Airport Photos: Flight of the Biplane (large images)

[Broomstick]

Assuming I can actually get this to work right (always under question under the final results are in) these photos are connected to this thread over in Off-Topic know as Airport Stories: Broomstick Flies a Boeing.

In that rambling tale I mention how pilots look way too fucking serious even when they're having fun. Here's proof I do it, too:

(Because this image was larger than I anticipated, it's a link, not in-line)

Oooo....! Putting on a headset! Ooooo....! Requires concentration!

Sorry the quality isn't the best - that's what you get for using a Fuji disposable and having to scan it in. After that, the husband said "Gee, guess our obsolete digital camera isn't so bad after all..." (Actually, he loves that digital camera. I'm almost jealous of their relationship)

[Broomstick]

OK, here's me looking like I'm having some fun (and yes, that is the new avatar)

Yeah, another linked image

You'll note the horizon is at an angle - that's what you get when you ask pilots to take pictures. We can be hard to deal with because we're so seldom on the straight and level

[Broomstick]

Here's what you see to the left while in flight....



And another left-side view:



See that red ribbon coming off a strut? That's a "yawstring". A highly technical device used to indicate the direction of airflow off a wing. You know - like in car commercials when they do cool smoke effects in a wind tunnel? Like that, but without the smoke and mirrors. A wonderful example of a really simple, low-tech device that hasn't needed updating in over a century.

Why is this one red? Because the airplane isn't colorful enough on its own, obviously!

[Broomstick]

And here's to the right....



And another to the right:

[Broomstick]

And this is what I saw looking straight ahead:



(that red hat with the white pom-pom is just too cute, don't you think? And it goes so well with the green "earmuffs")

That, by the way, is as good as the view forward gets. You really can't see where the hell you're going in this thing. How crazy is that? What a retarded way to build an airplane! But that's the way they did it back then. (Yes, they actually had a reason for doing that)

[Broomstick]

CHARDOK - DON'T LOOK! CLOSE YOUR EYES! IT'S TOO HORRIBLE!!!!


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


(OK, is he hiding yet? Good.)


This is what you see when you lean out of the cockpit, over the right side of the airplane:



What's that? Oh, it's only about 2000 feet off the ground. Not that far. And yes, we were in a right turn at the time, hence the horizon and wing don't quite line up in parallel. You can see the blue side of the fuselage on the left of the picture.

Of course I was still strapped in! Don't be silly - I'm crazy, not suicidal. Perfectly safe.

[Beowulf]

First two pictures are overexposed.

[Broomstick]

Yes, they certainly are.

As I said, stuff like that happens when you use disposable cameras where you can't adjust focus and f-stop. The scanning process doesn't improve things, either. I used to be able to find such cameras loaded with strictly outdoor film but apparently they aren't selling them anymore. Probably due to the plunging cost of low-end digitals.

[Chardok]

Heh, Broom, looks like you had fun, and seeing the pic over the side definately gave me a queasy moment!

[Metatwaddle]

Sometimes I think you have the best job in the world, Broomstick.

[AMX]

Regarding the forward view... how about putting a mirror on the underside of the upper wing?

[LadyTevar]

Right-click, set as Background Image.

Rightclick, save to disk.

Thanks for the new desktop images, Broomstick!

[Broomstick]

Sometimes I think you have the best job in the world, Broomstick.

That's not my job!

Serously - I'm a glorified secretary.

Flying is my hobby and avocation.

[Broomstick]

Thanks for the new desktop images, Broomstick!

You're welcome - just don't passing them around with giving me proper photo credit!

[Broomstick]

Regarding the forward view... how about putting a mirror on the underside of the upper wing?

There actually IS a mirror on the underside of the upper wing - go back and look. It's to the left of the red hat as you look at the picture of the forward view.

You know, it's an idea - but the reason you can't see forward is because there's this big huge round engine on the front. In order to get a mirror situated so you could really see forward you can't mount it on the front of the fuselage - too many moving parts, some of which throw oil and grease as a further aggravation. You'd have to mount it on a boom of some sort, and there would be so much vibration you wouldn't be able to focus on it. Then there's the problem of size - a small mirror isn't a problem, but the bigger the mirror the more it's going to interfere with airflow over those wings, and the more interference the more it's going to affect how the airplane handles. You'd still have a limited view and then you'd have to deal with not-so-good flight characteristics.

The S-turns are a compromise, but they do work. It's been an issue with the barnstormer-era airplanes - both biplane and monoplane - for almost 80 years now and no one has come up with a better solution yet for these machines. (Keep in mind this Stearman is from the end of that era - it's considerably more refined and docile than many of its predecessors)

Later on, they changed the design of airplanes in general significantly, which reduced or eliminated many of the line of sight problems. And some of the big passenger jets do have mirrors mounted in strategic locations or, nowadays, even video cameras to allow the pilots better views of what's around the machine -- but a passenger jet has a very different construction than this airplane, one that makes mirror mounting and video cams feasible.

[AMX]

There actually IS a mirror on the underside of the upper wing - go back and look. It's to the left of the red hat as you look at the picture of the forward view.

Unless there are actually two mirrors in the picture, I've seen that - and it's not exactly in the right position to show you the runway...

Anyway, I was rather unclear what I meant (again); of course, the mirror would have to be "hull-conforming", and actually set into the wing... basically, you see where the forward part of the wing starts looking blue-ish? Imagine if that part (and a bit to the rear of it; roughly out to the mirror, and about the same on the other side) were made of polished metal (or covered with reflecting foil).

Hope I'm actually understandable for a change...

[Broomstick]

There actually IS a mirror on the underside of the upper wing - go back and look. It's to the left of the red hat as you look at the picture of the forward view.

Unless there are actually two mirrors in the picture, I've seen that - and it's not exactly in the right position to show you the runway...

