35 785

BRISBANE VALLEY FLYER

November- 2020

www.wattsbridge.com.au www.bvsac.org.au

Watts Bridge Memorial Airfield, Cressbrook-Caboonbah Road, Toogoolawah, Q’ld 4313.

Rob Knight (Editor) Tel: 0400 89 3632

Vintage Aircraft, Fleet 2, built 1928, attending Watts Bridge Vintage Aircraft Fly‐In.

Peter Ratcliffe (Pres.) 0418 159 429 Ian Ratcliffe(Treasurer) 0418 728 328 Vern Grayson (Vice Pres.) 0431 465 874 Jackie Daley (Secretary) 0438 783 740 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

From the Club

Pre Covid‐19

Hello everyone,

Just a couple of notices this month. Note that they are quite important so be sure that you take a note of them.

Notice ‐ 1

Please be aware that the next BVSAC Meeting will take place on the Second Saturday of November i.e. on the 14th of November at the usual time.

Notice ‐ 2

The BVSAC Christmas Party is scheduled to be held on the second Saturday in December. That date being the 11th of December.

All the best

Peter Ratcliffe BVSAC President

Page 2 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

The Improbable Turn By Rob Knight

WARNING: this article is blunt. I am not PC, and i am certainly not softening my prose. I need to get a message across that just might save your life in a moment of high stress. The name of this article says it all. If you attempt to turn back to land on the departure runway subsequent to an engine failure after take‐off, especially at low altitude, statistically your very survival is improbable. I was totally dismayed when I recently read an article published in an aviation journal promoting a 180 degree return to the runway following an engine failure after take‐off. The writer advocated that pilots experiencing an EFATO1 to seriously consider turning back to the departure runway as an alternative to restricting their choice of landing options to an arc ahead of the aeroplane. If the article had been presented as one man’s opinion/suggestion, a man who is a professional pilot, very experienced, and with substantial resources to examine the action and operate under an umbrella of pre‐ planned and controlled circumstances. I would have found the piece much more relevant and, perhaps, even an acceptable point of view. But it wasn’t and I don’t because it wasn’t. It was a pilot with no apparent instructing experience who had not seen how people handle stress under pressure, using statistics to make his point of view and lecture others on his flawed logic. Such logic that could/would cause a fatality that may not otherwise occur. In other words it was BS. A real EFATO is, perhaps, the worst nightmare of every pilot. The aeroplane will be heavy, short on altitude and ultimately short on time because there will be up to 5 seconds of bewilderment and delay as the realization of what has happened sinks in and the first remedial action undertaken. An EFATO is really an exercise in time management ‐ the aircraft is low, and slow, (and will get slower until a corrective nose attitude can be achieved). The success (or otherwise) of a real EFATO depends entirely of the efficient use of the time available before the aeroplane descends onto the ground.

From the pilot’s seat, by the time of total realization that the engine has failed has sunk in, the high nose attitude without power will have robbed the aeroplane of considerable airspeed and the nose attitude must substantially change to maintain airspeed. Pilot’s as humans have a primeval urge in threatening situations to return to their last place of safety and, this being behind them and on the runway, pushes the instinctive reaction button to turn back to safety. While in a very, very few circumstances this may be possible, the actual occasions where it is appropriate are miniscule in number, and there are libraries of statistics dictating the failures to achieve this are almost inevitably fatal.

The reasons why, in theory, a turn‐back which might be achievable in theory is not likely to succeed in practice lie in our own very human frailties. The several seconds delay in our recognising a problem and then responding is a time delay and, as stated above, time is short. Also, under the stress of the situation, the precision flying needed to carry out a successful turn‐back is unlikely to be available under that stress.

1 Engine failure after take‐off.

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 3 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

The virtually inevitable result is not a safe landing, but a successful low‐altitude, non‐intentional descending turn stall/spin instead. The extremely steep nose attitude needed to maintain speed in a tight, steep descending turn is not something many pilots anticipate at that instant, and almost all pilots that I have flown with would be reluctant to see the windscreen completely filled with the world as will be required. With the unexpected visual appearance of the attitude necessary to carry out the step descending turn, slip or skid is often not recognised, and any example of either will further increase the danger of the manoeuvre.

I have been informed by the uninformed that it’s merely a matter of wind, or more specifically, a strong headwind component, when the failure occurs that decides on the success or otherwise of a turn‐back.

Right? Even if there is no tailwind on the runway, the airspeed at the flare will NO, It’s WRONG! still be raised by the factor of the gradient experienced.

In most cases a strong headwind will see the aeroplane with a shorter return distance to the runway because of an increased angle of climb in the wind gradient. But, but, but ‐ this will be more than offset by the higher ground speed the aircraft will have on its return, and, if a gradient is indeed present, the airspeed control issues that this will raise will need addressing. See the September 2020 issue (No 84) of the BVSAC Flyer for the effects of wind gradient on airspeed.

To prove these points for myself, in 1974, whilst a line Instructor at the Waitemata Aero Club at Ardmore, New Zealand, Maurice Parsons, another instructor and I took out a Victa 100 to experiment. We hoped to ascertain a reasonable minimum height necessary to achieve a successful turn‐back after an EFATO. Our findings were that, for us, two professional pilots, experienced, and very current on type, we needed to be at least 400 feet above the runway elevation to have any chance of successfully returning to the runway at all. The two primary issues were:

1. Not wasting altitude achieving the nose attitude to maintain the required 70 kias, and 2. Actually getting the nose down far enough to achieve to maintain that speed during the turn.

