|
BirdoftheWeek
The Morrisey Shinn Varga Kachina,
By: Norm Goyer
I learned to fly in a
tandem-seated Cub, and my small fleet of surplus military trainers were all
tandem seated. In my opinion there is no better flying or fighting platform than
one seated right on the center line of the aircraft. Then the pilots started
taking their wives and girlfriends with them, and the complaining began, “I
don’t like to sit by myself with no one to talk to,” and so on and so forth.
Enter the world of side-by-side trainers. Other than a handful of homebuilt
tandem aircraft, I can only think only of one tandem military-style trainer, and
it was a good one. Yes, I am talking about the Morrisey, Shinn and Varga “Kachina”,
all the same airplane with a different name and possibly a different engine.
But, what a neat little airplane it is.
The airplane was born in 1946,
when Bill Morrisey, ex CAA Inspector, ex Douglas Aircraft test pilot, designed a
small “modern” trainer for homebuilders. It only had a 65-hp Continental for
power. The elliptical wings and tail were made of wood, while the fuselage was
fabric over welded steel tubing. Then, when problems of certification were
considered, the wood wings and tail were changed to aluminum sheeting, and the
aft fuselage was also redesigned to be fabricated from aluminum. The steel-tube
front fuselage cage was retained for strength. The engine was increased to a
90-hp Continental, and the certification process was started. After a lengthy
process, the Morrisey 2000G was granted an FAA certification. During the
process, Lycoming had talked Morrisey into changing the 90-hp Continental for a
115-hp Lycoming. The modifications were almost done, when Lycoming pulled the
plug on the 115-hp Lycoming and convinced Morrisey that their new 150-hp
Lycoming would be a better power plant. Well it was, and it wasn’t, but the
certification listed the 150 Lycoming as the power plant. The extra power did
make a real performer out of the little 2000G, but flight school operators
didn’t like to use so much fuel for their primary trainers. This model was
called the Morrisey 2150 (2000 plus 150 equals 2150. Hey, it made sense to Bill
Morrisey. This version was certified on June 24, 1958.
Morrisey eventually sold the
rights to Shinn Engineering and they produced a few 2150S with minor changes.
Shinn produced 35 of the 150-hp versions, when they decided to power back the
plane to a 100-hp Continental, the same engine Cessna 150s were using. This move
was made for the flight schools. Orders were increasing, but then Shinn obtained
a huge government contract to build mail sorting devices for the Post Office
Division. The small amount of money they were making with aircraft production
was insignificant, so they sold the rights once again, after sitting on the
design for five years.
The new owner, George Varga, was
a very pleased Morrisey 2150 owner and a former military pilot. Starting in 1974
Varga built 100 Kachinas. Modern radios were installed and the interior was made
more plush and comfortable. In 1981, the engine was changed to a 180-hp
Lycoming, far more power than the little plane really needed. About this same
time, a Kachina owner converted his plane to a tail dragger. Varga promptly
bought the STC from Norm Hibbard, the owner of the STC. Money was getting in
short supply once again. In 1986, Varga sold the rights to Jim Smith. Smith
didn’t act on the design, and sold it in 1992, this time to Loren Perry of
Augusta, Georgia. Our research yielded nothing more other than, at the time,
Perry was looking to sell the rights, once again.
We did find several Kachinas for
sale at $59,000, definitely a good buy, if the aircraft were in good condition.
Whoever manufactured the plane, Morrisey, Shinn or Varga, it is a fine little
sport aircraft that everyone loved, but too few bought.
________________________________________
Piper Arrows, 180-hp, 200-hp
and Turbo 200-hp
The 180-hp Arrow is a
very nice two-to-three-passenger aircraft. It does have four seats, but with
fuel and luggage, it could be overloaded.
By: Norm Goyer
I
have had a ongoing love of the Piper Arrow series. It wasn’t the fastest, it
wasn’t the sexiest and it surely wasn’t in the same company as the Mooney,
Bonanza or Centurion, but those Pipers sure worked for me. In the late 1960s, I
lived in Northampton, Massachusetts, and had a motion picture contract with a
motorcycle firm in Schenectady, New York. My transportation was a Piper
PA-28R-180, in other words, a retractable 180-hp Arrow, one of the first models
produced. I also owned a Cessna 195, undergoing restoration, and a North
American SNJ-6, a Navy Texan. But my little Arrow was perfect for this trip. The
fuel burn was below ten gph and the speed was around 150 mph cruise. The
distance was about 150 miles, point to point, so it took me an hour to get
there.
