Wing and a Prayer

There are only six active wing walkers in the country. One of them is Ashley Battles. She's been flying since she was a teenager and graduated from OSU with a degree in aviation. She could fly most general aviation airplanes. Instead, she climbs on top of them. "I knew I wanted to be a pilot for the rest of my life, but after getting all of my ratings, I was really kind of bored with flying straight and level," she said. But will she get bored walking on a wing for five hours?

She's pictured below with Greg Shelton.

Ashley Battles is going for a really long walk on a very short path. She is preparing to take a five-hour stroll on the wings of a 450 Stearman piloted by Robert Ragozzino...The current wingwalking record is 3 hours, 39 minutes; however Battles and Ragozzino are shooting for five hours.

Of course it’s to set a record, but Ragozzino hopes to call attention to his future plans to recreate Lindbergh’s flight in a replica of Lindberg’s “Ryan” aircraft. I’ve weighed in on this before and while I admire their effort, courage and stamina, I seems like it's a wild stunt that won't necessarily promote general aviation. Will more people be attracted to flying or think it's strange? How many light airplane pilots have relatives and friends that already wonder why we take to the air?

Five hours is a long time inside a plane.

Crash Course

The Extra 300 is a marvelous unlimited aerobatic plane with a spritely climb rate of 4,000 feet/minute, a roll rate of 420 degrees / per second and rated for 10 g’s. I logged in to schedule time in the plane with an instructor only to find that it was listed out of service for six weeks. (The actual plane is depicted on the right side of the page, right above the “Blogroll”).That’s a mighty long time so I contacted the chief pilot. The plane was indeed out of service. Permanently. It had been totaled.

“What happened?!” I asked “ Remember that old Warrior on the ramp?” said the chief pilot “The guy in the Piper wasn’t paying attention after start-up and didn’t have the brakes set. Apparently he was distracted by something as the plane taxied along and sliced into the Extra 300 parked in front of our hanger....knocked it right out of the chocks. Both planes are complete losses”. I know the relative distance between both areas and the only explanation is that the Warrior pilot must have been reading the paper. Or taking a short nap. How do you lose awareness that you're behind the wheel of a plane in motion?

Taxiing is usually the least demanding part of a flight, a fact that leads many pilots to discount the need for attention or to attempt to multitask on their way to the runway. The rolling runup used by some charter operators comes to mind.

Simply put, it’s inattention. These are the people who get out of the airplane and walk into a spinning prop. They’re the pilots who start the engine and bury their heads in the cockpit to work radios or fold charts while the airplane meanders across the ramp. They taxi down perimeter roads and hit poles. They start taxiing with one wing still tied down, spinning the airplane in a circle and crunching something nearby. One pilot who was taxiing in thought it critical he retrieve a chart that had fallen on the floor in front of the right seat. He rammed a trailer that had been parked on the taxiway. The accordion plane shown below was the result of another pilot who let the plane get away from him. A little Bondo and I'm sure it'll buff right out.



The variety of miscellaneous accidents also illustrates how problems can sneak up on you. The airplane can get blown over by a jet blast or prop wash from another airplane. You can stumble into a construction zone. One pilot’s sleeve caught on the throttle and advanced it to full power suddenly.

Taxi accidents prove the wisdom in an old saying usually applied to tailwheel airplanes: Fly it from the time the engine starts until you shut the engine down.

Minimum Expectations

83 years ago today, the Lone Eagle landed in Paris. He was greeted by over 100,000 people and instantly became a household name to millions. It was obviously risky. Six well-known aviators had recently lost their lives in pursuit of the $25,000 Orteig Prize for crossing the Atlantic. No one had ever done it and it was as fantastic as the first landing on the moon.



