Crazy Ferry Pilot Wanted

Wow, what a story! He should get that published in some flying rag, that's a good one!
 
skyflyer8 said:
Wow, what a great story and pictures, despite a few statements that made me cringe! For example, "Not bad for only my second Stearman landing in over 20 years, I thought to myself!" At least the author seems honest and didn't leave out the details of the mishap. Kudos to him for completing a challenging mission. I really enjoyed reading this story.
Click to expand...

I'm glad he had a good time and it worked out... but I'm even more glad that I didn't accept the job and subcontract it - Dan wouldn't have met my recency of experience minimums, and I'd have hated to have dealt with the propeller incident.
 
I read the start of that article and was surprised to see the lack of experience....After that I read that statement about the second landing in twenty years in a Stearman. All of the sudden all the words that I've heard from both my dad and grandpa (they cropdusted for about 30 years in a Stearman without a single incident) flashed through my mind. This is an airplane that you need to respect. I knew what was next--saw the picture--and didn't even want to finish it. I kept on reading and saw the "quick fix" and the jump back into the sky with no more training. At this point I just closed it..

I don't want to be an ass. I credit this guy for telling the story. But I *really* question the logic of both the owner and the pilot. He is damn lucky that he didn't get hurt. These types of pilots do not make us look good.
 
Last edited:
I kinda agree with Jesse here. If they wanted someone to nose over a stearman, I could have done that for free.
 
jesse said:
I read the start of that article and was surprised to see the lack of experience....After that I read that statement about the second landing in twenty years in a Stearman.
I don't want to be an ass. I credit this guy for telling the story. But I *really* question the logic of both the owner and the pilot. He is damn lucky that he didn't get hurt. These types of pilots do not make us look good.
Click to expand...

The pilot in question had more hours in Stearmans than you or I have in the air, Jesse. What he DIDN'T have, in my opinion, was any recent time in Stearmans. My policy when I fly an airplane for hire is that if I haven't had time in type or similar (i.e. a Cessna Single for a 172/182/206) in the last 90 days, I get at least two hours of dual in the airplane, doing takeoffs, landings and manuevers.
 
TMetzinger said:
The pilot in question had more hours in Stearmans than you or I have in the air, Jesse.
Click to expand...
Point? It didn't do him much good did it?
TMetzinger said:
What he DIDN'T have, in my opinion, was any recent time in Stearmans.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He also has poor judgment. This wasn't even his airplane--which makes these sort of decisions even worse.
TMetzinger said:
My policy when I fly an airplane for hire is that if I haven't had time in type or similar (i.e. a Cessna Single for a 172/182/206) in the last 90 days, I get at least two hours of dual in the airplane, doing takeoffs, landings and manuevers.
Click to expand...
Go 20 years without Stearman time and even two hours of dual isn't going to cut it. These sort of airplanes are not a Cessna 172.

The Stearman was designed to be a ***** on the ground.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I kinda agree with Jesse here. If they wanted someone to nose over a stearman, I could have done that for free.
Click to expand...

In this instance, if he was going so slow as he says and a brake "grabbed" I'd have to say it was mostly the limitations of an antiquated tail dragger design, as they can make even highly experienced pilots look real bad, real fast on the ground.

On the other hand, the PIC may have had the option of letting the aircraft start to turn in a circle on the taxiway if it was roomy enough and immediately shut down the engine before further mishap. Even a high time, totally current PIC would be hard pressed to catch that gnarly ol' taildragger quickly enough in that scenario, especially if numbed and fatigued by cold.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
In this instance, if he was going so slow as he says and a brake "grabbed" I'd have to say it was mostly the limitations of an antiquated tail dragger design, as they can make even highly experienced pilots look real bad, real fast on the ground.

On the other hand, the PIC may have had the option of letting the aircraft start to turn in a circle on the taxiway if it was roomy enough and immediately shut down the engine before further mishap. Even a high time, totally current PIC would be hard pressed to catch that gnarly ol' taildragger quickly enough in that scenario, especially if numbed and fatigued by cold.
Click to expand...

Some people claim that everyone will ground loop and some people will claim that they won't. My grandpa managed over 30,000 hours in Stearmans without a ground loop and my dad managed to never have one either. My great great uncle never did either. He taught aerobatics to Army Air Corps Cadets in Stearmans. Followed by a run as a pretty famous aerobatic pilot until he got ****ed at the FAA and turned to model airplanes instead.

john_vasey.jpg


I understand that **** happens. At the same time--I recognize when someone isn't acting in a professional manner. Ferrying an airplane like the Stearman with no time in the last 20 years is irresponsible. Ground looping it, prop striking, and then flying it some more without more training--is even more irresponsible. He was supposed to be acting in a professional capacity for the owner. This is not 'professional' behavior.
 
