An irritating characteristic, however, was the need to change elevator trim with even the slightest power change.
Upon entering the pattern for a few touch and go’s, I retarded the power lever to idle, but the Comanche showed little inclination to slow down. This was because even when idling, the engine still produced 80 hp.
A gear-warning-horn cutout button on the power console preserved my sanity while the lengthy slow-down process took place.
I lowered the flaps and landing gear at placarded speeds, stabilized the Comanche in a normal approach slot, and added sufficient power to maintain 90 mph.
The flare and landing were routine. As soon as the wheels touched, I depressed two small buttons under the grip of the power lever. This unlocked the lever and allowed me to pull it aft and into reverse pitch. The aircraft stopped smartly without having to use the conventional toe brakes.
I was impressed, and Womack knew it. He said that “if the airframe could take it, the use of all available horsepower would result in a sea-level cruise speed of at least 300 mph. A 3,000 fpm climb rate also could be expected. Now imagine how an airplane designed for high-speed flight would perform with this engine. We would expect a cruise speed of 350 mph.”
After taxiing back to the AiResearch hangar, I gave considerable thought to this brief glimpse into the future and realized that this was the way flying would be someday. No other conclusion was possible.
When World War II ended in 1945, a number of existing and emerging airframe manufacturers developed new aircraft hoping to capitalize on the widely anticipated postwar boom in general aviation. After all, everyone believed, returning military pilots with a passion for flight would help to fill the skies with light airplanes.
Sadly, this sales surge never materialized, and a number of new aircraft died aborning. These included the Douglas Cloudster, Lockheed’s Little Dipper, the Taylorcraft Foursome, and the Thorp Skyscooter. Another was the innovative Anderson Greenwood AG-14.
Following wartime stints at Boeing, Ben Anderson and his brother-in-law, Marvin Greenwood, opened shop at the Sam Houston Airport in Houston, Texas to develop a general aviation airplane using their own resources. (Greenwood had been assistant chief engineer during development of the B-29 Superfortress.)
The result was the AG-14, which first flew on October 1, 1947. After a few years of redesigning and tweaking, the aircraft earned its type certificate on June 1, 1950. It sold for $4,200, about the same as a new Cadillac of that era. Such a price, Anderson and Greenwood hoped, would help to make the popular dream of an “airplane in every garage” come true.
The AG-14 is an attractive, 2-place monoplane with an egg-shaped fuselage containing a rear-mounted engine and a pusher prop. The tail booms have rectangular cross-sections and lead aft to an H-tail reminiscent of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning (although the comparison ends there).
The narrow-chord, rectangular wings have an unusually large 9.6-to-1 aspect ratio. The left wing root contains the single-point refueling receptacle, and 24-gallons of avgas flow from there to a center tank between the cabin and the engine.
Mechanics were delighted with engine accessibility. You simply raise the “hood” as you would that of an automobile. Engine cooling was initially a problem solved by installing an NACA duct under the “armpit” of each wing.
Cockpit entry is effortless and automobile-like through a single door on the right. Neither the left nor the right window can be opened for ground ventilation, so the cockpit gets toasty on warm days. You can hold the door open while taxiing, but there is no propwash from ahead to provide cooling.
The cockpit is roomy and comfortable; the baggage compartment behind the bench-type seats can hold 250 pounds but is inaccessible in flight.
There are four pedals on the floor ahead of the pilot instead of the customary two. Two of them control the single rudder, which is attached to the left vertical stabilizer. These pedals, however, are not used for nosewheel steering. Like the Ercoupe, the nosewheel is operated with the control wheel.
The third pedal (to the right of the rudder pedals) operates the right and left hydraulic brakes simultaneously, another attempt to make the AG-14 as much like an automobile as possible. Differential braking is not possible.
The fourth and smallest pedal is in front of (aft) of the right rudder pedal and is really a large, foot-operated button used to engage the electric starter and is similar to starter pedals found in many automobiles of the 1940s.
You do not have to worry about someone walking into the propeller disk when starting the 90-hp Continental engine because there is no propeller on the front end of the airplane. On the other hand, you cannot see behind and between the booms to determine if someone might have crawled in there. So it is important to yell “clear” loudly and pray that someone standing behind can hear you. (It is nice that you do not have to look through a propeller disc when operating the AG-14 as when operating conventional singles.)
Directional control during the takeoff and landing ground roll obviously is maintained with the control wheel.
If a wing goes down during a crosswind takeoff, do not try to pick it up with opposite aileron. This would cock the nosewheel into the wind, turn the aircraft unexpectedly, and cause the low wing to go down farther. The idea is to steer the airplane with the control wheel and apply rudder in the direction of the high wing. The rudder, however, is so small that it has little effect at low speed. It absolutely, positively cannot be used to maintain directional control during the takeoff or landing roll.
The ailerons are unusual. When you raise the right aileron about 20 degrees, for example, the left one goes down about 10 degrees. Continue moving it up to about 45 degrees, and the left aileron returns to neutral. Finally, when you raise the right aileron to its maximum limit of 60 degrees, the left aileron goes up about 10 degrees.
