Why does the pilot sit in the back in biplanes?

[TAF Oscar]

You'd think the forward view would be better from the front seat, so why does the pilot sit behind in aircraft with a tandem seating arrangement?

[bingoboy]

Puts him further from the scene of the accident. :D

[Stampe]

To keep the centre of gravity within the permissable range.

[Lowtimer]

A lot of biplanes are flown solo from the back seat partly to put the "optional" front seat load closer to the CG, but mainly because (despite what you might expect) the view is generally a lot _worse_ in the front seat, with wings above and below blocking your view to the sides. In the back of the Tiger Moth, Stearman or Stampe you have a much better view of the ground, and of the air you're turning into, than you do from the front.

[18greens]

They're not always flown from the back.

The Supercub I fly has its optional seat in the back. Its all down to CofG.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Then question was about biplanes, but I guess the principle applies to any tandem 2 seater.

The Chippy is flown solo from the front, as is the Yak, Supercub, Citabria, and many others.

The J3 (and L4) Cubs are flown solo from the back, as is Tiger Moth, Stampe etc.

It just depends where the designer put the seats relative to the CG. But even that's not consistant; the Chippy, Yak, and Tiger are all trainers. The Chippy and Yak put the instructor in the back seat, so the student gets the best view and when he solos it will be from the seat he did his dual in. The Tiger puts the instructor in the front (I presume - please correct if wrong) so that once again the student solos from the same seat as he flew dual. But as someone has said, the best view from a Tiger is from the back seat.

And Yak instructors must have faith in their new students - quite a bit of kit (including the vital cylinder head and oil cooler cowl flap controls) are omitted from the back cockpit.

SSD

[TAF Oscar]

Thanks for the info, another day old and wiser.

Cheers...TAFO

[tiger burn]

The Tiger & Gipsy Moths were traditionally designed by good old Geoffrey de Havilland as trainers & thus the instructor took the back seat whilst the pupil rode in front. Whether taxiing or in flight the view for manoeuvring is far superior from the back.In the front of a Gipsy or Tiger, the strutts, wires & wings can obstruct your field of vision etc & also as I'm quite small I find I adopt a slight nose down attitude (& a couple of cushions!) to give me that little bit extra.

You can also use the front cockpit space to fit an auxillary fuel tank thus facilitating greater range.

Hope this helps.

Happy flying!


:) :)

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: tiger burn ]

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: tiger burn ]

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

TB - that's what I wondered - hence my uncertainty in my post. But if students flew from front, and the Tiger has to be soloed from back, how did they go solo? I can't believe they did all dual from fron, then swapped to back for solo - it's very different landing one from the back seat compared to the front!

SSD

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]

[tiger burn]

Hi Shaggy!Students don't do all dual from the front seat. They do a few hours in the front seat (learn the principles etc) then swap with the instructor.......so no they don't go "cold" for their 1st solo from the back seat.

They just freeze instead!!!!!!! Tee hee!

I've heard rumours that during WW2, student pilots would get about 5 hours in a Tiger Moth & then would be sent straight out in a Spitfire. :eek:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

TB said

"I've heard rumours that during WW2, student pilots would get about 5 hours in a Tiger Moth & then would be sent straight out in a Spitfire. "

Sounds like a certain way to write off a Spitfire to me - and a pilot ;~)

I thought they did a bit on a Harvard or something similar before the front line fighter. But either way they were woefully undertrained and many, I'm sure, were killed by their own aeroplanes rather than by enemy action.

SSD

[Lucifer]

Read Roald Dahl's Going Solo if you really want to see how much training he got before combat.

[Tiger_ Moth]

Its because the general view is better for taxiing, turning etc as there isnt so much wing/ struts in the way. When you land you stick your head out the side so it doesnt matter too much.

Its also to do with balance and on a Tiger Moth you can only see the fuel level if you're in the rear seat.

Ive done all my flying in the back seat, ive never been in the front which is sensible as that is where ill sit if I fly on my own.

