SEPTEMBER 2011

Remember, We’re Better Together!

www.auaonline.com

Aviation insurance with the EAA Vintage Program offers:Lower premiums with payment options Additional coverages Flexibility on the use of your aircraft Experienced agentsOn-line quote request available AUA is licensed in all states

The best is affordable. Give AUA a call – it’s FREE!

Fly with the pros… fly with AUA Inc.800-727-3823

AUA is Vintage Aircraft Association approved. To become a member of VAA call 800-843-3612.

Our L-4 was based in the US During WWII from 1943 to 1945. We bought it early this year and have enjoyed every minute of it. The stearman was built in 1942 during WWII and we have owned it since 1975.

Owning and operating antique aircraft has been a part of our family for 3 generations going back to 1963 when my father Tom bought a Piper Tri-pacer. Our family has owned aircraft ever since. Our aviation roots run deep in this family, and that is why we choose AUA as our agency. They have a long distinguished record of service with the types of aircraft we operate, and understand our problems and concerns.

— Mark Henley

The Henley’s Mark, Tanner, and Johnathan■ Mark is an ATP and has been

a pilot since 1976

■ Tanner is a student pilot who flies every chance she gets

■ Jonathan is 18 and has been a private pilot for one year

TTTTTTTThhhhhhhhaaaaaannnnnkkkkkkksssssss AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

2 Straight & Level A wonderful week and a heartfelt set of thank-yous by Geoff Robison

3 News

5 Friends of the Red Barn 2011

6 A Handsome 1947 Piper Super Cruiser Paying tribute to aviation’s role in pipeline patrol by Sparky Barnes Sargent

14 Lloyd Stearman His airplanes and his legacy by Philip Handleman

20 Tribute to a Classic Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz reborn in Germany by Stefan Degraef and Edwin Borremans

24 Light Plane Heritage De Havilland’s Little Birch by Bob Whittier

30 The Vintage Instructor It’s all in the feet by Steve Krog, CFI

32 The Vintage Mechanic Engine cowls for drag reduction—Part 2 by Robert G. Lock

36 Mystery Plane by H.G. Frautschy

39 Classifi ed Ads

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 1

A I R P L A N E SEPTEMBERC O N T E N T S

S T A F FEAA Publisher Rod HightowerDirector of EAA Publications Mary JonesExecutive Director/Editor H.G. FrautschyProduction/Special Project Kathleen WitmanPhotography Jim KoepnickCopy Editor Colleen WalshSenior Art Director Olivia P. Trabbold

Publication Advertising:Manager/Domestic, Sue AndersonTel: 920-426-6127 Email: sanderson@eaa.orgFax: 920-426-4828

Senior Business Relations Mgr, Trevor JanzTel: 920-426-6809 Email: tjanz@eaa.org

Manager/European-Asian, Willi TackePhone: +49(0)1716980871 Email: willi@fl ying-pages.comFax: +49(0)8841 / 496012

Interim Coordinator/Classifi ed, Alicia CanzianiTel: 920-426-6860 Email: classads@eaa.org

C O V E R S

Vol. 39, No. 9 2011

FRONT COVER: The versatile Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser has served a variety of roles in it’s 60+ years of fl ying. This particular PA-12 has been a part of Jim Adams’ family since 1963, and it’s fresh restoration pays tribute to the Gleason Romans Pipe Line Patrol Company. Read more about it by turning to Sparky Barnes Sargent’s story starting on page 6. EAA Photo by Mike Steineke.

BACK COVER: Vintage aviation in Europe is alive and well; here’s a restoration of one the Continent’s rarest aircraft, a Focke-Wulf Fw.44J. Stefan DeGraff and Edwin Borremans tell us all about the challenges of restoring a World War II era biplane starting on page 20.

20

6

2 SEPTEMBER 2011

It was really rejuvenating to get out of town for a good long while and take some time in aviation’s mecca. It was great to

visit with all of my wonderful avia-tion friends from across the globe. We all experienced many fantastic events at Oshkosh this year, and it is always a highlight to share them with so many of the attendees at Air-Venture every year, but this was really one of the best. As Bob Hope always sang, “Thanks for the memories.”

This year’s event was really fun for me. We saw some wonderful aircraft restorations come our way, and they kept our judges pretty busy. Cap-ping off the week was the spectacu-lar Saturday night air show; it was everything it was promised to be. I have personally witnessed some re-ally amazing fireworks in my days, but never have I seen such a unique pyrotechnics show as we had during this year’s AirVenture. The devices they are setting off are far more ad-vanced than what we normally see at the local 4th of July fi reworks show; it was nothing short of phenomenal! Great show, guys! It was a real crowd-pleaser. Spread the word, and be sure to visit www.AirVenture.org and click on “Top Videos of AirVenture 2011,” then select “Night Ballet.”

Next year’s event, as always, is al-ready in the planning stages. The 2012 event will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the venerable Piper Cub. Plan to observe a virtual sea of yellow airplanes all parked together in the Type Club parking area in the Vintage area. This will prove to be a special event that you will defi nitely want to see. Imagine

a single fi eld with at least 100 Cubs all parked together. The response from the many Cub owners has al-ready been quite impressive. Be sure to come and join in the fun! P.S. If your Cub isn’t yellow, that’s quite all right; we’ve got a spot for you, too! Feel free to join us.

Congratulations to the staff and leadership of EAA for yet again put-ting together such an excellent event for us all to enjoy. I don’t know how you continue to do this each year, but it just seems to always to be better than the last one. Of course, I can’t fail to mention here the many vol-unteers who show up every year and give so much of their time to the or-ganization to assist us in making it all happen. Your collective and individ-ual efforts are so greatly appreciated. We hope to see you all back next year for yet another week of great fun.

As many of you are aware, each year the Vintage Aircraft Association issues two prestigious awards to rec-ognize our VAA Volunteers of the Year. This year’s Flight Line Volunteer of the Year was awarded to longtime VAA volunteer Dale Masters. Dale, your dedicated service to this organi-zation is greatly appreciated, and you are very deserving of this recognition.

Our Behind the Scenes award went to another longtime VAA volunteer. She stepped forward several years ago and took on the responsibility of keeping the many Vintage fl ightline volunteers watered and fed through-out each day of the weeklong event. Pat Blake is another one of those tire-less volunteers who spends count-less hours each day running up and down the line serving our volun-

teers not only food and beverages, but also her friendly personality and warm smile. You are greatly appre-ciated by all of our volunteers, Pat! Thanks for your service. Along with the award, each recipient of the Art Morgan Memorial Volunteer of the Year award receives a free one-year membership to the Vintage Aircraft Association and a commemorative clock. Congratulations to you both!

I want to close this month’s col-umn with a personal note recognizing our past president and now current chairman emeritus of EAA. As many of you are now aware, Tom Poberezny has elected to retire from his respon-sibilities with the EAA. Tom served our parent organization admirably throughout his tenure as president since 1989, and has worked for EAA in one capacity or another for a total of 49 years of service to the organization his father founded in 1953. Through-out many of the years we’ve been in Oshkosh I have had the distinct plea-sure of working with him. No one has ever done more for the Vintage Air-craft Association than Tom and his father, Paul. I will sincerely miss work-ing with him, and my memories of our relationship will always be posi-tive ones. Good luck and blue skies to you in your retirement. The pleasure has truly been all mine.

VAA is about participation: Be a member! Be a volunteer! Be there! Do yourself a favor and ask a friend to join up with us. Let’s all pull in the same direction for the good of avi-ation. Remember, we are better to-gether. Join us and have it all.

Geoff RobisonEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VAA

STRAIGHT & LEVEL

A wonderful week and aheartfelt set of thank-yous

training attendance alone does not satisfy those requirements.

2) Complete Federal Aviation Ad-ministration (FAA) Form 8610-1,Me-chanic’s Application for Inspection Au-thorization, in duplicate.

3) Show evidence the applicant meets the requirements of §65.93(a) for both the first and second year in the form of an activity sheet or log, training certificates, and/or oral test results, as applicable.

According to the FAA, the re-quirement for other activity besides a refresher training course has al-ways been an FAA regulatory re-quirement per FAR 65.93(a) that re-quires the applicant continue to be “actively engaged” as a mechanic by meeting FAR 65.91 paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), but the docu-mentation for that requirement has been inconsistently applied by the FAA field offices due to the previ-ous definition lacking clarity. Part of the reason for issuing the revised policy is to make the requirement for “actively engaged” beyond the refresher course clearer. When re-vised the new language clarifying the defi nition of “actively engaged” within 8900.1 will read:

NOTE: Actively engaged means an active role in exercising the privileges of an airframe and powerplant mechanic certifi cate in the maintenance of civil aircraft. Applicants who inspect, overhaul, repair, preserve, or replace parts on aircraft, or who supervise (i.e., direct and inspect) those activities, are ac-tively engaged. The ASI may use evidence or documentation provided by the applicant showing inspection, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft or supervi-sion of those activities. This evidence or documentation when required could include employment records showing performance or supervision of aircraft maintenance, return to service docu-ments, and/or copies of maintenance record entries.

Technical instructors or individu-als instructing in a FAA part 147 ap-proved AMT school, who also engage in the maintenance of aircraft certifi -

cated and maintained in accordance with 14 CFR, can be considered ac-tively engaged. Individuals instruct-ing in a FAA part 147 AMT school, who also engage in the maintenance of aircraft-related instruction equip-ment maintained in accordance with 14 CFR standards, can be considered actively engaged.

Read the second sentence care-fully (we’ve put it in bold type); it does not quantify the amount of work that must be done, it simply states that any of those activities is viewed by the FAA as “actively engaged.” In other words, if you touch an aircraft once a year to per-form maintenance within the scope of practice as an A&P-IA, you’ve met the defi nition of “actively en-gaged” and need only to meet the requirements of 65.91 (the regula-tion under which an Inspection Au-thorization is initially issued) and 65.93 (a)(1), or (2), or (3), or (4), or (5) to be eligible for renewal.

65.93 reads, in part:(a)…In addition, during the time

the applicant held the inspection au-thorization, the applicant must show completion of one of the activities in Sec. 65.93(a)(1) through (5) below by March 31 of the fi rst year of the 2-year inspec-tion authorization period, and comple-tion of one of the five activities during the second year of the 2-year period:

As explained to us by the FAA, this means that an A&P mechanic with an inspection authorization who performs a single annual, re-places a single part on an aircraft, supervises A&P activities, etc. each year (which means they are, as de-fi ned by the new note added to the policy, now “actively engaged”) and attends a yearly refresher course during each one-year period during the two-year renewal cycle (one of the five activities listed in 65.93(a)) will be eligible for renewal of his or her inspection authoriza-tion. The requirements for activity have been met under 65.91(c)(2), meaning that only one more of the follow-up requirements for renewal specifi ed in 65.93(a)(1) through (5) needs to be accomplished.

We’ll continue to monitor the implementation of the new pol-icy published for the FAA’s Flight Standards Management System FAA Order 8900.1. Members who are directly impacted by this policy are encouraged to send us notes describing their experiences atvintageaircraft@eaa.org, or you can post your comments on the VAA’s Red Barn section of the new EAA Forums website, www.EAAForums.org.

Hightower Provides a Lookto the Future

EAA members can expect to see a Young Eagles-style program for adults and a national network of flying clubs, said EAA President/CEO Rod Hightower at his AirVen-ture forum.

The jury is still out on what the “adult eagles” program will be called, but Hightower noted that many people have told him they learned to fl y after the age of 40.

“They are very active pilots,” he said. “As people get older, they have a little more time and a little more money on their hands to pur-sue a long-held dream.”

Hightower didn’t offer opera-tional details on the adult phase of the program, but he said those are not the only enhancements in store for the Young Eagles, which has provided 1.6 million young-

continued on page 38

4 SEPTEMBER 2011

Rod Hightower talks with members about EAA’s future during his AirVenture forum.

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 5

TM

Diamond Plus LevelGordon Anderson

Charles W. Harris

Matt and Ken Hunsaker

Robert “Bob” Lumley

Bill and Saundra Pancake

Rick Princell

Wes Schmid

John R. Turgyan

VAA Chapter 10, Tulsa, OK

Diamond LevelJonathan and Ronald Apfelbaum

John W. Cronin Jr.

Richard and Sue Packer

Ben Scott

Ronald E. Tarrson

Platinum LevelRobert Schjerven

Gold LevelRaymond Bottom

James Gorman

Drew Hoff man

Earl Nicholas

Arthur H. Kudner Jr. Fund

Silver LevelJerry and Linda Brown

Dave and Wanda Clark

Lois Cohen

Al Hallett

Tom Hildreth

A.J. Hugo

Peter Jensen Jr.

John Kephart

Mark Kolesar

Sarah and Bill Marcy

Dan and Denise Osterhouse

Brad Poling

Roger P. Rose

Carson E. Thompson

Dwayne and Sue Trovillion

Bronze LevelLloyd Austin

L. Tom Baker

Lt. Col. (Ret) Hobart Bates

Dennis and Barbara Beecher

Logan Boles

Gary Brossett

Charles Brownlow

Thomas Buckles

Charles Buckley

Robert “Rob” Busch

Steve Buss

John Carr

Gene Chase

Dan Dodds

Theo Embry

Rudy Frasca

Terry Griffi n

Red and Marilyn Hamilton

Bob Kellstrand

Rich Kempf

Dan and Mary Knutson

Marc Krier

Lynn and Gerry Larkin

Jimmy Leeward

Ballard Leins

Barry Leslie

Joseph Leverone Jr.

Gerald Liang

Russ Luigs

Thomas H. Lymburn

Helen Mahurin

Pfi zer Foundation

Roscoe Morton

Steve Moyer

Lynn Oswald

Steven and Judith Oxman

Dwain Pittenger

Tim and Liz Popp

Bob Porter

Ron Price

Jerry Riesz

John Rothrock Jr.