We found that the whole windscreen had to be filled with ground to maintain 70 kias in the steep descending turn necessary to get back to the runway and, for students and PPLs at least, this was likely to be too intimidating for them to realistically achieve. Thus, any attempt below at least 400 feet above the runway literally doomed the aircraft and its occupants. We settled on teaching no turn‐back on climbout below 700 feet above the runway. Once established on the crosswind leg, a return to the runway was as safe as any other field selected at low level because of the extra altitude and the reduced heading change required to return to the runway. We also tried it in a PA28‐140 with similar results. I must add, though, that we did the Cherokee testing with just the two of us in it for safety reasons, but agreed that the turn‐back on climbout was to be discouraged and was only to

Page 4 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer – be carried out after turning crosswind. This would be safe and quite appropriate for that aircraft type based on our experience on the PA28 with a full load.

Conventional pilot training takes into account the shortage of time available to respond to the recognition of an EFATO by deliberately overlearning the procedure to adopt in the event of its occurring. The purpose of overlearning is to produce an automated reaction that best uses the time available by minimising delays after the initial surprise or shock of the failure and enhancing the decision‐making process. This, once the realisation has sunk in that a real EFATO has occurred, the subsequent actions are delivered from rote learning and no thought process is required. There is no time for a written checklist, and no time to even think about it. Just time for a set of practiced actions.

As a retired professional pilot, I believe that it is a better decision, in most circumstances, to make a controlled landing onto less than hospitable terrain, than to run the risk of stalling and spinning in an attempt to return to the runway should my engine fail after take‐off. In my flying life I have had three EFATOs. As an instructor, one failure was the disconnection of the carburettor heat cable in a Cessna 150 and ZK‐CSW could not maintain height with two up and full tanks with the resulting over‐ rich mixture. I did not turn back – I landed on the cross runway. The second was in a Piper PA38‐112 Tomahawk ZK‐PAH where we noticed the mechanical fuel pump had failed before there was any change in the engine. When the electric pump was turned off at 300 feet in the climbout we saw the pressure drop on the fuel pressure gauge. Turning it back ON restored the pressure so the student under flight test immediately aborted the flight and we returned doing a conventional circuit. Needless to say, the electric pump remained on for the duration of that circuit. The student easily passed the subsequent test after the pump was replaced. He grinned when I advised him that had he not aborted the flight when the failure occurred, he’d have failed. Here we didn’t turn back, but the inevitable power loss was averted by restoring the back‐up system which we then relied on to get us back for a safe landing in the same direction on the same runway from which we departed.

My third EFATO was in a Fletcher when, on my fourth flight for the day, a hermit ram ran out of the scrub and across the strip as I took off. I was carrying an overload of powdered lime and there was no way I could stop in the remaining distance – a take‐off was inevitable, either controlled or uncontrolled when I went off the end of the strip. With the dump system in full operation I staggered off the end, sinking as I flew across the drop‐off, the dump less effective with the aircraft now descending. The engine‐power was greatly reduced and only when the hopper was empty could I stop the sink and start to totter up to the elevation of the strip so I could return. This power loss was caused by the impact of the sheep sliding up the nose leg to crush the underside of the cowl and close substantially the flexible hose carrying the air supply from the air scoop to the air intake system.

Why have I included these? Merely to indicate that every EFATO will be different and every EFATO, after the initial actions have been completed, will require different decisions to be made to safely land. Whilst the choice of landing site may not pose an easy question, by not planning to turn back and, instead, planning to land on the best location within an arc of 30° either side of the nose in my opinion is likely to improve your chances of survival tremendously.

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 5 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

Remember that time really is of the essence when thinking about your reactions in the event of an EFATO. Practice the immediate actions you were taught in your training and never second guess them if faced by a failure.

Also remember that, in the occurrence, the sole aim really is to survive. It is likely to be a very poor decision to turn back when so many statistics on turn‐backs are also recorded as fatalities. A landing on rocky terrain under full control is far more likely to be survivable than a stall/spin approach onto a runway that’s out of reach anyway.

A turn‐back for real is like playing Russian roulette with 5½ chambers loaded.

While a man with a big ego and a word processer can suggest anything they want that will place them on an intellectual pedestal, you must make your own decisions when you are the pilot in command. Yes, I do agree that there are cases where pilots have indeed landed after doing a 180 degree turn when the engine stoped. Statistically though, these are extremely the exception.

In reality, your best chance of getting home safely is to maintain control of your delinquent aeroplane, and land as close to straight ahead as the particular circumstances of your predicament allow.

When you read the work of writers advocating a turn‐back after an EFATO, just ask yourself why, if it’s such a good option, aren’t there loads of turn‐back survivors applauding the suggestion. There’s not even a whisper from a survivor – the dead can’t be heard – only counted.

However, as the pilot in command – it’s entirely your call! You make the decision. But if you elect to turn back and are wrong, it may be the last mistake that you ever make. Also, it’s a pity if you had a passenger – they never had any choice!

