What did it take to get a ticket in 1946?

[Dallas]

I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.

I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo certificate, but
I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the certificate. It's pretty
cool to find out your mother was a pilot.

I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm guessing
it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of FARs, airspace,
electronic navigation or even radio.

Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?

--
Dallas

[DaveB]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:12:53 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>
>I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.
>
>I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo certificate, but
>I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the certificate. It's pretty
>cool to find out your mother was a pilot.
>
>I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm guessing
>it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of FARs, airspace,
>electronic navigation or even radio.
>
>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>
>--
>Dallas
Yeah.....find the airport on your own and start the plane.
Daveb

[Jim Stewart]

Dallas wrote:
> I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.
>
> I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo certificate, but
> I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the certificate. It's pretty
> cool to find out your mother was a pilot.
>
> I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm guessing
> it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of FARs, airspace,
> electronic navigation or even radio.
>
> Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>
No, but I picked up a 1948 logbook at the
flea market and leafed through it. The only
difference I noted was spin training early
on.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Dallas wrote:
>> I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.
>>
>> I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo
>> certificate, but I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the
>> certificate. It's pretty cool to find out your mother was a pilot.
>>
>> I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm
>> guessing it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of
>> FARs, airspace, electronic navigation or even radio.
>>
>> Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>>
> No, but I picked up a 1948 logbook at the
> flea market and leafed through it. The only
> difference I noted was spin training early
> on.
>

Yeah, much of the stuff students are learning nowadays is straight out of
the need for training pilots and lots of 'em for WW2.


if it ain't broke...


Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dallas wrote:
>
>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>

I don't know what the exact requirements were, but I do know that it was
much simpler back then. An old friend of mine got his ticket in the late
'40s and he was surprised at the amount of book learnin' and flying I had to
do to get my ticket 40 yrs. later.

I remember looking at his logbook and seeing his first solo on the 4th
entry, after 3.5 hrs of instruction in an Ercoupe.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:

> I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.

> I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo certificate, but
> I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the certificate. It's pretty
> cool to find out your mother was a pilot.

> I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm guessing
> it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of FARs, airspace,
> electronic navigation or even radio.

> Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?

Take todays requirements.

Subtract anything to do with electronics and radios.

Subtract anything to do with airspace, ATC and IFR.

Add spin training.

Add hand proping.

That's pretty much it; there isn't much about flying airplanes that
has changed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John[_13_]]

I just looked at my father's log book ( a very treasured possession ) and he
got his private in 3 months with 27 hours in 1947.

John
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7e694610f5cd5@uwe...
> Dallas wrote:
>>
>>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>>
>
> I don't know what the exact requirements were, but I do know that it was
> much simpler back then. An old friend of mine got his ticket in the late
> '40s and he was surprised at the amount of book learnin' and flying I had
> to
> do to get my ticket 40 yrs. later.
>
> I remember looking at his logbook and seeing his first solo on the 4th
> entry, after 3.5 hrs of instruction in an Ercoupe.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1
>

[Dallas]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:25:04 GMT, wrote:

> Subtract anything to do with airspace, ATC and IFR.

What about subtract most of the weather products? They didn't have
satellites and weather radar or the computers to distribute the
information.

Did they even have FSS?


--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

> * I remember looking at his logbook and seeing his first solo on the 4th
> entry, after 3.5 hrs of instruction in an Ercoupe.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

3.5 Hah! Can't beat that today. At some point back then the written
was only 25 true / false questions (according to Dick Collins on one
of his videos).

I must be a chicken-sheet. I don't think I'd WANT to solo at 3.5
hours. Could've with a gun at my head. But woudn't have otherwise. I
did at 12.5 and thought, "Hell, it won't be long before I've got that
certificate in the bag."

Wrong again. WRONG AGAIN. ;)

[Big John[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:12:53 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>
>I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.
>
>I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo certificate, but
>I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the certificate. It's pretty
>cool to find out your mother was a pilot.
>
>I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm guessing
>it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of FARs, airspace,
>electronic navigation or even radio.
>
>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
-------------------------------------------------

Dallas

In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
(Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.