How risky? There were plenty of unknowns and potential hazards but Charles Lindberg willingly departed with the cards stacked against him. He took off from a rain-soaked field with a tailwind. He was using a cruise prop and had the carb heat hot wired to the on position. The plane was loaded with 451 gallons of gas rendering the Sprit of St. Louis 1,000 pounds heavier than it had ever been. The engine was running 40 rpm short of max power. Lastly he went to bed at 1:40 a.m and, unable to sleep, headed to Curtiss Field at 2:30 a.m. to prepare for take-off, knowing that he had another 33 hours of flying ahead of him. Two full days without sleep at the worst possible time. Heavily laden with fuel, the plane bounced down the muddy field, gradually became airborne and barely cleared the telephone wires at the field's edge. It was almost a very short trip. (Excellent footage of the whole story right here, compliments of Win Perkins).

He should have postponed the trip for numerous reasons but the pressure to leave was huge. Anybody else in our viewing audience guilty of taking off when conditions exceeded personal minimums? (Your humble scribe now sheepishly raising hand). There aren’t many reasons to undertake unacceptable risk. Combat flying is one, medical evacuation is another but that’s about it. This flight was strictly for fame and fortune.

The consequences can be disastrous. This video shows an L-39 entering a loop in poor visibility. It was too much for the pilot who spun the Albatross into a fireball. He wasn’t capable of maintaining control in the clouds and this was beyond his personal "minimums". Contrary to the news report he was never an Israeli fighter pilot (another one of those stolen valor situations). But it was an air show and the show must go on. Family, friends and an audience were there to see him fly and so he did... for a short while.

The plane and the pilot both have limitations and we exceed them at our own risk. Not everyone is as lucky as Lindy.

Rocket Powered Chopper

You Made a What?

The Dragonfy DF1 jet powered helicopter demonstrates that a helicopter can actually be made noisier. Swisscopter- Americas has developed a chopper which is sure to make dogs bark and howl for miles in any direction.

The video reminds me of one of those early aviation experiments destined to explode or vibrate into oblivion but incredibly it lifts off (eventually) and maneuvers pretty well. More suprising that people remained in close proximity during the test flight. Your average helicopter is driven by an engine that causes the rotor to turn in one direction while concurrently forcing the body of the aircraft in the opposite direction. A tail rotor is normally used to counteract this force. Instead, the Dragonfly has the rotor power itself using small hydrogen-peroxide jets on the blade tips, spinning them without counter rotating force. The tail rotor is still needed only to turn the aircraft. It has 50 endurance and I have no idea if it autorotates, which would be a good idea if there's a problem. Not a bad rate of climb at 2,300 fpm and 115 mph top speed. Swisscopter is also working on a two seat version if you’re able to talk a family member into actually climbing in with you.

Tip-jet powered helicopters are not new. The British had an experimental helicopter in the 1950s that employed tip-jet powered rotors but was unable to get off the ground. The Hiller YH-32 Hornet built for the US Army and Navy also in the early 1950s had potential but noise and poor range doomed the effort.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGcRgEuCocQ&feature=player_embedded]

I'm hoping the idea doesn't take off. Not in my backyard anyway.

Deserving our Support

I was inspired after reading “Unthinkable”, the story of Scott Rigsby. Rigsby was the first double amputee to complete the Hawaiian Ironman. Determined to transcend his limitations, he felt it was his calling to give hope to other disabled veterans. Another group with the same mission is the Wounded Warriors Project . So just after completing the book, it was great to see this story from the folks at AOPA regarding flights for our disabled veterans.

The flights were part of an agreement between the Wounded Warrior Project and the Vandy-1 demonstration team. AOPA hosted Vandy-1’s five aircraft—a P-51 Mustang, two L-39 Albatroses, and two MS-760 Paris Jets—along with a B-25….. “They say the World War II-generation was the greatest generation—and perhaps that’s true,” Kelley said. “But these kids we’ve got in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be our next greatest generation, and I’m thrilled to be able to do little things like this to honor them. Too many of us do nothing. We all ought to be doing more.”

Speaking of “Doing more”, here are two other organizations worthy of consideration which we also support: Disabled American Veterans and Soldiers Angels.

It’s the least we can do for those who gave so much for our country.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

You don’t have to be rich to fly but it doesn’t hurt to have bundles of cash if you’d like to travel in a style that’s hard to imagine. Well, I can imagine it pretty easily when making the 21 hour trip to Singapore.