Page 6 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

Effects of Wind Gradient (ALA Wind Sheer) on Airspeed By Rob Knight

In the previous article as well as in previous issues of the BVSAC Flyer, I have provided treatises and illustrations that indicates that, as an aeroplane with a strong tail wind component (and therefore a high groundspeed) descends and subsequently encounters a region of decreased headwind component, its airspeed rises. Well, hard as it may seem to believe, this is exactly correct and even airliners can encounter hazards due to this phenomena

NEWS: Virgin Australia ATR ATR‐72‐200 near Sydney on Feb 20th 2014, control disagreement causing excessive G‐forces injures cabin crew and pitch controls disconnect While passing through about 8,500 ft on descent into Sydney, the aircraft encountered a significant windshear (AKA wind gradient) that resulted in a rapidly decreasing tail wind. This led to a rapid increase in the airspeed, with the airspeed trend vector likely indicating well above the maximum operating speed (Vmo). As a result of the aircraft’s apparent airspeed rise to a value in excess of the Vmo, the pilot in command pitched the nose up so quickly the “G: loading caused an injury to a cabin crew member AND inadvertently activate the pitch uncoupling mechanism, disconnecting the left and right pitch control systems. A tailwind gradient can cause a substantial rise in airspeed.

For further information see: https://www.aeroinside.com/item/3772/virgin‐australia‐at72‐near‐sydney‐on‐feb‐20th‐2014‐control‐ disagreement‐causing‐excessive‐g‐forces‐injures‐cabin‐crew‐and‐pitch‐controls‐disconnect ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ooOOoo ‐‐‐‐‐‐

The Swamp

Swamp Cartoons, by Gary Clark

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 7 - Brisbane Valley Flyer - The Little Airplane that Could – and Still Does Adapted from an article by Dave Gampfer

I read recently on one of the pilot forums that if you can’t afford a hangar, you have no business owning an aircraft. That’s an interesting idea. In over 30 years of on‐again/off‐again aircraft ownership, my airplanes have spent perhaps a cumulative total of three weeks indoors. I feel fortunate not to have known of the axiom requiring a hangar.

Evidently, as a quick look at airport photos from the An airplane tied down outside?! The horror… 50s and 60s will demonstrate, the no hangar/no airplane rule must be a fairly recent concept. Admittedly, many airports here in the Midwest have almost all of their aircraft locked securely inside, with the possible exception of a small ramp space for the less fortunate. As pilots whoosh past this area in their BMWs and Range Rovers, they may be vaguely aware of the diminutive and familiar shape of the Rodney Dangerfield of airplanes: the Cessna 150.

I’ve owned three of these wonderful gals (please forgive the gender‐specific anthropomorphism) over the years: a ’59, ’66, and ’76. Along the way, I’ve learned a few lessons for the potential 150 purchasers out there.

When others refer to it, they will inevitably insert the word “little” before the description of make and model. “Oh, I see you own a little 150.” Try as I might, I’ve never been able to find an example of a “big” 150, but nevertheless, if you are not careful, you will begin using this same descriptor. “Oh, you own an airplane? My uncle has a little airplane too. It’s called a Baron, I think. He keeps it in a hangar.” Of course he does. “What do you have?”

Here is where you must guard against the urge to cast your gaze downward, and mutter, “I’ve just got a little Cessna 150.” The first rule of ownership is to leave your ego at the door (or in someone’s hangar). You will not elicit jealous stares when you arrive at a fly‐in. First time passengers may be horrified when they see just how “little” the 150 actually is. It’s possible that from their experience, flying machines this small are usually mounted on something that goes around in circles at an amusement park.

Occasionally, a female passenger may think it is “cute,” but that term is unlikely to assuage the male ego. Other aircraft owners may be unknowingly condescending to you. The TBM 700 guy may strike up a conversation. “What do you fly?” You’ll answer by pointing to the far corner of the airfield, and saying, “That’s my 150 tied down out there.” His eyes will move quickly as he desperately tries to find some common ground, and then hit you with, “Oh sure… great little airplane, I flew one on my first five hours of flight training.”

You may want to explain that you’ve flown big, horsepower‐laden beasts, or even owned an airplane capable of soaring to great heights with more than two improbably‐sized standard issue FAA adults,

Page 8 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer – and 10 gallons of fuel. Eventually you learn to just smile, and pass up the opportunity to qualify or justify your choice.

The fact is, 150s are, pound for pound, one of the great values left in aviation. Yes, climb rate can be stately, or occasionally non‐existent, and you will only out‐run the odd J‐3 or 7AC. But, if you are in this game primarily for the joy of flying itself, the 150 will deliver the goods. You can actually go somewhere with it if you wish, limited only by your physiological needs. It may not deliver the sweaty‐palmed moments of a tailwheel airplane, but in a gusty crosswind it will provide enough challenge to keep you on your toes. (If you make a particularly awful landing at some far away airport, the 150 provides a built‐in excuse, as the airport bums will assume that you are a student pilot.)

Fuel burn is miserly. Parts are still available, and routine maintenance is relatively (by aviation standards) inexpensive. Insurance rates for an unmodified 150 are the lowest available. If you can bring yourself to be a modern‐day trendsetter, you can save money over the long haul by relegating it to that far‐away airfield section called “the tie‐downs.” Yes, the paint will suffer to some degree, and you may have a fuel cap stolen, or be hit by a runaway hot‐air balloon (both of which have occurred to me), but think of all the fun you can pump into the tanks with the money you are saving.

In 1970 Cessna produced the 150K Aerobat. Although slated as having limited aerobatic capability many pilots got their aerobatic foundation in an Aerobat. It rolled (perhaps a little slowly), looped fine if you had the required airspeed, and did adequate hammerheads. But spin it would; not. After maybe a half turn, it broke out and entered a steep spiral dive with rising airspeed. Still, it scared people, made them sweat, (in the early days seeing the world above as you hang in the straps is The Cessna 150L Aerobat I used for low level aerobatic displays, The type did a sterling job. disconcerting to say the least). But it was very predictable and gave an excellent grounding. These are great attributes of a machine that was never originally designed to teach these advanced manoeuvres.

