What led You to This?

Jonathan Baron

Jonathan Baron

New member
One little discussion...just one...of matters beyond the machine itself, and silence resumes.

People who fly THESE airplanes, our airplanes, the ones we fret over, work on, find someone who can comprehend them , if we cannot, we few, we band of triple tailers - a group incapable of being a legion - fly or dream of flying these airplanes that, more than any other, define why we fly - if these men (and the occasional woman we wish we'd married) - cannot let loose the myraid reasons why these ships matter, then....well...they don't wnat to. Becase we are men! Okay, that's a dumbass reason.

Nobody gives a rodent's backsid why you fly. But why do you choose to fly these machines?

Jonathan
 
Perhaps I should answer my question first.

Cessna 150, 152, 172

These machines may very well have saved GA and they save lives daily because of their ingeniously engineered error margins. Despite many hours in them, I always felt somehow removed from the sensation of flight apart from the turbulence and weather.

Mooney

The seating reminding me of my old Austin Healey sports car...until I turned the yoke. Again, brilliantly engineered and efficient...until they stuck big bore Continentals under the cowling. I am told the feel of the M20A wood wing model is different, but I've not had the pleasure. For ages I wondered why Al Mooney - a genius really - began with that flattish windshield. Not very efficient and, later, replaced by the streamlined type we have on our airplanes. Mooney used to work for Bellanca, making the early windshield choice stranger...that, and his early designs had good, aerodynamically smooth ones as well. A mechanic recently told me that the windshield oddity had something to do with how the glareshield and panel were manufactured, but that sounds suspicious to me.

Piper Saratoga

Solid. Too solid for me I guess.

Luscombe

Ready to wear, fully and tactile control authority, great sensation of aviating. Perfect for most missions, but I finally grew tired of using it for long, long cross country flight. Miserable in rough air due to its LIGHT wing loading, and high CG. Difficult to control in rough air as well, as all flight axises require constant attention.

Cruisair

Better handling than the Cruisemaster, but ill suited to physical dimensions given the control adjustments I need to fly conventional landing gear aircraft.

Cruisemaster

Almost as ready to wear as the Cruiseair and fits my long, thick leg. It has all of the error margins of Cessnas, yet control feels like thought: pure and instant. Nothing handles rough air better: the wings flex gracefully and I've never lost tail, butt, nose alignment in turbulence. It's playful when slow, locked on rails when fast, easy to land, and extremely easy with descent adjustments on final.

GA aircraft are machines. Problem is most of them feel like machines. It's easy to forget there is any machine involved when flying a triple tail. And though many find their looks askew of what they feel an airplane should look like, their looks not only make sense to me, just looking at one stuns me - freezes me - with delight.

Jonathan
 
Oy, I named this topic badly.

It should have been titled, What led You to This?

Let me begin with our terse but honest Texan. Randy - how does the Viking feel?

All:you needn't express loyalty to a breed. How did the planes you flied feel?
 
I've own a Bakeng Deuce for 9 years, It was fun but not forgiving like a trainer. Landing a it a la Citabria with spring gears (it had C-140 legs) with very neutral stability, could not really let go the stick or rudder, It was fascinating for guys who like to fly the machine and constantly tell it who is the boss. It wa very attractive. In fly-ins, I could not have breakfast without having to watch it because all the poeple around it. It was a great cruiser, heavy a bit on ailerons, very light on pitch and yaw. Wing loading was higher than Luscombe, with shorter wing and was faster as well. 125 m.p.h. with 115 h.p. Open cockpit. I still feel that this is the only way to fly...add tandem seating with pilot in the back, this is the perfect egocentric pilot airplane 8) In 9 years I had all the time to really try it out. I am not the straight and level type of flying guy. It was rolling a bit slower than the Cruisair. Crauisair I find the best rolling airplane for that type. Of course it's not a Extra 300. But hell, it's not the goal of this bird. Anyway,lets not digress here :) I could put down that Deuce on a dime were ever I wanted. On skis in the winter, made a canopy to keep warm. No heater but well dressed it was just a charm on these nice saturday afternoons with crispy blue sky with no wind doing touch and goes on the frozen lakes with a nice fresh layer of snow. To tell ya! I miss the Deuce. If I could afford both, I would buy it back. So to replace it (needed a third seat with familly growing) I needed something special. I layed down on a peice of paper what were my criteria. Taildragger, fast, wood and fabric, old classic, can put skis in winter, low price, not too crazy expensive to maintain and flyable. I started the search on Barnstormers were it ended. Remember, I was morning from the sale of the Deuce.

