Thinking about a Stearman

Ted

Ted

The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
30,006
Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
In my latest "Thinking about..." thread, I bring an actual aviation topic, and one that I don't know much about.

As many of you may know, we're working on a 1,000 ft grass runway on our property. We're a ways off from purchasing an aircraft, but it does help to think about what that aircraft might be. We've been thinking about a Cub primarily, because of the pure old aircraft aspect, fun to fly. However what pilot doesn't love an open cockpit biplane?

Halfway jokingly I pointed out to my wife that a Stearman would be a better fit than a J-3. The wingspan is shorter by a few feet (which will make it easier to fit in through the doors of the hangar we'll be building) and on paper the takeoff and landing distances distances (I've seen 300-900 ft published, although I don't know real world numbers) will fit the runway lengths better than a Cub would. Keep in mind we have a one way in, one way out runway with a 3% grade that helps takeoff and landing (downhill takeoff, uphill landing). Also with bigger tires vs. the Cub, it seems like something that would handle our "unimproved strip" better. While we'll keep it as good as we can, I don't expect it to be as smooth as Gaston's.

Slightly to my surprise, she was very positive about it. Of course there are some questions and concerns vs. the Cub. So I'm going to do something very out of character and ask aviation related questions on here. :)

It seems like for Stearmans I've seen Continental W670s, Lycoming R680s, Jacobs R755s, and some Pratt R985s. The latter two options I think were all put on at some point in the past via STC or whatever. From what I've read it seems like the Continental and Lycoming factory options were in the 220 HP range, but @jesse seemed to think his grandfather's old Stearmans had more like 300 HP from the R680s (and some R680s were rated at that). The Jacobs R755s I think were around 275 HP and Pratts at 450 HP or so.

My thought is that any of the engines would do especially since we won't be flying that heavy, but it will be hot and so a little more takeoff performance would be better, making something in the upper portion of the 2xx HP range (like the Jake) would make more sense. But I might be overthinking that. I flew a Stearman once for an hour and I remember the easy and effortless takeoff and landing on it, but not how long it took. I do remember it had the W670 engine and was told it was 220 HP, plus it had a fixed pitch prop so it was a bit worse off on takeoff vs. a constant speed.

I have no idea how maintainable (or not) any of these engines are and how readily available parts are, but I'm sure that some folks on here (@Tom-D @Fearless Tower @Greg Bockelman to name a few) have some more first hand experience. I'm not sure which engine would be the most desirable from a maintenance perspective. And then I'm not sure what I'd need for comfortable takeoff performance from my runway.

There's also the obvious question of winter use. It does get cold here, and a Stearman is an open cockpit biplane. But a Cub isn't exactly known for being warm in the winter either. I tend to think winter use with either is more than anything a question of how well one bundles up, but I'd be curious what those with more experience is. I've ridden motorcycles in the winter just fine. If anything a Stearman seems like it might have more wind protection than a motorcycle.

So, thoughts?
 
Not much help to you but I have heard of Waco's having 12V plugs installed for Gerbing's motorcycle heated gear. Might be an option for winterish operation.
 
flhrci said:
Not much help to you but I have heard of Waco's having 12V plugs installed for Gerbing's motorcycle heated gear. Might be an option for winterish operation.
Click to expand...

I'd had that thought. We have plenty of cold weather motorcycle gear as well as cold weather/snow gear for us and the kids. Really I think that's less of an issue overall.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd had that thought. We have plenty of cold weather motorcycle gear as well as cold weather/snow gear for us and the kids. Really I think that's less of an issue overall.
Click to expand...
Getting snow off your runway may be the harder issue. Or at least packing it down enough, or getting airplane skis.
 
flhrci said:
Getting snow off your runway may be the harder issue. Or at least packing it down enough, or getting airplane skis.
Click to expand...

All options. We actually don't get much snow here.
 
I am surprised that a Stearman has a shorter wingspan than a Cub. I've always viewed it as a much larger aircraft. I would think MX and operational costs would be high though.
 