Taildragger conversion kits for the 150s and 152s became available. Waitemata Aero Club at Ardmore, NZ, where I was a line instructor, purchased such a kit and converted their 152, ZK‐EJZ, into a real aeroplane. With its tubular spring legs that could walk as well as flex, it made for very interesting ground handling and not a few pilots were embarrassed by its ability to change direction on the ground. This aircraft doubled as the tailwheel trainer as well as the 152 Texas Taildragger – a great taildragger trainer aerobatic trainer. Added by Editor.

‐‐‐‐‐‐ ooOOoo ‐‐‐‐‐‐

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 9 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

The Czech Fighter That Helped Israel Win Its War of Independence From Air & Space Magazine, September 2019

Battling for Israel, volunteers fought in an aircraft that should have been grounded.

Israel’s first air force pilots didn’t have an enviable fleet of aircraft, but they countered this disadvantage with aggressiveness. The volunteers came from multiple countries, including South Africa and the United States. (Mitchell Flint Collection)

No one loved the Avia S‐199 at first sight. Perched on narrow, splayed‐out landing gear, the Czech‐ built fighter had a sinister look that made pilots and potential buyers wary. And when airmen became better acquainted with the long‐snouted warplane, the wariness turned to distrust.

The single‐engine S‐199 was a product of the Avia Company in Czechoslovakia, which had tooled up to produce Messerschmitt Bf 109s for the German Luftwaffe just as World War II ended. After the war, the company opted to manufacture a version of the Messerschmitt fighter for the Czech air force.

The Daimler‐Benz DB 605 V‐12 engine, which had propelled the Bf 109, was no longer available, so Avia installed the heavier but less powerful Junkers Jumo 211F, the same engine used in the Luftwaffe’s versatile Heinkel He 111H medium bomber. To match the Jumo engine, Avia mounted the Heinkel’s massive oar‐shape propeller, which would turn out to be a dangerous combination for the small airframe of the S‐199. For the clunky fighter, Avia, not surprisingly, found no buyers other than the Czech air force.

Page 10 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

But in the spring of 1948 another customer appeared. The nascent state of Israel was poised to declare its independence. Looming on Israel’s borders were the armies of five surrounding Arab countries, ready to invade the new nation. Israel urgently needed weapons, armor, munitions, and, especially, military aircraft. Neither of the world’s two largest owners of surplus war assets—the United States or Great Britain—was sympathetic. The U.S. Department of State strictly enforced the Neutrality Act, which banned the sale and shipment of war materials to countries engaged in armed conflict, such as Israel. Britain’s government was even less friendly, not only imposing an embargo on arms to Israel but also supplying aircraft and training to the Arab air forces.

Israel was desperate. Although volunteer airmen had smuggled a handful of surplus transports and training aircraft past the embargo enforcers, they had failed to score any fighters. Israel turned to cash‐strapped Czechoslovakia, which was selling arms on the international market. In secret talks, the Czechs let it be known they would sell 25 Avia S‐199 fighters to Israel.

No one representing Israel liked the deal—or the ersatz Messerschmitt. The price was outrageous: $180,000 for each fighter, including weaponry, pilot training, and support equipment. Meanwhile, the superior North American P‐51 Mustang was selling in the United States for a mere $4,000. But the Mustang—and every other modern fighter—was off limits. Israel’s de facto head of state, David Ben‐Gurion, personally gave the order: Buy the Czech fighters. Send pilots to learn to fly them—now.

The first band of volunteers—two Americans, one South African, seven native Israelis—arrived at České Budějovice air base on May 11, 1948. Lou Lenart, a wiry former U.S. Marine Corps pilot, made the group’s first flight in the S‐199. It was nearly his last. Recalled Lenart in The Lion’s Gate, a book published in 2014: “The big paddle‐bladed propeller produced so much left‐pulling torque, that the first time I tried to take off, the plane ran away from me clear off the runway, through a fence, and over a cliff.” Lenart fought to keep control while the fighter grudgingly gained enough speed to fly. When he landed back at the airfield, the pilot noticed his fellow volunteers staring at him. They were amazed he was alive.

Lenart’s inaugural flight was the beginning of a turbulent relationship. To the volunteer pilots, the Czech fighter seemed to have a vicious streak, like an attack dog turning on its handler. The narrow landing gear made the S‐ 199 difficult to keep aligned during takeoff. Directional control was made even worse by the enormous torque of the propeller. The Czechs called the S‐199 mezec, meaning “mule.” The gave the fighter a more menacing name: messer, Yiddish for “knife.” American pilot Chalmers “Slick” Goodlin, who was the corporate test pilot The volunteers had barely begun for the Bell X‐1, volunteered to fly for Israel during the 1948 war. (Mitchell Flint Collection) training when, on May 15, the

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 11 - Brisbane Valley Flyer - radio in their Czech quarters broadcast the news that Israel’s war of survival had begun. “We heard that Tel Aviv had been bombed from the air,” remembered Ezer Weizman in the 1976 book On Eagles’ Wings. Weizman, who would later command the Israeli air force and eventually be elected president of Israel, recalled the airmen’s reaction to the broadcast: “That’s enough,” we proclaimed. “We’re going home”.

While training in Czechoslovakia, only five of the volunteers, those with World War II experience, had qualified in the tricky fighter, and none had flown it more than a few times. The first few S‐199s were disassembled and loaded into transports and flown by night to Ekron airfield in Israel.