So: Stearman with double seat in the front was an option if not for the price tag except for speed but I would have made that compromise. Stinson went by, about few thousand too much for me. Not that they are expensive but I am not a doctor neither have their income. No really, I wanted a bit more speed. Then saw some F-24 project that looked good but again, $$$. Almost fail for Pacer freshly rebuilt for a real good deal. My Honey said I would be looking like driving an old Valiant... reliable but looking so ordinary. I still like this airplane.
The she saw that red Cruisair for the good price. The transition from flying the Deuce to the Cruisair was a breeze. Fly a Bakeng Deuce and you can fly any taildragger. Just had to get the back of my seat pushed aft a bit, I am 6,3". Now I have about 55 hrs in this Cruisair. I am still discovering it. Did some slow flight until stall last week, got passed by a 65 h.p. Champion and never managed to stall. Rolled it a few time, just fun and so easy. Guys just can't believe it at the aeroclub. The look of old classic with essence of art deco is just pure beauty. The easyness of flying is also very attracting. Got 3 or 4 members of the aeroclub trying it from the right seat and lots of great comment. One always come along, wow so light and responsive on ailerons. One of them bought a Cruisemaster project and is putting it together and it's coming along well. So all this above led me to buy and keep it. And I don't regret anything. Great flying caracteristics, Good looking, old classic. And for the skis, well, compromise :cry: . They do show on the TC but it's too hard on that type of bird. And you want to avoid the snow bank with this low wing tips.

And what I've flown before? I'll post on another time. But from Tiger Moth to L10-A (this last one for an hour) No welding torch. (jet)

Alain.
 
My Cruisemaster was originally purchased by somone in Alaska, who put it on skis. Yep, he busted a wing. He found other ways to break it too before he sold it to someone in California.

If I ever sell it I'll have to put in the ad: EDH - extensive damage history.

My Luscombe has over 5000 hours on it, been ground looped several times, had a wing replaced - all of it decades before I bought it. Nonetheless it's a sweet, hands off flier.

It's not the damage, but the repair that counts.

Jonathan
 
You're right, it's the repair that count but while getting repaired, one is grounded and spending money. I try to avoid having to do repairs, even good ones. :roll:

I flew a Luscombe for a few hours once. Really enjoyed it. It's a fine bird and fast for the h.p it had. Love to fly with stick too.

I'd like to see pics of a Cruisemaster or Cruisair on skis. Must be very unusual !!!

Went flying this afternoon, was just a super nice day. Had comments again on the sound of my Franky. :lol:

A.
 
Around here they don't use the word terse. It more like full of ***. I do make some people mad but you will always know where you stand with me. I have been down 8 times with experamental engines and all planes came home in one peice. I learn real quick in an emergancy.

I bought the Viking for mainly trips. my wife wanted to get there faster. Some things I don't argue about. The Viking flies like a big truck. 5000' or above with a 74 or newer you can't really see the ground much. 300 hp gives you a really good feeling until you look at the fuel flow. +25 gph at take off and 14 gph cruise. It does not roll as fast as the Cruiseair and is not near as much fun. I went 2 months without flying the Cruiseair and did not realize until then How much I would miss her if I had to sell her. A friend has a 59 Cruisemaster that I checked out before he bought it. It is fun to fly but still is not as responsive as the Cruiseair. The Viking weighs 2200 lbs empty and the Cruiseair ways 1350 lbs. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Randy:

Terse means few words. A terse man is a man of few words. Being an incurable blabbermouth, I admire terseness. :wink:

I had long wondered why Viking folks were so smitten with its handling. Perhaps other go-fast airplanes handle so poorly in comparison.

Two things hinder the Cruisemaster in relation to the Cruiseair. First, few 'Masters have their initial empty weight of 1600 pounds. Second is the change from pulleys in the Cruiseair to torque tubes controlling the ailerons in the 'Master. Tubes are okay, but have higher break-out forces. The typical speed delta from Cruiseair to Cruisemaster to Viking is 20kts: 120kts, 140kts, 160kts. Therein, along with useful load, lay the trade-offs.

Jonathan
 
Alain:

The first Cruisairs had stick controls: The 14-9 Cruisair Junior. It had a 90hp Ken Royce radial on its nose, sat one in front and two in back. Cutest little airplane you can imagine. Dan Cullman has one, and another is pieces for restoration. There was one floating around for sale for awhile but the price was more than the market cared to bear.

http://www.russellw.com/photoalbum/photo_query_results.asp?qManufacturer=cBellanca&qModel=c14%2D9&StartRecord=5

It's so darned cute you simply want to pinch it :)