Ray Scholler

Jeff rey L. Shafer

Bob Siegfried, II

David Smith

Dean Stoker

Butch and Pat Tortorige

Robert Tyler

Thomas Vukonich

Jan Douglas Wolfe

Dan Wood

Wynkoop Airport

Supporter LevelCam Blazer

Charles Burtch

Rolly Clark

Camille Cyr

Bruce Denney

Geff Galbari

Bruce Graham

Richard Heim

Barry Holtz

Keith Howard

George Jenkins

Walter Kahn

Peter Karalus

John Koons

James Lockwood

Jim Newhouse

Charles Pearcy

Keith Plendl

Frank Schelling

Chuck Schonberger

Bob and Sue Staight

Alan C. Thiel

Harland Verrill

Fred Warner

Robert Weber

Michael Williams

Thank you for your generous donations!

Friends of the Red Barn 2011STEVE CUKIERSKI

6 SEPTEMBER 2011

A Handsome 1947Piper Super Cruiser

Paying tribute to aviation’s role in pipeline patrol

BY SPARKY BARNES SARGENT

MIKE STEINEKE

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 7

You might say that Jim Ad-ams of Pon-tiac, Illinois, is the proud “ p a p a ” o f

one handsome Piper Su-per Cruiser. After all, it’s been part of his family since 1963, and he just completed its five and a half year, ground-up resto-ration. A retired Delta pi-lot who fi nished his career by fl ying Boeing 757s and 767s, Adams is one of those gregarious fellows whose affable laughter is conta-gious. Within minutes of meeting him, it’s apparent that he’s, well…just having too much fun, and loving every moment.

His affinity for Cubs started years ago, and eventually precipitated his airline career. He recalls:

“I was a farm boy from central Illinois, and some of my earliest memories are going with my bach-elor uncle to air shows. I had to sneak off as a kid—I was probably 14—and pay a guy to take me for a ride, because my mother would have had a kitten if she’d have known! I just was in love with it,” he shares, laugh-ing, “and when I went to the University of Illi-nois, I signed up for an aviation program even though I didn’t have the money. So I worked three different jobs, carried a full [course] load, stayed up al l night , and got hooked on coffee—but I

r

got my private license! I soloed an Aeronca Champ, immediately followed by a J-3 Cub, and I have loved Cubs ever since.”

Piper AircraftRight after World War II, Piper

vigorously fulfi lled a leading role in supplying aircraft for the booming civilian market. The PA-12 proto-type was test-fl own by Clyde Smith Sr. in the fall of 1945, and the model entered production in 1946. The Super Cruiser sold well; there were nearly 3,800 PA-12s built at Piper’s Lock Haven factory in Pennsylva-nia (and Ponca City, Oklahoma). Writer Leighton Collins captured the excitement of the day in his ar-ticle “Piper Super Cruiser” (Air Facts – The Magazine for Pilots, May 1946): “It could be that it’s just spring, but if you drop in at Lock Haven these days you get a feeling that there’s something more going on in private flying than just catching up on a fi ve-year dearth of new airplanes.”

In 1947, a pair of these (modi-fi ed) Pipers would add new mean-ing to the model’s name by making a super cruise all the way around the globe. George Truman and Clif-ford Evans departed Teterboro, New Jersey, on August 9 and completed their world fl ight when they landed back at Teterboro on December 10. Their 25,162-mile flight took 122 days, 23 hours, 4 minutes and demonstrated to the world the de-pendability and utility of private airplanes. (“A 1947 Global Flyer—The City of the Angels,” Vintage Air-plane, Vol. 34, No. 8, August 2006).

The three-place PA-12 was de-rived from the earlier 1942 J-5C Cub Cruiser, and improvements included a fuel tank in each wing, metal spars, a new interior, and a streamlined appearance. With a wingspan of 35 feet, 6 inches, it measured 23 feet, 1 inch from nose to tail. Powered by a 100-hp Lycoming O-235, it cruised at 105 mph, and with a 38-gallon fuel capacity, offered it a 600-mile range

while burning 6 gph. It weighed 900 pounds empty and had a useful load of 850 pounds. The PA-12 was manufactured through 1947, when the lightplane market fi zzled due to

8 SEPTEMBER 2011

Jim Adams shows of f the engine compartment—complete with over-hauled engine, new stainless fire-wall, and even a new boot cowl.

SPA

RK

Y B

ARN

ES S

ARG

ENT

SPARKY BARNES SARGENT

decreased demand and overabun-dant supply.

Super CruiserNC2827M (s/n 12-1306) rolled

outside the Lock Haven factory on December 17, 1946, just seven months after a devastating flood nearly swallowed the manufactur-ing plant, which was located in a val-ley alongside the Susquehanna River. NC2827M was powered by a 100-hp Lycoming O-235C, with a Sensenich wood prop, according to the facto-ry’s final inspection form. Just two days later, it was purchased by Henry Brown of Rochelle, Illinois, and it stayed in Illinois until 1954, when it went to Wisconsin. It quickly went through more than half a dozen owners and remained in Wiscon-sin until September 1963, when the Rossville Flyers of Illinois (Jim Adams and Thomas Burwash) bought it.

“We bought the plane in 1963, when I was 25 years old,” recalls Adams, blue eyes twinkling, “We had a partnership, and then he eventually put it in his name, but I did the maintenance and han-gared it, so it was still part mine. He passed away, and I bought the plane ‘back’ in 1999. Now it’s in my name and my daughter and son-in-law’s names—Amy and Paul Lamermayer—they also fl y.”

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 9

Close-up view of the old trim system.

Fuselage with fabric and metalized headliner.

The wing, with the original truss-style ribs.

The aft section of the fuselage, af-ter the old fabric was removed—note the wood stringers.

PHO

TOS

CO

UR

TES

Y JI

M A

DAM

S

10 SEPTEMBER 2011

Restoration InspirationIn 2004, it occurred to him that

it just might be a good idea to thor-oughly rejuvenate NC2827M. “I had flown our grandkids in this Super Cruiser and thought, ‘This thing has only been re-covered—it’s never been completely torn down. Maybe we ought to look at it.’ So here it is, Tuesday, July 28 [2010], at Oshkosh, and we just fi nished it Friday! We fl ew it here on Sunday, and it took us exactly one hour and eight minutes. The engine and air-frame total time is 1,368.4, and I have all the logs, starting right with the build sheet from the factory—Clyde Smith Jr. got that for me, and I’m really tickled with that! I’ve got every little piece of paper that’s ever had anything to do with it.”

Adams decided to retain many of the PA-12’s original features, while updating it for safety, utility, and cabin comfort. He also owned a PA-18 Super Cub at the time, and the history of that particular air-plane inspired him to finish the PA-12 in such a way that it would pay tribute to aviation’s role in the pipeline patrol industry.

“That Cub, N3286Z, belonged to Gleason Romans of Tulsa, Okla-homa, back in the early 1960s. It had the Gleason Romans Pipeline Patrol Company logo on it,” de-scribes Adams, “and a low oil pres-sure warning horn that would wake the dead—which was a good idea if

The wing and cowling have been painted Tennessee Red. (The pipeline pa-trol Super Cub that Adams sold to his friend is in the background.)

Updated avionics and radio were neatly combined with the original cream-faced instruments.

NC2827M left the factory with this engine; total time now is 1,368.4.

The Super Cruiser, looking brand new from nose to tail.

PHO

TOS

CO

UR

TES

Y JI

M A

DAM

SS

PAR

KY

BAR

NES

SAR

GEN

TS

PAR

KY

BAR

NES

SAR

GEN

T

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 11

your nose was outside watching for pipeline leaks!”

Adams intended to finish the PA-12, then restore the PA-18 so he would have two airplanes to rep-resent the role of pipeline patrol planes in aviation history. But he says he altered that plan when “a friend of mine, who had lost his hangar and Cessna 195 in a fire, came to me one day, and he said, ‘Jim, I want your Cub.’ I told him it wasn’t for sale, and a day later he owned it. So anyway, I got hold of Gleason Romans Jr., through a friend, and asked him if I could use his father’s company logo, and he said it was okay.”

Romans’ Pipeline Patrol In 1944, Gleason Romans Sr.

started a fl ying school and mainte-nance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He had five airplanes, which were making money only on the week-ends. “I had to make some money with them [during the week], so I conceived the idea to use the planes to patrol the pipelines.”

He tested his idea in April 1945, when he hopped into his Piper J-3 Cub for his first trial pipeline pa-trol fl ight. Accompanying him was the chief engineer of Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, to help Romans determine the feasibility of aerial patrol for the pipelines. Both par-

ties were pleased with the outcome, and the engineer was enthusiastic about this new aerial method of in-specting pipelines for oil leaks and encroaching vegetation.

Romans then began cultivating his concept into a thriving business. His fi rst patrol plane was a Taylor-craft L2M, which he modifi ed with an extra fuel tank and an additional window in the cabin portion of the fuselage. As he acquired additional contracts with oil companies, he continued hiring pilots and buying patrol airplanes.

This entrepreneur continually studied ways to enhance the effec-tiveness of his pipeline patrol, and he developed some innovative de-vices. One of his inventions was a mechanical, electrically stabilized aerial camera system.

“I built a camera and ran a 5-inch-wide raw fi lm across the slit. It photographed 240 miles of pipe-line on one roll of fi lm as the aircraft flew over the pipeline. It was sort of phenomenal,” recalls Romans with a chuckle, “and the pipeline companies liked it. We had to syn-chronize the camera with the air-craft, so another person would use a view finder to regulate the speed of the film as the pilot flew patrol. We installed a gyro in it, and the camera was mounted in a gimbaled ring inside the airplane’s belly, so the camera stayed straight no mat-ter what the airplane did. The pilot fl ew at 2,000 feet AGL directly over the right-of-way to take the picture. That gave us a 1/2-mile width on the picture, which the pipeline compa-nies used to count houses along the right-of-way—if it was a congested area, or people lived too close to the line, the companies were required to reduce the pressure in it.”

He also invented an electronic system to radio transmit operating data about ground-installed rectifi er devices (used along pipeline routes to inhibit rusting of metal pipe cas-ings) from ground stations to over-fl ying pipeline patrol aircraft.

When asked if he or his pilots ever discovered a major leak, Ro-

The front cover of a Gleason Romans Pipe Line Patrol Company catalog, the logo and a photograph taken with the aerial camera system he invented.

Right: Gleason Romans Pipe Line Patrol Company logo—note the mul-titasking bee peering through binoc-ulars to detect oil leaks, and the oil derrick in the background.

Fuselage with fabric and metalized headliner.

12 SEPTEMBER 2011

mans chuckls and re-plies, “Oh yes, I was on standby in Tulsa to fly emergency pa-t ro l f l i ght s . They called me to go out and find something wrong with a pipeline. So I set sail in a J-3 Cub, fl ying south over this pipe-line. I came to the top of a little hill, and I could see that down below, it was solid black. So I went back and called them, and they sent a crew down there, and I went with them. It was a total black swamp, with oil inches thick, and we took boots and waded in there to stop the leak. I was smoking cigarettes at that time, and I started to light a cigarette, and there was dead silence,” he recalls, laugh-ing and explaining. “That caught my attention, and I didn’t light up. If I’d lit up we’d all been gone! The gas cloud over the oil would have exploded.”

Pilots sometimes encountered an-other problem while patrolling. “We had a lot of liability problems with tur-keys,” recalls Romans. “They’d fl y one way and then the other [in front of us], as we fl ew over [the line]. But cat-tle would get accustomed to us; they wouldn’t run from us as we patrolled at about 500 feet. You can tell more about what you’re looking at from 500 feet, or as close as we could get without it blurring with the naked eye.”

At the height of Romans’s busi-ness, he had 21 airplanes fl ying from at least eight locations coast to coast and from the Gulf of Mexico to Can-ada, serving about 30 oil compa-nies. By the late 1950s, his aircraft had fl own more than 1 million miles on contract pipeline patrol flights, and his business continued into the 1980s. Romans was active in various facets of the aviation industry up un-til his death and received the FAA’s Charles Taylor Master Mechanic Award and the Wright Brothers Mas-ter Pilot Award in 2005. He passed away on August 25, 2006, at the age of 93. [The preceding information was obtained by the author during a personal interview with Gleason Ro-mans in May 2006 for her article that

appeared in The Southern Aviator, Sep-tember, 2006.]

Modifi cationsIf Romans were here today to see

the PA-12 that Adams has config-ured to honor the pipeline patrol, he would likely be quite pleased with Adams’ interest and efforts to pro-mote awareness of this unique facet of aviation history.

The Super Cruiser was Adams’s first restoration project, and with the help of two A&Ps—Lovell Pull-iam and Harry Pick—he included nu-merous modifi cations to the airframe and engine. “We increased visibility by putting a pipeline patrol window in a seaplane door, which replaced the original door; installing a skylight and diagonal cross-brace in the cabin overhead; and extending the rear windows by 16 inches. I’m sure they would have done that for pipeline pa-trol; Romans was pretty safety con-scious. And I think they would have put the ’47 square windshield in it, like we did, because the ’46 had a lit-tle round windshield, and man, that’s right where you want visibility. We also installed micro vortex generators and strobes on the wingtips and belly. I just used the things I thought they’d use for safety, while having a little fun with it and honoring them.”

Additional modifications were made in the engine room, and for the fuel and electrical system. “We in-stalled a new stainless steel firewall, boot cowl, and converted the engine to an O-235-C1, which gives it an ad-ditional 15 hp. And we went with an alternator, rather than a generator, along with an entire new electrical sys-tem and a new circuit breaker panel,” Adams details, adding, “we revamped the fuel system to a PA-18 system and installed a Piper Pacer ‘left – right – off’ fuel selector valve. We also put in a PA-18 trim system, because the

PA-12 trim was notori-ous for having a cable slipping—the double cable of the PA-18 sys-tem cured that.”

O n e g l a n c e i n -side the cabin reveals

even more customized features. The updated avionics and radio neatly combine with the original cream-faced instruments, giving the panel a nostalgic yet modern appearance. “It could be the only PA-12 with color weather radar,” chuckles Ad-ams, explaining, “I have the Air-Gizmos Box, a Garmin 396 and XM Weather.” Cabin enhancements in-clude new plywood floor panels, an Airtex interior, and inertia reel shoul-der harnesses. A metalized headliner, fi nished in plain polyurethane primer gray, matches the interior.

