Not all cargo aircraft begin their lives as unpowered assault gliders. Fewer still go on to utilize five different engine configurations, encompassing piston, turboprop, jet, and combined piston/jet power.

But this was exactly what transpired during the interesting life of the Fairchild C-123 Provider.

Glider

In the late 1940s, the U.S. Army Air Force decided it needed a larger, more capable assault glider in its inventory. Having successfully utilized smaller, fabric-covered gliders to insert troops into battle during World War II, it reasoned that such success could be continued in future conflicts. It awarded a contract to the Chase Aircraft Company to design and build two prototypes for evaluation—prototypes that would later evolve into the C-123 Provider.

• READ MORE: The Untapped Potential of the Horten HX-2

Called the XCG-20, the resulting aircraft was the largest glider constructed for such a purpose. With a wingspan greater than that of early Boeing 737s, it incorporated a 30-foot-long cargo area with a rear ramp that allowed vehicles to self-load. It was perhaps the only glider with a dedicated auxiliary power unit to power onboard systems like the landing gear and flaps.

Before the XCG-20 could enter production, however, the military determined that there was no longer a need for assault gliders. Perhaps anticipating this development, the engineers at Chase had the foresight to design the wing to accommodate the installation of engines. Accordingly, as the aircraft’s future as a glider came to an end, its future as a powered aircraft emerged.

Piston

The definitive version of the C-123 was the piston-powered transport. Utilizing the proven Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine, which was also used in the Douglas DC-6, Chance-Vought F4U Corsair, and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, among others, just over 300 examples were produced in the late 1950s. 

Operated by the U.S. Air Force and Coast Guard as well as a variety of foreign militaries, the piston-powered C-123 would go on to serve in the Vietnam War as well as other conflicts around the world.

Its cargo ramp and capability of operating from short, unimproved airstrips made it useful for various roles, including troop transport, medevac, and special operations support. One of the last operators to utilize the C-123 in regular service was the Royal Thai Air Force, which retired them in 1995.

Turboprop

In the late 1970s and early ’80s, the Royal Thai government explored the possibility of converting its C-123s from piston engines to turboprop engines. This modification would have improved the aircraft’s takeoff and climb performance, as well as its cruise speed and reliability.

With the help of the Mancro Aircraft Company, it oversaw the installation of Allison T-56 turboprops on one C-123 for evaluation.

• READ MORE: The Hughes XF-11, a Behemoth That Never Made It Out of Testing

While the T-56 saw great success powering such aircraft as the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, Lockheed L-188 Electra, and Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, among others, little data exists that outlines the performance and technical success of the C-123 installation. Budget constraints reportedly brought the Thai government’s investment to a halt, and Mancro was unable to successfully market and sell the modification to any other potential customers.

Combination

For increased thrust and performance, a number of C-123s were modified with the installation of turbojet booster engines

 Multiple jet engine types were utilized, including Fairchild’s J44, which also powered the Ryan Firebee target drone and the General Electric J85, which was also used in the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly and Northrop T-38 Talon.

The booster engines provided multiple benefits.

• READ MORE: The Hiller Hornet and Its Ill-Fated Ring of Fire

In addition to the expected improvement in takeoff and climb performance, they increased the aircraft’s payload by approximately 30 percent. Additionally, the presence of auxiliary engines provided an expanded safety margin in the event of the failure of a main piston engine, something that was surely appreciated by the crews flying over inhospitable terrain and hostile areas.

Jet

The most visually striking version of the platform was the Chase XC-123A.

Originally constructed as an XG-20 glider, it was fitted with four General Electric J47 turbojet engines mounted in pairs, like those on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet and the Convair B-36 Peacemaker.

While these turbojets supplemented thrust appreciably, they required significantly more maintenance than even the radial piston engines that would see widespread use. One source indicates the typical time between overhauls for the J47 was approximately 225-625 hours.

The post The Unusual Evolution of the Fairchild C-123 Provider appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

These are the kinds of things one learns when one must beg friends for a ride home from a distant rural airport immediately following EAA Airventure in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Fortunately, this discovery did not stem from mechanical woes or becoming stranded due to weather. It was simply a function of playing musical vehicles as I dropped off my plane for its annual inspection on my way back home after a week of festivities at Oshkosh. Not wanting to leave my mechanic with 207 pounds of cargo with which to contend during the inspection, I carefully loaded all of my gear into the Crosstrek with little room to spare.

• READ MORE: When Unforeseen Circumstances Threaten to Derail Amazing Experiences

This year, the entire AirVenture experience was a study in cargo and packing. While I’d done it before, this year was perhaps the first in which my gear selection was completely dialed, with a proven selection of items to ensure my week in Oshkosh would be the best ever.

From tents to cots to power supplies to food, every piece was carefully considered and calibrated, making for a fantastic week. Besides creating a top-notch AirVenture experience, this also reinforced my philosophy that it’s best to purchase an airplane you’ll grow into rather than out of.

I didn’t always feel this way.

Early on in my journey toward aircraft ownership, I had nearly settled on the trusty yet tiny Cessna 140 or its simpler, flapless cousin, the 120. I loved the way they flew, and they were among the least expensive options available. They seemed to check all the boxes.

Eventually, however, I decided that for me the ability to take that epic, once-a-year trip was worth the higher purchase price and increased fuel burn throughout the rest of the year. Two years of pinching pennies and working massive amounts of overtime eventually enabled the purchase of my larger, four-place 170.