You can't beat that. I of course later worked up to Commercial and
Instructor SMEL and Instruments with no poblems..

Oh for the good old days :o)

Big John

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
> -------------------------------------------------
> In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
> (Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
> wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
> a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.

Not to rain on anyone's parade about "the good ol' days" -- but I've read
that the accident statistics back then were truly appalling. As FAA guys
are fond of saying, each new rule was written in blood -- which is why it's
so much harder to get your ticket nowadays.

Big John, you were there. Was it as bad as they say?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:UKnkj.42568$Ux2.18065@attbi_s22:

>>>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
>> (Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
>> wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
>> a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.
>
> Not to rain on anyone's parade about "the good ol' days" -- but I've
> read that the accident statistics back then were truly appalling.

As appaling as the Chartreuse bedspreads in your place?

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
> (Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
> wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
> a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.
>
> You can't beat that. I of course later worked up to Commercial and
> Instructor SMEL and Instruments with no poblems..
>
> Oh for the good old days :o)

Weren't you expected to fight a war in exchange for the easy license?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 10:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > You can't beat that. I of course later worked up to Commercial and
> > Instructor SMEL and Instruments with no poblems..
>
> > Oh for the good old days :o)
>
> Weren't you expected to fight a war in exchange for the easy license?

You really are amazingly irritating.

Nothing can be sufficient exchange for service in wartime. It's not a
deal, and it sure as hell isn't a simulation.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
>> (Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
>> wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
>> a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.
>>
>> You can't beat that. I of course later worked up to Commercial and
>> Instructor SMEL and Instruments with no poblems..
>>
>> Oh for the good old days :o)
>
> Weren't you expected to fight a war in exchange for the easy license?


Two foreign concepts for you in one!

Three if oyu count the good old days.


Bertie

[Viperdoc]

Unfortunately for Anthony, serving the country in the military is a foreign
concept, although which service branch would take him is another question.

I could just see his lard ass in front of a Marine drill instructor,
explaining how to re-design the M-16, or expounding on infant formula and
breast feeding.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Unfortunately for Anthony, serving the country in the military is a
> foreign concept, although which service branch would take him is
> another question.
>
> I could just see his lard ass in front of a Marine drill instructor,
> explaining how to re-design the M-16, or expounding on infant formula
> and breast feeding.

Bwaahwhahwhahwh!

I can see the drill instructor collapsing in tears, too.

I'm thinking we should rename him Gomer, now.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 11:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Viperdoc" > wrote :
>
> > Unfortunately for Anthony, serving the country in the military is a
> > foreign concept, although which service branch would take him is
> > another question.
>
> > I could just see his lard ass in front of a Marine drill instructor,
> > explaining how to re-design the M-16, or expounding on infant formula
> > and breast feeding.
>
> Bwaahwhahwhahwh!
>
> I can see the drill instructor collapsing in tears, too.
>
> I'm thinking we should rename him Gomer, now.
>
> Bertie

Too much credit.

Gomer actually made it through basic.

I was an Army OCS TAC (Drill instructor for officers) - Sadly I saw
his kind from time to time. We were always more than happy to keep
their stay short -- usually 2 hours -- 90 minutes of that time spent
outprocessing.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 19, 11:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Viperdoc" > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Unfortunately for Anthony, serving the country in the military is a
>> > foreign concept, although which service branch would take him is
>> > another question.
>>
>> > I could just see his lard ass in front of a Marine drill
>> > instructor, explaining how to re-design the M-16, or expounding on
>> > infant formula and breast feeding.
>>
>> Bwaahwhahwhahwh!
>>
>> I can see the drill instructor collapsing in tears, too.
>>
>> I'm thinking we should rename him Gomer, now.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Too much credit.
>
> Gomer actually made it through basic.
>
> I was an Army OCS TAC (Drill instructor for officers) - Sadly I saw
> his kind from time to time. We were always more than happy to keep
> their stay short -- usually 2 hours -- 90 minutes of that time spent
> outprocessing.