No experience with Stearmans, other than admiring them up close and from afar. And who wouldn't want to fly one. :cool:

But, it strikes me one of the differences may be the spontaneity of the flying. The Cub may lend itself more to pulling it out of the hangar on a whim and go for a 30 minute summer eve flight before twilight, or a Saturday hop to the neighbors for coffee. The Stearman could certainly do that too, but I wonder if it's a plane that is less spontaneous and requires more effort and pre-planning before the wheels leave the grass?

Just a thought. I've come to really appreciate the simplicity of the Husky, and the ability to drag it out of the hangar by myself (no tug) and go flying on a whim without a lot of fuss (in my case it's hangared a 2 minute walk from my office).
 
A friend had one on the Springfield airport when I as growing up. It was his baby, owned it probably 40 years, flew the hell out of it till his knees got so bad he couldn't hardy get in and out of it. It had a 300 horse Lycoming on it.

Towards the end of his Stearman days it need a space heater to warm up / dry out the mags, I assume the coils were getting bad.

He was a regular aerobatics nut with his grandkids in it. I got a few rides too.

The DPE that issued my private was partners in on a 400 horse one, said he couldn't afford the gas anymore lol.
 
Based almost entirely on reading Gordon Baxter (who loved and flew Stearmans when they were popular crop dusters) the stock configuration was 220HP. Many were up-engined to 300HP. And for dusting, many were upped to 450HP.

Maybe that helps...
 
Last edited:
Ted, does it have to be a Stearman?

Are there ANY obstacles at either end of the 1000’ strip?

I’ve flown both 220 hp and 450 Stearmans. The 220 HP (W670) is underpowered IMO for the weight of the airplane. It’s fun to fly, but in the summertime, you’ll need that 1000’ grass just for the ground roll and then you’ll be climbing out at 200 fpm. Not much margin for error. A 450 powered Stearman will get off and climb better, but you are burning 23 gph to get that performance (vs 12-13 in the Continental).

Wacos with the same W670 are MUCH better short field performers. Even at gross wright, I’m leaping into the air at 400 ft.

Another advantage of a Waco is you can fit two kids or your wife and a kid in the front pit. Or you could go cabin Waco and carry 4 people. Just need to roll the windows down for the open cockpit effect.

Also, with a Waco, you can fly it more months out of the year. Stearmans can be downright miserable to fly when the surface OAT gets bellow 70F. They have big drafty cockpits. Wacos have better airflow around the windscreens. You can fly a Waco below 60F, even below 50F and not freeze your face off.

The downside of Wacos is if you are a big dude, the cockpit can be a tight/shoehorn fit. Stearmans are much roomier.
 
Buy a Stearman! Much, much fun! I took tail wheel lessons in 2007 in one. Posted is my second day of flying in the backseat. One of the most rewarding flying experiences I have had.

 
Tom-D said:
Your go to guys for radial support is

http://www.radialengines.com

The P&W 985 would be my choice, but the are nose heavy, and they like 100LL.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Tom. Looks like overhaul prices aren't much different from a normal opposed 6-cylinder engine. That's encouraging that there's still support there. I'd imagine props are also supported?

GRG55 said:
No experience with Stearmans, other than admiring them up close and from afar. And who wouldn't want to fly one. :cool:

But, it strikes me one of the differences may be the spontaneity of the flying. The Cub may lend itself more to pulling it out of the hangar on a whim and go for a 30 minute summer eve flight before twilight, or a Saturday hop to the neighbors for coffee. The Stearman could certainly do that too, but I wonder if it's a plane that is less spontaneous and requires more effort and pre-planning before the wheels leave the grass?

Just a thought. I've come to really appreciate the simplicity of the Husky, and the ability to drag it out of the hangar by myself (no tug) and go flying on a whim without a lot of fuss (in my case it's hangared a 2 minute walk from my office).
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I do imagine it would take more.

Fearless Tower said:
Ted, does it have to be a Stearman?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Are there ANY obstacles at either end of the 1000’ strip?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I’ve flown both 220 hp and 450 Stearmans. The 220 HP (W670) is underpowered IMO for the weight of the airplane. It’s fun to fly, but in the summertime, you’ll need that 1000’ grass just for the ground roll and then you’ll be climbing out at 200 fpm. Not much margin for error. A 450 powered Stearman will get off and climb better, but you are burning 23 gph to get that performance (vs 12-13 in the Continental).