Five hours on a Tiger Moth and straight onto a spitfire??? Dont be stupid that would never happen, they wouldnt even have soloed by then. They did about 50 hours or something on Tiger Moths , I think, then they went onto Harvards for advanced training and then went onto type. I dont think anyone should have been in combat with less than 150/200 hours or something. Ill have to look up that Dahl book, looks interesting.

[Mycroft]

Not quite in line with the topic, but early in WW2 some of the RAF squadrons in France had their Gladiators replaced with Hurricanes without additional training, so although they were experienced with biplanes their first experience with monoplnes was in a front line fighter

[tiger burn]

Tiger_Moth.....'bout time you grew up? Speak to some RAF Veterans & they may tell you how it really was? Perhaps 5 hours was a slight exageration, but then your claim of 150 - 200hrs before combat is simply far fetched.....for a start there was a dire shortage of pilots. Training for Roald Dahl & his contemporaries probably amounted to double figures if they were lucky & then sent out in Spitfires & Hurricanes,often without instruction on type - so yes there were casualties. Some went straight from the single engined trainers onto Mosquitos etc. Tough stuff.


Read the delightful Stuart McKay's fabulous tome on Tiger Moths.......you might learn something?

[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: tiger burn ]

[FNG]

tiger burn, I realise that it's something of a tradition in the Private Flying Forum to be rude to Tiger Moth, but here he is closer to the reality than you are.

It's true to say that the pressures on Fighter Command in 1940 were such that some of the pilots hadn't had enough training, particularly on the front line types, but the idea of freckle faced 19 year olds jumping out of their MGs and into Spitfires with only a few hours total time in their log books is one of those BoB myths.

The heroic achievements of those pilots are no less admirable when one acknowledges that, as well as being gutsy, they were in general well trained and well led, working within a brilliantly conceived and organised integrated air defence system. That's why they won. As for the other lot: in my opinion they have been overrated by romanticising historians and all those dodgy militaria buffs who still adhere to the notion of German military superiority, mainly because they had cool looking uniforms and called each other things like Sturmbannfuehrer, which to some strange people sounds a lot hipper than "Skipper"

There are also some reflections on WW2 pilot training in Pierre Clostermann's memoirs. He was trained quite intensively even though already an experienced pilot when he joined the RAF. That was in 1942, when things were not as desperate as they had been earlier, although dawn was still some way off.

[foxmoth]

This thread is going a little off line, but if you want to talk about going into action with little experience look at the 1st WW not the 2nd.
Not only were most of the pilots going into action with VERY little experience (yes, often single figures0, butthey were flying ROTAry engine aircraft which meant a LOT of torque and so very hard to handle, this also meant they were liberely plastered in castor oil (due to the dead loss oil system) which gives you the runs, to combat this problem they would drink brandy (I believe the RFC were actually allowed to indent for brandy for this reason), and they would also be flying at heights of 15,000' or more to try and get the height advantage.
To sum up, these inexperienced pilots would be flying a difficult aircraft, s*****ing themselves (literally), pissed and anoxic - And all this without a parachute!

[FlyingForFun]

Wish I could remember where I read this, coz then I'd type it up properly including names, etc. It may have been on Avweb, I'll go and have a look there and post a link later if I find it.

The story goes that, at the start of WW1, the spin was not understood at all - if a pilot spun, he died. Then, some mathematician studied the spin, and figured out that the rudder could be used to get out of a spin. He got into his aircraft, climbed to the aircraft's service ceiling, and deliberately put the aircraft into a spin. The small gathering of people watching from the ground expected the worst, but the pilot applied opposite rudder, and the spin began to slow done, and eventually stop. Just to prove it wasn't a fluke, the pilot put the aircraft into a climb, went back up, and did the same thing again. This was the first ever spin recovery.