After installing new aluminum ribs and stringers, as well as a wing fl ap kit, Adams tackled the fabric in-stallation. “I’m so impressed with the Superflite System VI,” he com-ments, explaining, “it’s so simple. I’ve never covered or painted any-thing in my life, and I’m proud of the way it turned out. I used an HVLP for painting, and it’s just easy to do, and easy to repair. I found out real quick how easy it was to repair. My buddy was using a ratchet screw-driver, which is like a lawn dart, and it slipped out of his hand and went right through the gear. Two hours later, I had attached the fabric patch and repainted it with an airbrush. I couldn’t believe it went that well.”

Adams’ Piper PatrolSmiling happily, Adams declares

that one unexpected reward gleaned from the PA-12’s restoration is that “now my wife, Sandy, loves to go fl y-ing with me!” As for future plans for the airplane, this proud owner/re-storer says, “I’ll fly it to Sentimental Journey in Lock Haven and other fl y-ins, and wherever I go, I’ll be honor-ing the pipeline patrol. I just love the freedom of it, and I can go out and fl y it all day long and not feel guilty—because it doesn’t burn a lot of fuel. I plan to keep it forever!”

MIKE STEINEKE

14 SEPTEMBER 2011

Sometimes little things reveal the most about a person’s character.

On June 9, 1930, one of the avia-tion industry’s leading lights dictated a letter of recommendation for his company’s 17-year-old offi ce junior.

In his nine months on the job, the adolescent ran many errands, including a mail drop at the Wich-ita, Kansas, post offi ce in the boss’ shiny new Packard sedan. “Don’t crack it up,” cautioned the boss when he handed over the keys. On another occasion, the boss asked his helper to oil his swivel chair,

which had a nagging squeak.The letter was succinct and un-

ambiguous in its praise for the “alert, wide awake young man.” It further described the teen as “cour-teous, conscientious and honest.”

An imposing winged globe with a big “S” inscribed on it decorated the stationery’s masthead. Below the four simple and direct sen-tences of unreserved endorsement were the signature lines: “Very truly yours, THE STEARMAN AIRCRAFT CO., Lloyd Stearman, President.”

The fastidious office boy, Mar-

vin Michael, ultimately took three educational sabbaticals that culmi-nated in his earning a master’s de-gree in aeronautical engineering. He went to work for Boeing, the eventual parent company of Stear-man Aircraft. After more than three decades at the company, Michael retired as an engineering test pilot.

Lloyd Carlton Stearman and his early business associates knew the value of a helping hand, an ardent word of support, a hard-earned break. In 1920, at age 22, Lloyd read a newspaper advertisement for a

Lloyd Stearman His airplanes and his legacy

BY PHILIP HANDLEMAN

O’H

ARA

CO

LLEC

TIO

N/E

AA A

RC

HIV

ES-B

OB

STE

ELE

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 15

position at E.M. “Matty” Laird’s air-plane company in Wichita. Lloyd, a native Kansan, wasted no time in applying, for he knew by then that his heart was in aviation.

Up to that point, Lloyd hadn’t had much luck completing what he had started. His civil engineer-ing studies at Kansas State Agricul-tural College were interrupted by his enlistment in the Navy when America entered World War I. Sim-ilarly, his naval flight training in the Curtiss N-9 flying boat con-cluded prematurely when the war ended. Moreover, his one-year stint as an apprentic-ing architect at a firm in Wichita seemed to be go-ing nowhere.

L a i r d r e c o g -nized underlying qualities in the young Lloyd Stea-rman and hired him to perform a range of draft-ing and engineer-ing duties. Little did anyone know in those budding days that once in this groove, Lloyd’s course would lead eventually to his banding together with various aggregations of extraor-dinarily talented aviation trailblaz-ers. Nor could anyone have foreseen then that the dusty little prairie town to which the scant but growing cadre of air-minded visionaries gravitated would become the “Air Capital of the World,” much as Detroit ripened into the automobile capital.

An eyewitness to the maiden flight of Matty Laird’s plane re-marked that its lissome motion through the air resembled the poise of a swallow in fl ight. Without hes-itation, Laird thereupon dropped the prosaic name of Tractor that he had given the two-place biplane and rechristened it Swallow. Produc-tion of the new aircraft proceeded apace, bolstered by the mechanical prowess Lloyd possessed as a result of the knowledge passed on by his father, who was a commercial con-

tractor. As a measure of his determi-nation, Lloyd completed his fl ight instruction at this time in one of the very planes he was helping to build.

Three and a half years after Matty Laird founded his company, he de-parted due to a dispute with his patron, local oil tycoon and pilot Jacob Moellendick. Lloyd, who had been one of Laird’s protégés, was promoted to chief engineer of the renamed Swallow Airplane Manu-facturing Company. Lloyd’s knack for design soon led to the New Swal-

low. This aircraft was a significant upgrade of the baseline product.

The New Swallow was also mean-ingfully differentiated from the multitude of war-surplus Jennys, in that it was confi gured to carry three people, had only two wing struts per side instead of four, and featured a fully enclosed 90-hp liquid-cooled Curtiss OX-5 engine. Publicity for the highly regarded plane was en-hanced by impressive exhibition flights made by Walter Beech, a transplanted Tennessean who had been hired as a part-time demon-stration pilot only a year after Lloyd started working for the company.

The chief engineer and the dem-onstration pilot jointly calculated if the aircraft’s wood innards were re-placed with tubular steel, durability and performance would vastly im-prove. Moellendick was put off by the heretical idea, however, primar-ily because of the relatively recent investment he had made in wood-working machinery for the factory.

In the face of Moellendick’s intran-sigence, Beech and Lloyd sought backing for a new company.

By the end of 1924, the two frus-trated men had made the rounds and persuaded several people to support their venture. One was a much-admired, self-taught pilot who had been entertaining crowds at air shows across the prairie land-scape for a dozen years. Interest-ingly, that pilot had reputedly fl own the fi rst plane Lloyd had ever seen when he was growing up in Harper, Kansas. More recently, one

of Lloyd’s New S w a l l o w s h a d been purchased a n d f l o w n b y the pilot, Clyde Cessna.

In early 1925, in a convergence of aviation emi-n e n c e s r a r e l y replicated in the industry’s long and consequen-tial history, Lloyd Stearman, Wal-

ter Beech, Clyde Cessna, and as-sorted other partners established the Travel Air Manufacturing Company in the back room of a Wichita mill-ing plant. Cognizant of his greatest strength, Lloyd retained his post as chief engineer in the new company.

Lloyd stayed at Travel Air for not quite two years, but in that time he fathered the Travel Air A, BW, 2000/3000/4000 series of biplanes, and the Type 5000 cabin mono-plane. These models represented a technological progression and ex-uded a handsome proportionality. The biplane lineup included some models that sported unusual upper-wing elephant-ear ailerons.

Aesthetics were matched by practi-cal attributes. Indeed, in 1926, a Travel Air won the second annual Ford Reli-ability Tour. The same year, another Travel Air set a new cross-country record—just 31 hours from coast to coast. Most memorably, on August 16-17, 1927, Art Goebel and William V. Davis won the Dole Air Race with

Stearman lent his engineering expertise to the twin-boom Stearman-Hammond Y-1 aircraft built in 1936 as part of the Bureau of Air Com-merce’s “$700 safe, affordable” aircraft program.

O’HARA COLLECTION/EAA ARCHIVES-BOB STEELE

16 SEPTEMBER 2011

a 26-hour flight that spanned the 2,400 miles from Oakland, California, to Oahu, Hawaii, in a Travel Air 5000 dubbed the Woolaroc.

Yet, amid the triumphs, tragedy beset the up-and-coming designer/engineer. After a flight test of a Model A on August 13, 1926, Lloyd was taxiing to a hangar at Wichita’s municipal airport when a collision occurred. The aircraft’s propeller struck local businessman George Theis Jr., killing him.

Lloyd had eyeballed the airport grounds from the cockpit, but simply didn’t see the man who parked his car close to the aircraft right-of-way and then stepped out inattentively. Lloyd was heartbroken and extremely apologetic. In the end, the deadly oc-currence was deemed an accident.

In October 1926, Lloyd moved to Venice, California. He was drawn by the desire to start his own com-pany in the perennially good fly-ing weather and favorable business environment then endemic to the Golden State. Lloyd was further mo-tivated by Santa Monica-based Travel Air dealer Fred Hoyt, who, along with his partner George Lyle, invested with Lloyd to form the fi rst company to bear the Stearman name.

As his own boss, Lloyd was free to pursue his promising design concepts. The quixotic innovator’s dreams blossomed into a line of air-craft that represented a leap into the modern realm. The fi rst of his new C series biplanes had a sub-stantial and stately profi le.

A distinctively squared verti-cal stabilizer and rudder became a Stearman compositional hallmark. Advances included wheel brakes and hydraulic shock absorbers in a fi xed undercarriage. Additionally, the main landing gear legs were po-sitioned to give a wide stance.

The biplane’s wings had differing spans. In this sesquiwing confi gura-tion, the top wing was considerably longer than the lower wing. The C series is perhaps best remembered for its later variants that used pro-gressively more powerful air-cooled radial engines.

Despite its outstanding prod-ucts, the company was inade-quately capitalized. Under the circumstances, in 1927 Lloyd was enticed to return to Wichita. Gen-erous financing was offered by Walter Innes Jr., a former business partner. Lloyd’s company, still with his name on the marquis, moved into a large facility north of town.

The stylish Stearman biplanes that had originated in California spawned the M-2 and C-4A/4C mailplanes and the LT-1 passenger plane. These were in the same class as the regal Douglas M-4, Pitcairn Mailwing, and Boeing Model 40. Few aircraft evoked a sense of the golden age as consummately as the commercial biplanes.

Their pilots flew from an open cockpit situated along the aft fuse-lage while passengers and/or mail remained ensconced in a commo-dious forward cabin. The designs

constituted the aerial equivalents of the period’s chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce and Duesenberg limousines. Paradoxically, Lloyd, who was de-scribed at the time by a Wichita newspaper as “modest and unassum-ing,” helped to glamorize aviation.

The company’s success prompted its takeover by the huge United Air-craft & Transport syndicate. Under the new ownership Lloyd remained president of his company, but om-inously, the transaction occurred on August 4, 1929, less than three months prior to the stock market collapse that reverberated from Wall Street to Main Street and represented the onset of the Great Depression.

At first, the giant holding com-pany was undeterred. With its backing, the Stearman subsidiary proceeded with a major expansion in Wichita. Operations were relo-cated to a factory that doubled the fl oor space of the existing facility.

However, production receded unavoidably due to the faltering economy. Lloyd pressed forward with his latest design, the Model 6 Cloudboy, which factored in the transformation of the marketplace. The new aircraft would lack the grandeur of Lloyd’s designs of the immediate past. Necessity decreed a bare-bones two-seater to serve as an entry-level aircraft, equally suitable for the novice and the aspirant.

The Cloudboy was conceived as an inexpensive-to-build aircraft, using off-the-shelf materials and components in a straightforward

The Stearman C3 biplane proved its mettle on the airmail routes of the 1920s. This is Mike Williams’ beautiful restoration of a C3, kept on a grass fi eld in southwestern Wisconsin.

JIM KOEPNICK

biplane configuration that mani-fested elegance in its simplicity. Lloyd’s new aircraft also preserved the admirable Stearman tradition of ruggedness and adaptability with possible future growth in engine size, weight, and horsepower.

Because of the drop-off in civil-ian sales, the company looked to the military as an important poten-tial source for new orders. In 1930, the Army Air Corps embarked on a quest for a new trainer to replace its Consolidated PT-3. Not coinciden-tally that same year, the Cloudboy fl ew for the fi rst time.

A couple of Cloudboys, desig-nated XPT-912, were evaluated at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. By the end of the year, Lloyd’s design had sufficiently whetted the ser-vice’s appetite that a contract was issued for four additional aircraft, with the designation YPT-9, to con-duct further testing. The company did not receive the hoped-for pro-duction contract, but the Cloudboy military trainer prototype was a cru-cial step toward development of the fabled Stearman primary trainer.

In any case, Lloyd felt crimped because he no longer called the shots at his company, which now was but one entity in a sprawling conglomerate. For a while he con-centrated on his forte of research and development, but by summer 1931 his entrepreneurial impulses prevailed. He left Wichita once again for the seemingly greener pastures of southern California.

In another confl uence of aviation wizards, Lloyd teamed with Walter T. Varney, an airline executive whose company had previously bought Stearman planes, and Robert E. Gross, a prominent aviation fi nancier. They had their eyes on Lockheed Aircraft Company, part of the failed Detroit Aircraft Corporation. Though Lock-heed was mired in the bankruptcy of its corporate parent, it had a sparkling record as a maker of cutting-edge air-craft that found favor with some of the era’s most daring pilots.

On June 6, 1932, the three busi-nessmen, along with other inves-

tors, bought Lockheed for the sum of $40,000. (Yes, for less than today’s cost of an F-22 wheel strut, Lloyd Stearman and his associates bought the whole company.) The bankruptcy judge re-portedly said, “I sure hope you fellows know what you’re doing.”

Meanwhile, back in Wichita, the Stearman Aircraft Company was be-ing run by its new president, Julius E. Schaefer. One of the priorities was to apply the lessons learned in the com-pany’s loss of the Army trainer com-petition and offer a winning design for the next round of acquisitions. Three company engineers—Mac Short, Harold W. Zipp, and J. Jack Clark—logically took Lloyd’s Cloud-boy drawings and used them as the predicate for their design work.

Among the changes they incor-porated in Lloyd’s original layout were a cantilevered landing gear and installation of ailerons on the lower wings only. Wingtips and tail surfaces were no longer square but round. For ease of production, they stuck with the idea of using readily available materials.

