The best thing about older aircraft...

IK04

IK04

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,399
Location
Copperas Cove, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
LNXGUY
I flew a 1955 Bell 47G4 today and in the 45 minutes I had to study the POH, I could just about memorize every airspeed, power setting, limitation and emergency procedure!

The tiny Operators Manual had maybe 30 pages and only four sections. Once in the helicopter, the numbers all made sense and I was able to recall just about every checklist and gauge reading.

How many modern aircraft can be operated like this? Unless you are building your own, I can't think of any...

Oh yeah, it was a fun flight, too!
 
Our 47G flight manual only has 12 pages. Most of the pages are performance tables, and a few with things not terribly pertinent to operation. Basically you get to figure it out on your own.
 
IK04 said:
I flew a 1955 Bell 47G4 today and in the 45 minutes I had to study the POH, I could just about memorize every airspeed, power setting, limitation and emergency procedure!

The tiny Operators Manual had maybe 30 pages and only four sections. Once in the helicopter, the numbers all made sense and I was able to recall just about every checklist and gauge reading.

How many modern aircraft can be operated like this? Unless you are building your own, I can't think of any...

Oh yeah, it was a fun flight, too!
Click to expand...

10 pages in the '58 PA24-250 with 6 of them being examples of weight and balance graphs!
 
yeah, back in those days the technical writers wrote to an audience that had a head on their shoulders...and were expected to either know stuff, or be able to figure it out, or all of the above.
 
IK04 said:
I can't think of any...
Click to expand...
FYI: You can thank GAMA for the thicker AFM/POH as they wrote the specification on how to write those manuals that went beyond what the regulations require.
 
Brad W said:
yeah, back in those days the technical writers wrote to an audience that had a head on their shoulders...and were expected to either know stuff, or be able to figure it out, or all of the above.
Click to expand...
It's more the lawyers. Now you have to tell the purchaser not to drink the battery acid.
 
I have a friend whose grandfather retired out of Boeing Stratocruisers. He had a flight manual.

The takeoff procedure...............Normal
 
IK04 said:
How many modern aircraft can be operated like this? Unless you are building your own, I can't think of any...
Click to expand...

The post restart super cubs built from 1989-1994 had a flight manual much like the old ones. It was an updated report number specific to those aircraft, but it was basically the same as the old ones.

My 1950s PA18 has a 3 page manual.
 
Our 1976 Bellanca Citabria 7GCBC had a four-page POH. It was a single 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of card stock, folded across its middle to form a booklet of two 5-1/2" x 8-1/2" pages, printed both sides. That must have been the last of the sane ones. The 1976 172M we had already had a POH of about 230 pages.
 
My 1953 Cessna POH, explains rigging procedures. Like any owner would rig their own plane in 2022!
 
I had a beech travelair 1959 ,one of the best planes I owned, built like a tank. My latest plane is a 1972 Cessna 150 the POH is manageable.
 
Wagondriver said:
My 1953 Cessna POH, explains rigging procedures. Like any owner would rig their own plane in 2022!
Click to expand...
I've worked on some where I'm sure the owner did just that. Scary stuff there. Some of those old "Owner's Manuals" were also the service manual for the airplane.

There used to be a lot of people that did most of their own vehicle maintenance, fixed their home's plumbing and wiring and furnace, replaced bad tubes in the TV and radio, and rebuilt the lawnmower engine. Now?? Some can hardly change a light bulb, never mind changing their own oil in the car. Or a tire. Yeah, you don't want those modern folks messing with their airplanes.

By the time our society reached the mid-70s, and lawsuits were making everything more expensive, aircraft manufacturers had to start warning owners not to do a whole lot of stuff. It's just gotten a lot worse since then. I believe someone in government has decided that the airplane cannot take off until the weight of paperwork referring to that airplane weighs as much as the airplane. So AFMs are big thick things now, and pilots don't read them anymore than they read the thinner POHs of 50 years ago.
 
AD's used to be rarely longer than a single paragraph, nowadays you'll be lucky to find one less that a dozen pages. But digital technology may be largely to blame since they are no longer paper pages or even micro-fiche, they're just pixels on a screen and to be honest it's not such a bad thing to have the whole preamble NPRM history including reasons with arguments both for an against available for review. You can easily skip it and it's not taking up physical space in a file cabinet.
 
Silvaire said:
AD's used to be rarely longer than a single paragraph, nowadays you'll be lucky to find one less that a dozen pages. But digital technology may be largely to blame since they are no longer paper pages or even micro-fiche, they're just pixels on a screen and to be honest it's not such a bad thing to have the whole preamble NPRM history including reasons with arguments both for an against available for review. You can easily skip it and it's not taking up physical space in a file cabinet.
Click to expand...
A waste of good electrons, though...
 