Piper is still building the Arrow
with a 200-hp Lycoming. It is very popular with flying schools.
In
1974, our family purchased several FBOs in Southern California, and I stocked
them with Piper and Cessna products. Our choice for our Commercial and
Instrument courses were two Piper PA-28R-200 Piper Arrows. They were powered
with a Lycoming 200-hp, four-cylinder fuel-injected engine. Fuel burn was about
10 gph, and its semi-automatic gear-lowering feature could save our airplanes
from the bungling of inexperienced students, and greatly lower our insurance
premiums. This device was cross-connected to the throttle and manifold pressure;
if the gear were up, the manifold pressure came down, and throttle position was
less than a quarter throw, the gear would come down automatically. This was an
outstanding feature for a large flying school. We worked those airplanes up to
1400 hours, completely overhauled them, flew them to about 900 hours and then
sold them and bought two more of them. Not once during these entire student
flying hours did we ever have a gear-up landing. To add a nice icing to the
cake, Piper included a “disable” switch, so the system could be shut down. This
allowed the instructors to teach slow-flight without the gear coming down. A
flashing light kept reminding you that the gear disable switch was on.
This is a 200-hp
Arrow registered overseas. This very popular Piper has very pleasing lines, with
only cowling changes occurring over the years
In
1977, I purchased one of the first Piper Turbo Arrows to come off the line at
Vero Beach. This aircraft was to be a personal aircraft for our family, plus
serve as a leaseback to our company for cross-country rentals. It was very
popular with our students and renter pilots. Piper claimed 200 mph at altitude
but we never even got close to that. It was more like a 170 mph aircraft that
could cruise all day at mid-teen altitudes, at a very low fuel burn. But no
aircraft is perfect, and the turbo-charged Continental engine had some serious
procedures that had to be followed, or else the turbo or the engine could be
cooked in minutes. The engine did not have an automatic waste gate dump valve;
the pilot had to pull the throttle back to keep the mercury below 42 inches on
takeoff. As the plane climbed, the pressure reduced. At Apple Valley, with our
3000 foot elevation and very hot summer days, this turbo really made a
difference in the climb rate. We loved it.
The Arrow on the left has the
original straight (popular name, “Hershey bar”) type wing; the plane on the
right has the later model multi-tapered wing.
If
I remember correctly, when letting down, the pilot would come down the hill in
5000 foot increments to let the engine gradually cool, and not
shock-cool. The trick was to enter the pattern altitude with the engine-gauges
in their correct range. Now the tricky part was that once you throttled back,
you had to idle the engine for a full five minutes to let the turbo wind down.
You see, this turbo did not have its own oil supply, and needed engine oil
pressure to lubricate it. If the pilot made a fast descent, pulled into a
tiedown location, and shut down, the turbo would still be spinning at a very
high rpm with no lubrication. Kiss the turbo goodbye.
The Arrow 180-hp continues to be one
of the better buys in a used retractable. It makes an excellent small-family
aircraft that is very economical to operate.
We
only rented this aircraft to approved pilots who respected the limitations. The
Turbo Arrow had earned a very bad reputation because of these above mentioned
items. Our Arrow’s engine and turbo all easily made the 1600 TBO without any
repairs. I still consider the Piper Arrow series (not including the T-tail) as
one of Piper’s better products.
_______________________________________________
The Airships Akron, Macon and the Curtiss Sparrow Hawk
This is a Curtiss Sparrow Hawk fighter approaching
the trapeze for reloading into the boarding dock of the dirigible.
By Norm Goyer
The most famous airship of all time was
the ill-fated Hindenburg, which caught fire on landing at Lakehurst, NJ; this
film clip is still one of the most highly viewed video/motion picture news clips
ever. Many people are also aware of the US Navy’s two dirigibles, the USS Akron
and the USS Macon. In 1922, experiments were started to see if equipping the
Navy’s huge dirigibles with their own defending fighter aircraft was feasible.
Up to four Curtiss fighters could be carried in the
“hangar” inside the Macon or the Akron airships.
In 1991 and 1992, National Geographic
sent scientific recovery submarines, divers and remotely controlled camera
submarines deep into the Pacific Ocean, off the Big Sur coast line, to
photograph and film the USS Macon, still containing four Curtiss Sparrow Hawk
fighters in its interior hangar. In 1935, the Navy airship broke up in a storm
and plunged into the Pacific Ocean. This widely-read issue once again introduced
the Macon and the Akron to several new generations of aviation historians. You
could plainly see the biplanes, with their large hooks attached to the
fuselages. The trapeze used to snag the small fighters is still visible. Early
experiments were successful enough for the Navy to eventually outfit both the
Akron and the Macon with their own fighter protection.
