Scudrunners

For me the best trainer is the one that can do basic aerobatics +6 -3g and can fit my 6'4 frame comfortably. Fleet and bunch of taildrsggers are beautiful machines but designed for 5'6 body and 150 lbs.


If money was not an issue, i would own Extra 300 as a trainer. I know some would say it can be tricky one, but who cares.

Actually I think a person who could afford it could do a PPL and CPL in a properly equipped 300/L/LS/etc.


I know that back in the 60's the RCAF did an experiment where they took a bunch of students and instead of starting them on the Chipmunk and then moving them to the Harvard they simply started them on the Harvard. I was told that there was not that much difference in total time required but that of course it was much more expensive.


You'd probably want to limit the power and speeds a bit to help with cross countries and map reading.

[quote]What did you think of the Fleet Canuck Scudrunner?[/quote]


You missed this Scud.

[quote]they simply started them on the Harvard[/quote]

That's what my father did in the RCAF in the early 50's,
before the Chipmunk came along.  Harvard for ab initio,
then T-33, then F-86 then F-104.

Harvard/T-6/SNJ is a pretty weird ab initio trainer, but
it goes to show that with enough effort, anything is possible.

Extra 300 would make a fine trainer, IMHO.  Easier to
land than the Maule which was my ab initio trainer,
and my son's, but maybe we just aren't very good
pilots as a result of it.

[img width=500 height=375][/img]

Training on an Extra 300 would make it simple to
introduce aerobatics and formation pre-solo.

I soloed a guy on an S-2B which he bought.  TC
hates his guts.  He is a marvellously skilled pilot.

Hell, I had a student pilot solo in a jet, once.
Completely legal.  TC fucking hates my guts
for it.

I dunno man, compared to a Chipmunk or Decathlon
or Citabria or Champ or Cub or T-craft, which are all
perfect little ab initio trainers ...

Harvard and Stearman are "interesting" choices
for ab initio. 

I've heard many people say that the Harvard is
a "fire-breathing dragon", worse than the Pitts. 

[img]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NFtqCMIGTKU/ ... e002+3.jpg[/img]

Hey, you ever landed a Harvard at night from
the back seat?

I have a great idea.  How about a Citation for
ab initio?  >:D

Personally I love the Stearman, but it is completely
blind forward during landing and takeoff which freaks
some people out.  Wonderful on grass.

The Harvard, in addition to having restricted forward
vis, also has a supercharged radial engine which also
requires some delicacy on the throttle.  It's also a
heavy pig, and like any heavy taildragger, should not
be allowed to develop a yaw angle on the runway.
Again, better on grass despite what the AvCan
experts say.

Not sure if night is ab initio or not.  It's part of the
PPL in the USA, just like hood and radio nav.

Yes, for a brief while the RCAF tried putting students
directly into the tutor.  Not a great success.  In the
civilian world, there was once a baseball player who's
wealth allowed him to purchase a Cessna Citation as
his first airplane, to learn how to fly.  It did not end well.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurman_Munson#Death]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurman_Munson#Death[/url]

[quote]On the fourth touch-and-go landing, Munson allowed the aircraft to sink too low
before increasing engine power, causing the jet to clip a tree and fall short of the runway[/quote]

See my articles on flying a jet.  But remember, I
probably don't know as much as an AvCan expert.

It's pretty dangerous, being a NY Yankee baseball player:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurman_Munson#Death (Citation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hardin#Death (Bonanza)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Lidle#Death  (SR20)

>[font=Verdana]I've heard many people say that the Harvard is [/font][font=Verdana]a "fire-breathing dragon", worse than the Pitts. 

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I've flown the Harvard from the rear seat (once) and did not find it to be particularly difficult. It had a high speed stall which delivered a rather eye catching snap if you were a bit ham fisted on the back side of a loop. That was the characteristic that stood out the most for me. Certainly the Pitts that I've flown are harder to land than the Harvard, at least in the rather benign wind conditions that I flew it.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Extra is a total pussy cat in pretty much every respect except its ability to produce speed,roll, pitch, yaw and G very quickly which will kill you if you get your R^2 math wrong.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I think the Chipmunk is too easy to fly to be a great trainer. Its a lovey plane but I think its actually too easy to fly. Its a bit like an Extra but with 1/10th the power and 1/2 the sensitivity ... and continuous oil leaks ;)[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Tail dragger RV's would likely make good choices if they ever were certified. Be a great cheap replacement for 150's.[/font]


[/font]