Well, (to get vaguely back on topic) British pilots began to learn about this technique, and practiced it - and used it during dogfights. Whenever things got a bit messy, they would deliberately put their aircraft into a spin. The Germans would see their oponents spinning, and, believing the fight to be over and the openent to be as good as dead, would head home. Then the Brits would apply oppoiste rudder, recover from the spin, chase after the German and shoot him down!

Ah, those were the days!

FFF
------------

[Tiger_ Moth]

Tiger Burn, how can someone who claims 5 hours possibly criticise someone who says 150, your estimate was incredibly wrong, mine was just a bit wrong, even in the First World War you wouldnt have pilots with 5 hours going into combat. And just because I got something slightly wrong it doesnt mean I need to grow up. I have got that book actually and its very good, its even got pictures of the Tiger Moths I fly in.
Its true FNG it does seem to be a custom to be rude to me on these forums. Why do you think that is? Im the young one, so im the one who ought to be rude to you lot while you older more "grown up" people should show your alleged maturity by not slagging me off all the time: Tiger Burn. Especially if they are more wrong than me.

Its true, in the First World War, at least earlier on in it they did regard the spin as certain death, just like fire in the air as Cecil Lewis says.

Sorry to whoever started this topic, I just realised how wildly off the point we`ve spun.

[TAF Oscar]

Yes, it has gone off at something of a tangent from the question I asked, but nonetheless it's an interesting discussion - please feel free to carry on!

TAFO

[FNG]

FFF, wasn't the first known spin recovery accomplished by Lt Parke RN in (I think) a Boxkite some time before WW1? The spin was initially referred to by Brit pilots as "Parke's Dive". The bloke you refer to was perhaps the first to understand why an aircraft spun and how and why it recovered?

As for WW1 pilot experience, I recall reading in Pilot Mag a while back of a Nieuport ace who was made an instructor with fewer than 30 hours. The occasional reports by the Shuttleworth pilots in that and other publications suggest just how hard those early machines were to fly. I seem to recall that Cecil Lewis was slightly unusual in that he was (mis) posted as a ferry pilot after training and so had, relatively speaking, lots of hours and types when he later joined his first front line unit. It speaks volumes to his skill that he recorded combat successes in a Morane Parasol, generally regarded as a pilot killer.

Tiger Moth, how's it going? Sounds like you've been making some progress with the mighty sideways flying machine. Keep it going and don't let the grumpies get to you.

[FlyingForFun]

Quite possible, FNG - I couldn't find where I got this story from, and I'm not known for remembering facts particularly accurately. I thought it was a good story, though!

FFF
-----------

[poetpilot]

Tiger Moth - you're quite right in that this media (internet) allows some people to be incredibly rude, disparaging & potentially off putting to relatively inexperienced people. 'course, they can do it from the anonymity & safety of their little virtual caves...

But my advice is just chill out, dont get worried, they get at me too sometimes, and I've been flying for a long while now. I think it may be to do with the fact that aviation is an individualist past-time, and therefore attracts a lot of "individuals" (logically enough!). Egos need massaging, superiority needs to be established, etc etc....

Luckily I can assure you (and you probably know anyway) that there are also a lot of great people in aviation, who are only too pleased to listen, discuss, and yes, correct innacuracies, but in a non-combative way.

Just think of the negative ones as the equivalent of the irritating BMW 6 feet off your back bumper on a country road, itching to get past, shove his finger up at you and show you how smart, fast & clever he is. Without his car he's probably a vulnerable wreck.

They are the ones with the problems, not you!

[Tiger_ Moth]

Its going quite well. I had a period a while back where I didnt fly for ages but in the last few weeks Ive been lucky with the weather. Seems like i could fly tommorrow too. Ive been flying around and around in circles lately which is fun as I like landing and taking off.

Was Lewis a ferry pilot when he first went to France? I thought he just arrived at St. Omer where all the ferry pilots were and they kept him there just to gain more time but he didnt actually ferry anything. He did his first loop and forced landing at the same time and ruined a Bristol Bullet when he was there.

Has anyone heard of "Flying Fury" by James McCudden. I heard it mentioned somewhere. Is it diaries or what and is it good?