This explanation given for this odd arrangement has to do with coupling the nosewheel to the control wheel. To prevent the nosewheel from moving too much for a given movement of the control wheel and thereby being too sensitive, the linkage was adjusted so that the ailerons move farther than necessary to get optimum nosewheel movement for ground handling.
When rotating for takeoff, there is a tendency to raise the bottom of the windshield to the horizon because there is no engine cowling that can be used to establish climb attitude as is done in conventional tractor airplanes. This results in an excessively steep attitude, too low an airspeed, and a reduction in climb performance.
Without an engine to block the view, though, forward visibility is unobscured, and with the wings behind the cockpit, visibility to the side is equally outstanding, much like that of a helicopter.
Performance is similar to early model Cessna 150s. The AG-14 climbs at 630 fpm and cruises at 110 mph. With the approved substitute of a 100-hp Continental O-200-B, climb performance is sprightlier.
The ailerons produce little adverse yaw, and the slip-skid ball stays in its cage whether using coordinated rudder input or not. After a while, I simply took my feet off the pedals and rested them flat on the floor.
A delightful characteristic of the cute little airplane is that very little trim is required during power and airspeed changes. But when needed, the overhead elevator trim handle is rotated in a horizontal plane like on many postwar Piper aircraft. Most pilots need a little time to learn which way to turn the trim to obtain the desired result. When uncertain, just trim in either direction. If elevator pressure increases instead of decreases, just turn it the other way.
The vertical stabilizers are small and there is no vertical surface area that would be contributed by a conventional fuselage. Consequently, the aircraft has weak yaw stability. It is not so bad, however, that you cannot fly with your feet on the floor (as was intended), but the nose does hunt a bit. One quickly gets used to mild fishtailing in turbulence like those who fly Beech
Bonanzas.
Wing dihedral outboard of the booms is a steep 7 degrees, and lateral stability is outstanding. Combine this with the small rudder, and you can understand why only shallow slipping is possible.
Elevator movement is limited as it is on the Ercoupe. This makes both aircraft stall- and spin-resistant. Intentional spins, it appears, are virtually impossible. Aerobatics are not approved.
The airplane was introduced before stall-warning indicators were required, but such a warning would be redundant. During an attempt to stall the AG-14, the entire airplane buffets in a way that warns immediately and effectively of an excessive angle of attack. A slight release of back pressure restores normal flight.
If you ignore the buffeting and pull the control wheel fully aft, the nose drops to about 10 degrees above the horizon, and the aircraft continues to fly along merrily in this mushing manner. While locked in such a stall, the aircraft exhibits a high sink rate and better-than-expected roll control.
Landings offer a surprise to those who simply approach at the best glide speed of 65 mph and then attempt to arrest the sink rate and flare. At this speed there is insufficient elevator effectiveness to prevent plopping onto the ground no matter how much or how quickly you pull back on the wheel. The best way to land an AG-14 is to glide at 65 mph for most of the approach and then increase to about 80 mph when still a few hundred feet above the ground. This extra speed provides the elevator effectiveness needed to flare and make a normal landing.
During one’s first landing, though, there is a tendency to flare too high because of how close to the ground you sit. After that first landing, all that follow are a snap. You do need to fly the nosewheel onto the ground, however. If you hold it off until falling on its own, it will hit with a bang.
When landing, do not forget that there is insufficient rudder to maintain directional control. Use the control wheel for ground steering.
When making a crosswind landing, do not land in a crab as you would with an Ercoupe. Instead, straighten the airplane just before touchdown, and be certain that the control wheel is neutral before allowing the nosewheel to touch down.
Landing with one wing low can create a problem for the unwary. By holding left aileron during touchdown on the left main landing gear with a left crosswind, for example, remember that this also cocks the nosewheel to the left. So be certain not to lower the nosewheel onto the ground until first neutralizing the ailerons and the nosewheel. Otherwise, you might go for a swerving ride you do not expect.
Limited elevator effectiveness makes it difficult to flare for a landing with two people on board and when using full flaps. Landings are much easier using only half flap.
Only 5 AG-14s were built, and the airplane used in this chapter (serial number 3) is one of possibly two surviving examples.
Unfortunately, the AG-14 was introduced at the beginning of the Korean War when building materials came under tight control. As a result of this and the failure of the postwar boom to materialize (especially for 2-place airplanes), the petite fork-tailed pusher did not have an opportunity to evolve into something better. Instead, Anderson, Greenwood & Company directed its attention toward military research. It is now a major manufacturer of pressure-relief valves, manifolds, and other components.
Seaplane pilots looking at the Beriev Be-103 light amphibian for the first time express skepticism about its unusual low- to mid-wing configuration and are curious to know how such an airplane performs on water. After all, other seaplanes have wings intended to be kept well clear of the water. These pilots usually are surprised to learn that the Be-103 performs and handles extraordinarily well on water.
The airplane was developed by the Beriev Design Bureau in western Russia, a company that has been designing seaplanes for more than 70 years and seems to have unrivaled expertise. (Beriev recently introduced the Be-200, a 90,000-pound, twin-jet amphibian used as a water-drop firefighter.)