You are correct - it is not intended to show you the runway. It is intended to show you the other person in the airplane.

Anyway, I was rather unclear what I meant (again); of course, the mirror would have to be "hull-conforming", and actually set into the wing... basically, you see where the forward part of the wing starts looking blue-ish? Imagine if that part (and a bit to the rear of it; roughly out to the mirror, and about the same on the other side) were made of polished metal (or covered with reflecting foil).

We have two problems here - first, you don't know what this airplane actually looks like, because you're working from my photos which, I freely admit, do not do justice to this thing nor do they fully reveal all aspects of the machine. Second, it's really really early while I'm typing thing and I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're saying (in addition to you perhaps not saying what you mean)

There's no part of the wing that's "bluish" - but I'm assuming what you're refering to is a part of the wing that's reflecting some of the blue sky. What is technically called the "leading edge" of the wing, the forward part. Yes, you could mirror that, but I don't think, given the angle of the surface vs. where the pilot is, that this would provide you with useful runway information. You can't change the angle of the wing vs. the angle of the fuselage, you'll get a distorted view at best because it's not a flat surface, and altering the shape of the leading edge to allow for proper viewing angle is going to destroy your lift. Since it's lift that allows you to fly it's sort of important to the whole enterprise, which I hope explains why your idea - despite it's creativity and ingenuity - is just not going to work.

Me, I've suggested simply duct-taping a look-out to the top of the upper wing. This is not as outrageous as it first appears - this airplane was part of a wing-walking routine for years, it will happily fly with a human body strapped to the top of it. This solution still has three problems associated with it:

1) Communication between the look-out and the pilot. Even with sound protection and a headset, that engine is LOUD - you may need to use hand signals or something.

2) Finding someone nutty enough to fly strapped to a wing. Quite a few people, even my fellow pilots, are very nervous and uneasy sitting in the open, even when strapped in two times over. I'm sure you can find someone comfortable with the notion of hanging out in the breeze but they will be a distinct minority.

3) It will scare the hell out of the tourists. You can solve the first two problems but this is going to be a real kicker. I mean, you got folks who get queasy just looking at pictures taken in flight. Some is going to scream "It's not safe! It's not safe!" even if it is. Then they call their Congressman and the next thing you know the FAA is proposing more rules to ruin our fun. Er... improve safety. Umm.... err... appease the public. Something. Anyhow, public sentiment will be a problem.

In real life, in tight spaces on the ground using people to guide pilots of such airplanes is nothing unusual - there are standarized hand signals used by all aircraft and ground personnel. You see this all the time with big passenger jets and the same principals work for little airplanes. That, at least, solves most of the ground handling problems. In flight, though, it's up to the pilot(s).

[AMX]

We have two problems here - first, you don't know what this airplane actually looks like, because you're working from my photos which, I freely admit, do not do justice to this thing nor do they fully reveal all aspects of the machine.

Plus a crude 3-way view I located on the net.

Second, it's really really early while I'm typing thing and I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're saying (in addition to you perhaps not saying what you mean)

It's not exactly early over here, but my day/night rhythm is totally shot...

There's no part of the wing that's "bluish" - but I'm assuming what you're refering to is a part of the wing that's reflecting some of the blue sky.

That's what I mean, and I know that it's not actually blue. Just forgot to add the "...from reflecting the sky" bit.

What is technically called the "leading edge" of the wing, the forward part. Yes, you could mirror that, but I don't think, given the angle of the surface vs. where the pilot is, that this would provide you with useful runway information. You can't change the angle of the wing vs. the angle of the fuselage, you'll get a distorted view at best because it's not a flat surface, and altering the shape of the leading edge to allow for proper viewing angle is going to destroy your lift. Since it's lift that allows you to fly it's sort of important to the whole enterprise, which I hope explains why your idea - despite it's creativity and ingenuity - is just not going to work.

Actually, a slightly distirted view should be a minor issue - I've seen cars with curved rearview mirrors, and they seem to be working well enough.

Anyway, you're the expert here. If you say it can't work, I'll just pretend to believe it.

[Broomstick]

There are airplanes out there that are polished metal surface rather than paint. While there are flat areas that offer a good reflection, the part of the wing you refer to offers only a very distorted view.

[AMX]

There are airplanes out there that are polished metal surface rather than paint. While there are flat areas that offer a good reflection, the part of the wing you refer to offers only a very distorted view.

Well, bugger.
Nevermind then.

[TheMuffinKing]

Wow, cool pics!

[Frank Hipper]

...lucky bastard.

[Elheru Aran]

...lucky bastard.

I think you've got the wrong gender there, Hipper...

And Broomstick: Most excellent indeed. Got more?

[Broomstick]

...lucky bastard.

I think you've got the wrong gender there, Hipper...

No, the term applies to either gender. Although I assure you my parents were married

And luck had nothing to do with it - I earned the privilege and paid for the time. Despair not, my friend - if you are ever within the greater Chicago area you, too, can take a ride in that airplane. You do not need to be a pilot to go up in it, although what they permit you do while in it may be somewhat limited if you lack certain skills.

No, the true "lucky bastard" is J, who not only is paid to fly that thing, he's paid to sit in it while idiots such as myself fly that thing. In fact, I'd say he's luckier than he deserves except I know that those days he has to fly the thing in the rain or when it's really cold are not fun at all. Not to mention when the occassional tourist freaks out or throws up or other not-so-fun thing happens.

And Broomstick: Most excellent indeed. Got more?

Not yet - geez, I'm still paying the bill for that flight! (Last installment goes in the mail tomorrow)

Not more pictures - another story coming up either this evening or tomorrow if you're interested in reading about more of my adventures.

[LadyTevar]

Yes! More Stories!!! Please?