Dana said:
This may be the first time anybody has ever said an AN-2 has "sexy lines"... :eek:
Click to expand...
It has a crude charm about it. Watching it fly, huge thing, big rumble, taking off after the wheels turn about four times, is fascinating.

I once flew a Taylorcraft in to the local air show and parked it next to an AN-2. The Antonov's aileron was nearly as big as a T-cart's wing.
 
The Aztec I was flying has basically a small pamphlet for the POH, it's awesome. You could not get away with something like this today

upload_2022-11-11_11-14-38.png
 
IK04 said:
How many modern aircraft can be operated like this? Unless you are building your own, I can't think of any...
Click to expand...
I can’t think of any. Even the new construction Wacos are more complicated than their 1930 counterparts.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I can’t think of any. Even the new construction Wacos are more complicated than their 1930 counterparts.
Click to expand...

Having cut my teeth flying older cessna 152's and 172's...I still remember my disappointment the first time I tried to run a preflight check on one of the newer cessna 172's...I mean come on already....how many sumps do you really need when 3 will do just fine?! Seemed like mastering the art of making the simple complex.
 
Brad W said:
Having cut my teeth flying older cessna 152's and 172's...I still remember my disappointment the first time I tried to run a preflight check on one of the newer cessna 172's...I mean come on already....how many sumps do you really need when 3 will do just fine?! Seemed like mastering the art of making the simple complex.
Click to expand...
There is a BIG difference in the internal tank geometry on those newer 172s. The tank is integral, meaning that it's just a section of wing, between the spars, sealed off to hold fuel. That tank has skin stiffeners that run across it spanwise, and ribs that run chordwise, and those things can trap water in several low spots. Hence the several drain points. Those drains aren't the result of overthinking anything. They're there to keep you safe and to reduce the stupid lawsuits. They cost money, which is not something Cessna would do for no good reason.

The old aluminum tanks had smooth bottoms that didn't trap water. The 150's tank can, though, especially if the nosewheel strut isn't kept inflated to encourage water to migrate to the sump. The tank's bottom is bellied just a little, likely a mistake in engineering.
 
I thought it amusing to compare the POH’s of a 60’s Mooney with a modern Cirrus:

8952196629_cca38cbe4d_z.jpg


And bear in mind that Cirrus Manual is just one of several!
 
I was thinking about this thing....
I do remember being a bit.... disappointed might be the best word when studying the manuals for the really old planes I've flown. frustrated and just wanting a bit more info. A bit deeper info on fuel systems, things like that

Just thinking back on it and not going to by bookshelf to check, it seems to me that maybe they had found the correct ratio of
"useful info" : "too many words & BS"​
maybe sometime maybe in the early 1970's. Seems like those POH's had more info when you had a question and wanted to dig a little deeper, sometimes not quite enough, but certainly still getting to the point of it.
Then later it was nonsense.....just page after page of boilerplate non-sense that completely gets in the way when trying to find something
 
Airplane certification came before POH requirements. My 1929 Waco Taperwing has no POH. In 1947 the factory issued a letter with a recommended weight and balance strategy. No placards, no restrictions one of the Waco history books has a letter from a pilot who briefly held the record for consecutive outside loops. The entry in those days? Dive for airspeed then push into the outside loop. I think he did 7 consecutive outside loops. He pushed straight down to 300mph to start; bragged that he only had to retighten some of the wires afterward.
 
Brad W said:
maybe sometime maybe in the early 1970's. Seems like those POH's had more info
Click to expand...
In 1970 the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) was formed from all the major aircraft OEMs. They took upon themselves to increase knowledge and safety by writing specifications to promote safety and knowledge within the GA industry. The FAA had no objection. Their 1st specification was "Specification for Pilot's Operating Handbook" and the size and length of the POH quadrupled. In 1996 with the restart production movement that specification was revised and the POH/AFM grew some more. The funny thing is the CAA/FAA certification requirements for what information is required to be supplied has basically not changed since the 30s. But the POH/AFM continues to grow. GAMA's 2nd specification was maintenance data.
ebetancourt said:
My 1929 Waco Taperwing has no POH.
Click to expand...
FYI: nor did about 800 other models. Things didn't change until the late 30s when they reorganized everything down to how type certificates were numbered. Prior they used the format ATC #XXX which stood for "Aircraft Type Certificate" and was initially issued by the Department of Commerce. Your Taperwing Waco model CTO was ATC #257 and it listed the bare minimum of aircraft specifications and performance data that would fill a short paragraph like airfoil M-6; empty weight 1677 lbs; wing chord at root 62.5"; and price at factory field $8525. The true old days.
 