Despite an economy that’s still rising from the ashes, there are still a small number of folks who are able to spend money like drunken sailors on private air travel. The super luxury segment is all but impervious to economic woes and public relations gaffes. During the recent 2010 European Business aviation Exhibition, jet service provider Comlux announced it was adding six more 767’s to the fleet to “better serve our Head of State and Royal Families customers". This seems especially appealing if you’ve ever been in a middle seat with passengers on either side that require seat belt extenders in order to buckle up. I’ve even had an elderly lady fall asleep on my shoulder which was plenty awkward. Say goodbye to all that since luxury air travel enables you to get a whole couch to yourself.

For those who are determined to spend even more money there’s the Supersonic Bizjet. An idea whose time may never come. One such start up company, Aerion, is still in search of an established manufacturer to fund, develop, certify and produce it. The concept was launched in 2004.

They’ve received orders for 50 of the $80 million aircraft, priced in 2007 dollars, each backed by a $250,000 refundable deposit, but have been unsuccessful in enticing any OEM to become a partner in the “first mover” project. If and when that occurs, Aerion managers say it will take a minimum of 6.5 years and $3 billion to bring it to market.

Six years later and no manufacturer will touch this with a ten foot pole. Why? Because it’s the same as dumping truckloads of money into a gigantic parking lot and setting a match to it. Perhaps they didn’t pay attention to the economics of the Concorde which later burned up money by the plane load. (To be fair, British Airways did make money initially). Ultimately, it wasn’t economically feasible for a larger group of passengers. Why would this concept be viable for only a half-dozen people on a flight? (Even if you do have truckloads of money to burn). Oh, and there’s that little problem of a sonic boom which relegates this to oceanic flights.

It's an idea that's likely to be grounded for years to come.

Dumb and Dumber

For some reason, some folks find it entertaining to point lasers at aircraft. The menace is growing despite the efforts to inform the public that it’s a Really Bad Idea. Earlier this month, some idiot targeted Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma:

During a recent night flying week, the difficult and dangerous business of learning to fly at night was made even more difficult and dangerous when three Vance aircraft were the targets of a concentrated beam of green laser light, either from a laser pointer or a laser rifle scope. All three aircraft, a T-6A Texan II and two T-38s, landed safely, but all six pilots had to report to the Vance Clinic for precautionary eye exams. All were cleared by flight surgeons. “They were on final turns to come into the base,” said Bob Farrell, Vance’s chief of community relations. “That’s a very critical phase of flight.”……“The critical phase of flight, absolutely, is the last 1,000 feet coming in and landing. That’s when the pilots need their eyes the most.”

During 2009 there were 1,527 laser illumination incidents reported to Federal Aviation Administration, up from 311 in 2005. Through 4/15/10 there’s aleady 550 reported incidents.

This guy is going to do four years in prison for it. Some say that that’s too severe and it’s an over reaction. I don’t. The lives of the pilot (s) and passengers in commercial aircraft are placed in jeopardy if pilots are blinded on short final. It can also cost a pilot his livelihood. An American airline pilot who’s lost his medical after his eye was struck with a laser. You cannot blink fast enough. In my view, this is no different than someone firing a rifle at a plane. A severe penalty sends a message.

“Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.” (George Savile)

h/t to Dan for the article

Another Milestone

Son#1 completed his MBA the harder way. Raising a young family, with two boys under the age of three while working as an electrical engineer and the occasional out-of-town travels. Same as Dad and I'm sure countless others. We're obviously very proud. He's a good man. It doesn't seem that long ago he was putting together electronic projects as a young tyke. I was relieved the rail gun and MIRT Opticom transmitter never worked.





When it finally ends, you wonder what to do with all that time.

I'm strongly recommending ground school and flight training.

Long Arm of the Law

Lycoming's Dilemma

One of the reasons flying is expensive is that liability insurance and the cost of lawsuits are passed on to the pilot. Today, Lycoming Engines (Division of Textron) said the company will appeal an $89 million verdict involving a 1999 crash of a Piper Cherokee Six. The long arm of the law can reach back over 40 years. The aircraft that crashed was built in 1968. Lycoming sold the engine to Piper in 1967.