The USS Macon and the USS Akron were sister ships
based at Moffet Field, south of San Francisco. Their huge hangars are still
there and can be seen from Interstate 5.
The experiments first began in 1922 when a tiny
Sperry Messenger biplane was outfitted with a hook installed on the top of the
fuselage, complete with a sweeping metal tube protecting the propeller from
hitting the trapeze. The pilot was Lawrence Sperry, owner of the Sperry Aircraft
Instrument company. After several attempts, including one dead-stick due to a
shattered propeller, Sperry was able to snag the trapeze and stay suspended
until he released his tiny biplane. The program with the Macon and Akron,
complete with their Sparrow Hawk fighters, continued until 1935 when the USS
Macon went down into the ocean off of the San Francisco coast. They had been
housed in the two huge dirigible hangars still standing at the Moffett Air Base
south of San Francisco, plainly visible from Interstate 5. The pictures
accompanying this article tell the story of the amazing Navy Sparrow Hawk
project.
Williams Brothers, at one time offered an
outstanding plastic model of the Sparrow Hawk, which is now a collector’s item.
This photo was taken from the box art. Occasionally, these highly collectable
kits can be found on eBay.
If you are not
sure about the terminology of lighter-than-air vehicles, here is a brief
summary: Hot air balloons were the first devices to rise into the air under its
own power. They were used during the Civil War as artillery spotters. A huge
cloth envelope was suspended over bonfires so the heated air could rise into the
balloon and then lift into the sky, remaining aloft until the air cooled and it
descended. During World War I, the Germans used a large number of spotter
balloons which were filled with lighter-than-air hydrogen gas which was highly
inflammable. These became intriguing targets for Allied fighter planes and
pilots such as Frank Luke, the “Balloon Buster.” Most balloons used in World War
II were barrage balloons to discourage aircraft flying over cities. 
This burned out hulk of a Zeppelin was photographed
during WWI in England. The infamous Zeppelins were dirigibles and had an
interior metal structure.
Dirigibles have a
light-weight, metal structure with huge gas bags inside the framework. The
Hindenburg, Akron and Macon were dirigibles. Blimps have no structure, but
depend on the balloon’s inherent shape to hold the helium which is now used, as
it is non-flammable. The Goodyear airships are prime examples of modern
advertising blimps. The colorful balloons you see flying in your area on very
calm mornings are hot air balloons, but now the hot air is generated by huge
propane tanks hooked up to a burner that can be turned on or off. If the pilot
wants to climb, he fires up the propane burner, and that’s the loud (obnoxious)
noise you hear. If he wants to descend, he shuts off the burner. There is a huge
lag time, so needed changes of altitude to miss high tension wires or Widow
Jones clothes’ line is a must.
If you find the
subject of airships, blimps, balloons and dirigibles fascinating, I suggest you
Google the following: Frank Luke WWI Balloon Buster, Civil War Balloons,
Hindenburg Disaster, Parasite Aircraft, USS Macon, USS Akron. Let your fingers
do the walking.
__________________________________________________
Piper Twin Comanche
The PA-30 Twin Comanche is a very
fast, good looking, light twin. They were available with counter-rotating
propellers as the PA-39. Speeds were the same.
By Norm Goyer
I
always thought that the Twin Comanche was one of prettiest light twins ever. It
looked great from any angle. Piper had thought about adding a second engine to
the upcoming single-engine Comanche as early as 1956, two years before any
Comanches were introduced to the flying public. In 1962, Piper finally announced
the PA-30, which was basically a single engine Comanche with two Lycoming 160-hp
IO-320-B1As. These very reliable Lycomings were used on every Comanche produced
until the end of the line in 1972. The first twin Comanche was designated as
PA-30 and hit the market in 1963. This four-passenger light-twin was an instant
hit. The PA-30 had a very respectable high end of 205-mph, and a cruise speed of
194-mph at 8,000 feet.
Both the PA-30 and PA-39 were also
available with Lycoming 160-hp turbo-charged engines for higher altitude
operations.