The fuselage was formed by a tu-bular steel frame. Wings were made of wood ribs and spars. Cotton linen fabric was stretched over most of the fuselage, wings, and tail surfaces. What emerged from the drafting ta-bles was the Model 70. The compa-ny’s chief test pilot, Deed Levy, fl ew the plane to Wright Field for trials.

The Stearman trainer type was well-regarded by the military pilots who tested it, but one problem stood out. When stalled, the Model 70 just mushed in the air. The pilots opined

that for the aircraft to be an effective primary trainer it would have to have a more defi nitive break when stalled.

Also, it would have to be more re-sponsive to control inputs in both spin entry and recovery. Eventually, these concerns were addressed by the insertion of stall-spin strips in the leading edges of the lower wings. The wings’ narrower camber changed the airfl ow at high angles of attack, which produced the desired effect.

An order for 41 of a slightly al-tered version, known as the Model 73, was placed by the Navy and des-ignated the NS-1. The first aircraft was delivered in December 1934. The door to military sales was open.

It was an eventful time for the company because a radical restruc-turing of the corporate parent was mandated under antitrust laws en-acted that year. The United Aircraft & Transport empire was split into pieces. The Stearman unit was ap-portioned to the newly freestand-ing Boeing Aircraft Company.

Once this corporate upheaval played out, management and de-sign personnel at the Stearman operation in Wichita turned their attention to capitalizing on the Na-vy’s trainer acquisition by trying to persuade the Army to do likewise. The Model 73 was minimally modi-fi ed with changes to both the land-ing gear and the wing. This refi ned aircraft was designated the Model X75 and later simply the Model 75.

The Army liked the aircraft and committed to ordering a signifi cant quantity. However, funding short-ages delayed purchase of production

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 17

Lloyd Stearman (third from left) with fellow executives of Lockheed Aircraft in 1934. Left to right: Ron King, controller; Carl Squier, sales manager; Lloyd Stearman, president; Robert Gross; Cyril Chappelet; and Hall Hibbard.

O’H

AR

A C

OLL

ECTI

ON

/EA

A A

RC

HIV

ES-B

OB

STE

ELE

18 SEPTEMBER 2011

models until fi scal 1936. The initial batch of 26 trainers had the 220-hp, 9-cylinder Lycoming R-680-5 radial engine. The Army designated these aircraft the PT-13.

Thus, a legend was born. The Model 75 in its various military des-ignations came to occupy a place of honor in the chronicle of fl ight. The type is believed to have taught more American cadets how to fly during World War II than any other pri-mary trainer. The many airworthy examples today serve as a ubiquitous bridge to aviation’s glorious past.

With war clouds on the horizon, government leaders recognized the dire need for more military pilots. Trainer production was dramatically ramped up. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Stearman assembly lines in Wichita were humming. An astounding 8,585 Stearman train-ers were built, more than any other American biplane. (Spare parts for the equivalent of another 1,761 air-craft were produced.) Most aircraft went to the U.S. military services, but their universally recognized virtues as a training platform made them popu-lar with numerous foreign air forces.

At Randolph Field in San Anto-nio, Texas, the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and other mili-tary fl ight-training locations around the country, the Model 75 fi lled the

skies, preparing cadets to fly in the greatest aerial armada ever amassed. Notable students who received train-ing in the Model 75 included the members of the Women Airforce Ser-vice Pilots, the fi rst women to fl y U.S. military aircraft. African-Americans, later celebrated as the Tuskegee Air-men, also learned to fly at the con-trols of the splendid biplane.

Dozens of fighter aces and even Mercury astronaut John Glenn got instruction in the Stearman train-er’s open cockpit. And, in the frigid skies of the upper Midwest, George Herbert Walker Bush, bundled in a full fl eece-lined leather fl ying outfi t and far removed from the trappings of the White House that he would experience much later in a different kind of government service, felt the invigorating rush of air against his face aboard the Stearman as a rite of passage to the rarefi ed domain of military fl iers.

The Army purchased four produc-tion versions, mostly the PT-13 and PT-17, with the main difference be-tween models being the engine type. Concern that Lycoming would not be able to keep pace with the manu-facture of airframes caused the Army to order the Continental R-670 en-gine as a substitute. Aircraft with this 220-hp seven-cylinder radial engine were designated PT-17. Navy equiva-

lents of the PT-13 were the N2S-2 and N2S-5; its equivalents of the PT-17 were the N2S-1, N2S-3, and N2S-4.

Paint schemes were a modeler’s delight. Prewar Army trainers had regulation blue fuselage and orange-yellow wings. The rudder was fes-tooned in patriotic “candy cane” or “barber pole” stripes that alter-nated red and white. Navy training biplanes in those early years were painted orange-yellow all over to en-sure visibility. In 1942, the official paint schemes for primary trainers of both services transitioned to an over-all silver shade. By then, many of the trainers were already built and were not repainted unless repair or main-tenance reasons required their fabric covering to be replaced.

The company adopted Kaydet as the trainer’s official sobriquet. In time, Army brass embraced the nick-name. For its part, the Navy was known for its casual usage of the term Yellow Peril, which applied equally to the variants of the N2S and the Navy’s indigenously produced N3N biplane trainer. Yet, pilots and their fl ightline colleagues have a strong in-dependent streak, and the sanctioned monikers didn’t ring true; they came across as either stolid or facile.

Students, instructors, and mechan-ics referred to the formidable biplane trainer by its pedigree—Stearman. The usage spread and has survived through post-World War II genera-tions to the present. In fact, when an aviation neophyte visits an airport these days and is lucky enough to see a colorfully decorated wartime train-ing biplane coasting overhead, some old wag on the ground, if asked, will invariably identify the antique by saying, “Oh, that’s a Stearman.” There could hardly be a more fi tting tribute to the man whose design ge-nius inspired the airplane that epito-mizes silk-scarf fl ying.

As for the career path of Lloyd Stearman, he became Lockheed’s president at 34 years of age in 1932. He brought with him a concept for an all-metal twin-engine transport, which during the early to mid-1930s was developed into the Model 10

Interestingly, the aircraft most closely associated with Lloyd Stearman, the PT (Model 75) series of trainers that became famous during World War II, had little of the noted engineer’s involvement, since he’d left the company to run Lockheed before the aircraft was built. His previous design, the Cloudboy, served as the basis for the design of the Model 7x series.

BONNIE KRATZ

Electra. In the process, Lockheed was stumped as to how the aircraft’s sta-bility problems could be rectifi ed.

A brash University of Michigan aeronautical engineering student named Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson determined through wind tunnel testing that a split tail was the solu-tion. Refashioned accordingly, the Electra hatched many follow-on con-fi gurations, eventually morphing into a patrol bomber that sold in quantity to the British later in the decade. The deal secured Lockheed’s place as a ma-jor player in the aviation industry.

Lloyd left Lockheed in 1936. A succession of jobs followed. For a while he partnered with Dean Ham-mond to redesign the twin-boom, pusher Hammond Model Y light-plane under the new Stearman-Hammond banner. Sales of the new model were anemic, so in 1938 Lloyd moved yet again. For the duration of the war, he was employed as an avia-tion engineer at the Harvey Machine Company, which produced engine cowlings for military planes.

In 1945, Lloyd set out to harness the old magic he had ignited years be-fore. He established the Stearman En-gineering Company in California and channeled his energies into the design of a purpose-built crop duster. Ironi-cally, it wasn’t able to compete with the aircraft that already bore his name, the Model 75. A spate of Army and Navy Stearman trainers inundated the postwar civilian market at incredibly low government surplus prices. The tried-and-true biplanes made incom-parable agricultural applicators.

Rather than resist the obvious and overwhelming tide, Lloyd spent a short time modifying the former primary trainers for spraying and dusting work. He even designed metal wings as a replacement for the standard wood-and-fabric wings. That led to a job at an agricultural implement manufacturer.

As would be expected, Lloyd yearned to get back into the aviation business. One day in 1955 he walked into the employment offi ce at Lock-heed, then headquartered in Bur-bank, California. The story goes that

he fi lled out an application, as would anyone coming in off the street. The form included a question about past employment at Lockheed. Lloyd marked the “Yes” box. The subse-quent question pertained to former position. Lloyd, not a man of many words, filled in the blank line with his old job title: president.

For the next 13 years Lloyd worked as an engineer for the company he once headed. One of his assignments involved work on the needle-nosed F-104 Starfi ghter, a Mach 2 intercep-tor conceived and masterminded by the same Kelly Johnson of Electra re-design fame. By the time Lloyd retired from Lockheed in 1968, the industry he had helped to cultivate looked be-yond the sky to the heavens. It was a remarkable genesis from open-cockpit flying over the windswept prairies of Kansas to enabling sleek jets to nibble at the edge of space.

Lloyd and his wife, Virtle Ethyl, had two children. Son William was a naval officer in the Pacific during World War II. With advanced degrees in international affairs, he went into the Foreign Service and served both behind the Iron Curtain and in Viet-nam. For 17 years, he worked in the White House as a member of the Na-tional Security Council staff, includ-ing time as an assistant to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Daughter Marilyn married and had five chil-dren. One of them, Patrick, learned to fl y and not surprisingly developed a soft spot for the planes originated by his grandfather.

Ever the restive dreamer, Lloyd continued to pursue his concept for a crop-dusting airplane during retire-ment in Los Angeles. He even formed the Stearman Aircraft Corporation, the last aviation company with his name on it, for his desire to create and build winged wonders would never die. But Lloyd’s plane-making days were over, and the cancer that had weakened him finally took its toll. He passed away on April 3, 1975.

On their way to keeping the fl ame of liberty shimmering, many World War II airmen rode the wings of the biplane whose classic lines

were infl uenced by Lloyd Stearman. Only some of the trainers leaving the Wichita factory had manufac-turer plates with the Stearman name etched on them, for in the late sum-mer of 1941 it became Boeing’s practice to refer to its Stearman unit as the Wichita Division. Neverthe-less, the end-users, the people who flew and maintained the aircraft, branded the product as they saw fi t.

Today, in the absence of a multi-million-dollar marketing campaign or a “customer loyalty” program touted by a sports superstar, the brand hasn’t been diluted. Rather, with the passage of time, it has so-lidified. Conjoining the man with the machine seems natural, even destined, for there could hardly be a better way to immortalize the name of the aviation pioneer whose vision fostered the venerable airplane.

To fl y the Stearman is to connect with the spirit of an exalted yore. The cockpits are not hollow, but overflow with timeless memories of good fl ights and happy landings. The wings don’t weary, but hold the wind for climbs to where the birds fl utter free and independent. With each ascent, the charmed ship nur-tures camaraderie among the souls privileged to soar in its solid yet airy frame and burnishes its namesake’s enduring and proud legacy.

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 19

Sources and Further ReadingStearman: A Pictorial History by

Jim Avis and Martin Bowman, Motorbooks International, 1997.

Stearman Aircraft: A Detailed His-tory by Edward H. Phillips, Spe-cialty Press, 2006.

Wings of Stearman by Peter M. Bowers, Flying Books Interna-tional, 1998.

Lloyd Stearman’s son, William Lloyd Stearman, is reportedly readying his memoir, which is expected to cover his childhood in the avia-tion household, his combat ex-perience in the Pacifi c War, his service as a diplomat overseas, and his years as a White House foreign policy advisor.

20 SEPTEMBER 2011

Tribute to

a Classic

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 21

In July 1943 Erich Brunotte, nowadays a sturdy 85-year-old German “Adler,” made his first military solo flight in a Klemm 35 monoplane

trainer at Prossnitz, Mähren (aka Prostejov, Moravia, in eastern Czech Republic), home base of Luftwaffe’s Flugzeugführerschüle (FFS) A/B 71 pilot training school, and also flew the silver-colored Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz biplane advanced trainer. He is by far the oldest active member of the Quax-

Fliegerverein, a Hamm-Lippewiesen (Westphalia)-based vintage aircraft flying club, reassembling several classic vintage mono- and biplane aircraft and gliders. The club has about 30 active members and more than 100 supporting old-time aviation enthusiasts.

E a r l y i n 2 0 0 8 , t h e Q u a x -F l i e g e r v e r e i n c e l e b r a t e d t h e completion of the immaculate overhaul, restoration, and rebuild of its 1940 Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz D-ENAY, painted in full

FFS A/B 71 colors to honor its most illustrious member, who had seen active duty during World War II in Jagdgeschwader 54 “Grünherz” of the Luftwaffe in eastern Europe and over Germany.

Swedish ConnectionIn spite of its Luftwaffe-era

colors and unit markings, Fw.44J Stieglitz D-ENAY never saw active military service in Germany. In 1940 the aircraft was manufactured in Västeras, Sweden, by the Central

Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz reborn

in Germany

PHOTOS AND ARTICLE BY STEFAN DEGRAEF AND EDWIN BORREMANS

22 SEPTEMBER 2011

Verkstaden in Västeras as one of the Swedish air force’s (aka Flygvapnet) 85 Fw.44J training aircraft.

In Flygvapnet service, the Fw.44J design—an export version based on the 1935-developed Focke-Wulf Fw.44D—became known as Sk12 (“Sk” stands for Skolflygplan or t ra ining a i rcra f t ) . Twenty aircraft, capable of wearing skis for snow operations during the winter, were built by AB Svenska Järnvägsverkstäderna at Linköping in southern Sweden. The aircraft department of the Swedish Railway Workshops, ASJA was incorporated into SAAB in 1939. The initial batch of 14 Fw.44Js was delivered factory-fresh from the Focke-Wulf factory in Bremen. The Swedish Sk12s were powered by an air-cooled seven-cylinder Bramo Siemens Halske SH-14A4 radial engine, generating 145 hp and manufactured by BMW Flugmotorenwerke in Berlin, Germany.

Bui l t as “Werknummer 45” in Västeras, our Sk12 received military serial Fv633 and entered operational service with the Kungliga Krigsfl ygskolan, as part of Flygfl ottilj (Air Wing) F5 at Ljungbyhed. The Sk12 Fv663 was used as trainer

until 1944 and was sent as a liaison “hack” aircraft to various flottiljs within the Swedish air force.