This verdict was especially surprising because it was decided in spite of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994,which provides limitations on lawsuits against aircraft and component manufacturers eighteen years after the product was first sold. The other surprise: The NTSB determined it was pilot error:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot’s loss of control of the airplane during a turn. Factors include the pilot’s failure maintain sufficient airspeed, and his failure to maintain the airplane in proper trim.

In the 1980’s over 90,000 general aviation jobs eventually were lost as plants closed. This was due in large part to the rise in damage awards and liability insurance costs associated with the manufacture of general aviation aircraft. Manufacturers passed along costs to their customers. Private aircraft had liability insurance expenses of approximately 40% of each plane produced. Lawsuits occur in the majority of all crashes even though pilot error is responsible for 85 percent of them.

Today, most piston powered airplanes are powered by Lycoming engines. I've been to their facility in Williamsport, PA and it's top notch with a focus on designing and producing the best engines around. I hope litigation doesn't drive more suppliers and OEM's away from general aviation. It takes a lot of revenue and retained earnings to pay for one of these and ,after a while, investors will want to park their money elsewhere.

What is the goal? Is it to drive manufacturers out of business with punitive lawsuits (Parker Hannifin no longer makes vacuum pumps) or is it to make as much money as possible for the lawyers and plaintiffs? I don't pretend to understand the legal profession but some lawsuits stretch the imagination.

Personal Jets

Having enjoyed time in the L-29 I can safely say that "low cost" and "jet aircraft" really don't occur in the same sentence. This is even truer when developing a Personal Jet. While there is argument on the definition, some have termed the more recent VLJ (Very Light Jet), as one with a gross weight under 10,000 pounds. A Personal Jet has a gross weight under 5,500 lb, which is substantially smaller. The L-29, a war bird, isn't really either one but since it's less than 12,000# , doesn't require a type rating.

Many start the design process searching for a low cost solution. The engine out of an L-29 is relatively inexpensive, assuming you can find one that you or anyone else would be willing to sit on top of. There is usually a good reason why the engine is cheap, thus the issue with finding parts, as well as someone qualified to work on it. Further, given the age of the technology, you can figure the thing needs an equivalent of a toilet bowl for a fuel delivery device (the whooshing sound is the fuel dollars being sucked down the drain). It makes the J-79 look efficient.

Then, you need to determine what you want the airplane to do. If you don't care about range and only wish to bore holes in the sky around your local airport, then you might develop a decent sized airplane, but you’ll never go cross country in it. The rule of thumb for any jet aircraft, in order for it to have anything approaching a realistic range, it must have as a very minimum the same amount of fuel on board in pounds as the engine is rated for static thrust, in pounds also. The L-29 flys only two hours in cruise but anything more strenuous makes it a much shorter flight.

So, assuming you find a 1,200 pound thrust engine, (The L-29 Motorlet engine is 1,800 pounds of thrust) you will need to carry between 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of fuel. If you’re building a Personal Jet, then you may be lucky to achieve a thrust to weight ratio of .25 and while that’s OK, it’s not anything to brag about. A larger engine will require larger fuel tanks and a larger airframe as the design evolves into something ever larger. Then it weighs more and the engine that seemed plenty powerful isn't so much. Small wonder there’s not too many of them around. The most recent personal jet effort was the ATG Javelin and it was a nice looking little F-18. Unfortunately they went bankrupt in 2008.

If you want a short history, look here . None are in existence but it indicates why VLJ’s, with their range and capability, are more commercially viable. And those aren’t anywhere near what I’d call inexpensive.

Failure to Launch

Unknown to most of the general public, NASA has been using large unmanned helium balloons to put payloads into the edge of space to investigate the nature of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays and search for anti-matter. Not the sort of thing that sparks a lot of public interest. That is, until something bad happens and then it becomes news.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieyD1FfQOIg&feature=player_embedded]

Good thing the Wizard of Oz didn't make his exit in one of these. Speaking of Oz-apparently this particular launch was down under. Keep yer heads down mates.