The war was going badly for Israel. By the evening of May 29, the Egyptian army had advanced northward along the Mediterranean coast to the village of Ashdod, 20 miles from Tel Aviv. Israeli commandos had blown up a bridge, halting the Egyptian forces. By next morning, however, the bridge would be repaired and the Egyptians would be in the city.

The existence of the Czech‐built fighters at the Ekron airfield was a closely held secret. The newly assembled S‐199s had not been test flown. The guns had never been fired. None of the radios worked. But if the Egyptian army was not stopped, none of these concerns would matter.

Four S‐199 pilots took off an hour before dark. Lenart, who led the four‐ship flight, had never flown in Israel before. Where was Ashdod? he wondered. All the villages along the coast looked alike. Seconds later, it became stunningly clear. A column of enemy trucks and armor stretched for more than a mile south of the bridge at Ashdod.

“We started coming down, and right away the whole place erupted,” said Lenart to Leonard Slater, author of The Pledge, a book published in 1970. One after the other, the pilots dove on the enemy column. Each dropped his pair of bombs, then swept back down to strafe. After only a few rounds, though, the wing‐mounted cannon on each fighter jammed.

The mission ended in calamity. The number four S‐199, flown by South African Eddie Cohen, was shot down in flames. Israeli pilot Mordechai “Modi” Alon, flying the number two aircraft, swerved off the runway at Ekron in what would be the first of many S‐199 gear‐demolishing ground loops.

Darkness fell, and a mood of despair swept over the little band of airmen. They had inflicted little real damage on the enemy, leading them to question the value of their efforts. An hour later, they had an answer. Israeli monitors had intercepted a radio message from the Egyptian commander at Ashdod. Stunned by the appearance of Israeli fighters, the Egyptians were halting their advance. Tel Aviv had been saved—for the moment.

At dawn the next day, the two remaining S‐199s, flown by Weizman and American volunteer Milt Rubenfeld, attacked a Jordanian‐Iraqi armored column in the north of Israel. Rubenfeld’s fighter was hit by ground fire. He barely made it to the Mediterranean shore before bailing out at low altitude. Though seriously injured, he survived.

It was an inauspicious debut for the Czech Knife. In the first two missions, two fighters had been lost and one severely damaged. Of the first five pilots, one was dead and another too injured to fly again. But the secret was out: Israel had an air force. To make it official, the unit was given a designation: , a grand‐sounding label for a ragtag outfit down to one flyable airplane and three pilots.

Page 12 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

Israel’s only surviving Avia S‐199 is on display at the Israeli Air Force Museum, located at the Hatzerim airbase in the Negev desert. (IAF Museum / Uri No

A few evenings later, the Czech Knife rose to glory. Flying the lone remaining S‐199, Modi Alon intercepted a pair of Egyptian bombers over downtown Tel Aviv. In view of thousands of astonished Israelis, Alon blew one bomber out of the sky, then the second. He instantly became a hero, and the 101 Squadron’s new commander.

But Alon’s targets had been slow‐moving C‐47 transports configured as bombers, easy prey for any kind of fighter. How, wondered both Israeli and Arab pilots, would the Czech Knife fare against a real fighter, like the British‐built ?

The answer came a few days later. On his first mission in the S‐199, newly arrived volunteer Gideon Lichtman engaged a flight of Egyptian Spitfires. “I had a total of 35 minutes in the Messerschmitt,” Lichtman told me during an interview in November 2015. “I couldn’t find the switch to arm the guns.” Frustrated, Lichtman kept flipping switches until he found the right one. Tailing in behind one of the Spitfires, he opened fire. “I saw pieces coming off the Spit, then smoke, and he went down in the desert,” said Lichtman.

More kills followed. Alon added to his tally, downing another Spitfire. So did World War II pilot Rudy Augarten, who, while flying a P‐47, had destroyed two German Bf 109s over France. Other pilots began to score victories.

The Knife was proving to be a potent fighter—once it was in the air. Its behavior on the ground was another matter; it still had a tendency to careen off the runway on both takeoff and landing. When the 101 Squadron moved from the concrete runways of Ekron to a newly bulldozed strip at Herzliya in June, the pilots hoped the Knife would behave better. It didn’t. Accidents were so frequent that ground crews assembled a set of long poles to flip upturned fighters right side up.

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 13 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

Not surprisingly, the S‐199s were difficult to maintain, and Israeli mechanics labored in the summer heat to keep them flying. “They were never able to get more than four planes in the air,” recalled volunteer Mitchell Flint, whom I interviewed on July 9, 2015.

When the Israelis complained about the S‐199’s miserable record, the Czechs blamed the crashes on the pilots’ lack of experience with the type. Their claim had some validity since World War II fighter pilot Rudy Augarten, an American, earned the volunteers had received ace status while flying for the 101 Squadron in Israel. (Courtesy only minimal training in Flightjournal.com) Czechoslovakia before being rushed to the harsh environment of the Middle East. Pilots accustomed to the wide‐track landing gear of American fighters—P‐47s, P‐51s, F4Us—were unprepared for the quirky Messerschmitt undercarriage.

The Czech Knife didn’t reveal its deadliest trait until the morning of July 9. Lenart was assigned to lead a four‐ship raid on the Egyptian air base at El Arish. The mission got off to a rough start when his number two pilot, Californian Stan Andrews, swerved on takeoff, flipped upside down, then blocked the runway for 15 minutes. Down to three fighters and short on fuel, Lenart opted to strike a closer target, the Egyptian‐held seaport at Gaza.