Wacos with the same W670 are MUCH better short field performers. Even at gross wright, I’m leaping into the air at 400 ft.

Another advantage of a Waco is you can fit two kids or your wife and a kid in the front pit. Or you could go cabin Waco and carry 4 people. Just need to roll the windows down for the open cockpit effect.

Also, with a Waco, you can fly it more months out of the year. Stearmans can be downright miserable to fly when the surface OAT gets bellow 70F. They have big drafty cockpits. Wacos have better airflow around the windscreens. You can fly a Waco below 60F, even below 50F and not freeze your face off.

The downside of Wacos is if you are a big dude, the cockpit can be a tight/shoehorn fit. Stearmans are much roomier.
Click to expand...

Doing a quick search of Barnstormers it also seems like the Wacos go for a lot more than Stearmans, but I have no idea what I'm looking at there other than "it's round". Having two seats up front is mostly a downside. We specifically only want a 2-seater because we want it to be more of a one-on-one activity to fly. That's something we have a hard time with with the 3 kids. Of course the Stearman is a negative there in some ways because while it's open cockpit, you are fairly farish from eachother and communication would be more difficult than in the Cub. I remember on the one I flew we were able to communicate, but not great. Although the headsets were also not great that we were using.

Tom-D said:
my recommendation

https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1484570

beautiful old cabin class, with heater, I don't know If they will do the take off requirements.
Click to expand...

Intriguing, but misses out on the 2-place requirement. I'm also doubting it'll do the runway.

Stephen Poole said:
You're talking about a woman who wanted a bulldozer. There should have been no surprise. You have a special (and precious) woman, there, sir. :)
Click to expand...

I married very well. :)

Laurie is a very willing participant and enabler in my shenanigans. So I suppose I should reword - I'm not surprised she liked the idea, but she liked it more seriously than I thought she would. She is also practical and sometimes brings my "project ADHD" as I call it down to more sane levels while still being supportive.
 
I’ve never flown a Stearman, but I have about 500 hours in two Wacos, 275 and 300 hp Jacobs. Both the 220 Continental and the Jakes are supported by Air Repair in MS, the type holder for both. I can’t speak to the Continental, but Jacobs support is superb.

Your biggest problem will be takeoff and climb. As mentioned, I would consider some of the Wacos for a strip that short. The F-2 was promoted by Waco by operating it out of a 200ft circle. The older RNF would work as well, but it’s smaller and not really a three place. It has a Warner though. It’s not as popular as other Wacos and nicely restored is well under 100k. The F-2s have 220 Continentals and are great airplanes, but generally pricier than Stearmans. My ATO would have no problem with the T/O but the landing would be a challenge. Weird airplane. I don’t believe a YMF would work, a hot day on my 1,800ft strip is hairy taking off.
 
@Fearless Tower I also meant to respond on the performance bits. That's interesting that the Continental ones take that long of a ground roll on grass. What would you estimate ground roll is for the 450 HP? And I'd figure 300 HP somewhere in the middle.
 
BTW all open cockpit Wacos work better as two place. I won’t fly two passengers in my ATO and prefer not to in the YMF. The front seat requires sitting in the middle to use the controls.

Additional thought. Any of the Straightwings would work. Lots of different engines originally but some have been converted to Jakes
 
Not that you'd need it, but Tulsa has a couple of well-reputed radial engine service centers/rebuild shops. Convington Aircraft and Tulsa Aircraft Engines specialize in the Pratt radial stuff.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not that you'd need it, but Tulsa has a couple of well-reputed radial engine service centers/rebuild shops. Convington Aircraft and Tulsa Aircraft Engines specialize in the Pratt radial stuff.
Click to expand...

My understanding was that the proper way to work on anything with a radial was to just fix it and tell the FAA not to mess around with my farm tractor.
 
You going to put in arresting cables or a catch net? :D
 
Don't rule out an experimental biplane, either, unless you want to sell rides. Almost any of them will be a lot less expensive to operate than a Stearman. My Hatz is sort of a mini Waco with clipwing Cub performance, while the Stardusters and Skybolts are a higher performance level. All are easier to pull out of the hangar for a casual flight than the big bipes like Stearmans and Wacos.
 