True, but the no money thingk might have suited him.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
>> (Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
>> wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
>> a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.
>
> Not to rain on anyone's parade about "the good ol' days" -- but I've
> read that the accident statistics back then were truly appalling. As
> FAA guys are fond of saying, each new rule was written in blood -- which
> is why it's so much harder to get your ticket nowadays.
>
> Big John, you were there. Was it as bad as they say?

Jay, you may want to read "Fate is the Hunter" as that will give you a
good idea of the number of early pilots who "wrote the regulations" for
those of us who followed.

Matt

[[email protected]]

> Jay, you may want to read "Fate is the Hunter" as that will give you a
> good idea of the number of early pilots who "wrote the regulations" for
> those of us who followed.
>
> Matt

That book is simply excellent.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:59:37 -0600, Big John wrote:

> all of us who wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test

Sounds easy, but that depends on the 10 questions. They could be:

1) Skin friction drag is due to the viscous attachment that takes place
between the surface and the layer of fluid immediately above it.

(True) (False)

:- )

--
Dallas

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:36:29 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote:

> I remember looking at his logbook and seeing his first solo on the 4th
>entry, after 3.5 hrs of instruction in an Ercoupe.

A Piper Cub dealer would fly a plane to some field near a small city
and round up the doctors and lawyers and car dealers, plus one high
school athlete. He would solo the youngster that afternoon. "See how
easy it is?" he would say, and sell the adults the Cub on the spot for
$2600, then take the train home and fetch another Cub from Lock Haven
and repeat the process somewhere else.

That may have been more common before the war than after.

("the war": the unpleasantness between 1941 and 1945)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

Note that, despite all the things they didn't have in 1946, they DID
have one thing that is now sorely missed: almost every town had its
name painted on a flat or nearly flat roof.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:

>
> Note that, despite all the things they didn't have in 1946, they DID
> have one thing that is now sorely missed: almost every town had its
> name painted on a flat or nearly flat roof.


Remeber a lot of those still in existence not all that long ago!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 2:10 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:59:37 -0600, Big John wrote:
> > all of us who wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test
>
> Sounds easy, but that depends on the 10 questions. They could be:
>
> 1) Skin friction drag is due to the viscous attachment that takes place
> between the surface and the layer of fluid immediately above it.
>
> (True) (False)
>
> :- )
>
> --
> Dallas

Somebody's been reading "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> wrote
>> Somebody's been reading "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"
>
> I was required to read it 50 years ago while in Preflight
> Class 12-58, NAS Pensacola. I still have my copy.
>


I have one given to me when I was 13..

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 4:44 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
> wrote
>
> > Somebody's been reading "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"
>
> I was required to read it 50 years ago while in Preflight
> Class 12-58, NAS Pensacola. I still have my copy.
>
> Bob Moore

Awesome... it's amazing how undated the information is.

I served 10 enlisted years in the Air Force, 11 commissioned years in
the Army, and my respect for naval aviators is unbounded. Talk about
having to get it right every time.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 5:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> I have one given to me when I was 13..
>
> Bertie

You're jes a damn genius, Gump!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

" > wrote in news:734ef6c1-d411-4269-
:

> On Jan 19, 5:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> I have one given to me when I was 13..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're jes a damn genius, Gump!
>

Wasn't braggin. Just pointing out what a great book it is.
I got another one at the same time, also USN. It's about instrument flying.
It's unbeleivably simple, with pics of giants holding F4Fs by their wings
to illustrate loads.

Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:24:52 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> In 1945 I was a Second Lt, Army Air Corps Pilot in RTU (Replacement
>> (Fighter) Training Unit) and a CAA rep came around and all of us who
>> wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test and then given
>> a Temp Certificate and regular license came in several weeks later.
>
>Not to rain on anyone's parade about "the good ol' days" -- but I've read
>that the accident statistics back then were truly appalling. As FAA guys
>are fond of saying, each new rule was written in blood -- which is why it's
>so much harder to get your ticket nowadays.
>
>Big John, you were there. Was it as bad as they say?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay

Back in 30's when I started in GA I saw a number of accidents and read
about others if they made the paper.