Only two S‐199s made it back. The third, flown by another young Californian, Bob Vickman, had vanished. Searchers and radio monitors tried all night but failed to learn the fate of Vickman.

The next day, it happened again. A pair of S‐199s jumped two Syrian dive bombers near the sea of Galilee. The lead pilot, Battle of Britain veteran Maury Mann, made short work of the first bomber, shooting it down in a matter of seconds. Mann’s wingman, South African Lionel Bloch, swung in behind the second, chasing him northward toward Syria. That was Mann’s last glimpse of Bloch. A second S‐199 had vanished.

The following morning, a South African ex‐medical student named Syd Cohen jumped in an S‐199 and went looking for his lost countryman. Acting on a hunch, he gave the trigger for his nose‐ mounted machine guns a short squeeze. He felt the rattle of the two guns—and then something else, a different vibration.

Back on the ground, Cohen’s suspicion was confirmed. All three propeller blades had bullet holes in them. The synchronizer enabling the guns to fire between the blades was flawed. Vickman and Bloch had probably shot off their own propellers.

In October, Israel launched Operation Yoav, an offensive in the Negev desert. Every flyable S‐199 was put to use. Alon had returned from a bombing and strafing mission on the coast. In the landing pattern at Herzliya, Alon reported by radio that he had a landing gear problem. That was another S‐

Page 14 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

199 quirk, one or both main gear failing to extend. The remedy was to yank the fighter’s nose up and down to coax the gear out of its well in the wing.

While Alon was sorting out his problem, observers on the ground spotted something more troubling. A trail of gray smoke was streaming from the fighter’s nose. The controller in the makeshift tower radioed for Alon to check his temperatures. They were okay, Alon replied. It was his last transmission. Seconds later, Alon’s fighter nosed down and crashed in flames beside the runway.

That evening the pilots huddled at their makeshift Modi Alon, flanked by Israeli prime minister David Ben‐Gurion (far right), became a bar and talked about what hero when he scored the Israeli air force’s first aerial victories by shooting down happened. Alon had become Egyptian bombers over Tel Aviv on June 3. (Public domain) a near‐mythical hero in Israel, the charismatic young David who had taken on the Arab Goliath. “Everybody in the squadron was crying,” remembered Augarten in No Margin for Error. “In all the wars I’ve been in, I had never seen anything like that.”

No clear cause for Alon’s crash was determined. There was no time to grieve. The war was reaching a climax. Despite the ongoing embargo, more warplanes were joining the Israeli air force, including three Boeing B‐17 bombers smuggled from the United States, four strike aircraft from Britain, and a pair of disassembled U.S. P‐51s in crates marked “farm equipment.” Best of all for the 101 Squadron pilots, Czechoslovakia was providing Israel with World War II‐surplus Spitfires.

With its augmented air force, Israel took command of the sky. By the last day of air combat, January 7, 1949, the Spitfires had shot down 15 hostile aircraft. The P‐51s destroyed four. And the S‐199s, despite their calamitous history, accounted for seven air‐to‐air kills.

For all its treacherous attributes, the Avia S‐199 had played a critical role in Israel’s formation. The mere sight of the fighter in the early days of the war had terrified the invaders and roused the spirits of the outnumbered defenders. “It was all we had,” said Gideon Lichtman. “So we flew it. And we stopped the enemy.”

Without the S‐199, the 1948 Arab‐Israeli War might have had a different ending.

‐‐‐‐‐‐ ooOOoo ‐‐‐‐‐‐

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 15 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

Aircraft Stored or Destroyed After WW2 Details provided by Mal McKenzie

At the end of hostilities, after the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945, over subsequent months and years, much military equipment was declared surplus, worth no more than its melt‐ down value. Insofar as the RAAF, and the RNZAF over the ditch, were concerned, even the cost of the fields where the planes were to be grave‐yarded was to be minimised in the years of austerity that followed the Japanese surrender. In New Zealand, some aircraft were bulldozed in estuaries and swamps and left for mangroves to grow through them; others were flown to Hamilton, in the North Island, to the lush dairy farming fields around Rukuhia Airfield (now NZHN – Hamilton International Airport) to the largest of the RNZAF bone‐yards to await their furnaces. I personally recall as a school boy in the early 1960s, aircraft archaeologists, digging and burrowing through the WW2 section of the tip in Kaitaia, looking for three English Vickers Wildebeests purportedly buried there during the war years. Alas, nothing was ever found.

Australia was no different except in scale. More than 3750 RAAF. aircraft — operational types and trainers ‐ were listed for storage. Of the remaining planes, some were kept In reserve, some sold, and the rest, now beyond useful or economic service, broken up for their metal components.

New South Wales with about 1700 aircraft, was be the main storage state. There were about 830 in Victoria. 870 in Queensland, 240 in South Australia, 100 in West Australia, 14 in Canberra, and 4 in Tasmania.

Some of these aircraft included bombers and fighters which were still useful when the war ended, but were powered by piston engines with propellers which meant they were approaching obsolescence with the development of jet propulsion and new designs.

Among the bombers were 207 Liberators, 32 Mitchells and 27 Hudsons.

Fighter types destined to storage included 339 Spitfires, 199 Mustangs, 307 Kittyhawks, 6 Australian‐ made Boomerangs, and a single British Hurricane.

About 300 Beaufighters, 329 Australlan‐built Beauforts, 164 Mosquitoes and 228 Vultee – Vengeance dive‐bombers made the list, along with a further 1300 odd trainers. These comprised 195 Tiger Moths, 450 Avro Ansons, 270 Oxfords and about 380 Australian‐built Wirraways.