Dana said:
Don't rule out an experimental biplane, either, unless you want to sell rides. Almost any of them will be a lot less expensive to operate than a Stearman. My Hatz is sort of a mini Waco with clipwing Cub performance, while the Stardusters and Skybolts are a higher performance level. All are easier to pull out of the hangar for a casual flight than the big bipes like Stearmans and Wacos.
Click to expand...

Those are good and valid points. My wife is anti-experimental unless we build it. I know, I know, the obvious answer is "Ted you're building a car already, just build an airplane." But I honestly have no desire whatsoever to build an airplane, at least not at this point in my life. One of my friends recently bought a Starduster and heavily trying to convince me that I should get one too, but see previous statements. This is a case where I don't want to be building from scratch.

I've also heard that those experimental biplanes aren't quite as easy on ground handling, but I have no first hand experience there and would be interested in PIREPs. When I flew the Stearman I was impressed with how easy it landed.

Plus an open cockpit biplane needs a round engine. :)
 
My Hatz lands like a Cub, with slightly worse visibility. My Starduster was a lot squirrellier, though by all accounts not as bad as a Pitts, which I've never flown. Stearman (been years since I've flown one) is somewhere in the middle.

There are a few Hatz Classics with Rotec radials, one with a Warner, and one with a LOM inverted inline.

A Great Lakes is another choice if you want certified. Me, I doubt I'll ever again own anything but an experimental.
 
Dana said:
Me, I doubt I'll ever again own anything but an experimental.
Click to expand...

I get it, and I get the reasons and appeal. Not debating whether experimentals are good or bad, just saying that it's off the table unless I build one, which I'm not doing right now.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
@Fearless Tower I also meant to respond on the performance bits. That's interesting that the Continental ones take that long of a ground roll on grass. What would you estimate ground roll is for the 450 HP? And I'd figure 300 HP somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
Continental Stearmans use a lot more runway than Wacos on grass or pavement. I’m not an engineer, but I believe the Stearman design doesn’t generate as much lift as a Waco.

I don’t recall the ground roll on the 450 Stearman, but do remember that the climb performance was much better/more like a Waco. A stock 220 powered Stearman just climbs like a dog.

Overall, I liked flying the 450 Stearman. The R-485 is an outstanding engine. The biggest drawback is that fuel burn. 23gph is a lot for something that only goes maybe 90 kts and with only 40 gallons of usable fuel, you are really struggling to get anywhere x-country.
 
ebetancourt said:
BTW all open cockpit Wacos work better as two place. I won’t fly two passengers in my ATO and prefer not to in the YMF. The front seat requires sitting in the middle to use the controls.

Additional thought. Any of the Straightwings would work. Lots of different engines originally but some have been converted to Jakes
Click to expand...
Not sure that’s true for all Wacos. My F2 has a removable stick and I can disconnect the rudder pedals when I want to haul two people. Works well.
 
Well, if you remove the stick you can’t use it.

I don’t like to give “rides” to people who aren’t interested in flying. I do it reluctantly. Leave those to the ride haulers. I have done it and will do it, but I try to avoid it
 
I used to give rides and tow banners in a Pratt 450 powered Stearman. It was a wonderful plane and I loved to fly it. And it was maintained by company mechanics so it always performed well when I needed it. Its been so long ago now, I don't recall the takeoff or landing performance. It got off pretty quick. Landing took a bit more space unless you were really proficient in it. Took me a long time to get used to that no sight picture over the nose so early on I was getting down close and then feeling for the ground and that can eat up some runway.

That being said, if I was looking for a plane to fly in and out of 1000' grass on a hill with obstructions, I wouldn't be looking for a Stearman. I'd be looking at a modified Supercub or something similar. I also pulled rags with a 180hp Supercub with big tires, extended wings and an oversized climb prop. It would get off in about 150' all day every day and it would land and stop in 300-400' easy. With 1000' you wouldn't even need brakes.

The only way I'd want to own a Stearman is if I had a mechanic local to me who had lots of experience with them. Not that they're maintenance nightmares or anything like that. Its just that they're not a 172. If you don't have a guy who knows them, you're going to be paying someone to learn how to maintain your plane by trial and error.