[MLS-12D]

Yes TM, Flying Fury is a good read. See further this site (http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheets/flying_fury.htm) [the hyperbole about McCudden being "the RFC's greatest fighter ace" is debateable, but don't let that deter you from searching out a copy].

People who believe all this talk of pilots being sent straight onto Spitfires after five hours on Moths doubtless believe those stories about the Germans eating babies in Belgium during WWI, the recent Iraq invasion was necessary because there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc. etc. There are any number of firsthand RAF/RCAF/RAAF/SAAF/RZNAF accounts that document the relatively lengthy period of pilot training, even during the dark days of the Battle of Britain.

[Tiger_ Moth]

Better late than never! In the 2 or so years (!) since my last entry on this post I did manage to track down a copy and read it. But thanks anyway. The most amazing thing is the way he started off as a mechanic in the ranks and ended up a Major with a VC. Reminds me of the TV series Sharpe.

[QDMQDMQDM]

There are any number of firsthand RAF/RCAF/RAAF/SAAF/RZNAF accounts that document the relatively lengthy period of pilot training, even during the dark days of the Battle of Britain.

Yes, read Geoffrey Wellum, First Light, for evidence of this. He was trained in 1939/40, before OTUs came into being, and even then had a reasonable amount of training. It was only in WW1 that pilots were sent off with 20 hours to fight the enemy.

David

[Evo]

Well, as it's been two years, how are things are going with the "mighty sideways flying machine"? :)

[Tiger_ Moth]

First Light is one of the best flying books around.

Flying is going well, I've got about 33 hours now, 5 or 6 of which are solo. I keep trying to get off on solo cross countries but then getting stood down at the last minute because of weather. It's seems a bit optimistic that I get my licence this summer but it's quite possible if I'm lucky with the weather. I have to do at least 3 solo x countries and one dual landaway before I'm looking at doing the qualifying x country.

Sideways flying machine? I don't get it, I've never heard that saying before. Is it because the Moth is so slow that if it flys in a strong cross wind it's practically flying sideways??

[Evo]

No idea - that's what FNG called it two years ago :)

Do you have to do 150nm in a Moth for your QXC? Seems a bit unfair somehow.

[FNG]

Big rudder, weedy ailerons, goes sideways most of the time.

[Tiger_ Moth]

No I don't thank God! We get an exemption so I end up doing about a 100nm or something like that. Will still take 3 or 4 hours with all the stops and refuelling etc.

Thanks for clearing that up FNG, I get it now.

[MLS-12D]

Oh come on! If Francis Chichester, Amy Johnson et al. could fly their Gypsy Moths all the way down to Oz, sure you can fly a lousy 150 nm in a Tiger!

Exemptions be damned! You know that you're made of sterner stuff! Go for it! :ok:

[Dude~]

Just read the book 'First Light' myself. The author did about 50 hrs Tiger Moth, then a few dozen hours on a complex type (Harvard - something way beuond the scope of most modern CAA PPLs) then he went straight to an active squadron. The CO almost refused him permision to stay because he was so inexperienced to fly fly a Spitfire with his ~160hrs. Indeed he nearly killed him self several times during his familiarisation flights in the Spit.

There is no way an inexperienced flyer could handle a 2000hp piston engine tailwheel aircarft.

Anyway, read the book, 'tis bloody good!

[MLS-12D]

dude, Thanks for the recommendation. I obtained a copy of First Light, and I agree, it's a good book.

[Miserlou]

A point of interest, back in the 50's they used to race Tigers from the front seat due to c of g thus reduced tail down force thus more efficient aerodynamics.

It is quite often noticable on ait to air shots of the Tiger; slight down elevator.

[MLS-12D]

Harvard - something way beyond the scope of most modern CAA PPLsI began my conversion training on Harvards this past weekend, and can confirm that it is a rather big step up from the Citabria and Supercub that I have been flying. It's definitely going to take some time before I am safe for solo.