Most the pilots survived.

1. Most birds were pretty slow so impact force was low in crash.
2. Construction in those days gave significant crumple zone.
4. Almost all GA flying was VFR in daylight.

People got killed but I never had any fear of flying in those
ramshackle birds.

People died a variety of ways in those days and life span was short so
aircraft deaths were just factored in and didn't make a half page on
front page for a week.

Keep reading about Iowa. Start taking better care of it for me :o)

Big John

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:02:13 -0500, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>Note that, despite all the things they didn't have in 1946, they DID
>have one thing that is now sorely missed: almost every town had its
>name painted on a flat or nearly flat roof.

They also had the third wheel on the proper end of most airplanes.. :)

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I deduct last years taxes as a bad investment?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:18:23 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>I have one given to me when I was 13..

Oh, just last week, eh? :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:18:23 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>I have one given to me when I was 13..
>
> Oh, just last week, eh? :-)
>

Go fjukk yourself netkkkopp


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:10:13 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:59:37 -0600, Big John wrote:
>
>> all of us who wanted a Private License were given a 10 question test
>
>Sounds easy, but that depends on the 10 questions. They could be:
>
>1) Skin friction drag is due to the viscous attachment that takes place
>between the surface and the layer of fluid immediately above it.
>
>(True) (False)
>
>:- )
------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. They were the basic civilian flying rules that we didn't use in
the Army Air Corps.

10 then. How many now?????

I say again. Oh, for the good old days :o)

Military.

In WWII the top of the ladder was a Fighter Pilot and the F-51 was the
Premier Fighter.

Big John

[Dallas]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:38:53 -0600, Big John wrote:

> 10 then. How many now?????

About 800 questions now.

--
Dallas

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:12:53 -0600, Dallas
> wrote:

>
>I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.
>
>I knew she had taken lessons and she had a Piper Cub solo certificate, but
>I was unclear if she had gone all the way to the certificate. It's pretty
>cool to find out your mother was a pilot.
>
>I'm trying to envision what the program was like in 1946... I'm guessing
>it was much simpler not having to deal with mountains of FARs, airspace,
>electronic navigation or even radio.
>
>Does anyone know what the requirements were in those days?

the other posts seem to be on the money.

I remember in my theory correspondence course back in the early 1970's
the coment was written that the private pilot in 1970 was expected to
understand more than the commercial pilot of the 1950's.

an interesting topic for contemplation.

Stealth Pilot

[Dallas]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:04:01 +0900, Stealth Pilot wrote:

> the coment was written that the private pilot in 1970 was expected to
> understand more than the commercial pilot of the 1950's.

Was a commercial ticket back in the 1950's all you needed to fly for the
airlines?

I know in the 1970's it required an ATR (Air Transport Rating) but I don't
know when that was started.


--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> Was a commercial ticket back in the 1950's all you needed to fly for the
> airlines?
>
> I know in the 1970's it required an ATR (Air Transport Rating) but I don't
> know when that was started.

I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dallas writes:
>
>> Was a commercial ticket back in the 1950's all you needed to fly for
>> the airlines?
>>
>> I know in the 1970's it required an ATR (Air Transport Rating) but I
>> don't know when that was started.
>
> I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.
>

God you are an idiot.

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.

That was a great video that really captures the era. I've got excerpts
from it here:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16-Flyingwi1953.mpg

and

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16_Flyingwi1953_2.mpg

These are gi-normous downloads, so be patient.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Jan 20, 2:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.

Oh yeah? I can top that.

Last summer, I saw Elvis Presley himself taxi up in the left seat of
a green and white Bellanca Super Viking and and park next to me on the
ramp at Henderson Executive (KHND in Las Vegas). I know for a fact it
was Elvis himself, due to his trademark sideburns and white bellbottom
jumpsuit with gold stripes down the pant legs and gold stars
embroidered on the huge lapels. I swear it really was Elvis. He even
said "Thank ya, Thank ya very much" to the lineman who gave us a ride
in the van to the FBO.