For instance, the landing gear struts come to mind. If you get a 450hp version (and I'd recommend that if you get one), you're getting a plane that was very likely used as duster. The strut seals on those planes take a beating from all the dust and dirt and eventually they start to leak and the need to be replaced. You need a mechanic that will know to either do one side at a time or know enough to mark which side each strut came out of. Because both struts have the same part number which would suggest that they're identical and they are. Or at least they were until they were installed. Because the bolt holes are drilled after they're installed, so if you put them back in the plane on the opposite side they came out of, the gear will tow in and landing from the shake down flight will get very exciting as it starts heading anywhere but where you want it to go. Don't ask me how I know this. The fact that the struts are the same part number but become left and right after they're installed is something you mechanic isn't likely to know nor bother to research until after you figure out the landing gear ain't right. I personally wouldn't want to find out how many other gotchas are lurking in that plane for a mechanic that's never worked on one.
 
Boeing Stearmans aren't assembled with mystery or magic, they are a pretty straight forward old aircraft wood and fabric isn't a lost are either.
 
I have a whopping 4 hours in a Stearman. And I am one of those weird pilots that doesn't like open cockpit very much (so I have found out). In my training we flew into a 2500 ft grass strip, a 2400 ft grass strip and another one I can't find on the map. It was a 220hp Stearman and I always felt we were taking off over the trees at the end of the runway real low. But I was a 4 hour student so I am sure we could have gotten off the ground faster with more practice and a better rolling takeoff. Fun plane. I just don't enjoy wind in my face.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It wasn’t just a feeling!
Click to expand...

I think the 220 we have performs really good. We are at sea level but hat Texas weather. As soon as I put full power in it is up and flying. It uses about the same amount of runway as my j-3 and that isn't much.....
 
It’s been 30 years, but here are some of the things that stuck with me...

We flew 450-hp Stearmans. The power settings we used were probably about 55%, burning 20.5 gallons an hour. The 46-gallon tank gave us just over two handspans range on a sectional chart, about an hour and a half. Oil tanks on ours were behind the pilot seat for CG purposes, and there was a check valve that was supposed to prevent oil from flowing downhill into the tank from the engine when it was sitting...occasionally we had to pressurize the oil tank to start oil flowing to the engine.

The front pit isn’t too bad, but air over the top wing comes down and slaps you upside the head all day in the back pit. On cross-country days, after 5 or 6 hours flying, my back was kinked up from trying to hunch down in the cockpit to get away from that. Leather helmets might be better than the cloth ones we used, but rolling over and hanging from the seatbelts for a few seconds usually took care of it.

We had inverted fuel, but were limited by the oil system...scavenge pumps are on the bottom of the engine, so after about 15 seconds inverted, the engine would fill up with oil and start blowing out the front case at a high rate.

I think my longest takeoff was 1000 feet in Las Vegas, NM, at almost 7000 feet on a warm day.

As far as cold weather, there’s plenty of room to wear whatever you need to keep warm.
 
Tom-D said:
Boeing Stearmans aren't assembled with mystery or magic, they are a pretty straight forward old aircraft wood and fabric isn't a lost are either.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. But after what I've seen of operating one, I wouldn't want to trust its care to a mechanic that's never laid hands on one previous to me walking in his shop. That's just me. You're free to disagree.
 
And I don't care what kind of fancy heated clothes you wear, I will bet money that if you buy a Stearman it will sit on the ground anytime the temps go below 40 after the first or second winter.
 
pigpenracing said:
I think the 220 we have performs really good. We are at sea level but hat Texas weather. As soon as I put full power in it is up and flying. It uses about the same amount of runway as my j-3 and that isn't much.....
Click to expand...
To me it’s more about the obstacles than the ground roll. I’ve never measured the ground roll in any of the Stearmans I’ve flown, but both of the W670 powered Stearmans I’ve flown climbed like dogs and both were taking off at sea level.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
And I don't care what kind of fancy heated clothes you wear, I will bet money that if you buy a Stearman it will sit on the ground anytime the temps go below 40 after the first or second winter.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, a Stearman is miserable to fly below about 65F. You’d have to pay me a lot to fly one below that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top