Why does the pilot sit in the back in biplanes?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in de volle zon
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does the pilot sit in the back in biplanes?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ]
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 ]
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ]
SSD
[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]
[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ]
Read the delightful Stuart McKay's fabulous tome on Tiger Moths.......you might learn something?
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: tiger burn ]
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
------------
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
------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in de volle zon
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
TAFO