Unlike Anthony, both Elvis and I flew to Vegas in real airplanes too.

[Jim Stewart]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Unfortunately for Anthony, serving the country in the military is a foreign
> concept, although which service branch would take him is another question.
>
> I could just see his lard ass in front of a Marine drill instructor,
> explaining how to re-design the M-16, or expounding on infant formula and
> breast feeding.

Every platoon has a use for an Anthony, even
if it's just cleaning the grease trap at the
mess hall.

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.

So what? I'm really Richard Branson.
--
dgs

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Unfortunately for Anthony, serving the country in the military is a
>> foreign concept, although which service branch would take him is
>> another question.
>>
>> I could just see his lard ass in front of a Marine drill instructor,
>> explaining how to re-design the M-16, or expounding on infant formula
>> and breast feeding.
>
> Every platoon has a use for an Anthony, even
> if it's just cleaning the grease trap at the
> mess hall.
>

Obviously he's too stupid too stand still for use as a doorstop...



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> > I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.
>
> That was a great video that really captures the era. I've got excerpts
> from it here:
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16-Flyingwi1953.mpg
>
> and
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16_Flyingwi1953_2.mpg
>
> These are gi-normous downloads, so be patient.

That's where I got the whole thing, although it's on YouTube as well.

I wonder how the real Eastern captain felt as mere copilot to the Hollywood
Eastern captain in the person of Arthur Godfrey.

I also wonder whom the film targeted, since I don't recall hearing about it
before, and I can't find many references to it.

[LWG]

A superb bumper sticker is from the Coast Guard. "Elvis, if you're out
there, we'll find you."


> Last summer, I saw Elvis Presley himself taxi up in the left seat of
> a green and white Bellanca Super Viking and and park next to me on the
> ramp at Henderson Executive (KHND in Las Vegas). I know for a fact it
> was Elvis himself, due to his trademark sideburns and white bellbottom
> jumpsuit with gold stripes down the pant legs and gold stars
> embroidered on the huge lapels. I swear it really was Elvis. He even
> said "Thank ya, Thank ya very much" to the lineman who gave us a ride
> in the van to the FBO.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:04:21 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>I wonder how the real Eastern captain felt as mere copilot to the Hollywood
>Eastern captain in the person of Arthur Godfrey.


Henry Tindall "Dick" Merrill was the Eastern Airlines captain on that
flight. Judging from the account below, and Merrill's book, The Wings
Of Man," it would appear that Merrill and Godfrey were personal
friends.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0581276/bio
... The couple settled in Miami with Dick assigned the Eastern
Airlines Miami to New York runs with occasional flights to South
America. Too old for a commission, Dick signed on as a civilian
MTD pilot and flew the China-Burma "Hump" in DC3's and C-46
Commandos during the war conducting critical supply lights and
survey missions. He returned to Eastern Airlines after the war and
officially retired from Eastern Airlines on Oct. 3, 1961 after
flying a DC8 from New York to Miami, reputedly with the most air
miles of any pilot in commercial aviation history, and ranked as
the second most senior pilot with the airline. Dick continued to
fly into his 80's whenever the opportunity arose, accompanying
friend Arthur Godfrey on an around the world flight in 1966, set a
speed record at age 78, delivering a Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star from
California to Miami at an average 710 MPH ground speed, and once
flew an SST Concorde. Virtually no civilian pilot in the history
of aviation piloted such a vast range of aircraft. After Dick's
death in October, 1982, Toby spent the remainder of her life
actively promoting her husband's rightful place in the annals of
aviation history. ...


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0323960/bio
... He [Arthur Godfrey] was rated as a Naval Aviator in 1950 (his
previous attempts to serve during the war were thwarted by a leg
injury). He was certified to fly virtually every type of aircraft
in existence during his lifetime (rotor, jet, multiple engine,
helicopter, holding FAA type ratings from the DC-3 to the
Constellation) and was an honorary pilot for Eastern Airlines. He
appeared in a 1953 Eastern Airlines film with famed pilot Dick
Merrill at the helm of a Constellation. His friend Capt. Eddie
Rickenbacker gave him a customized DC-3 in 1947, which he more
than returned in kind through plugs for the airline along with his
endorsements about flying safety to his millions of flying-wary
listeners during the 1940s. ...