In 1965, Piper
released the PA-30-B which held six passengers, including the pilot. The new
twin featured wing-tip tanks to increase the range, an extra window on each side
for the rear seat passengers, and a new interior. The PA-30B used Lycoming
IO-320-B four-cylinder engines which had been modified a bit, but were still
rated at 160-hp. The B model was also available with turbo-chargers for
increased high altitude performance. The turbo-charged engines added high
altitude performance, a top end speed of 240-mph and a cruise of 223-mph, at
23,000 feet. The 1968 and 1969 PA-30C had a different paint scheme and a
slightly lower altitude capability.
The next big
change to the very popular light twin from Lock Haven, Pennsylvania was the
addition of counter-rotating propellers to ease engine-out handling. Pilots had
been complaining about the difficulties with an engine-out. Piper answered by
adding engines that rotated in opposite directions which did lessen the job of
single-engine handling. The new engines were still LIO-320-B1A and RIO-320-BIA.
One left and one right rotation. During WWII, Lockheed found out, with their
P-38 Lightning, that counter-rotating engines are a great advantage in
twin-engine aircraft. The FAA considered this a major revision of the PA-30, and
had Piper recertify the aircraft as the PA-39-CR. The top-end and cruise-speed
were not affected by this change.
The Twin Comanche
line came to a close in 1971-1972 with the PA-39T-CR (Turbo-Counter Rotating).
Lycoming TIO-320-C1A left and right engines were used. Top speed was 234-mph and
the cruise was 222, the same as the turbo charged B model, but the single-engine
workload was lightened. When all Comanche production was terminated in 1972,
Piper was well into the twin-engine Seneca, basically a twin Cherokee Six.
Compared to the Comanche, it was pretty ugly, and much slower, but it did
provide an excellent multi-engine trainer for flight schools. The King is dead,
long live the King!
_______________________________ Zero out of the Rising Sun, Did it Really
Happen?
By: Norm Goyer
The replica Zero does look like a real Zero in the
air. This fleet of replica Japanese World War II aircraft are still being used
in movie productions.
One of the most
requested stories during my lecture tour is one of personal stupidity and
ultimate fun flying. Of course, when one has so much fun, it is possible that
others have the opposite reaction. I just hope I never have to meet this victim
face to face.
Replica Val number 78 was the aircraft that we
maintained and flew for several years. I painted the aircraft in our shop at
Apple Valley, California. It was great fun to fly and was super stable. It was
later sold to the Commemorative Air Force.
The owner of one
of the Hollywood Zeros called and asked if I could ferry the Tora! Tora! Tora!
replica warbird from Palm Springs Airport to Apple Valley, California, for some
routine maintenance before a scheduled film shoot. They needed the plane for
some footage they were taking for the “Baa Baa Black Sheep Squadron” TV series.
Our company maintained three of the Japanese replicas for the owner. Tina drove
me to Palm Springs so that I could fly the plane back at dawn, which would give
our mechanics the day to perform the scheduled maintenance. The Zero was tied
down, all fueled and ready to go. I am an experienced Texan pilot, and the
replica Zero was basically a Texan/Harvard that had the exterior radically
modified to resemble the nemesis of Pearl Harbor. The control differences were a
control stick with a circle on the top, typical of English and Canadian
aircraft. What always worried me were both the reversed mixture control and the
full-swiveling retractable tail wheel. I much preferred the lockable tail wheel
on my personal SNJ (Navy T-6.) I pre-flighted the big green camouflaged
aircraft with the red meat ball, and all systems were a go.
With not a breathe
of wind stirring the sun was just rising over the desert mountains, Palm Springs
control tower had just opened, and I had the runway and the airport to myself.
The date was December 7, 1975. I took off and deviated a bit to miss the 13,000
foot mountains that ring the airport, the same ones that had claimed Frank
Sinatra’s mother in a Lear Jet many years ago. There was a slight morning mist
rising from the hollows as I turned to a heading almost due west. This direction
ran along the base of the mountains where Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead reside at
the top. Below me was the two-lane California Route 247 running between Yucca
Valley and Lucerne Valley. I reached my cruising altitude of 4,000 feet, one
thousand more or less over the ground. The 600-hp Pratt purred along while the
airspeed indicator was hovering around 150 knots. What a glorious morning to be
flying. There were a few high cirrus clouds blown into mare’s tail formation by
the wind at altitude. The sun was streaking through the high clouds looking very
much like the Japanese flag featuring their rising sun.