The fi nal aircraft were withdrawn from operational use by the air force in 1967 and sold to fl ying clubs and civilian owners, becoming very popular as glider tugs due to their sturdiness. In June 1953, Fv633, still wearing its Flygvapnet color scheme, was sold to the Nykopings Flygclubb, becoming SE-BWH in the process. In August 1958, the aircraft

left its Nordic haven and headed for West Germany.

Having gained the West German D-EGAM civil aviation registration, the aircraft was fl own into southern Germany. Damaged by an accident in 1968, its owner repaired the aircraft, offering a “front seat” to German actor Heinz Rühmann, who starred in the 1941 German comedy movie Quax der Bruchpilot. From the late ’70s on, D-EGAM was displayed for years in the Deutsches

Various par ts, including original cockpit instruments and panels, were bought from various collectors, using Internet/online auctions.

Built in 1940 as “Werknummer 45” in Västeras, Sk12 received Swedish air force military serial Fv633 and entered operational service with the Kungliga Krigsfl ygskolan, as part of Flygfl ottilj (Air Wing) F5 at Ljungbyhed.

The seven-cylinder Bramo Siemens SH-14 radial engine was stripped, overhauled, and rebuilt by Dirk Bende of Motobende Gmbh. This company, based at Köningswinter-Sassenberg near Bonn, specializes in the overhaul of German-built World War II-era engines and the remanufacturing of engine parts.

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 23

Museum für Naturwissenschaft und Technik (German Museum for Physics and Technology) in Munchen, Bavaria, as part of this well-known museum’s permanent col lect ion of (West) German-designed and -built biplane aircraft.

Motivation, Patience, Crafts-manship: Stieglitz Overhaul

In November 2001 the aircraft, wearing a circuslike reddish color scheme, was integrated in the “biplane armada” of the Quax-Verein zur Förderung von historischem F l u g g e r ä t , b a s e d a t H a m m -Lippewiesen near Dortmund, Westphalia. In need of some in-depth overhaul and the replacement of authentic aircraft parts, the redesignated “D-ENAY” was sold to three active Quax members by its owner. Immediately after this transfer of property, the new owners initiated an in-depth overhaul, restoration, and rebuild of the aircraft, aiming to re-create a fully airworthy, authentic Fw.44J/Sk12 Stieglitz trainer by replacing several parts with original instruments and materials.

The original flying surfaces of an Fw.44 Stieglitz, designed by the world-famous German designer Kurt Tank, are mainly made of wood. The fuselage itself, however, is built of welded steel tubes. The overall structure is covered by fabric, part of the wings by plywood, and finally the engine cowling

plating is made of aluminum. Non-genuine parts, built into the aircraft during previous less in-depth overhauls in 1963 and 1976, needed to be removed, with new safety and radio equipment installed without jeopardizing the overall classic internal and external look of the aircraft. It proved to be a real challenge for everyone involved in the overhaul process. The seven-cylinder Bramo Siemens SH-14 radial engine was stripped, overhauled, and rebuilt by Dirk Bende of Motobende Gmbh. This company, based at Köningswinter-Sassenberg near Bonn, specializes in the overhaul of German-built World War II-era engines and the remanufacturing of engine parts. Various parts, including original cockpit instruments and panels, were bought from various

collectors, using Internet/online auctions (especially eBay).

After near ly three years of planning, hard work, patience, and sheer craftsmanship, the reborn, almost factory-fresh Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz D-ENAY (aka Fv633) made its successful and uneventful maiden flight at Hamm-Lippewiesen. Shining in its original prewar Luftwaffe Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) 01silver color scheme, the D-ENAY and its Quax pilot, co-owner Uli, performed at various national vintage-aircraft air shows all over Germany—even the Shuttleworth C o l l e c t i o n a t O l d Wa r d e n , Bedfordshire, England, in August 2008—to display its advanced design and pay tribute to the technical excellence of its designers, Kurt Tank and Erich Brunotte.

The overhauled Stieglitz D-ENAY was painted with color ful unit markings of Luftwaffe’s World War II-era Flugzeugführerschüle A/B 71 pilot training school, based at Prossnitz, Mähren (aka Prostejov, Moravia, in eastern Czech Republic). Erich Brunotte fl ew the silver-colored Focke-Wulf Fw.44J Stieglitz biplane advanced trainer.

To highlight the in-depth overhaul of their vintage—but almost zero-houred—Fw.44J Stieglitz D-ENAY, Quax pilots wear original World War II wool fl ying suits, ideally optimized for open-cockpit operations.

24 SEPTEMBER 2011

Light Plane Heritagepublished in EAA Experimenter April 1992

Editor’s Note: The Light Plane Heritage series in EAA’s Experimenter magazine often touched on aircraft and concepts related to vintage aircraft and their history. Since many of our members have not had the opportunity to read this se-ries, we plan on publishing those LPH articles that would be of interest to VAA members. Enjoy!—HGF

DE HAVILLAND’S LITTLE BIRCHBY BOB WHITTIER

EAA 1235

Over the years several com-petitions have been orga-nized for the purpose of encouraging people to put

their knowledge of aircraft design to work to create airplanes able to ful-fi ll certain needs. In 1929 there was a Guggenheim Safe Airplane Com-petition. In the mid-1930s the old Bureau of Air Commerce sponsored a contest to develop an everyman’s airplane to sell for $700, which at that time was the average price of an automobile. During the 1960s, EAA sponsored a contest to produce a modern, but simple and economi-

cal, homebuilt airplane design.We have to face the plain fact

that such contests have not exactly produced the hoped-for results for their sponsors. Some entries were just too freakish to appeal to ulti-mate users; others were too com-plicated or expensive. For example, the above-mentioned contest to de-velop a $700 airplane produced an assortment of fairly conventional planes powered by converted auto engines that cost a lot more than that sum when put on the market, or which fl ew so poorly that the fl y-ing public rejected them. And while

this contest was going on, sales of conventional but well-designed and good-fl ying Cubs, Taylorcrafts, and Aeroncas grew at a steady pace.

Equally unexpected and dis-appointing results came out of a contest held in England in 1923. Military planes left over from World War I could be bought at sur-plus sales for attractively low prices. But gasoline was very expensive in that country, and the powerful en-gines in such aircraft burned much more of it than most private pilots could afford. Hoping to give pri-vate fl ying a boost, the large Daily

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 25

Mail newspaper and other parties sponsored a design competition to encourage the development of eco-nomical light airplanes.

The rules which were drawn up specified that entries be powered with an engine of not more than 750 cc displacement, which equals 45.75 cubic inches. There were to be cash prizes for the greatest dis-tance covered on one Imperial gal-lon of petrol (which contains 5 quarts), the greatest number of cir-cuits around a 12.25-mile course on one such gallon, the greatest speed and altitude attained, and the best short-fi eld performance. This con-test was described in an article ti-tled “The Search for Perfection” by George A. Hardie Jr. in the July 1987 issue of EAA Experimenter.

As an outcome of inexperience in planning such competitions, the idea of offering such varied prizes backfi red in that some entrants were after one price and others after other prizes. The planes they created were thus engineered to give the kind of

performance most likely to win in a chosen category. Some were de-signed for speed, some for economy, some for range, and so on. Most of them were thus “specialist” planes, and while the best of them did win the contests they were designed for, most of them were rather poor gen-eral-purpose ships. Some were so light that they could do well only in still air, for example.

To be fair, some very interesting designs were created, which taught everyone valuable lessons in good and poor approaches to the prob-lem. And the contest as a whole did get much publicity and served to generate interest in economical pri-vate fl ying.

The most significant outcome of all, however, was that everyone present agreed the plane that im-pressed them as being the very best for all-around general sport fl ying was one which won none of the prizes. This was the de Havilland 53, which came to be known as the Humming Bird.

The story goes that one of the pi-lots who fl ew it during the Lympne competitions was named Hemming and that people started referring to his plane as “Hemming’s bird.” From there it was a short and nat-ural step to Humming Bird. While definitely a very light airplane, it looked acceptably like a “real” air-

plane, rather than the result of some engineer’s hallucinations. It didn’t have enough power to capture the speed prize, it had too much drag to win the fuel consumption prizes, and could not reach the 14,400-foot height that won the altitude prize. Actually two Humming Birds were entered at Lympne, one being fl own by Hubert Broad and the other by Alan Cobham, both very experi-enced and well-known professional pilots employed by de Havilland.

The converted 750 cc horizon-tally opposed Douglas motorcycle engines of 26 hp that powered these planes gave endless mechanical problems, as a result of being forced to work too hard in fl ight. But when in the air, these two pilots gave very impressive demonstrations and showed convincingly that the Humming Bird was the best gen-eral-purpose sport plane present.

The various planes entered in the Lympne contest were designed by professional aeronautical engineers employed by prominent fi rms such as Avro, Gloster Aircraft Company, Handley Page Limited, Vickers Ltd., and, of course, de Havilland Aircraft Company. The engineer-ing and production facilities at the factories were at their disposal, and it’s intriguing to speculate how the competition might have turned out if it hadn’t been divided into differ-

Lead photo: Shown outside the shops at de Havilland’s Stag Lane establishment, the fi rst DH 53 fl ew in September of 1923. Shortness of the overhead wing struts left a substantial portion of the wingspan unaffected by disturbed airfl ow over the top surfaces.

The fi rst DH 53 to be built is still fl ying at Old Warden Aerodrome in England. Light blue fuse-lage, silver wings and tail. Aileron push-pull tube is clearly visible below left wing. Engine is fi tted with stub exhausts.

26 SEPTEMBER 2011

ent performance categories. De Havilland people discussed

at length the design features they should incorporate in their entry. For acceptable rapid and economi-cal construction of the two planes to be entered in the contest, they chose easily tooled wood as the primary material. In some of their larger commercial designs, they had had good results from a new type of wooden fuselage construction.

In most World War I planes, wooden longerons and cross-members were trussed together with numerous criss-crossed steel cables. The many eye splices, turn-buckles, and end fittings neces-sary in this construction called for much tedious hand labor.

In the new method, spruce lon-gerons and cross-members were also used, but the entire fuselage structure was covered with thin plywood. In addition to taking the place of fabric covering, the ply-wood acted as one very large gusset to tie securely together the lon-gerons and cross-members.

For the light Humming Bird fu-selage, 1.5-mm plywood was used, this being practically the same as 1/16 inch. Such seemingly thin ply-wood was adequate for the purpose it served. But probably due to being made with the casein glue then in

wide use for aircraft work, it tended to show unsightly wrinkles if ex-posed to damp weather for several days.

The tail surfaces were framed with wood and covered with doped fabric, as were the wings. Rudder and elevator cables all ran outside of the fuselage, and all were double. This to us seems like overbuilding, but we have to remember that in 1923, perhaps due to the memories of having control cables parted by Albatros and Fokker bullets, British airworthiness offi cials had a phobia about the inspectability and reli-ability of control cables.

Control horns on the rudder and right and left elevators were posi-tioned well out from the fuselage. This was because the spruce strips that formed the leading edges of these surfaces were not as well able to handle torsional loads as is to-day’s steel tubing. Locating them in those places tended to spread out the twisting loads. Those old-timers did things differently from the way we do them, but they had good rea-sons for doing what they did.

The straight-axle landing gear design on the Humming Bird was of a type that de Havilland had used on other models; you can see details in Figure 1. Since most Eng-lish airfi elds of the early 1920s were

surfaced with grass that was kept mowed, it was felt there was little likelihood of such a low-riding axle dragging in tall grass. A useful ad-vantage of the straight axle was that it automatically put both wheels into perfect alignment. Shock struts originally made use of bungee cord, but when this proved too bouncy, fi rmer rubber discs working in com-pression were substituted.

The radius strut, which secured the axle against drag loads, ran from fittings at the firewall down and back to the outboard ends of the axle. To the modern American eye this arrangement makes it ap-pear as if some mechanic had in-stalled the landing gear backward. But de Havilland engineers had a good reason for using this layout. Because the drag struts were in ten-sion, lighter tubing could be used than if they were in compression.

Originally designed to be bolted to motorcycle frames, the Douglas engine’s crankcase had a rectangu-lar bottom with bolt-holes at each corner. A cast aluminum plate was designed and made, onto which the engine was bolted, as can be seen in Figure 2. Wider than the crank-case, its outer edges bolted to the fuselage longerons. By creating a wider base for the engine, it helped the longerons to take up the two-cylinder engine’s torque impulses.

Both high-wing and low-wing designs were discussed at length. A high wing was initially favored because it could be secured with struts fastened to its lower side. This would keep the lift—creating an upper surface of the wing free of strut interference. Because no one had ever fi gured out how to make end fi ttings for wooden struts that would safely handle the consider-able tension loads, it was accepted that struts for a high-wing design would have to be of steel tubing—either round and drag-producing, or streamlined and rather expensive.

But as the talks progressed, a low-wing design seemed more ap-pealing. Riding close to the ground and spanning 30 feet, such a wing

Location of the Humming Bird’s cockpit gave good view of the ground im-mediately in front of the wheels, an important thing when taxiing on grass fi elds likely to have soft spots, animal burrows, and other traps for the unwary pilot.

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 27

would benefit from ground effect and probably help to give both quick takeoff with low power and a slow landing speed. Since the proposed airplane would be quite light, it was also feared that a high-mounted wing would make for a rather unsteady airplane when run-ning crosswind on the ground.

As things worked out, the fin-ished Humming Birds with Douglas engines weighed only 326 pounds empty and 524 pounds loaded. De-spite the rather light wing loading of 4.08 pounds per square foot, the planes proved to be quite manageable on breezy days. Another advantage of the low-wing design was that in such small planes, there was no over-head structure to make getting into and out of the cockpits awkward. It was acknowledged that a high wing would afford more protection to the pilot’s head should a plane nose over while taxiing, but in the end it was decided that these planes were going to land and taxi so slowly that it was a risk that could be lived with.

The wing (or more properly the right and left wing panels) was given just as much consideration. A serious problem in low-wing monoplanes with struts on the upper sides of their wings is the struts can interfere with smooth airfl ow so as to have notice-ably adverse effect on lift.