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Bob Moore > wrote in
> 46.128:
>
>> wrote
>>> Somebody's been reading "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"
>> I was required to read it 50 years ago while in Preflight
>> Class 12-58, NAS Pensacola. I still have my copy.
>>
>
>
> I have one given to me when I was 13..
>
> Bertie

You can't beat those basic military flight manuals. I read through the
Army Basic Rotorcraft manual (Can't remember the title)before I started
my PP R-H instructions and I was WAY ahead of the other guy that started
lessons the same day I did.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jan 21, 5:30*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.
>
> That was a great video that really captures the era. * I've got excerpts
> from it here:
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16-Flyingwi1...
>
> and
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16_Flyingwi1...
>
> These are gi-normous downloads, so be patient.

Like anthony has somewhere to be


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Henry Tindall "Dick" Merrill was the Eastern Airlines captain on that
> flight. Judging from the account below, and Merrill's book, The Wings
> Of Man," it would appear that Merrill and Godfrey were personal
> friends.

He looked rather nervous and unhappy in the film, but perhaps he wasn't used
to being in the movies. I was surprised that he turned down Godfrey's offer
of a Chesterfield cigarette.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Bob Moore > wrote in
>> 46.128:
>>
>>> wrote
>>>> Somebody's been reading "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators"
>>> I was required to read it 50 years ago while in Preflight
>>> Class 12-58, NAS Pensacola. I still have my copy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have one given to me when I was 13..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You can't beat those basic military flight manuals. I read through the
> Army Basic Rotorcraft manual (Can't remember the title)before I
started
> my PP R-H instructions and I was WAY ahead of the other guy that
started
> lessons the same day I did.
>

Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my head at
the time and the instrument flying one was a bit confusing with the pics
of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!
I have it somewhere. I mighth post some of the funnier things in it.
It's a bit scary top think of guys going to war after reading the "Boys
big big book of instrument flying"

To this day I figure I can spot a Navy pilot if he's flying a
taildragger.
No joke, no smart remark, I used to check out jys in cubs and such who
had been away for a while and I got it right every time.
Anyone else know how?
Hint, they had to be a bit unco-ordinated first...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> > I saw Arthur Godfrey pilot an Eastern Airlines Constellation.
>>
>> That was a great video that really captures the era. I've got
>> excerpts from it here:
>>
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16-Flyingwi19
>> 53.mpg
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-12-16_Flyingwi19
>> 53_2.mpg
>>
>> These are gi-normous downloads, so be patient.
>
> That's where I got the whole thing, although it's on YouTube as well.
>
> I wonder how the real Eastern captain felt as mere copilot to the
> Hollywood Eastern captain in the person of Arthur Godfrey.


He probably felt like the Captain.
>
> I also wonder whom the film targeted, since I don't recall hearing
> about it before, and I can't find many references to it.

Idiot

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Henry Tindall "Dick" Merrill was the Eastern Airlines captain on that
>> flight. Judging from the account below, and Merrill's book, The
>> Wings Of Man," it would appear that Merrill and Godfrey were personal
>> friends.
>
> He looked rather nervous and unhappy in the film, but perhaps he
> wasn't used to being in the movies. I was surprised that he turned
> down Godfrey's offer of a Chesterfield cigarette.
>

Why, that "yer brand"?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 23, 12:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my head at
> the time and the instrument flying one was a bit confusing with the pics
> of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!

I read through it for the first time (prior I had picked my way
through) while watching the NFC and AFC playoffs this Sunday. It was
the perfect 10 minutes at a time read -- more than that and it was
just too much info to process.

Most was a review of things I had read elsewhere, but written in a
much more succinct and authoritative manner.

The landing performance section confirmed earlier posts about arriving
at the runway with minimal energy -- 1.3-1.5 Vso.