Other types listed for storage and ultimate destruction were 52 Catalinas, another 52 Ventura. The list also included 12 each Mariners and Sikorskys, and 10 Norsemen.

Oakey, Qld. c.1945. rows of aircraft flown to the RAAF base after the war to be wrecked. They included Spitfires, Boomerangs ,Mustangs and Kittyhawks.

Page 16 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

More spitfires in the sun at Oakey, QLD

Rows of Spitfires

Spitfires being scrapped at Oakey A “Grey Nurse” Spitfire of 457 Squadron.

A Boomerang A row of Kittyhawks, on parade at Oakey

The last Spitfire (right).

This was the last Spitfire to be delivered to Australia. Too late to see

war service, it has now been restored.

Seen here in the livery of the Grey Nurse squadron, 457, this one got

away and survived.

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 17 - Brisbane Valley Flyer - Book Review

Book Title: Samuri Author(s): Saburo Sakai, in conjunction with Martin Caidin and Fred Saito Saburi Sakai was one of Japan’s greatest fighter aces at the end of hostilities in 1945. Born in Saga, in Japan, in 1916, the third son of a Samuri affiliated family, Saburo Sakai was the third of four sons. At 16 he enlisted in the Japanese Navy to train as an ordinary seaman, suffering the brutal beatings administered to recruits to do so. In 1935 he was qualified and served in two battleships as a naval gunner before, in 1937, having been promoted to Leading Seaman, he was accepted into a naval pilot training school and in that year graduated first in his class. In 1938, holding the rank of Petty Officer, he was in combat in combat in a Mitsubishi A5M in the second Sino‐Japanese war. Later, still in China, he was selected to fly the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero in combat. Promoted to the Tainan Air Group, Saburo Sakai was in the formation that attached Clark Field, the American Air Base in the Philippines in December 1941. On that sortie he shot down a P40 Warhawk PO2/c Sakai in the cockpit of a Mitsubishi and destroyed two B17 Flying Fortresses by ground A5M Type 96 fighter (Hankow airfield, China strafing in 1939) He was severely wounded in the battle for Guadalcanal when caught by the tail gunner of a torpedo bomber. Suffering a bullet wound to head and blinded in one eye by the shattered cockpit canopy he staggered for 4 hours 47 minutes to return to Rabaul where he was based. Surgery back in Japan saw him released with inoperable damage to his head and very restricted vision in his right eye. After convalescing, and a period as an instructor, Saburo Sakai was promoted to the rank of Flying Warrant Officer and in April 1944 was transferred to the Yokosuka Air Wing and deployed to Iwo Jima. Whilst there his successful combats increased and his score rose accordingly. Then, in desperation, he was ordered to lead a kamikaze mission but was unable to find the planned US taskforce target. After the war, Saburo Sakai retired from the Japanese Navy and became a Buddhist acolyte, swearing to never kill anything again – not even a mosquito. This is a brutal book as all war books are. It is readily available on EBay or through Amazon, at a very reasonable price. ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ooOOoo ‐‐‐‐‐‐

Page 18 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer – FLY-INS Looming

13 Dec 2020 Murgon (Angelfield) Burnett Flyers Breakfast Fly‐in

Harry’s Joke:

Last week my wife asked if she could have a bit of peace and quiet while she cooked tea so I removed the battery from the smoke alarm. I’m still eating takeaways, and will probably still be eating them next week.

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 19 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

What the Hell is THAT – A Lockheed Martin P741

The Lockheed Martin P‐791 is an experimental aerostatic and aerodynamic hybrid airship developed by Lockheed Martin. The first flight of the P‐791 took place on 31 January 2006 at the company's flight test facility at United States Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, CA The P‐791 has a tri‐hull shape, with disk‐shaped cushions on the bottom for landing. As a hybrid airship, part of the weight of the craft and its payload are supported by aerostatic (buoyant) lift and the remainder is supported by aerodynamic lift. The combination of aerodynamic and aerostatic lift is an attempt to benefit from both the high speed of aerodynamic craft and the lifting capacity of aerostatic craft. The P‐791 was designed as part of the U.S. Army's Long Endurance Multi‐intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) program, but lost the program's competition to Northrop Grumman's HAV‐3 design. The P‐791 was modified to be a civil cargo aircraft under the name SkyTug, with a lift capability of 20 short tons (18,000 kg) and plans to scale larger In March 2016, Straightline Aviation signed a Letter of Intent for 12 LMH‐1 airships, valued at $480 million In 2014, Hybrid Enterprises from Atlanta, Georgia entered into an agreement with Lockheed Martin to market and sell the commercial LMH‐1 Hybrid Aircraft built by Lockheed, based on the technology demonstrated by the P‐791. At the Paris Air Show in June 2015, Lockheed Martin announced that all required FAA certification planning steps were complete, and Hybrid Enterprises was accepting orders. The LMH‐1 would initially transport 20 tonnes of cargo or 19 passengers, plus 2 crew members, with deliveries beginning in 2018.[7] In September 2016, plans were announced to operate the LMH‐1 craft in Alaska. In September 2017 it was announced that the first flight of the LMH‐1 was being delayed to 2019.

‐‐‐‐‐‐ ooOOoo ‐‐‐‐‐‐

Page 20 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer –

Keeping up with the Play (Test yourself – how good are you, really?)