As fi nally decided upon, the over-head wing struts attached to fi ttings on the top surfaces of the wings only 4 feet out from the fuselage. The angle between the wing sur-faces and the struts was thus open enough to minimize the squeezing effect of air fl owing through this re-gion. At the same time the outer 9 feet of each wing worked in air not affected by overhead strut interfer-ence. Since the struts would all be fairly short, their air drag would be as low as possible.

Since this arrangement would create considerable bending stresses on the spars at the points of strut attachment, deep spars were indi-cated. In 1923 the thin RAF 15 air-foil was well-known to designers and still much in use, but it was too shallow to house deep spars. The so-lution to this dilemma chosen by de Havilland seems curious today but made good sense. As seen in a plan view the Humming Bird wings have no taper. But as seen in a front view, there is taper. The standard RAF 15 airfoil was used at roots and tips, but the several ribs in between them were made progressively deeper so as to give the necessary spar depth at the strut attachment points. This called for making jigs for ribs of varying shape, but as such jigs were simple wooden affairs, they were

considered an acceptable extra cost. Remember, they were after aerody-namic efficiency in hopes of win-ning a substantial cash prize.

To get adequate strength com-bined with low weight, tapered box spars were used. These called for more labor than the straight, solid spars so often used on light airplanes for the sake of low labor cost, but again with contest money the aim, box spars seemed the way to go. Each spar was made up with top and bottom spruce cap strips and plywood side webs. Having had much experience in the use of wood for aircraft, de Havilland engineers hit upon a simple but clever way to shape the cap strips. In Figure 3 you can see how a semicircular groove has been routed in the inner surface of a cap strip. This saved a worth-while amount of weight. Calcula-tions showed that enough wood remained to handle the loads to be imposed in fl ight. Yet there was still ample surface to create strong, de-pendable glue lines between the cap strips and the plywood webs.

It would have been an imposi-tion on de Havilland’s purchasing department to ask them to order about 30 feet of streamlined steel tubing for the wing struts of two Humming Birds; so spruce ones were used. They would be fairly

The DH 53 had a landing gear of typical de Havilland style. Note doubled rudder control cables. What ap-pear to be single elevator cables here were actually duplicated on the other side of the fuselage.

Details of installation of the original 750 cc Douglas motorcycle engine of 26 hp. Note mounting plate un-der crankcase. Long exhaust pipe cut the loud exhaust bark to an agreeable purr.

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2

28 SEPTEMBER 2011

short and therefore rigid enough to handle the compression loads to which they would be subjected in flight. End fittings were designed with generous area to take those loads off the wood and transfer them to the fuselage fi ttings. These fi ttings were robust enough to en-able them to handle the mild ten-sion loads they’d experience when a Humming Bird was operating on the ground. And, of course, inverted fl ight was not contemplated.

The inboard ends of the wing struts attached to the fuselage aft of the cockpit, an arrangement that seems curious today. One would think they’d attach at a point ahead of the cockpit so as not to interfere with getting in and out. We can only guess at the reason for this. Perhaps because of the light weight of the Douglas engine, the pilot seat had to be located some-what forward to obtain proper air-craft balance. Then it would have been hard to find space to run a cross tube close in front of him.

Or, as originally planned, the DH 53 was to have folding wings. On the three-view plan visualize pivot lines running from the struts’ fuse-lage fittings down to the rear spar

root fittings. The tips of the wings folding back around such pivot lines would easily clear the tail surfaces. But as finally built the wings were made detachable by pulling three pins for each panel, and perhaps the odd-looking strut arrangement was just left as shown on the plans. A stout steel tube passed through the fuselage just aft of the pilot to take wing strut compression loads. The pilot stepped on a foot plate mounted atop the left rear spar root, hauled himself up by grasping the rear strut, and swung his feet over the struts to get into the cockpit.

The ailerons were quite large, and it’s easy to deduce that de Havilland people felt this would provide gener-ous control at the fairly low flying speeds the Humming Birds would experience. Cruising speed was about 60 mph depending on engine, and landing speed about 33 mph. The rudder also had generous area. It was common for planes having tailskids and no brakes to have large rudders to facilitate turning on the ground when taxiing at low speed.

Figure 4 shows the sprocket and chain arrangement used to transmit control cable motion into the aileron actuating push-pull tubes located un-

der the wings. Perhaps de Havilland’s stock room already had these seem-ingly heavy and complicated units in stock, so they were used as a matter of expediency. Today we would weld together short pieces of steel tubing to make simpler, lighter bell cranks. Note the stud on the lower surface of the sprocket. This location gave it arcs of travel such as to impart differ-ential action to aileron movement. In turns, the outboard aileron moved down a smaller amount than the in-board one did, to reduce the adverse yaw effect.

Although the Humming Birds won no prizes at Lympne, the ob-vious overall practicality of the de-sign got people to thinking about these planes. In those days, the Brit-ish economy was still hurting from the effects of the recent war, and people in government were very economy-minded. Someone in a position of influence got the idea of supplying several RAF squadrons with Humming Birds so that pilots could keep in practice at low main-tenance and fuel cost. These ships might also be used for intersquad-ron communications flights. So eight were ordered and delivered to various RAF bases.

Routed wing spar cap strips saved a useful amount of weight but left generous area for secure glue lines.

The aileron control mechanism looks heavier and more complicated than necessary. Location of aileron push-pull tube stud gave differential action to the ailerons be-cause it traveled farther in one direction than the other.

FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4

Since the baggage allowance was a paltry 7 pounds, the Birds proved to be of rather slight use in ferrying parts and supplies from airfi eld to airfi eld. But pilots had great fun ca-vorting about in them. Some even developed surprising skill at low and slow aerobatics and gave dem-onstrations at air shows.

Two birds were fitted with hook arrangements above their cockpits and were used in experiments to hook fl ying airplanes onto a pickup device built on the underside of the big R-33 dirigible. At that time Russia was in the practice of buy-ing one airplane of each type built in leading aircraft manufacturing countries to take home for evalu-

ation, and so one Humming Bird went to that land. Another went to Czechoslovakia and a few to Aus-tralia. One of the Australian Birds ended up being sold to someone in, of all places, the remote island of Sa-moa. Altogether 16 were built. The first one to be built still exists and has a safe home in the Shuttleworth Collection at Shutterworth (Old Warden) Aerodrome in England.

Although not a huge commercial success, the Humming Bird design played an important role in de Havil-land history. It taught the company’s executives that while such a plane could fl y very cheaply, it just was not a practical general-purpose aircraft. This thought led to the introduction

a few years later of the two-seater 60-hp Gipsy Moth biplane—and when that appeared on the scene, de Havilland fortunes soared!

Because the original Douglas en-gines proved unreliable, other engines were fi tted to Humming Birds. These include the V-twin, 697 cc Blackburne of 24 hp, the 32-hp Bristol Cherub, the 35-hp A.B.C. Scorpion, and the 40-hp opposed-twin Aeronca.

Some of these engines were fit-ted with stub exhausts, and when in fl ight, sounded like noisy motorcy-cles. Others had long exhaust stacks running down under their fuselages and terminating at a point below the cockpits. People who heard these in fl ight saw that engine noise was thus reduced to a slightly loud but quite agreeable purr.

A replica powered by a 40-hp Continental A-40 engine was built in Alberta in 1967. This might get some readers to thinking that it would be a fascinating project to build yet another one today and power it with one of the new 35-hp opposed-twin Mosler engines. That would combine the very best of an-tique and homebuilt planes in one ship. But here we run into a jolting example of how sensitive large cor-porations have become in recent years about product liability. The successor company to de Havilland, British Aerospace, has the original Humming Bird plans on file, but even though this design dates back to 1923 and only a few very dedi-cated people would want to build replicas, it refuses to sell copies of these plans—because it is so con-cerned about product liability.

For more information, the de Havilland 53 Humming Bird is thoroughly described on pages 203 to 209 of the book De Havilland Air-craft Since 1909 by A.J. Jackson. A good description of the plane and its construction appeared in the September 27, 1923 issue of Flightmagazine published in England, pages 576-580. A four-page run-down on the DH 53 appeared in the April 1985 issue of the British magazine Aeroplane Monthly.

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 29

Large enough to be a docile fl ier, small enough to be cute, the de Havilland 53 “Humming Bird” marked a step forward in the devel-opment of small sport planes. Headrest behind cockpit was actu-ally an auxiliary fuel tank to increase the cruising range.

30 SEPTEMBER 2011

Not long ago I had a young and fairly new private pilot enroll for a tailwheel endorsement. This person, a very en-thusiastic pilot, had accrued about 70 hours’ total time in the previous 18 months. After a prefl ight briefi ng, cockpit briefi ng, and doing some taxi Figure 7s on the ramp, it was time to move to the runway. All proceeded as expected un-til we positioned the airplane for takeoff. An instant before adding full power, I looked down to en-sure the pilot had correct foot placement on the rudder pedals. To my surprise the pilot had removed her feet from the ped-als and had placed them fl at on the fl oor. When asked why she had done so, she replied that her instructor had told her to do that!

At fi rst I thought it was an attention-getting prank to test me, but she was dead serious. After the fl ight I gave this some thought and mentioned this situ-ation to another instructor. All we could come up with was “unbelievable!” How could a student obtain a private certifi -cate using this method?

Transitioning from a tricycle to a tail-wheel (conventional) gear airplane is great fun, somewhat challenging, fre-quently frustrating early on, and almost always humor-ous. I’ve experienced this and more while training new pilots, but it is especially good for a lot of chuckles when working with a certifi cated, tricycle-experienced pilot.

I’ve trained pilots, both new and experienced, in a lot of different tailwheel airplanes, but I prefer to start them all in the J-3 Cub for a couple of reasons. The student sits in the back seat, with me in front. Positioned in this con-figuration, the student can see my raised hands when I use them to demonstrate rudder inputs on takeoff and landing. While in fl ight, I can reach down and place my hands on their shoes and “assist” with rudder inputs when making and rolling out of turns or when maintaining di-rectional control on either the takeoff or landing roll. This method also teaches attitude fl ying.

Proper Foot Position Is VitalBefore ever starting the engine, it is important to have

the student get settled in the rear seat. The fi rst thing he usually does is place his feet on the rudder pedals so that the arches of his feet make contact with the pedals. It is very important at this stage to reposition his feet so that the ball of each foot is lightly making contact with the

rudder pedals. This allows the foot to pivot at the ankle when applying rud-der input. Rudder inputs will be much more fl uid and more easily coordinated with aileron inputs, as it requires only ankle pivot. If the arch of the foot is in contact with the rudder pedal, the entire leg has to move to provide rudder in-put. This action leads to uncoordinated inputs when applied with the ailerons, and we’re always striving for smooth, fl uid, coordinated control inputs.

The first question a transition pilot will usually ask is, “I can’t access the heel brake pedals with the balls of my feet positioned this way. How do I do that?” My response is, “You only use the brakes three times for a Cub fl ight: when start-ing the engine, when doing the engine

run-up, and when stopping in front of the hangar at the fl ight’s conclusion. Yes, there are exceptions, such as when taxiing in close quarters or taxiing in a strong wind. But otherwise, if brakes are needed, you’re ‘behind’ the air-plane!” In those three situations it is satisfactory to use toe pressure on the brake pedals to prevent pain and strain on your Achilles tendon.

During the fi rst hour of fl ight in the J-3 Cub, or any tailwheel aircraft for that matter, rudder usage can usually be categorized according to one of the follow-ing descriptions:

Calf-Cramping Crush: This occurs when one fi rmly plants both feet on the rudder pedals and applies equal amounts of foot-crushing pressure so as to nearly rip the rudder pedals from the fl oorboard. This method of rudder

BY Steve Krog, CFI

THE Vintage Instructor

It’s all in the feet

How could a student obtain a private

certifi cate using this method?

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 31

usage will also cause severe leg cramps later in the day.

Toe-Tickling Touch: This in-volves just barely touching the rudder pedals for fear of “breaking” some-thing. This input or lack thereof leads to signifi cant adverse yaw whenever attempting to bank the airplane.

Monster Mash: Slamming the rudder pedal to the fl oor with a size 14 steel-toed work boot whenever a slight bit of rudder input is required. Severe skidding turns are the usual result, followed by an equally hard skid in the opposite direction when rolling out of a turn and returning to straight and level fl ight.

Arch Pivot Push: Placing the arches of the feet on the rudder pedals so as to cause unusual ankle contortions with little or no rud-der response. Shin splints are some-times the result of this method of rudder application.

Footrest Roost: Attempting to fly a tailwheel airplane with tricy-cle-plane inputs. For someone at-tempting to taxi using this method, the rudder pedals serve as footrests, never to be moved except when taxi-ing. One will usually see a lot of rapid foot movement in search of the toe brakes, which are not there.

Fluttering Fish: Rapidly moving the rudder from stop to stop, think-ing this will help maintain direc-tional control on takeoff or landing. Watch for this type of rudder move-ment at the next pancake breakfast, and you will see that the rudder is but a blur until the airplane becomes airborne or comes to a complete stop on the runway.

Around-the-Clock Rock: The act of unconsciously pushing the rudder pedals left and right, usually accompanied by moving the control stick or yoke left and right but not in a coordinated fashion. Frequently induces nausea in a beginning pilot and most often occurs on final ap-proach to land.

Tap and ReleaseWhen explaining proper rudder

usage to a tailwheel transition stu-dent for takeoffs and landings, I use

the phrase “tap and release.” With the stick or yoke back and the aircraft aligned with the runway centerline for takeoff, rest the balls of your feet very lightly on the rudder pedals. Do not yet exert any pressure. As you be-gin smoothly applying full power, the plane will generally want to yaw or swerve slightly leftward. Tap and release the right rudder pedal one or more times. Do not push the right rudder and hold it, as this will im-mediately cause an overcorrection and the nose of the plane will now be pointed rightward. In order to keep the plane tracking straight for-ward, the right rudder may need to be tapped and released several times.

As the control stick or yoke is moved slightly forward, raising the tail about a foot above the ground, you will again experience a slight leftward movement of the nose. Tap and release the right rudder as needed to correct this move-ment, keeping the aircraft tracking straight forward.