The airplane is manufactured by KnAAPO (you don’t want to know what Russian words these letters represent) in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in eastern Russia. KnAAPO also builds the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, an impressive twin-jet fighter.
Enter Kent Linn, owner of the publicly used Sky Manor Airport (N40) in Pittstown, New Jersey. Seventy-one years young, Linn learned to fly in Alaska where he became enamored with seaplanes. Now a retired flight-test engineer for Douglas Aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, he read about the history of the Beriev Design Bureau and the Be-103 in the year-2000 Water Flying annual. The airplane so intrigued him that he ultimately become its North American distributor. He accepted delivery of 3 aircraft when they were disgorged from a mammoth Antonov AN-124 during EAA AirVenture 2003.
Linn explains that the wing displaces water to help keep the amphibian afloat and contributes to superior seaworthiness.
The low-set wing also takes maximum advantage of ground effect during takeoff and landing. No other airplane operates with its wings so close to the water. Because of this, the Be-103 does not need flaps and can skim the water on its trailing edges.
The aircraft has slightly inverted gull wings so that the inboard sections prevent the airplane from rolling when on water. Gone is the weight and drag caused by wingtip floats common to other flying boats. Gone also is the undesirable yaw that can occur when a float digs into the water during a wing-low water landing.
The wing is swept 22 degrees and from certain viewing angles gives the illusion of being a delta or bat wing.
The 210-hp Continental IO-360-ES4 engines are mounted high to prevent the German MTV-12, 3-bladed composite, reversible-pitch propellers from being damaged by water spray. Checking oil requires climbing on the wing, unfastening and lifting the upper half of a nacelle with one hand, and pouring oil with the other. (There are no oil-access doors; in Russia, airplanes are serviced only by ground personnel; the pilot just flies.)
The fuel system consists of 4 tanks, 2 in the wings and 2 gravity-feed header tanks in the engine pylons. Refueling consists of filling the wing tanks, turning on transfer pumps to fill the pylons, and then refilling the wing tanks as necessary. During flight, the header tanks are automatically kept full as long as there is fuel in the wings.
The airframe is primarily lithium-aluminum, an alloy reportedly lighter, stronger, and more corrosion-resistant than conventional aluminum. Stress areas utilize titanium while the wingtips and nacelles are fiberglass.
The airplane appears overbuilt, reminiscent of Grumman-built seaplanes. Jerry Inella, a United Airlines’ captain who checked me out in the Beriev, says that “a seaplane really takes a pounding on the water. I want it built like a battleship, and this airplane fits the bill perfectly.”
The workmanship is not always pretty, but it appears durable. There is nothing flimsy or fragile about a Be-103.
Circuit breakers are accessible only when on the ground through an exterior hatch on the right side of the bow. They are inaccessible during flight because Beriev does not want popped breakers to be reset in the air.
The Be-103 is the first Russian design to be FAA-certified in the Normal category and marketed in the United States. The Russians, however, do not seem to have a firm grasp of general aviation operations, probably because there is so little of it in their homeland.
Instead, they build small airplanes as if intended for the airlines or military, which explains some of the Be-103s oddities.
The original 3 aircraft were delivered, for example, with only one control stick. The Russians consider the right front seat to be for a passenger, and passengers in Russia are not allowed access to the controls. (Second sets of controls have since been installed in all 3 aircraft.)
The Russians favor a stick over a wheel perhaps because a stick does not interfere with a pilot’s view of the instrument panel. I prefer a stick to a wheel and found the flight controls nicely balanced and harmonized. The ailerons and stabilator are operated
with pushrods; the rudder is cable controlled.
The stick contains the pitch-trim and push-to-talk switches. The rudder trim tab also is operated through an electric actuator.
Solo flight requires that ballast be placed near the right front seat to keep the center of gravity within limits.
Because of the builder’s airline and military mentality, the airplane has sophistication rarely seen in light twins. This includes a 30-parameter, 5-hour flight-data recorder, an angle-of-attack system, engine fire-detection systems, a second attitude indictor (in addition to a turn-and-bank indicator), a second altimeter, a radome, an ice detector, and so forth.
This partially explains the heavy empty weight. The aircraft I flew, N29KL, has an empty weight of 3,810 pounds. Linn is hoping to have KnAAPO remove some of the unnecessary equipment to increase useful load, which in the test aircraft is 1,201 pounds.
Linn also would prefer the airplanes to be delivered green so that a sexier paint scheme can be applied stateside.
A ladder stowed in the wing root is used to climb into the cabin through the left gull-wing door. An identical starboard door is for emergency egress. The cabin is capacious and comfortable for all 6 occupants. The rudder pedals adjust fore and aft to accommodate the tall and the short. This is the only light airplane I can recall having flown in which I could not reach the pedals with my seat fully aft.
The airplane is functionally beautiful but not aesthetically so. All placards and instrument labeling are in English, but the lettering is distinctively Russian.
There is a life jacket under each seat, and sea equipment (titanium anchor, grapple hook, waterproof gloves, etc.) is stowed in sidewall compartments next to each pilot.
Dream Aircraft Page 21