The second part of the title of the original post is "pure flying skills are for the birds."
Back in 1999, Flight Safety Australia magazine awarded a $500 prize to a pilot who offered his story for a "What went Wrong" competition. I am sure FSA and the pilot concerned (an old airline mate of mine) won't mind if I reproduce edited extracts from his story. It demonstrates pure flying skills are not only for the birds. And one wonders how today's wizards of the automatics would cope if something like this happened to them should they hire a Cessna or other lightie for a circuit or two.
"In July 1951, when a DC3 first officer based in Melbourne, I went to Mackay, Queensland, to ferry a Tiger Moth back to Melbourne.. The airline's chief inspector was to be on the ferry for technical support.
Rebuild of the aircraft had just been completed following damage sustained when a hangar collapsed during a cyclone. The owner carried out the first flight which I watched: everything was OK except the elevator control was a bit "offish". As I had not flown a Tiger for nine months a short flight would serve the purpose of providing familiarisation and giving a very helpful Mackay resident a joy ride. Checks were carried out in the usual DH 82 fashion while taxiing. Flying controls were checked and found to be "full, free and correct" as expected.
On take off the machine waddled down the runway then leapt into the air of its own accord. I was suddenly aware of climbing with 38 knots on the clock. Normal climb in the Tiger was 58 knots. The auto-slats were standing open like the legendary clutching claws of fate, and the aircraft's nose was still rising despite the fact the stick was full forward. Not a pretty picture.
To gain airspeed the machine was stood on it's port wingtips using rudder: the nose dropped, speed increased and problem number one was solved. Problem number two soon emerged - the aircraft insisted upon a tight left hand turn which couldn't be controlled with rudder - not really disturbing as a turn was necessary to return for landing. However, the left turn took us straight toward about six HF radio masts complete with aerials and guy wires.
Reduced bank produced a hop over that obstacle and a slipping descending turn was made to line up with the runway. Beaut! Except for problem number three, which became evident as the wings were levelled for landing; the nose popped up and we were climbing again. The second circuit was like the first although the speed was reduced to allow the wings to be levelled for landing; the reduction was insufficient and once again we were climbing.
Third time around proved lucky, the machine made quite a respectable landing by stalling completely as the wings came level. Almost a three-pointer, not bad after nine months. Had anyone been interested, three circuits with the stick full forward in less than two minutes would have been some sort of record. I apologised to the local passenger for the scary ride, disgustedly kicked one tyre hard, and returned to Melbourne. Later the aircraft flew normally after correction.
So, what went wrong? The control box was incorrectly assembled and at some stage the down-elevator cables became slack. Elevator control on the Tiger Moth is achieved by fore and aft rocking of a lever which is about 12 inches long pivoted at its centre; up-and-down elevator cables are attached to the ends of the lever.
Midway between the lever's pivot and it's lower end is a hole by which the control stick is attached. All of this is below and slightly behind the rear seat. No inspection doors are provided and the whole is concealed by the fabric cover of the aft fuselage. Cables cross inside the fuselage and exit the side covers about half-way between the rear cockpit and the leading edge of the tailplane. The rod from from the stick assembly was incorrectly attached to the lower extremity of the pivoted lever.
Back stick gave up-elevator correctly. As the stick was moved forward, slackness in the down-elevator cables allowed the elevators to fall down under their own weight. On take off, as the stick was moved forward to raise the tail, the elevator took up the streamlined position behind the tailplane as slipstream and airspeed increased. Unknown to me, was the fact that in straight and level flight of the Tiger Moth, the elevators are depressed by about 15 to 20 degrees. With the elevators streamlined behind the tailplane, a strong nose-up pitch force is experienced by the aircraft. Hence the aircraft left the ground in a tail-down attitude.
Fine tuning of cable tensions was done by the Mackay LAME, my company chief inspector, and the most senior Queensland Department of Civil Aviation aircraft surveyor. Obviously they believed the aircraft to be airworthy.
Fortunately I had received good training with the RAAF on Wirraways, Miles Masters, Spitfires and Typhoons, in authorised low flying, stalls, spins, aerobatics and recovery from unusual attitudes. All proved valuable".
An analysis of the incident by an FSA writer stated: The gratifying aspect of this tale is the skill and presence of mind that the writer displayed to land his aircraft given the significant control problems that were encountered. So, although the system let the pilot down, the basic skills which were developed during his initial pilot training and his subsequent experience, provided him with the depth of knowledge necessary to save this unusual situation.
............................................................ ...................................
A37575 comment: An hour of dual in an aerobatic aircraft might be a worthwhile long term investment for airline pilots. Probably claimable on tax, too. Or have a simulator instructor teach you unusual attitude recoveries.