Jonathan
 
My 1950 Cruisemaster is my first airplane. I had a limited budget that allowed the consideration of a Grumman AA1/5, Cherokee 140/160, etc... I considered all of those and flew them as well. Not very exciting, however capable. I desired something unique, vintage appearance, retracts a bonus, and as fast as my money could allow. I then studied into the Bellancas with great excitement. I lived in Fallon, NV for the last 10 years or so, and got to know Mr. Tarver of Aeromatic Props while hanging around the local airport. He was a great resource for learning and researching Bellancas. I flew a Cruiseair and was hooked. I then began searching Cruisemasters and ultimately ended up with the beauty that I know proudly own. My friends and family say that they cannot imagine me with any other aircraft. I don't have to tell any of you how dang handsome they are sitting on the line, not to mention on a flyby. Flying qualities are wonderful, docile on final and landing even for a fella new to tailwheels. I couldn't be happier, and when I'm not flying the gal I like to just sit and look at her! Usually with the silent thought, "I cannot believe that plane is mine!".
 
Yeah Rodney, I know how you feel, I wanted and old classic with a fighter wing for a long time. They are real pure beauty these birds. :p

Jonathan, I know about the 14-9, real cute, with the big round engine up front!!! This is another one of!!! But wasn't it 2 in the front and one in the back seating,? I have some interior pics here in that magazine that my 14-13 was on front page, I,ll look again because they show a red and white -9 in there. I will lwt you know what is the N number. I believe it was in Plane and Pilot June or July 94 Real nice bird.

Went to look at the pics on the link you left, I just feel like going flying or hugging her :roll: . It dark, and cold 30deg F. Oh well, tomorrow I guess, before heading to the office I'll go and say hi...
Alain.
 
Actually, Alain, you may be correct about the seating. I'm not sure, though I finally managed to unpack enough books to get to that Bellanca Golden Age large paperback that came out a year or two ago.

If you click on the tail number you'll find the current owner info. That's the guy who has been trying to sell her for so many years but, even for that sweeeet '39 cutie pie, 38k is too much. 38k is fine for a ratty Cub but...oy...best not get strarted there. Then again, when you think of having to maintain an old radial, such as a Ken Royce... Russell recently rebulit one for his Rearwin Sportster and, as I recall, he had to have some of the bearings made by a specialty shop.

He wrote a pretty good article, BTW, on aileron rigging for 'Masters in the latest issue of the newsletter. The full airplane diagram used was for a 14-19. There is no difference between its aileron system and the -2's but I will have to point out when next we chat just how more handsome the original 'Master looked, as demonstrated by that image.

I wish Dan Cullman read these forums as he could tell us more about 14-9's flying characteristics. No flaps, as I recall, but very light, and fast for the horsepower. He wrote an article on the type for the newsletter awhile back regarding its test flights, one that met with disaster, and subsequent modifications - one of which was the addition of the outboard tails.

Jonathan
 
I think when you get old cute airplane like this you need a second one as daily flyer. Or else you end up passing more time looking for part or hoping nothing will fail since parts are so rare.

Actually, We are real lucky to fly these, I am looking at my daughter's generation (she's 4) and this will be over. We are probably the last generation flying these. Our youg ones will have modern instrumentation and very high tech homebuilt with light engines and composite airplane that nobody can afford. It makes me sad a bit to know these nice low throaty sound engine with their fabric and oil smell will soon give place to the Jabiru and Rotax. Yes it already started but we still have a few everywere remaining. for a short while. We are previleged to fly these I'm telling ya. And some of you guys did had the chance to fly these big round engines.

Ok enough nostalgia, Round engine were so attracting that new one are coming out with good horsepower and modern part like chevy piston etc. Taking an old crate like 14-9 and turning it into homebuilt, one can still have a fairly powerful modern round engine. Depend what a guy crave for. :roll: Would be nice to have something like that around.

Now this is starting to make me thinking...kits, Bellanca look alike, 180 h.p. homebuilt radial engine, maybe aluminium easy to assemble wings... Fuselage similar as ours, Lets call it the Bellankit! Anybody want to join? naaa forget it too much competition already. Market is saturated with all kind of kits.
Still, nice to dream! Mmm retiring in 5 years, I'll be 51. This gives me time to think and elaborate. Maybe...I'll still be young enough to start some stupid idea like this. But maybe the fuel will be 25$/gal than. But this kit would be the most stylish art deco era bird of all homebuilts!
 
Alas, Alain, the engine I *think* you're referring to - the Rotec (not the Rotax) - needs a geared reduction unit because it makes its horsepower at high RPM. High RPM = does not sound like a radial.

Yeah, sounds picky, but if you're going to have a classic it needs to retain its classic elements IMO.

You're right, of course, about it probably not being the best choice for a "daily flier." I simply hope the day comes when my 'Master becomes one :)

Jonathan
 
Ok Ill take this up. First back to the original question, or at least what I think it was supposed to be, what brought us here.

