Ooooo…! Requires concentration!

Sorry the quality isn’t the best - that’s what you get for using a Fuji disposable and having to scan it in. After that, the husband said “Gee, guess our obsolete digital camera isn’t so bad after all…” (Actually, he loves that digital camera. I’m almost jealous of their relationship)

OK, here’s me looking like I’m having some fun.

You’ll note the horizon is at an angle - that’s what you get when you ask pilots to take pictures. We can be hard to deal with because we’re so seldom on the straight and level :wink:

Here’s what you see to the left while in flight…

And another left-side view

See that red ribbon coming off a strut? That’s a “yawstring”. A highly technical device used to indicate the direction of airflow off a wing. You know - like in car commercials when they do cool smoke effects in a wind tunnel? Like that, but without the smoke and mirrors. A wonderful example of a really simple, low-tech device that hasn’t needed updating in over a century.

Why is this one red? Because the airplane isn’t colorful enough on its own, obviously!

And here’s to the right…

And another to the right

And this is what I saw looking straight ahead

(that red hat with the white pom-pom is just too cute, don’t you think? And it goes so well with the green “earmuffs”)

That, by the way, is as good as the view forward gets. You really can’t see where the hell you’re going in this thing. How crazy is that? What a retarded way to build an airplane! But that’s the way they did it back then. (Yes, they actually had a reason for doing that)

This is what you see when you lean out of the cockpit, over the right side of the airplane

What’s that? Oh, it’s only about 2000 feet off the ground. Not that far. And yes, we were in a turn at the time, hence the horizon and wing don’t quite line up in parallel. You can see the blue side of the fuselage on the left of the picture.

Of course I was still strapped in! Don’t be silly - I’m crazy, not suicidal. Perfectly safe. :smiley: