Evaluating stall characteristics - best procedure?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Returning to the specifics of stalling in the GA community I really do wish that QFIs did demo the gentle and very easy flight test approach before putting students through the 'close the throttle fly level and recover when it stalls' manoeuvre. In my view the latter can result in quite an off-putting experience for a low hour student.
On my first experience of a demonstrated stall, we got an incipient spin and it made me nervous of stalling for quite a few hours afterwards.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this is an interesting debate!
I'm not a TP but I am and end user of aeroplanes; many different types of aeroplanes. It seems to me that we are having a heated agreement here!
I always thought that our TP colleagues have two very different jobs to perform; sometimes simultaneously, sometimes separately. Fist, how does this machine behave? Second question, is the behavior of this machine fit for its intended purpose?
I'm not, as I said a TP but, I am a fighter pilot, FI, airline captain (depending on the day of the week!) and so, while I have no relevant expertise to contribute to the first part of the TP's job I do believe that my experience is relevant to the second question; is the machine fit for purpose!
Surely, the testing of a new design is conducted from these two differing points of view? As a user I am not particularly interested in the bare bones analysis of a new machine (although I certainly acknowledge the importance of investigating and defining that). Rather, I am much more interested in learning if the new machine will do the job I want to use it for!
Pure flight testing and role related testing should go hand in hand!
With that in mind why would a QFI want to teach a "gentle and very easy flight test approach" to the stall if that is not how it might present itself in normal flight operations? We are not teaching pilots with just 12 hours in their logbooks to fly flight test profiles, we are teaching students to deal with situations they might encounter in normal flight operations!
In my experience a student pilot can cope with all sorts of new and potentially frightening situations if he is properly briefed and prepared for the event; after all, every time we take off I am presenting him with new and potentially frightening experiences! QFIs teach pilots to be prepared for situations which might happen in the real world of flying day to day; not how to repeat flight test techniques which demand deep understanding and very precise and highly skilled flying to create.
I have never had a student who was unduly concerned about stalling because I have always explained what to expect and and made sure that he understood what we were doing before starting the starting the exercise.
There are, in my mind three separate questions...
How does this aeroplane behave?
Is its behavior suitable for its intended task?
How can I best use this machine to teach a student about flying?
Question 1 is purely for TPs; question 3 is purely for QFIs but, crucially, question 2 has to be answered by both together!
I think I have just agreed with JF. Ghengis, I'm sure that you are absolutely right when you say that there are companies who do not thoroughly investigate the behavior of their products but, aren't you saying the same thing as John? TPs need to find out what a new machine does, then asses if it is suitable for the intended purpose? QFIs need to teach students to anticipate and cope with situations they may find in real life day to day flying and, to do this effectively they need to have machines suitable to that purpose.
It is not appropriate for a QFI to teach a new student how to fly a TP investigative technique. We need to teach and fully explain how aeroplanes behave and how to operate them in normal service .
Happy landings to all!!
3 point
I'm not a TP but I am and end user of aeroplanes; many different types of aeroplanes. It seems to me that we are having a heated agreement here!
I always thought that our TP colleagues have two very different jobs to perform; sometimes simultaneously, sometimes separately. Fist, how does this machine behave? Second question, is the behavior of this machine fit for its intended purpose?
I'm not, as I said a TP but, I am a fighter pilot, FI, airline captain (depending on the day of the week!) and so, while I have no relevant expertise to contribute to the first part of the TP's job I do believe that my experience is relevant to the second question; is the machine fit for purpose!
Surely, the testing of a new design is conducted from these two differing points of view? As a user I am not particularly interested in the bare bones analysis of a new machine (although I certainly acknowledge the importance of investigating and defining that). Rather, I am much more interested in learning if the new machine will do the job I want to use it for!
Pure flight testing and role related testing should go hand in hand!
With that in mind why would a QFI want to teach a "gentle and very easy flight test approach" to the stall if that is not how it might present itself in normal flight operations? We are not teaching pilots with just 12 hours in their logbooks to fly flight test profiles, we are teaching students to deal with situations they might encounter in normal flight operations!
In my experience a student pilot can cope with all sorts of new and potentially frightening situations if he is properly briefed and prepared for the event; after all, every time we take off I am presenting him with new and potentially frightening experiences! QFIs teach pilots to be prepared for situations which might happen in the real world of flying day to day; not how to repeat flight test techniques which demand deep understanding and very precise and highly skilled flying to create.
I have never had a student who was unduly concerned about stalling because I have always explained what to expect and and made sure that he understood what we were doing before starting the starting the exercise.
There are, in my mind three separate questions...
How does this aeroplane behave?
Is its behavior suitable for its intended task?
How can I best use this machine to teach a student about flying?
Question 1 is purely for TPs; question 3 is purely for QFIs but, crucially, question 2 has to be answered by both together!
I think I have just agreed with JF. Ghengis, I'm sure that you are absolutely right when you say that there are companies who do not thoroughly investigate the behavior of their products but, aren't you saying the same thing as John? TPs need to find out what a new machine does, then asses if it is suitable for the intended purpose? QFIs need to teach students to anticipate and cope with situations they may find in real life day to day flying and, to do this effectively they need to have machines suitable to that purpose.
It is not appropriate for a QFI to teach a new student how to fly a TP investigative technique. We need to teach and fully explain how aeroplanes behave and how to operate them in normal service .
Happy landings to all!!
3 point
I'm pretty certain that I was agreeing with JF about what good practice is (although given his massively greater experience and credibility than mine, I'm not sure that he needs it!), but I was suggesting that not everybody out there - particularly in the light aircraft industry - follows this sort of best practice in ensuring that they include role related test points in a programme.
Any good test programme (regardless of the aircraft type or class) should almost certainly include both "pure" flight testers, and user-operators - often TPs may have that user experience (military flight test organisations usually make very sure of this), but if not it does need to be brought into the test team. But, I think that this is something that's been accepted for a very long time - plenty of test pilot autobiographies have discussed this, for example with Jeffrey Quill's occasional forays to the front line to ensure he knew what current fighter pilots were actually doing with their Spitfires.
I can recall as a student being worried by a few manoeuvres: particularly stalls and spins - perhaps I wasn't well enough briefed, but I don't think so. I agree that students do need to see the worst that the aeroplane may (within reason) do to them, but don't see why that needs to be the starting point of their experiences. A benign idle 1kn/s wings level stall to a mush-descent is surely a reasonable introduction to stalling for a student, even if they'll go rather beyond that before the instructor has finished with them.
G
Any good test programme (regardless of the aircraft type or class) should almost certainly include both "pure" flight testers, and user-operators - often TPs may have that user experience (military flight test organisations usually make very sure of this), but if not it does need to be brought into the test team. But, I think that this is something that's been accepted for a very long time - plenty of test pilot autobiographies have discussed this, for example with Jeffrey Quill's occasional forays to the front line to ensure he knew what current fighter pilots were actually doing with their Spitfires.
I can recall as a student being worried by a few manoeuvres: particularly stalls and spins - perhaps I wasn't well enough briefed, but I don't think so. I agree that students do need to see the worst that the aeroplane may (within reason) do to them, but don't see why that needs to be the starting point of their experiences. A benign idle 1kn/s wings level stall to a mush-descent is surely a reasonable introduction to stalling for a student, even if they'll go rather beyond that before the instructor has finished with them.
G
Genghis ---I agree
further the stabilized stall BEST replicates the conditions experienced on approach to land the worst place to stall--all of the other stuff is to show that a stall can happen at any airspeed at any attiude and any power setting
not to scare to warn
PA
further the stabilized stall BEST replicates the conditions experienced on approach to land the worst place to stall--all of the other stuff is to show that a stall can happen at any airspeed at any attiude and any power setting
not to scare to warn
PA
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhere on Youtube there is a video of new F-16 flt. control software being evaluated. The bird was loaded with asymmetric stores (as in halfway through an air-air encounter) and a high-G stall induced. The bird tumbled (as expected) but was recovered within the desired time/altitude parameters.
A good example of "what if" testing, not terribly different from my PT-22 "test" - although I'm sure the F-16 guy got knocked around quite a bit.
EDIT:
YouTube - F-16 Loss of Control, Test Pilot on Yaw Departure
A good example of "what if" testing, not terribly different from my PT-22 "test" - although I'm sure the F-16 guy got knocked around quite a bit.
EDIT:
YouTube - F-16 Loss of Control, Test Pilot on Yaw Departure
Last edited by barit1; 18th Nov 2009 at 14:11.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Genghis,
Yes, I acknowledge that you were agreeing with JF; as I said I think we are all in agreement here.
Your last post above is spot on, particularly the final paragraph. Of course a student needs to be exposed to the range of an aeroplane's behaviors and certainly, it is usually wise to start from the benign and move towards the "interesting" aspects of that behavior! The exact starting point, the rate of progress and the ultimate goal will vary from student to student and the art of teaching is to match the lessons to the student's capacity.
PA is spot on too. The gentle approach to a stall with very gradual rates of change replicates very well an unexpected stall on approach. But the operational pilot needs to be equally well trained and prepared for other situations eg ...
level flight, possibly autopilot in altitude hold, engine failure or autothrust trips off, pilot busy with associated actions does not notice approaching stall ... has happened, will happen again!
Engine failure on climb (in multi engine or, worse single engined aeroplane) pilot focuses on dealing with engine failure, aeroplane approaches stall very rapidly indeed.
I'd slightly amend PA's final comment; not to scare but to educate!
Happy landings!
Yes, I acknowledge that you were agreeing with JF; as I said I think we are all in agreement here.
Your last post above is spot on, particularly the final paragraph. Of course a student needs to be exposed to the range of an aeroplane's behaviors and certainly, it is usually wise to start from the benign and move towards the "interesting" aspects of that behavior! The exact starting point, the rate of progress and the ultimate goal will vary from student to student and the art of teaching is to match the lessons to the student's capacity.
PA is spot on too. The gentle approach to a stall with very gradual rates of change replicates very well an unexpected stall on approach. But the operational pilot needs to be equally well trained and prepared for other situations eg ...
level flight, possibly autopilot in altitude hold, engine failure or autothrust trips off, pilot busy with associated actions does not notice approaching stall ... has happened, will happen again!
Engine failure on climb (in multi engine or, worse single engined aeroplane) pilot focuses on dealing with engine failure, aeroplane approaches stall very rapidly indeed.
I'd slightly amend PA's final comment; not to scare but to educate!
Happy landings!
genghis
"A benign idle 1kn/s wings level stall to a mush-descent is surely a reasonable introduction to stalling for a student"
As far as I recall it that was pretty much how CFS decreed stalling should be introduced to the stude on the JP3/5...(yeah, yeah I know...) As I recall it the demo was done at the back end of one of the early S&L exercises...Bloggs then did the full Stalling one exercise on the next trip.
"A benign idle 1kn/s wings level stall to a mush-descent is surely a reasonable introduction to stalling for a student"
As far as I recall it that was pretty much how CFS decreed stalling should be introduced to the stude on the JP3/5...(yeah, yeah I know...) As I recall it the demo was done at the back end of one of the early S&L exercises...Bloggs then did the full Stalling one exercise on the next trip.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not appropriate for a QFI to teach a new student how to fly a TP investigative technique. We need to teach and fully explain how aeroplanes behave and how to operate them in normal service .
My patter is on the lines of "When test pilots are looking at how a new aeroplane stalls they don't like frights so they do it this way (quick demo) which enables them to nibble at the AoA to gently investigate what happens.
However if you (bloggs) should stall by accident then it is likely that you will overshoot to a much higher AoA because of the rate at which you are approaching the stall therefore you must learn what that is like and learn to cope with it" (demo S&L throttle shut) "Not the same eh?" "Now you have a go....etc etc"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi JF,
No objection to using a structured introduction and going from the benign demonstration to the real wold situation involving the more aggressive AOA excursion in the way you describe; indeed this seems an ideal learning process.
Your patter is nice and I've used similar myself, particularly with the nervous student. You will see from my examples above that I advocate teaching staling in realistic scenarios but the gentle measured approach you describe is a perfect introduction.
I was uncomfortable with the comments made earlier in the thread to the effect that QFIs "should teach students to stall like TPs do it and not S&L, idle thrust which is too scary" (paraphrased of course!).
No need for us to agree to disagree ... we are in complete agreement!
Happy landings
3 Point
No objection to using a structured introduction and going from the benign demonstration to the real wold situation involving the more aggressive AOA excursion in the way you describe; indeed this seems an ideal learning process.