For me it had to be. One of my first memories was of my dad running over my foot with the tailwheel of the J2 Cub he was rebuilding in the garage. I grew up at the airport, mom placed a bassinett and bottle warmer in the hangar when I was way little to keep me happy.

I'm one of those lucky people who remembers the day when airplanes were real. I remember the Cruisemaster when it was new, Tri-Pacers were the cat's meow ( I never did understand that one), Cherokees werent -period, !72's had square backs, Howards, Ercoupes, Airknockers, Porterfields, Stinson 108s, C140s were used to travel, the Apache was the new twin, the old twins were Bamboo Bombers and Twin Beechs, C46s were cargo planes, DC3 were still Airliners, but the 707 and DC8 were replacing the DC6 and Connie. I remember Blimps on approach to NAS Alameda, Fairchild Packets on approach to Oakland, and Sky King flew a C310 when he wasnt re-running in the Bamboo Bomber.

Towers existed at SFO and OAK.

Surplus parts were everywhere.

Airplanes cost $3500 new. But then wages were probably $1500 a year.

Every airport had its abandoned BT13, the engine canabalized for some duster Stearman, the rest wasting away.

Instrument markings glowed in the dark.

Airplanes had class-and some terrible paint schemes. They didn't
have radios.

A Twin Beech was a Model 18.

Airports had a cafe, and a kid could ride his bike onto the field, talk to pilots and actually touch an airplane.

Model airplane kits cost .29, .69, and .99.

Monogram made wood model kits.

You could buy a bag of little plastic airplanes that looked like real airplanes for 99 cents. My favorites were the Martin B-10, Ford Tri-motor, DC-3, piper cub. They came 100 to the bag I think.

Swee-tarts had strawberry.

Airplanes with round engines weren't an oddity, but airplanes that had a nosewheel and less than four engines were.

A&P mechanics knew how to cover an airplane.

People flew. They threw Hangar dances.

Pitts Specials had 85 horsepower.

For all these reasons, and the freedom it affords I fly airplanes.

The 14-9 has 2 seats in front 1 in back. So does my Fairchild 24.

And I bet I am not as old as you may think. :D
 
You're putting the finger right on t Red.

That time is now almost finished. But aren't we lucky to have known it? It was not to that extend for me, I can just imagine...

During that time I was still commuting between the two.

Alain.
 
That time is finished only if we let it slip away. We need to engage kids. The kids that are like we were. Granted its more difficult now, too many things work against the chance encounter. Thats why we need to be even more diligent in spreading the word. Kids still like airplanes. They just cant get to them. It is our duty to see to it that they have the opportunity, or our way of life will vanish.

Consider:

The airport is noisy, dangerous etc according to the righteous lady at the City Council meeting.

How will that play when the same lady's son or daughter is at the airport every day absorbing aviation like we did? Will mommy dare to disparage the airport ? Nope. Just a selfish thought :twisted: .
 
Ah...it always comes down to that question. Will recreational aviation vanish if something is not done to keep it going? And if something must be done, what is it that we must do?

In Amsterdam the streets are filled with bicycles ridden by people of all ages and both sexes. Mothers pedal along, carefree, with a child merrily sitting on the handle bars. Not a one of them is wearing a helmet.

Early every Saturday morning at Kittie Hill, an old fellow pulls his Champ out of the hangar, ties down the tailwheel, props the engine, adjusts the throttle, unties the tailwheel, takes off, flies to nowhere special, lands, shuts down, and puts the Champ away. To us, it's so remarkable, yet that old gentlemen lives in a wholly different world of risk assessment than Americans minted four of five decades after he was born. Describe this peaceful ritual to contemporary people, and listen to the gasps.

I think it was Leighton Collins who remarked just how strange it was that so many people, in the age of flight, did not yearn to do what people have spent idle moments envying birds for over tens of centuries: fly. How can anyone believe they have lived fully if they have never piloted an airplane?

I don't get it. We sell things based on illusions and the imaginings of adventures never taken. We believe more money, a more important job, or the envy of others can actually make us happier. The inauthentic life - can it be worth living? The chorus cries "Yes!" and dissenters are dismissed as dangerous, along with trans fats, whole milk, and steak.

Hemingway would say, one generation leaves, another comes, and the sun also rises. Although a timeless - I hope - truth, our sensibilities may have indeed become insensible, and our passing is the end to more than merely our individual lives as surely as living an independent life on the land went from the being the life of the majority of Americans to fewer than two percent of Americans in only one century.

Do not despair. Forces larger than us are always at work. Instead, as Alain said, be happy that you were here when you were. And remember that we are paler forms of the aviators that came before us, after all.

Jonathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top