One common mistake I see when teaching takeoffs to both transition and first-time tailwheel students is the attempt to move the airplane back to the runway centerline after the aircraft has been allowed to yaw leftward. In my opinion, this should never be done. Rather, straighten the ground track of the plane and continue the takeoff from that point forward. Attempting to move the air-plane back to the centerline will usu-ally induce an interesting S-turning ground track, often leading to a spec-tacular trip between and sometimes over the runway lights.

Once airborne in a proper climb attitude, slight but constant right rudder pressure is needed until com-pleting the climb, offsetting the en-gine torque and propeller P-factor. This is the only time throughout a normal fl ight where constant rudder pressure is required, with one excep-tion: steady crosswind landings.

Another common rudder usage mistake I’ve experienced is continu-ing to hold the rudder input when making turns in flight. Several days ago I was working with an experi-

enced pilot on a tailwheel transition. Every time he turned, he applied and held the rudder until completing the turn. When I corrected him, he told me that his instructor had taught him to do that. Once the desired angle of bank has been established, the con-trol stick and rudder should be neu-tralized. By that I mean move the stick to the center, removing the ai-leron input, and take your foot off the rudder. Most of the light single-engine airplanes we fly have a fair amount of positive stability designed into the aircraft. Few or no control in-puts are needed after establishing the bank angle to complete a 90-degree shallow-bank turn until rolling out to a wings-level attitude at the turn completion.

When landing, it is important to take a deep breath while on short final so that your muscles are re-laxed. This is where one of the seven rudder mistakes most often occurs. Unknowingly, we allow ourselves to get tense in prepara-tion for a tailwheel landing.

Keep the airplane aligned with the runway during the level-off and fl are by using slight rudder inputs, again tapping and releasing the pedal each time pressure is applied (except in a crosswind landing). Upon touching down, tap and release the appropri-ate rudder pedal, keeping the plane on a straight-line track throughout the rollout phase of the landing. Pushing and holding the rudder will cause overcorrection, leading to an-other series of runway S-turns. Just tap and release and repeat as neces-sary to keep the airplane straight. Again, if the airplane is allowed to drift a few feet left or right, straighten it out with rudder tapping and con-tinue the rollout straight ahead from that point. Do not try to realign the airplane with the runway centerline.

Learning to safely fly a tailwheel airplane is challenging but also a lot of fun. It will teach you to use your feet and make you an all-around bet-ter, safer, and more coordinated pilot.

To communicate with the au-thor or editor, send a note to vintageairplane@eaa.org.

32 SEPTEMBER 2011

Parasite drag is defi ned as the resistance to forward flight caused by air flow striking the frontal par ts of the air frame. When radial engines aren’t faired, the drag is substantial, as shown in this NASA sketch in Illustration 1. Fred E. Weick, who headed the National Advisory Commit-tee for Aeronautics (NACA) Propeller Wind Tunnel section, conducted early experiments on streamlining the engine installation and focused initially on the Wright J-5 engine. His wind tunnel work and computations showed that a re-markable increase in airspeed could be achieved by fabri-cating an aluminum cowling and attaching it to the engine.

Illustration 2 shows Weick’s team in the sheet metal shop, fabricating a cowling for a radial engine at the Lan-gley Research Center in Virginia. All experimental cowls were handmade, most likely constructed from drawings made by Weick and his associates. Whenever experiments such as Weick’s work on cowlings were conducted, the data was assembled and placed in a NACA Technical Re-por t. A description of the work accomplished, computa-tion tables, sketches, and photographs accompanied the report. The report was made available to manufacturers who desired to build and market the product. Today these NACA reports are available at the NASA website (http://NTRS.NASA.gov/search.jsp).

BY ROBERT G. LOCK

Engine cowls for drag reductionPart 2

THE Vintage Mechanic

Illustration 1

Illustration 2

NASA

NASA

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 33

Illustration 3 shows craftsmen installing a ring cowl to a U.S. Navy ship in preparation for fl ight tests. These experiments took place from 1925 to 1929 and were funded by the government, just as NASA is funded today. NACA was established in 1915 and charged with coordinating research in aeronautics. It quickly became the prime research organization pushing the boundaries of fl ight from the early stages through the fi rst supersonic aircraft in 1947. NACA passed the torch to NASA in 1958 and expanded the role of aeronautics research into space exploration.

In Illustration 4 is a cover sheet for a NACA Technical Note authored by Weick in July 1928 regarding wind tunnel tests to determine the drag of a Wright J-5 radial engine. The data compiled herein was used to design and con-struct low-drag engine cowls for use on military and commercial aircraft.

Illustration 3

Illustration 4

NASA

NASA

34 SEPTEMBER 2011

Illustration 5 is a NACA photograph of the propeller wind tunnel at the Langley Research Center around 1928. The aircraft being tested was a Sperry Messenger, a mock-up of a cabin monoplane with the radial engine fully cowled. Note that the wind tunnel was constructed of wood. It was this early research that led to fully cowled engines in the late 1920s, particularly the famed Lockheed Vega. The early ships were constructed with the most advanced monocoque fuselage design of the day; however, their Wright J-5 engines were uncowled and created a substan-tial amount of drag.

Illustration 6 shows a standard 1928 Lockheed Vega, a wood monocoque fuselage and cantilever wing design by John Northrop. The Wright J-5 engine cylinders protruding from a streamlined fuselage are quite evident.

Weick’s NACA research provided a substantial reduc-tion in parasite drag of an aircraft. The photos below are all from NACA/NASA and show the early use of pres-sure engine cowls in the United States. Illustration 8 shows a nicely faired Stear-man Model 4E complete with pressure cowling and wheel fairings. When speed was everything, this was the way to go. When the full-pressure cowling was used, it was nec-essary to install intercylinder baffl es.

With the installation of a NACA pressure cowl as shown in Illustration 7, airspeed and range were im-mediately increased. On February 4 and 5, 1929, Frank Hawks, a famous barnstormer and stunt pilot, estab-lished a new Los Angeles to New York nonstop record of 18 hours and 13 minutes fl ying a Lockheed Air Express equipped with a NACA low-drag cowling that increased the aircraft’s maximum speed from 157 to 177 mph. The day after the feat, the committee received the fol-lowing telegram:

“COOLING CAREFULLY CHECKED AND OK. RECORD IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT NEW COWLING. ALL CREDIT DUE NACA FOR PAINSTAKING AND ACCURATE RESEARCH. (Signed) GERRY VULTEE, LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT COMPANY”

Illustration 6

Illustration 8

Illustration 7

Illustration 5 NASA

LOCKHEED

LOCKHEED

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 35

AERO CLASSIC“COLLECTOR SERIES”

Vintage Tires New USA Production

Telephone: 800-247-8473 or

323-721-4900 FAX: 323-721-7888

6900 Acco St., Montebello, CA 90640 3400 Chelsea Ave, Memphis, TN 38106

www.desser.com In Support Of Aviation Since 1920….

Show off your pride and joy with a fresh set of Vintage Rubber. These newly minted tires are FAA-TSO’d and speed rated to 120 MPH. Some things are better left the way they

were, and in the 40’s and 50’s, these tires were perfectly in tune to the exciting times in aviation.

Not only do these tires set your vintage plane apart from the rest, but also look exceptional on all General Aviation aircraft. Deep 8/32nd tread depth offers above average tread life and UV treated rubber resists aging.

First impressions last a lifetime, so put these jewels on and bring back the good times..… New General Aviation Sizes Available:

500 x 5, 600 x 6, 700 x 8

Desser has the largest stock and selection of Vintage and Warbird tires in the world. Contact us with your requirements.

Intercylinder baffles or deflectors serve to direct air around the cylinders, thus ensuring pressure air cooling for the rear of the cylinder. Illustration 9 shows a Pratt & Whitney Wasp engine complete with all baffl ing in place. The baffl ing actually sealed against cowling, thus forcing air around cylinder fi ns for cooling. Also there were scoops that directed cool fl owing air on magnetos and sometimes the generator to keep those components cool. Illustra-tions 9 and 10 show engine baffl ing. These illustrations were taken from Aircraft Engine Maintenance.

The invention of the NACA pressure cowl and the re-search conducted by Weick and Max Munk during 1928 and 1929 laid the groundwork for all future engine cowl-ing installations. Just think of all those fast World War II fi ghter and bomber aircraft with tight-fi tting engine cowling. The development started here.

Illustration 9

Illustration 10

BRIMM & BOGGESS

BRIMM & BOGGESS

Our June Mystery Plane came to us from John Schwamm of Carefree, Arizona. It was a true Mystery Plane, as John’s father owned the hangar in the background, but John didn’t know the identity of the little air-craft. Wes Smith, of Springfi eld, Ari-zona, did. Here’s his answer:

The aircraft in question is the 1936 Mendenhall M-1, aka Special. A gull-winged, twin-boom, low-pow-ered racer. Test-flown flown by An-thony “Tony” LeVier of (latter day) Lockheed fame. Registered as 16097, it was flown three times using the 22.5-hp Cyclomotor powerplant. On all three occasions the engine failed. The fi rst two times LeVier was able to execute dead-stick landings. The third time, the aircraft was destroyed and LeVier was slightly injured. It was de-signed and built by Eugene Menden-hall of Los Angeles. I swear I’ve seen

36 SEPTEMBER 2011

Send your answer to EAA, Vintage Airplane, P.O. Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086. Your answer needs to be in no later than October 10 for inclusion in the December 2011 issue of Vintage Airplane.

You can also send your re-sponse via e-mail. Send your answer to mysteryplane@eaa.org. Be sure to include your name plus your city and state in the body of your note and put “(Month) Mystery Plane” in the subject line.

This month’s Mystery Plane comes from W. Duffy Thompson ofLakeland, Florida. It is of foreign manufacture, but the photo was

taken on the East Coast of the United States.

MYSTERY PLANEby H.G. FRAUTSCHY

J U N E ’ S M Y S T E RY A N S W E R

Among an interesting assortment of aircraft, including the Vance Viking in the background, Tony Schwamm’s hangar was the scene for a quick shot of our June Mystery Plane, the Mendenhall M-1 Special.

other photos, but I’m hard-pressed to find them. Aerofiles.com has a fair write-up, which I used. What tipped me off were the hangar markings and origin. At the time, LeVier was fl ying in Arizona and California, so it makes perfect sense that the photo came out of Arizona. Aside from his name, there is: “…nt …ction.” There’s also that big monster sticking out of the hangar.

After receiving the answer, John added some details, noting that the answer made perfect sense:

Tony was a good friend of my dad’s. I had met him several times and heard the old fl ying stories from him.

The hangar is my dad’s, but in Cal-ifornia, not Arizona; it’s now a free-way intersection. Sprott Field it was called. The date is just right, as my dad had the hangar there until about 1937, when it burned. Then he went to Alaska to start a fl ying business there and later became the first director of aviation for the territory of Alaska, then after statehood, he was director of air terminals, managing Anchorage In-

ternational Airport.He flew in many

o f t h e H o w a r d Hughes’ movies, and one picture I have shows several of his World War I Thomas Morse Scouts in front of the hangar.

And by the way, that “…nt …ction” actually reads “stu-dent instruction.” The top reads “TONY SCHWAMM,” under that is “aerobatics,” and to the left is “stu-dent instruction.”

From John Un-derwood, another longtime Lockheed man and Califor-nia aviator, comes t h i s a d d i t i o n a l information:

Your current Mys-tery Plane is Gene Mendenhall’s M-1

Special, 16097, which Tony LeVier flight-tested at Muroc and Rosa-mond, near what is now Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert. These flights were very brief affairs, because the 25-hp Cyclomotor two-stroke pusher was prone to overheating and quit after about fi ve minutes. The M-1’s fi nal airing was at Telegraph &

Atlantic Airport, where the motor quit again one Sunday late in 1936, re-sulting in a crash-landing in soft soil. The little plane dug in and stopped so abruptly that Tony’s seat belt snapped and he kept going. He went halfway through the nose and was totally im-mobilized by the surrounding struc-ture. He was frantic to get out but could barely move and was sure the thing would burn before anyone could reach him. They had to cut it apart to get him out. He had a few minor cuts and bruises, but the M-1 was DBR and never flew again. That’s Tony Schwamm’s hangar at T&A Airport.

The airplane in the background is the Vance Viking, which had been prepped by Clyde Pangborn for a non-stop round-the-world fl ight that never got off the ground. It was then ac-quired by a character known as Monty Mason, who renamed it the Mason Meteor and promoted funding from a Texas centennial foundation for an-other fl ight that never came off. Ma-son got into some sort of financial jam (scam?) and also disappeared. It could be he abandoned the Viking in Tony Schwamm’s hangar. Tony had a lot of oddball airplanes, including two American-built Savoia-Marchetti S-55 twin fl oat seaplanes, a bunch of Thomas Morse Scouts salvaged from Howard Hughes’ “air force,” and a whole lot more.

No other correct answers were received.

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 37

Thanks to our “Vintage Mechanic” Bob Lock, we have a picture of June’s Mystery Plane, the Mendenhall M-1 Special completed and ready for fl ight testing.

Gathering of Eagles Does It AgainAviation leaders, world-renowned

celebrities, and those with a shared concern for aviation’s future once again made the annual EAA Gathering of Eagles fundraising gala a tremen-dous success.

Major highlights this year included an exclusive preview of film icon George Lucas’ latest project set for release in 2012, Red Tails, about the famed Tuskegee Airmen; the fi rst-ever appearance together of all five past and present chairmen of the Young Eagles program: Cliff Robertson, retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager, Harrison Ford, Sully Sullenberger, and Jeff Skiles; and a $400,000 winning bid for Ford Motor Company’s one-of a kind 2012 “Blue Angels” Mustang.

The event raised about $2.2 million to support Young Eagles, youth education and experience programs, AirVenture Museum, and other EAA programming to help create the next generation of aviators.

sters with their fi rst fl ight in a GA aircraft. Henceforth, the program’s objective will include “bringing the 77,000 Young Eagles we fly each year through certification,” High-tower said. “We have not paid a lot of attention to that in the past. Now we will focus attention on helping them all the way through [pilot] certifi cation.”