1. A pilot is doing a pre‐take‐off run‐up check on his dual ignition aircraft engine. To his dismay, with both mags (CDI) switches turned ON, when he turns the LEFT magneto (or CDI) to OFF, the motor stops. What has, in fact happened? A. The LEFT mag (CDI) has failed. B. The RIGHT mag (CDI) has failed. C. The ignition system as a whole has failed. D. Nothing has failed because the ignition system is designed not to function when the switch is turned to OFF. 2. In a nose wheel aeroplane with a prop turning clockwise when viewed from the cockpit, which of the following scenarios would cause the greatest swing on take‐off?? A. Rotating with a gusty headwind. B. Rotating with a gust tailwind. C. Rotating with a gusty crosswind from the port side. D. Rotating with a gusty crosswind from the starboard side.

3. Turned‐down wing tips are purported to improve cruise speed and increase float after the flare on landing. How would this shape change achieve these two results? A. Because the turn‐downs channel and improve the vector thrust value. B. Because the turn‐downs provide a “ground effect” air cushion when airborne. C. Because the turn‐downs increase the lift/drag ratio. D. Because the turn‐downs reduce induced drag.

4. In the southern hemisphere, coriolus force will cause a change in wind direction with increasing speed. It will tend to… A. The wind direction veers with increasing wind speed. B. The wind direction backs with increasing wind speed. C. The magnitude of the coriolus force is not affected by changing wind speed. D. Coriolus force only influences wind direction along a frontal face.

5. Which of the following provides the most correct definition of a “Control Area (CTA)”? A. Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided. B. A controlled airspace extending upwards from specified limit above the earth. C. A controlled airspace extending upwards from the surface of the earth to a specified upper limit. D. A controlled airspace extending upwards from specified limit above the earth with no upper limit unless one is specified.

See answers and explanations overleaf

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 21 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

Answers: 1, B, 2, C, 3, D, 4, B, 5, B.

If you have any problems with these questions, See Notes below or call me (in the evening) and let’s discuss them. Rob Knight: 0400 89 3632.

1. B is correct. The LEFT mag (CDI) is functioning normally in that it ceases to function when its switch is turned OFF. If the RIGHT mag (CDI) was functioning, the motor would continue to run when the LEFT is switched to OFF. With both mags (CDIs) functioning, the pilot could switch either the left one OR the right one off and the engine would continue to run. The fact that it stops when the LEFT mag (CDI) is switched OFF means the RIGHT mag (CDI) CANNOT be operating. The RIGHT one has failed.

2. C is correct, The slipstream effect AND the “P” factor experienced on take‐off with a clockwise rotating propeller causes the aircraft to swing to port during take‐off and at rotation. A gusty crosswind from port is likely to cause the aircraft to further yaw because of the weathercocking effect. A crosswind from the Starboard will cause weather cocking to the right and thus counter, to a greater or lesser extent, the slipstream effect and “P” factor forces.

3. D is correct. Turned‐down tips reduce the spanwise flow across the top and bottom wing surfaces, which then reduces induced drag. Less drag means a better cruise speed and slower deceleration after the flare when landing.

4. B is correct. As wind speed increases in the southern hemisphere, coriolus force causes the wind direction to back (change against the compass). Conversely, a reducing wind speed will see coriolus force causing the winds direction to veer (i.e. swing to a new direction in a clockwise direction. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis‐effect/

5. B is correct. Option A defines “Controlled Airspace (CTA)”. Option C defines ”Control Zone (CTR)”. Option D is a fabrication and has no relevance. See Visual Flight Rules Guide V6.2, Definitions 6.5 (page 411).

‐‐‐‐‐‐ ooOOoo ‐‐‐‐‐‐

Page 22 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer – Aircraft Parts and Tools

Item Condition Price VDO Volt Readout instrument Brand New $70.00

Toolpro 3/8 drive Torque Wrench As new $50.00

Altimeter – non‐sensitive with subscale in “Hg. Brand new, in box $50.00

Headsets

AvCom headset. Functions perfectly Excellent $150.00

Contact Rob Knight at either [email protected], or call 0400 89 3632.

Vehicles for Sale Ute‐back Trailer The rear end of a Ford Courier ute, covered with a Courier fibreglass canopy. Very robust, good tyres, complete with spare ‐ on Land Rover hubs and wheels. Tows very well: Excellent condition.

For quick sale ‐ $2100.00 ono

Contact Rob Knight ‐ 0400 89 3632

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 23 - Brisbane Valley Flyer -

Rowing scull for sale

4 man crew plus coxswain.

Fibre glass hull with wood trim.

Sale includes four oars and accessories.

As is condition.

For further details contact

Bob Hyam. 07 5426 8983

$1950

Page 24 Issue 86 November – 2020 - Brisbane Valley Flyer – Aircraft for Sale

¾ scale replica Spitfire $55,000 neg

This aircraft is airworthy, flown regularly, and always hangared. Registered 19‐1993, it is powered by a 6 cylinder Jabiru engine (number 33a‐23) with 300 hours TTIS. The airframe has logged a mere 320 hours TTIS. This delightful aircraft recently been fitted with new mounting rubber, a new alternator, and regulator, an new fuel pump and jack stands

.It handles superbly and is available for immediate collection or delivery by arrangement.

Kept at Kentville in the Lockyer Valley, interested parties should contact either:

Kev Walters on Tel. 0488540011 or

William Watson on Tel., 0447 186 336

The Swamp

Many thanks to SWAMP’s author, Gary Clarke

November – 2020 Issue 86 Page 25