Seems as if this rule would be doubly critical to conventional gear.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

" > wrote in news:28fafb4c-f37c-4f9f-
:

> On Jan 23, 12:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my head at
>> the time and the instrument flying one was a bit confusing with the pics
>> of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!
>
> I read through it for the first time (prior I had picked my way
> through) while watching the NFC and AFC playoffs this Sunday. It was
> the perfect 10 minutes at a time read -- more than that and it was
> just too much info to process.
>
> Most was a review of things I had read elsewhere, but written in a
> much more succinct and authoritative manner.
>
> The landing performance section confirmed earlier posts about arriving
> at the runway with minimal energy -- 1.3-1.5 Vso.
>
> Seems as if this rule would be doubly critical to conventional gear.
>

Well, yeah, becase you generaly three point them anyway, arriving with any
more than that just extends your flare. It's not what I'd call critical,
more pointless.






Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 23, 9:12 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:28fafb4c-f37c-4f9f-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 12:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my head at
> >> the time and the instrument flying one was a bit confusing with the pics
> >> of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!
>
> > I read through it for the first time (prior I had picked my way
> > through) while watching the NFC and AFC playoffs this Sunday. It was
> > the perfect 10 minutes at a time read -- more than that and it was
> > just too much info to process.
>
> > Most was a review of things I had read elsewhere, but written in a
> > much more succinct and authoritative manner.
>
> > The landing performance section confirmed earlier posts about arriving
> > at the runway with minimal energy -- 1.3-1.5 Vso.
>
> > Seems as if this rule would be doubly critical to conventional gear.
>
> Well, yeah, becase you generaly three point them anyway, arriving with any
> more than that just extends your flare. It's not what I'd call critical,
> more pointless.
>
> Bertie

Well, isn't it critical in the sense that excess speed increases the
possibility of a ground loop?

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 23, 9:12 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> news:28fafb4c-f37c-4f9f-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 23, 12:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my
>> >> head at the time and the instrument flying one was a bit confusing
>> >> with the pics of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!
>>
>> > I read through it for the first time (prior I had picked my way
>> > through) while watching the NFC and AFC playoffs this Sunday. It
>> > was the perfect 10 minutes at a time read -- more than that and it
>> > was just too much info to process.
>>
>> > Most was a review of things I had read elsewhere, but written in a
>> > much more succinct and authoritative manner.
>>
>> > The landing performance section confirmed earlier posts about
>> > arriving at the runway with minimal energy -- 1.3-1.5 Vso.
>>
>> > Seems as if this rule would be doubly critical to conventional
>> > gear.
>>
>> Well, yeah, becase you generaly three point them anyway, arriving
>> with any more than that just extends your flare. It's not what I'd
>> call critical, more pointless.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, isn't it critical in the sense that excess speed increases the
> possibility of a ground loop?
>

ell, not if you land three point. If you land three point the speed is
pretty much always exactly the same for a given weight. For a wheel
landing, though, you'd be correct, if the wheel landing was done by
driving the airplane onto the ground, which would be poor technique. A
wheel lnding should also be made in the same attitude each tie and that
will give you the same touchdown speed eahc time regardless of the
approach speed. You will float, though!


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:33:28 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

" > wrote in
:
>
>> On Jan 23, 9:12 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> " > wrote in
>>> news:28fafb4c-f37c-4f9f-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jan 23, 12:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my
>>> >> head at the time and the instrument flying one was a bit confusing
>>> >> with the pics of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!
>>>
>>> > I read through it for the first time (prior I had picked my way
>>> > through) while watching the NFC and AFC playoffs this Sunday. It
>>> > was the perfect 10 minutes at a time read -- more than that and it
>>> > was just too much info to process.
>>>
>>> > Most was a review of things I had read elsewhere, but written in a
>>> > much more succinct and authoritative manner.
>>>
>>> > The landing performance section confirmed earlier posts about
>>> > arriving at the runway with minimal energy -- 1.3-1.5 Vso.
>>>
>>> > Seems as if this rule would be doubly critical to conventional
>>> > gear.
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, becase you generaly three point them anyway, arriving
>>> with any more than that just extends your flare. It's not what I'd
>>> call critical, more pointless.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Well, isn't it critical in the sense that excess speed increases the
>> possibility of a ground loop?
>>
>
>ell, not if you land three point. If you land three point the speed is
>pretty much always exactly the same for a given weight. For a wheel
>landing, though, you'd be correct, if the wheel landing was done by
>driving the airplane onto the ground, which would be poor technique. A
>wheel lnding should also be made in the same attitude each tie and that
>will give you the same touchdown speed eahc time regardless of the
>approach speed. You will float, though!
>
>
>Bertie