Hightower’s plan to establish fl y-ing clubs comes from his four years living in Europe. Clubs would pro-vide more pilots and potential pi-lots with access to more aircraft at a more affordable cost, he said. The program will start with creating a fl ying club at EAA’s Oshkosh head-quarters. “We have a bunch of air-planes. Let’s put them into a fl ying club,” he said. “Establish a safety management system for the opera-tion, and maintain the operation. We’re in the process of doing that.”

Hightower noted many of the EAA’s 900 chapters would be potential can-didates for establishing fl ying clubs.

Hightower also announced that EAA Sport Aviation magazine, tra-ditionally only available to mem-bers, is being distributed through selected pilot shops. “It’s an impor-tant opportunity to expand, to take our world-class magazine out to the marketplace,” he said.

First Winner Selected in AutoPilot iPad 2 SweepstakesCongratulations to Leo Mora, of Shady Shores, Texas, EAA’s fi rst winner

of the monthly AutoPilot iPad 2 Sweepstakes. Leo was automatically entered into our monthly drawing for an iPad 2 when he put his membership on AutoPi-lot—EAA’s automatic dues renewal program—during AirVenture 2011.

Also included is a one-year subscription to ForeFlight HD, supplied by Fore-Flight LLC, maker of intelligent apps for pilots. ForeFlight HD allows pilots to plan, organize, and fl y their trips like never before and includes features like a navlog, approach plate organizer, integrated FAA Airport/Facilities Directory (Green Book), personal waypoints, airspaces, and more.

An EAA member since 1984, Leo, who lives on an airpark, is a Delta airline pilot, a pressurized Cessna Skymaster owner, and a builder of a Glasair I.

Put your membership on AutoPilot by visiting www.EAA.org/autopilot and be entered into the next drawing. It takes just a minute, eliminates the waste of paper renewal notices, and ensures uninterrupted delivery of all your member benefi ts. Best of all, by signing up today, you too could be a winner! (Visit the website for complete sweepstakes rules. No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited by law.)

iPad 2 winner Leo Mora and his wife, Nancy, pictured by Leo’s pressur-ized Cessna Skymaster.

38 SEPTEMBER 2011

VINTAGE AIRPLANE 39

SERVICES 1953 Taylorcraft 15-A Continental

C-145 282.6 Total time A&E Most original Fly Away $39,500 Robert W. Peterson (H) 814-277-6033 (C) 814-952-2686

MISCELLANEOUSwww.aerolist.org, Aviations’ Leading

Marketplace.

SERVICESAlways Flying Aircraft Restoration,

LLC: Annual Inspections, Airframe recovering, fabric repairs and complete restorations. Wayne A. Forshey A&P & I.A. 740-472-1481 Ohio and bordering states.

VINTAGE TRADER

Someth ing to buy, se l l , o r t r ade?

Classified Word Ads: $5.50 per 10 words, 180 words maximum, with boldface lead-in on fi rst line.

Classifi ed Display Ads: One column wide (2.167 inches) by 1, 2, or 3 inches high at $20 per inch. Black and white only, and no frequency discounts.

Advertising Closing Dates: 10th of second month prior to desired issue date (i.e., January 10 is the closing date for the March issue). VAA reserves the right to reject any advertising in confl ict with its policies. Rates cover one insertion per issue. Classifi ed ads are not accepted via phone. Payment must accompany order. Word ads may be sent via fax (920-426-4828) or e-mail (classads@eaa.org) using credit card payment (all cards accepted). Include name on card, complete address, type of card, card number, and expiration date. Make checks payable to EAA. Address advertising correspondence to EAA Publications Classifi ed Ad Manager, P.O. Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086.

Opal Blue Izod ShirtPerfect for warmer weather fl ying.Classy, casual combed cotton shirtis pill resistant. Small VAA logo isdisplayed on the left sleeve. SM 5265339102060MD 5265339103060LG 5265339104060XL 5265339105060

$29.95*

www.shopeaa.com/vaaTelephone Orders: 800-843-3612

From US and Canada (All Others Call 920-426-5912)*Shipping and handling NOT included. Major credit cards accepted.

WI residents add 5% sales tax.

TM

THE “STROMBERG SPECIALIST” R.E. “Bob” Kachergius A&P/IA

UNI-TECH AIR MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.

Call: 708-267-7111 Mail: 13221 WINDWARD TRAIL ORLAND PARK, IL. 60462 E-Mail: uni-tech@earthlink.net

Does your Stromberg NA-S3 carburetor Drip - Leak - Perform poorly ? ? ?

Have it Overhauled & Restored to “Grand Cham-pion” standards and quality by us… WE: Dismantle & Inspect – Clean & Glass Bead Blast – Aluma-Etch & Alodine – Custom Lap mating surfaces – Re-assemble using all new AN hardware, gaskets, Stainless steel or Delrin needle & seat – proper metering jets & venturis… Float level is set “wet” to 13/32” – Stromberg service letter procedure installed to raise float bowl vent position eliminating fuel drip – prepare a log book entry sheet…

All for $850.00 + $25.00 freight & handling

There’s plenty more . . .and other goodies at

www.vintageaircraft.org

TM

40 SEPTEMBER 2011

Copyright ©2011 by the EAA Vintage Aircraft Association, All rights reserved.VINTAGE AIRPLANE (USPS 062-750; ISSN 0091-6943) is published and owned exclusively by the EAA Vintage Aircraft Association of the Experimental Aircraft Association and is published monthly at EAA Avia-

tion Center, 3000 Poberezny Rd., PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903-3086, e-mail: vintageaircraft@eaa.org. Membership to Vintage Aircraft Association, which includes 12 issues of Vintage Airplane magazine, is $36 per year for EAA members and $46 for non-EAA members. Periodicals Postage paid at Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 and at additional mailing offi ces. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Vintage Airplane, PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086. PM 40063731 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Pitney Bowes IMS, Station A, PO Box 54, Windsor, ON N9A 6J5. FOREIGN AND APO ADDRESSES — Please allow at least two months for delivery of VINTAGE AIRPLANE to foreign and APO addresses via surface mail. ADVERTISING — Vintage Aircraft Association does not guarantee or endorse any product offered through the advertising. We invite constructive criticism and welcome any report of inferior merchandise obtained through our advertising so that corrective measures can be taken.

EDITORIAL POLICY: Members are encouraged to submit stories and photographs. Policy opinions expressed in articles are solely those of the authors. Responsibility for accuracy in reporting rests entirely with the contributor. No remuneration is made. Material should be sent to: Editor, VINTAGE AIRPLANE, PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086. Phone 920-426-4800.

EAA® and EAA SPORT AVIATION®, the EAA Logo® and Aeronautica™ are registered trademarks, trademarks, and service marks of the Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. The use of these trademarks and service marks without the permission of the Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. is strictly prohibited.

EAAMembership in the Experimental Aircraft

Association, Inc. is $40 for one year, includ-ing 12 issues of SPORT AVIATION. Family membership is an additional $10 annually. All major credit cards accepted for membership. (Add $16 for International Postage.)

FOREIGN MEMBERSHIPSPlease submit your remittance with a

check or draft drawn on a United States bank payable in United States dollars. Add required Foreign Postage amount for each membership.

VINTAGE AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATIONCurrent EAA members may join the

Vintage Aircraft Association and receive VINTAGE AIRPLANE magazine for an additional $36 per year.

EAA Membership, VINTAGE AIRPLANE magazine and one year membership in the EAA Vintage Aircraft Association is available for $46 per

year (SPORT AVIATION magazine not included). (Add $7 for International Postage.)

WARBIRDSCurrent EAA members may join the EAA

Warbirds of America Division and receive WARBIRDS magazine for an additional $45 per year.

EAA Membership, WARBIRDS mag-azine and one year membership in the Warbirds Division is available for $55 per year (SPORT OficAVIATION magazine not included). (Add $7 for International Postage.)

IACCurrent EAA members may join the

International Aerobatic Club, Inc. Divi-sion and receive SPORT AEROBATICS magazine for an additional $45 per year.EAA Membership, SPORT AEROBAT-ICS magazine and one year membership in the IAC Division is available for $55 per year (SPORT AVIATION magazine not in-cluded). (Add $15 for Foreign Postage.)

MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION

VINTAGEAIRCRAFT

ASSOCIATION OFFICERS

DIRECTORS

DIRECTORSEMERITUS

PresidentGeoff Robison

1521 E. MacGregor Dr.New Haven, IN 46774

260-493-4724chief7025@aol.com

Vice-PresidentGeorge Daubner

N57W34837 Pondview LnOconomowoc, WI 53066

262-560-1949gdaubner@eaa.org

Steve Bender85 Brush Hill Road

Sherborn, MA 01770508-653-7557

sst10@comcast.net

David Bennett375 Killdeer Ct

Lincoln, CA 95648916-952-9449

antiquer@inreach.com

Jerry Brown4605 Hickory Wood Row

Greenwood, IN 46143317-422-9366

lbrown4906@aol.com

Dave Clark635 Vestal Lane

Plainfi eld, IN 46168317-839-4500

davecpd@att.net

John S. Copeland1A Deacon Street

Northborough, MA 01532508-393-4775

copeland1@juno.com

Phil Coulson28415 Springbrook Dr.

Lawton, MI 49065269-624-6490

rcoulson516@cs.com

Dale A. Gustafson7724 Shady Hills Dr.

Indianapolis, IN 46278317-293-4430

dalefaye@msn.com

Jeannie HillP.O. Box 328

Harvard, IL 60033-0328920-426-6110

Espie “Butch” Joyce704 N. Regional Rd.

Greensboro, NC 27409336-668-3650

windsock@aol.com

Steve Krog1002 Heather Ln.

Hartford, WI 53027262-966-7627

sskrog@aol.com

Robert D. “Bob” Lumley1265 South 124th St.Brookfi eld, WI 53005

262-782-2633rlumley1@wi.rr.com

S.H. “Wes” Schmid2359 Lefeber Avenue

Wauwatosa, WI 53213414-771-1545

shschmid@gmail.com

Robert C. Brauer9345 S. Hoyne

Chicago, IL 60643773-779-2105

photopilot@aol.com

Gene Chase2159 Carlton Rd.

Oshkosh, WI 54904920-231-5002

GRCHA@charter.net

Ronald C. Fritz15401 Sparta Ave.

Kent City, MI 49330616-678-5012

rFritz@pathwaynet.com

Charlie HarrisPO Box 470350Tulsa, OK 74147

918-622-8400cwh@hvsu.com

E.E. “Buck” Hilbert8102 Leech Rd.Union, IL 60180

815-923-4591buck7ac@gmail.com

Gene Morris5936 Steve Court

Roanoke, TX 76262817-491-9110

genemorris@charter.net

Membership Services DirectoryEnjoy the many benefi ts of EAA andEAA’s Vintage Aircraft Association

EAA Aviation Center, PO Box 3086, Oshkosh WI 54903-3086Phone (920) 426-4800 Fax (920) 426-4873

Web Sites: www.vintageaircraft.org, www.airventure.org, www.eaa.org/memberbenefi ts E-Mail: vintageaircraft@eaa.org

EAA and Division Membership Services (8:00 AM–6:00 PM Monday–Friday CST)800-564-6322 FAX 920-426-4873 www.eaa.org/memberbenefi ts membership@eaa.org

•New/renew memberships •Address changes •Merchandise sales •Gift memberships

EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 888-322-4636 www.airventure.org airventure@eaa.orgSport Pilot/Light-Sport Aircraft Hotline 877-359-1232 www.sportpilot.org sportpilot@eaa.org

Programs and ActivitiesAuto Fuel STCs 920-426-4843 stc@eaa.orgEAA Air Academy 920-426-6880 www.airacademy.org airacademy@eaa.orgEAA Scholarships 920-426-6823 scholarships@eaa.orgLibrary Services/Research 920-426-4848 slurvey@eaa.org

Benefi tsAUA Vintage Insurance Plan 800-727-3823 www.auaonline.comEAA Aircraft Insurance Plan 866-647-4322 www.eaa.org/memberbenefi ts membership@eaa.orgEAA VISA Card 800-853-5576 ext. 8884EAA Hertz Rent-A-Car Program 800-654-2200 www.eaa.org/hertz membership@eaa.orgVAA Editorial/Executive Director 920-426-4825 www.vintageaircraft.org vintage@eaa.orgVAA Offi ce 920-426-6110 tbooks@eaa.org

Membership dues to EAA and its divisions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions

TM

TM

EAA Members Information Line 888-EAA-INFO (322-4636)Use this toll-free number for: information about AirVenture Oshkosh; aeromedical and technical aviation questions;

chapters; and Young Eagles. Please have your membership number ready when calling.

Offi ce hours are 8:15 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday - Friday, CST)

SecretarySteve Nesse

2009 Highland Ave.Albert Lea, MN 56007

507-373-1674stnes2009@live.com

TreasurerDan Knutson

106 Tena Marie CircleLodi, WI 53555608-592-7224

lodicub@charter.net

John TurgyanPO Box 219

New Egypt, NJ 08533609-752-1944

jrturgyan4@aol.com

V E H I C L E P U R C H A S E P L A N

Thank You from Ford and EAA!

The partnership between EAA and Ford spans more than a decade and the connection continues to grow. Our mutual goal is to continually enhance the EAA member experience.

EAA values the partnership with Ford and Ford’s support of the opening day REO Speedwagon concert, the nightly Fly-In movie theater the spectacular Blue Angels Edition Mustang, and much more.

AirVenture 2011 was an extraordinary event and we look forward to seeing you next year!

Rod Hightower Tom Poberezny Edsel B. Ford II President & CEO, EAA Chairman Emeritus, EAA Board Director, Ford Motor Co.

EAA members are eligible for special pricing on Ford Motor Company vehicles through Ford’s Partner Recognition Program. To learn more on this exclusive opportunity for EAA members to save on a new Ford vehicle, please visit www.eaa.org/ford.