Your patter is nice and I've used similar myself, particularly with the nervous student. You will see from my examples above that I advocate teaching staling in realistic scenarios but the gentle measured approach you describe is a perfect introduction.
I was uncomfortable with the comments made earlier in the thread to the effect that QFIs "should teach students to stall like TPs do it and not S&L, idle thrust which is too scary" (paraphrased of course!).
No need for us to agree to disagree ... we are in complete agreement!
Happy landings
3 Point
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CirrusF
I recently had the interesting experience of sitting in on a preliminary evaluation of a light aircraft (DA42) by a French military test pilot at CEV Istres. One of the checks was on the stall characteristics.
I was interested to observe that the TP seemed to pay no attention to holding the altitude steady in the approach to the stall, and the stall characteristics (both clean and in landing configuration) were recorded when we were in a descent of around 700fpm. He appeared to keep the stick deflection constant as the stall approached.
This seemed odd to me (as just a CPL) as in all the training I have ever been subjected to, I have been told to maintain altitude until stall, requiring a rapidly increasing stick deflection as we go down the wrong side of the lift/drag curve.
As a frustrated wannabee test pilot I'd be grateful for any comments!
I was interested to observe that the TP seemed to pay no attention to holding the altitude steady in the approach to the stall, and the stall characteristics (both clean and in landing configuration) were recorded when we were in a descent of around 700fpm. He appeared to keep the stick deflection constant as the stall approached.
This seemed odd to me (as just a CPL) as in all the training I have ever been subjected to, I have been told to maintain altitude until stall, requiring a rapidly increasing stick deflection as we go down the wrong side of the lift/drag curve.
As a frustrated wannabee test pilot I'd be grateful for any comments!
All other departure test is performed on a step by step process as requested through the engineering data point card.
On teaching stall to students (I've noticed a few posts on this in the thread so will address here)
The problem for instructors when teaching stall to a new student is that the student will learn and retain nothing if under stress or feeling apprehension of any kind. Although some students will take easily to stalls, others require a careful and structured approach to what will be a totally new flight experience for a new student. If the instructor isn't innovative and doesn't take the time to properly prepare a new student for flight on and beyond the left side of the envelope, the result can easily be a student doing the required maneuvers by rote while stressed, and a student highly unlikely to act correctly down the line if actual stall is encountered.
With this in mind, instructors are well advised to recognize that although all stall occurs at the same aoa and the IAS for stall at GW is placarded for Vso and Vs on the ASI, this scenario is for a 1g wings level stall and that almost ALL stall encountered in the real world in actual situations will be accelerated and possibly cross controlled.
The problem for the instructor therefore is to be able to introduce stall gently using the 1g power off level flight scenario allowing the student to build confidence. The instructor should as well during this period, gently build up the student so that the more useful and necessary realm of accelerated stall can be introduced.
If done properly, a good CFI can take a student all the way through a complete stall education without building unnecessary stress levels.
A student trained in this manner will be a better pilot, having a more rounded approach to stall centered around stall occurring at the same aoa but VERY different airspeeds dependent on flight factors.
Dudley Henriques
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudley makes a good point.
In my case, well before I took formal lessons, I had ridden through many stalls in several different aircraft (that was my dad's way of evaluating whether a plane was "honest" or not). It was no big deal for me - even if we had quite a roll at the break.
And I've met pilots who were scared to death of stalls etc. I never quite understood that - how can they be competent if they don't reinforce stall practice occasionally?
In my case, well before I took formal lessons, I had ridden through many stalls in several different aircraft (that was my dad's way of evaluating whether a plane was "honest" or not). It was no big deal for me - even if we had quite a roll at the break.
And I've met pilots who were scared to death of stalls etc. I never quite understood that - how can they be competent if they don't reinforce stall practice occasionally?
And I've met pilots who were scared to death of stalls etc. I never quite understood that - how can they be competent if they don't reinforce stall practice occasionally?
Me: "Can you tell me what the aeroplane normally stalled like"
Owner: "Stall? I never stalled, I'm not stupid."
G
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R&N has two threads about a Jet Airways check capt. who pulled a circuit breaker disabling the R/A. The PF landed "with difficulty" per the press release.
Leaving aside the issue of pulling CB's on a revenue flight (although I am reminded of Ernest Gann's trial by fire as a new DC-2 FO) - What is this world coming to?
Leaving aside the issue of pulling CB's on a revenue flight (although I am reminded of Ernest Gann's trial by fire as a new DC-2 FO) - What is this world coming to?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post JF!
I'd add that certification of regimes such as stall, inherently a departure from controlled flight, is a detailed subject, and not suitable for forum elaboration.
I was about to fly the prototype F-14A with improved ARI the day on which the chief USN test pilot spun it to the Chesapeake Bay. Even the most experienced might find this regime too much for them to handle.
I'd add that certification of regimes such as stall, inherently a departure from controlled flight, is a detailed subject, and not suitable for forum elaboration.
I was about to fly the prototype F-14A with improved ARI the day on which the chief USN test pilot spun it to the Chesapeake Bay. Even the most experienced might find this regime too much for them to handle.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.F,
I was once ' along for the ride ' - as you know I''m SLF or similar - in a light Piper twin we're both familiar with.
The pilot was an irregular, ex-Lightning pilot about to go to Saudi on export Hawks, kicking his heels and got the job of checking this aircraft's stall warning system, which had been U/S, now apparently rectified.
He was already the only pilot who has truly frightened me, flying the same aircraft so low that I could see the bolt-heads on a pig-sty, then through rather than over ( at less than gable height ) the farm near the end of the runway.
At the end of that flight, the very distinguished ex-Hawker Test Pilot flying with us as an observer ( and I think the said pilot was out to impress, HUGE mistake ) got out and never said a word, but I think there was a large bubble above him saying " Prat ! "...
We got to just about 2,000' directly over the airfield, when he throttled right back and pulled the nose up - unfortunately I don't remember watching the instruments apart from altimeter, and of course unlike a fighter there was no obvious A of A display, as I recall.
The aircraft was kept wings level, we ' mushed ' only for a very brief moment before a fairly violent ( to me anyway ) ' hammerhead ' ? stall, with steep nose down and a lot of throttle applied to combine to get us back up.
The stall warning hooter certainly went off at what I'd think was the right time, before mush & nose-down, but was this a correct test at that altitude ?
I'd tend towards the 'shudder to think' school of doing it on one engine, but you seemed to quite like that aircraft.
I realise this was very different from testing a prototype, and only checking the warning system, but to a pleb like me we seemed a bit low for such antics, & the pilot wasn't really used to that aircraft, especially if the thing hadn't stalled benignly, even then somewhat eagerly seeking Mother Earth ?!
DZ
I was once ' along for the ride ' - as you know I''m SLF or similar - in a light Piper twin we're both familiar with.
The pilot was an irregular, ex-Lightning pilot about to go to Saudi on export Hawks, kicking his heels and got the job of checking this aircraft's stall warning system, which had been U/S, now apparently rectified.
He was already the only pilot who has truly frightened me, flying the same aircraft so low that I could see the bolt-heads on a pig-sty, then through rather than over ( at less than gable height ) the farm near the end of the runway.
At the end of that flight, the very distinguished ex-Hawker Test Pilot flying with us as an observer ( and I think the said pilot was out to impress, HUGE mistake ) got out and never said a word, but I think there was a large bubble above him saying " Prat ! "...
We got to just about 2,000' directly over the airfield, when he throttled right back and pulled the nose up - unfortunately I don't remember watching the instruments apart from altimeter, and of course unlike a fighter there was no obvious A of A display, as I recall.
The aircraft was kept wings level, we ' mushed ' only for a very brief moment before a fairly violent ( to me anyway ) ' hammerhead ' ? stall, with steep nose down and a lot of throttle applied to combine to get us back up.
The stall warning hooter certainly went off at what I'd think was the right time, before mush & nose-down, but was this a correct test at that altitude ?
I'd tend towards the 'shudder to think' school of doing it on one engine, but you seemed to quite like that aircraft.
I realise this was very different from testing a prototype, and only checking the warning system, but to a pleb like me we seemed a bit low for such antics, & the pilot wasn't really used to that aircraft, especially if the thing hadn't stalled benignly, even then somewhat eagerly seeking Mother Earth ?!
DZ
Last edited by Double Zero; 9th Dec 2009 at 19:46.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was about to fly the prototype F-14A with improved ARI the day on which the chief USN test pilot spun it to the Chesapeake Bay. Even the most experienced might find this regime too much for them to handle.
Dudley Henriques
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hia Dudley,
that's it! I graduated USNTPS class 69. DD's eyes were sort of reddish for a fortnight from the herendous initial longitudinal g force...
About stalls and spins, a good friend I haven't seen in ages is Jack Krings. He piloted the first YF-18 flight and did some work on F-4 spin, interesting on an aircraft which is not supposed to recover
.
Good luck to Boeing on today's B787 inaugural flight!
Happy holidays everybody!
that's it! I graduated USNTPS class 69. DD's eyes were sort of reddish for a fortnight from the herendous initial longitudinal g force...
About stalls and spins, a good friend I haven't seen in ages is Jack Krings. He piloted the first YF-18 flight and did some work on F-4 spin, interesting on an aircraft which is not supposed to recover
.Good luck to Boeing on today's B787 inaugural flight!
Happy holidays everybody!
Last edited by opherben; 14th Dec 2009 at 09:31.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small world indeed, and "Hi" back at you :-)
I was down there twice actually. The first time as a guest of TPS to fly the T38. The second time as a guest of Admiral Brown and Strike to try on the F14.
The guys I remember would be Tom Flannery, Jack Battenberg, Nial, and of course Tex Birdwell and Johnson who releived him during the time I was there.
Paul Nafzinger worked with me on the T38 flights.
I remember well how DD looked after the punch. I still have a picture of his face around here somewhere. God what a mess he was. He was minus 7 erect and couldn't reach the curtain. He finally got hold of the lower handle to get out. Pete was right on the spin axis and had no comparable problem.
DD and Jo moved out to California near Mirimar. Last word I had was that he was a banker of all things :-))
I hope they survived all the banking mess and are still doing ok.
You mentioned the YF17 prototype. I never met Jack, but I narrated the demo for Northrop when Hank and Bob Elder brought the bird down to Pax for the air show.
That's another great DD Smith story. He was doing the demo in the Tomcat and I was narrating the demo for Strike. Admiral Holloway was standing right next to me as I did my thing on the podium. DD made a low pass blindsiding the Marine Corps band who were standing right in front of the podium. He went to zone 5 right over their heads. The entire band went down as one man not knowing what the hell was happening :-)
It was a great moment for the Navy with Holloway laughing at the whole thing.
I believe there were several rounds bought for the Marines later on over at the Belvedere to amend as the rest of us decided whether or not we could get away with stealing the bull off the roof of the motel :-)))))))))
Great times; great people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dudley
I was down there twice actually. The first time as a guest of TPS to fly the T38. The second time as a guest of Admiral Brown and Strike to try on the F14.
The guys I remember would be Tom Flannery, Jack Battenberg, Nial, and of course Tex Birdwell and Johnson who releived him during the time I was there.
Paul Nafzinger worked with me on the T38 flights.
I remember well how DD looked after the punch. I still have a picture of his face around here somewhere. God what a mess he was. He was minus 7 erect and couldn't reach the curtain. He finally got hold of the lower handle to get out. Pete was right on the spin axis and had no comparable problem.
DD and Jo moved out to California near Mirimar. Last word I had was that he was a banker of all things :-))
I hope they survived all the banking mess and are still doing ok.
You mentioned the YF17 prototype. I never met Jack, but I narrated the demo for Northrop when Hank and Bob Elder brought the bird down to Pax for the air show.
That's another great DD Smith story. He was doing the demo in the Tomcat and I was narrating the demo for Strike. Admiral Holloway was standing right next to me as I did my thing on the podium. DD made a low pass blindsiding the Marine Corps band who were standing right in front of the podium. He went to zone 5 right over their heads. The entire band went down as one man not knowing what the hell was happening :-)
It was a great moment for the Navy with Holloway laughing at the whole thing.
I believe there were several rounds bought for the Marines later on over at the Belvedere to amend as the rest of us decided whether or not we could get away with stealing the bull off the roof of the motel :-)))))))))
Great times; great people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dudley
Last edited by Dudley Henriques; 14th Dec 2009 at 13:13.