Yep, as I said, certification came before the POH requirement. 1926 if my memory is correct. So all the early "certified" airplanes flew, and if still flying, fly without a POH, or placards, limitations, etc.

In the case of Waco, and probably most of the others, the engineering drawings came after the airplane were built. Initial design was dream - sketch - chalk drawing on the factory floor. Many of the drawings don't actually match the airplane as built.
 
I prefer the simplicity. I appreciate that the extent of the 1960s and earlier era poh was basically "don't fly like an idiot and don't crash it". Much different than the giant binder with a ton of crap no one is going to read you get on a plane you purchase today
 
FastEddieB said:
I thought it amusing to compare the POH’s of a 60’s Mooney with a modern Cirrus:

8952196629_cca38cbe4d_z.jpg


And bear in mind that Cirrus Manual is just one of several!
Click to expand...
Interesting to note that I have read every page of my 1964 M20E manual at least twice. The same for my previous 1968 Cherokee. I found the later and longer Cherokee manuals too dry to read so I didn't read all of them or use the to great effect. But I have gotten a lot of use out of my older manuals and enjoy reading them.
 
The best part about old planes.

the simplicity and the smell.

I work with technology all day at work, at the airport I’m happy to check out from that- have 4 cylinders, a carb, two mags and some control surfaces be all the more I need.

And they just smell right. I hate it at annual my guy cleaned the inside of my windows w plexus- smelled too pretty! So I told him keep that outside only and put an oily rag in a bucket in the back till it smelled right again!
 
ebetancourt said:
1926 if my memory is correct.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That was when the 1st licenses, type certificates, air regulations were adopted. But things didn't become civilized until 1938-39 when the CAA was formed. Then the aircraft drawings had to be approved before they built the aircraft, physical format operating limitations had to be supplied to the pilot, and so on.
 
Huckster79 said:
The best part about old planes.

the simplicity and the smell.

I work with technology all day at work, at the airport I’m happy to check out from that- have 4 cylinders, a carb, two mags and some control surfaces be all the more I need.

And they just smell right. I hate it at annual my guy cleaned the inside of my windows w plexus- smelled too pretty! So I told him keep that outside only and put an oily rag in a bucket in the back till it smelled right again!
Click to expand...
A lot of old airplanes smell like stale 80/87 gasoline. Someone needs to come up with an aerosol can of that odor. Name it "Evening In Oshkosh" or something like that. An exotic aviation perfume.
 
IK04 said:
I flew a 1955 Bell 47G4 today and in the 45 minutes I had to study the POH, I could just about memorize every airspeed, power setting, limitation and emergency procedure!

The tiny Operators Manual had maybe 30 pages and only four sections. Once in the helicopter, the numbers all made sense and I was able to recall just about every checklist and gauge reading.

How many modern aircraft can be operated like this? Unless you are building your own, I can't think of any...

Oh yeah, it was a fun flight, too!
Click to expand...
Made my living flying those for PHI way back in the day, before I went back to school on the GI Bill. In case you wonder why the cyclic stick is way up in the air, the Model 47's designer was a very tall guy who was the chief engineer at Bell, and who made sure the controls fit him. Learned this when I went to work at Bell in the 80s.
https://vertipedia.vtol.org/biographies/getBiography/biographyID/240
 
Piperonca said:
Made my living flying those for PHI way back in the day, before I went back to school on the GI Bill. In case you wonder why the cyclic stick is way up in the air, the Model 47's designer was a very tall guy who was the chief engineer at Bell, and who made sure the controls fit him. Learned this when I went to work at Bell in the 80s.
https://vertipedia.vtol.org/biographies/getBiography/biographyID/240
Click to expand...

I think the tiny cyclic had been cut down at some time, because it didn't seem too high. Of course my knees were almost in my chest, since the cockpit is so short and I had the pedals all the way forward. My legs were wobbling for a day or so after that flight...

The one thing I did notice is how the collective starts at a 45 degree angle and pulls up damn near vertical. That felt really weird when hovering with power changes. The throttle coordinator sorta worked, but I still had to constantly adjust the throttle during power changes.

I had a choice of flying the -47 or a Robinson R44. That seemed like a waste of money to fly the R44 and still need more hours to legally fly the thing, and the Bell seemed like more my style: old and cranky...
 
IK04 said:
The throttle coordinator sorta worked, but I still had to constantly adjust the throttle during power changes.
Click to expand...
What is this throttle coordinator of which you speak? :biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top