you can improve on that.

the secret to a successful landing is to have the longitudinal axis of
the aircraft aligned in the direction of flight, to have no sideslip,
to have no vertical speed at the point of touchdown and to have no
excess of speed.

if you have any excess of speed and some vertical speed on touchdown,
unless your tyres are pretty flat, you'll bounce back into the air in
a balloon. guaranteed.

speed does not increase the possibility of a groundloop if the
aircraft is kept aligned with the direction of flight.

Stealth (tailwind) Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:33:28 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 9:12 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> " > wrote in
>>>> news:28fafb4c-f37c-4f9f-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Jan 23, 12:56 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Hm, well, the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" was a bit over my
>>>> >> head at the time and the instrument flying one was a bit
confusing
>>>> >> with the pics of giants holding up the wings of Wildcats!
>>>>
>>>> > I read through it for the first time (prior I had picked my way
>>>> > through) while watching the NFC and AFC playoffs this Sunday. It
>>>> > was the perfect 10 minutes at a time read -- more than that and
it
>>>> > was just too much info to process.
>>>>
>>>> > Most was a review of things I had read elsewhere, but written in
a
>>>> > much more succinct and authoritative manner.
>>>>
>>>> > The landing performance section confirmed earlier posts about
>>>> > arriving at the runway with minimal energy -- 1.3-1.5 Vso.
>>>>
>>>> > Seems as if this rule would be doubly critical to conventional
>>>> > gear.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yeah, becase you generaly three point them anyway, arriving
>>>> with any more than that just extends your flare. It's not what I'd
>>>> call critical, more pointless.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Well, isn't it critical in the sense that excess speed increases the
>>> possibility of a ground loop?
>>>
>>
>>ell, not if you land three point. If you land three point the speed is
>>pretty much always exactly the same for a given weight. For a wheel
>>landing, though, you'd be correct, if the wheel landing was done by
>>driving the airplane onto the ground, which would be poor technique. A
>>wheel lnding should also be made in the same attitude each tie and
that
>>will give you the same touchdown speed eahc time regardless of the
>>approach speed. You will float, though!
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> you can improve on that.
>
> the secret to a successful landing is to have the longitudinal axis of
> the aircraft aligned in the direction of flight, to have no sideslip,
> to have no vertical speed at the point of touchdown and to have no
> excess of speed.
>
> if you have any excess of speed and some vertical speed on touchdown,
> unless your tyres are pretty flat, you'll bounce back into the air in
> a balloon. guaranteed.
>
> speed does not increase the possibility of a groundloop if the
> aircraft is kept aligned with the direction of flight.

Mmmmm, true enough. if you're on top of it it's nto going anywhere.

It's probably more accurate, or maybel helpful is the wird, to state
that excess speed will imart more energy to a ground loop if you let one
develop. The groundloop will be more violent if you are traveling faster
when it begins.
It's beside the point, though, since if you touch down in the corrct
attitude, the speed at touchdown will always be the same for a given
weight, reardless of the approach speed. You'll just spend a lot longer
in the flare!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 1:12*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> I recently found my mother's name in the FAA registry as a PP-SEL.
>

Can I ask how you did it?
My father's no longer living, but I know he was a pilot and would like
to find out more about the flying he did after leaving the Navy.
Would they have the record for a dead pilot? I've had no luck trying
to search.
Thanks for any help you can give.

Got my ticket more than half a century after he got his...