Cross countries
flights have always been boring and this morning’s was no different. Then I
spotted it, an 18-wheeler, cruising along Rte 247, heading due east. I have very
poor will power and display a lack of common sense when flying warbirds. Before
I knew it, I advanced the throttle, picked up the rig in the ring sight and dove
down out of the sun. As I approached the rig, I fired the propane machine guns,
which emitted bright flashes and a very loud sound. As I flew over the truck I
commenced a slow roll and climbed back onto my heading. I looked in the small
rear view mirror and all I could see were smoke from the locked brakes and dust
engulfing the truck, as the driver screeched to a halt. He and his truck had
evaded my dawn attack, for which I was forever grateful.
Can you imagine
what was going through that poor driver’s mind? December 7, a Zero out of the
sun, machine guns blazing? I can imagine his supervisor’s look and reaction when
he told the story of his personal December 7 attack.
Now, before you
write and tell me how dumb I was, you must remember; I am a writer and you must
ask yourself, “Did this scenario really happen?’ Of course, if it did, then I
was stupid, immature and no pilot should ever fly so irresponsibly. But, again,
if it really happened, it must have been fun.”
___________________________________________
Aerocomp Homebuilt
Turbine Seaplanes
Bill Fedorko
took this takeoff photo of a Comp Air 8 on the Intra Coastal Waterway.
By: Norm Goyer
I have had the rare opportunity to have
flown and written about several different turbine-powered homebuilt float
planes. During the many years I was the editor of Sport Pilot, Custom Planes and
Private Pilot, I visited the AeroComp factory in Merritt Island, Florida,
situated right on the Intracoastal Waterway near Cape Canaveral, Florida. The
company had a long successful history in the fiberglass boat industry, plus the
owners loved aircraft and flying. With their combined knowledge of fiberglass
and aviation, the company designers decided their line of homebuilt high
performance multi-passenger “Experimental” aircraft would be turbine-powered.
This was a complete reversal of homebuilt philosophy, where the emphasis was
usually on inexpensive one-and two-passenger low-powered sport-type aircraft.
The Comp Air 7, Comp Air 8 and Comp Air 10 were the complete opposite of this
tradition. They held up to ten passengers, and could easily cruise at over 200
mph.
This Comp Air 8 on straight floats makes a low fly-by for
Fedorko’s camera
The engine chosen was the Walters 601-P which is very similar in size, operation
and power to the very well-known and-respected Pratt & Whitney PT-6 series of
small prop jet turbines. The Comp Air 7 is a very long nose taildragger which
has a cabin large enough to carry a full-size street-legal motorcycle, or seven
passengers. This particular long-nose beauty looked like it was doing 300 mph
sitting on the ground. And yes, it was the turbine installation and taildragger
configuration that molded its looks.
This ten passenger Comp Air 10
awaits its passengers on the shore in Florida. Note the added baggage-pod under
the fuselage.
The
Walters engines were bought surplus from the Czech Republic where they had been
removed from small airliners after they had run the number-of-hours limits for
passenger-carrying turbines. These engines were removed, mothballed in cans, and
shipped to an independent Walter overhaul shop in Florida. The owner recently
migrated from South Africa where he had a very successful Walter refurbishing
business. This shop and its employees were some of the most knowledgeable
turbine fabricators and rebuilders I have ever seen; shall we say operating-room
cleanliness. These are the engines installed in many AeroComp aircraft.
The beauty winner of the Comp
Air line is the Model 7 taildragger. This aircraft is extremely fast.
I have many hours in seaplanes, both on floats and flying boats, but I had never
flown a turbine-powered seaplane before. I was impressed; power to spare, and
ease of starting, maintenance, and a top speed rivaling wheeled retracts. Water
is a hazardous takeoff platform; the trick is to get in the air as fast as you
can. I had to abort one takeoff on the waterway when two playful dolphins
started leaping in my takeoff path. In the air, a floatplane is just another
airplane with improved handling, but on the water, well-designed floats,
combined with 650-shp, really gets you off and hauling butt. I really enjoyed
turbine seaplane flying. To learn more about the Comp Air line of products,
contact www.aerocomp.com.
--------------------------------------------
Pete Bower’s Fly Baby Pioneer Homebuilt Design
Peter Bowers was a avid model builder and designer. He worked as an engineer at
Boeing for most of his career. Bowers passed away in 2003.
By: Norm Goyer
Every activity has its pioneers and heroes.