Last edited:
Very cool, they were obviously well above average fliers.
BTW: Do you recall them talking about a brake "grabbing" as mentioned above?

jesse said:
Some people claim that everyone will ground loop and some people will claim that they won't. My grandpa managed over 30,000 hours in Stearmans without a ground loop and my dad managed to never have one either. My great great uncle never did either.

john_vasey.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I think I met thay guy Jay who owns the Stearman. I met him at MJD a little over a year ago, when Kenny came to visit me. He invited me to come out and fly his Stearman. I'm really not sure if it's the same guy, but how many guys named Jay, that own a Stearman, live in the Diamond Head airpark??
 
bbchien said:
You do not use the brakes on a Stearman....you just don't do that.
Click to expand...

my first 5 minutes of tailwheel instruction included this statement, but basically substituted the word Stearman with the word Taildraggers. Fact is the only way to nose em over is to stop or significantly slow the front wheels and the best way to do that is to use the brakes.
 
Here is a color slide that my great great uncle took a *long long* time ago when he did instruction in Stearmans for the war. This is what can happen if things get out of hand--would you want to be the guy up front?

stearman_groundloop.jpg
 
Hate to be a downer as a new guy here, but the Stearman is something I know a fair amount about, but Dean sent me this story and it struck a nerve. It's obvious to me the guy that flew it home had no business doing so. 20 years of not flying one??? It ain't your daddy's 150!
1. Flying from the front solo....true some can be flown solo from the front if the empty weight and balance is in a certain range. Bad idea! The visibility is only slightly better, and flying from the back seat gives you 10 times better feel because you're a long way behind the CG. And you're not going to get any heat from the engine anyway. Dress for the weather or don't go.
2. Doing a rolling exit from the runway in an airplane you're not competent in, with a locking tailwheel. Dumb, really dumb. The Navy Stearmans had a locking tailwheel, that when unlocked become a shopping cart wheel. Then standing on both brakes to stop a swerve? Tailwheel 101, stay off the damn brakes! I'd rather roll off the runway in 1 piece as put her on her nose or back. And he was going fast enough to put it on it's nose, see first part about rolling exit from the runway and brake use. He was going faster than he should have been.
3. That McCauley propeller is steel hub and blade, total weight 84 pounds!!! I know, when I don't have help, I've clean and jerked one from the floor to the crankshaft by myself. And it smacked the runway, 6 times he says. I wouldn't start that engine again without a teardown. May not fail today, but they don't tolerate that kind of abuse for long. I don't care if the crankshaft dials, it's the parts inside that are the weak link, rods, main bearings (especially if is still has the old ball bearings and not the later roller bearings). Had it been a wood prop, fine, they just turn into toothpicks and sacrifice themselves they also weigh very little.

All these mistakes, an avoidable accident, flying home with a damaged engine, then writing a story about his "adventure". Know your airplane, or don't go, "get home syndrome" overcomes good sense again. Dumb, really dumb.
 
Knowing what the prop for a Stearman cost, I hope he was thoughtful enough to pay for his screw up and didn't charge the guy for his "Adventure". But I can't put all the blame on him, the owner should have done a little better research on his choice of pilot. I don't think I would have picked a pilot that hadn't been in a Stearman for 20 years no matter how many hundreds of hours he had.
 
I agree with statements that this trip shouldn't have happened under the circumstances. I'm not sure what the seller was thinking allowing the pilot to take the plane without recent experience, other than "I've gotta get that plane there for Christmas." I wonder what the insurance setup was?
 
FYI a new wood Sensenich will cost you the better part of $3000, and depending on who you find to sell you a wood prop hub, count on another $1000-1500 minumum. The McCauleys aren't made any more and are starting to command some high prices. But there's a love em or hate em crowd. Count on $3000-8000 depending on who has one, how bad you want it and if it will pass the AD. It has a 100 Hour TIS recurring AD that can be a pain and expensive. They are also the absolute best prop in terms of performance, by a huge margin. If you see one at an airshow and think the engineers didn't know much about prop design, take a good hard look at one, they are a work of art that works better than anything you can bolt to the crankshaft. So not only is he out a lot of money and headache he has an airplane that has taken at least a 25% reduction in performance. Wood props are pretty, but don't perform worth a darn, especially when they get that big and thick. And those airplanes don't have much performance to spare!

And I thought the owners faults were understood, but that's correct too. Throwing a dart at a bunch of pilots, and taking the one that will go. He's lucky he has an airplane at all. Where was I a few months ago? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top