Computers have Bill Gates, the Dodgers have Tommy Lasorda, hockey has Eddie
Shore and the Experimental Aircraft Association has Pete Bowers and his Fly
Baby. Few current pilots are aware that, immediately following WWII, only Oregon
would allow homebuilt/experimental aircraft to be flown. George Bogardus bought
his homebuilt “Wimpy” from designer Tom Story. Bogardus flew his homebuilt from
Oregon, on the west coast, to Washington, D.C. to prove that a homebuilt could
be just as safe as a certified aircraft. The Wimpy was a small, basic low-wing
homebuilt designed by Les Long. Story having sold his plane to Bogardus, he
needed a new aircraft, so he built two more Story Specials, #1 and #2. These
aircraft were flown for several years and then sold. Pete Bowers and several
other members of EAA Chapter 26 bought Story #2.
Bowers’ Fly Baby won the 1962 EAA competition for
Most Outstanding Homebuilt Design. Its folding wing and towing ability were the
deciding factors.
Bowers ended up building his own
version of the Story which he named the “Fly Baby” after a successful model
airplane he had designed. The purpose of Fly Baby was to enter an EAA design
competition, but the Fly Baby proved to be too fast and not that easy to fly. A
friend borrowed the aircraft and crashed it. Bowers, with the help of some of
Chapter 26 members, rebuilt the plane with a complete newly-designed fuselage
which solved the control problems. Bowers’ brand new Fly Baby proved to be the
winner.
The Fly Baby Bipe had completely different
swept-back wings. This allowed the pilot to enter the cockpit, but still kept
the CG in the correct location.
In 1962, Bower and his Fly Baby
won the competition over the Turner T-40, the Spezio Tuholer and the Nesmith
Cougar. One of the judging standards was the ease of transporting the aircraft
from your garage to the airport. The Fly Baby was perfect in this regard. It
didn’t need a trailer, for short distances as the landing gear (twelve ply birch
aircraft plywood) was strong enough to handle road conditions; the wings folded
to well below the width allowed on the roads, and it could be ready for flight
in only a few minutes. I know this to be true, as I owned a Fly Baby and towed
it, both on its wheels, and on a trailer, between Barstow-Daggett Airport, 50
miles away, and our home airport at Apple Valley several times. No problems. I
even took it home to paint it one year. The aircraft was of wood construction
covered with fabric.
Author has a quarter size Fly Baby RC model hanging
over his computer work station. It is powered with a large gasoline engine.
After the Fly Baby won at the
1962 Rockford, Ill EAA Air Show, Bowers wrote building instructions which were
published in “The Experimenter” magazine over a two-year period. Bowers thought
he would sell at least 500 sets of plans but ended up shipping out over 5000
plans. Then Bowers decided that the Fly Baby would make a good seaplane, so a
set of floats were designed for the monoplane. Then Bowers added another wing to
make it the Fly Baby Biplane. The bipe had different swept-back wings so the CG
could be kept in the proper range. The Fly Baby Bipe made a very nice-looking
aircraft.
RC model builders discovered
both the monoplane and biplane Fly Baby. Thousands were constructed from kits
and plans and many are still flying around the world. I have a museum quality,
giant-scale, Fly Baby with all wires turnbuckles and folding wings, hanging over
my computer work station. I loved to fly the full-scale Fly Baby. A few years
ago, I was at the Arlington, Washington EAA Northwest Fly-In and there she was,
N6GM still flying, and still beautifully maintained. Pete Bowers and his
Fly-Baby; another aviation icon.
_________________________ Beechcraft’s Most Popular Warbird, T-34 Mentor
The prototype Beechcraft T-34 Mentor and T-34A used
a 185-hp Continental with a redesigned V35 fuselage for two-place tandem
seating.
By: Norm Goyer
In 1948,
Beechcraft first tested their new, privately-financed Model 45 T-34 Mentor
military trainer. It was to be entered into the competition for a new primary
trainer to replace the North American T-6 Texan which did not represent the type
of aircraft that the military would be using in the future. Three aircraft firms
were bidding on the new trainer, which if accepted, would keep any manufacturer
busy for years to come. The specifications clearly spelled out what the services
had in mind; non-tail-dragger, non-radial engine, inexpensive to buy, operate
and maintain. Beechcraft read the fine print, Fairchild and Temco did not.
Fairchild’s entry was a T-6 look-alike, tail dragger, with a large radial
engine, while Temco redesigned their Swift into a tandem trainer; but it was
still a tail dragger. Military flying schools were simply tired of ground-loop
accidents which complicated their training methods.
|
| |