And even though I never carry more than one passenger, and even though I only fully utilize the cabin volume once a year, the effort was entirely worth it. Had I settled for the smaller 120/140, every one of my Oshkosh experiences would be completely different.

For one, the additional space allows for luxuries that can completely transform any camping trip.

Years ago, in my motorcycle days, I learned firsthand that while it’s possible to pack extraordinarily small and light, this comes with significant compromises. The lightest tents and sleeping pads on the market, for example, function fine but prioritize minimalism and utility over comfort.

Now, with my roomy 170 made all the more voluminous via the removal of the rear seat, I could afford to upgrade my Oshkosh trip accordingly.

Going through my mental list of past annoyances, I addressed each individually. Thin sleeping pad that leaves me aching in the morning? Guess I’ll just go ahead and order the plush cot. A few extra changes of clothes that allow me to present myself at evening get-togethers as a civilized person rather than a shipwreck survivor? Don’t mind if I do.

The extra space and payload also enabled me to bring two laptops and a second monitor, so I could work remotely in the days leading up to the big event. Suddenly, I was able to live and work from the airplane. All it took was some careful weight-and-balance calculations and a bit of strategic positioning of the heavier items.

• READ MORE: EAA AirVenture 2024 in Photos

The extra space transforms the Oshkosh experience for friends, as well.

Two years ago, one friend found herself sleeping in a pool of rainwater when her cheap tent succumbed to passing storms. This year, an airline pilot friend came straight to Oshkosh from a work trip without a tent or sleeping pad. In each case, the 170’s cabin allowed me to toss in an extra tent and sleeping pad from my aforementioned motorcycle camping days. For the cost of an additional 2.5 pounds of gear, each friend enjoyed their trip immensely.

It often makes sense to expedite one’s entry into ownership by selecting a small, inexpensive type to begin with. If, for example, one is certain one’s mission will always be limited to short local flights.

But sometimes, buying an airplane capable of something more—even if that something occurs only once a year—can make it all worthwhile.

The post EAA AirVenture: A Study in Cargo and Packing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I first attended as a passenger in my flying club’s Cessna 182 in the late 1990s and spent the following several years mooching rides from other club members in various aircraft types. After moving to Wisconsin, I spent many years driving up and camping with friends next to their airplanes. 

I was entirely satisfied with the event regardless of how I got there. I was convinced it couldn’t possibly become any more enjoyable to submerge oneself in aviation history and culture for an entire week in the company of good friends. But in the past few years, I’ve experienced how an already magical event can become even more epic when one attends in their very own airplane.

• READ MORE: 5 of the Best New Aircraft Owner Products Under $500

My very favorite part of flying my plane into AirVenture is a segment of the experience nobody ever seems to talk about.

Understandably, the most notable part of the adventure tends to be the unique arrival procedure in which thousands upon thousands of airplanes funnel their way into the event in a mostly neat and orderly fashion. By referring to landmarks on the ground, practicing good, old-fashioned pilotage, and keeping our eyes outside to spot traffic, we slot into sequence and proceed single file into the world’s greatest aviation celebration. This is the part of the event that everybody documents and shares—but my favorite part is the part that occurs immediately after landing.

After touchdown, specific procedures, frequencies, landmarks, and sequencing immediately become obsolete. In their place, we shift mental gears and begin a set of steps that are primitive yet effective in nature. After the controller instructs us to immediately depart the runway, we obediently lumber off into the lumpy grass and begin scanning for the nearest marshaller. When we spot one, we scramble for a previously prepared handmade sign and hold it high in the window to communicate our desired parking or camping area without speaking a word over the radio.

The marshaller, upon recognizing our desired destination, points and ushers us into the direction that will take us there. We repeat this process with each subsequent marshaller, all while attempting to ignore the sublime distraction of Rolls-Royce Merlin V-12 engines at takeoff power just a few wingspans away, and we try not to fixate on the magnificent Staggerwing or T-6 breathing down our rudder just behind.

Sometimes, serendipity delivers us from the active runway almost directly to our parking spot with a minimum of taxi time. In other years, the opposite occurs, and we spend the better part of an hour lumbering from one marshaller to the next, working our way toward our unknown parking spot in a distant part of the airfield as the event unfolds around us.

Eventually, we are directed into a quickly filling line of neatly parked airplanes and carefully urge the airplane through more thick grass, slotting into position next to our new neighbors who themselves completed the process only moments before.

Immediately after shutdown, our final marshaller provides a hearty “Welcome to Oshkosh!” and instructs us to tie down our airplane securely without delay. The urgency to do so spills over into our subsequent duties of setting up our campsites, and we madly fling gear and equipment out of their carefully planned organization and out onto the grass that will serve as our home for the following week. 

• READ MORE: Landing a Tonka Truck With Wings

Surrounded by the sound of tent stakes being pounded into the Wisconsin soil, warbirds flying overhead, and newcomers using 2,400 rpm to power their way into nearby parking spots, we rush to set up our tents, organize our campsites, and monitor the wingtips of yet more newcomers as they taxi past our airplanes with inches to spare. Being the good citizens we are, we then rush to help our new neighbors secure their own airplanes, excitedly exchange friendly greetings, and invite each other over for evening refreshments. 

After this carefully orchestrated cacophony of chaos, my favorite moment of all occurs.

A dawning comprehension takes place in our harried, sleep-deprived, and overtaxed brains, and we realize that all the work—the planning, preparation, flying, and meticulous attention to detail—has all come to an abrupt end. And for the next week, the one and only remaining duty is to kick back and relax beneath the wing of our airplane. No expectations. No responsibilities. Just seven or eight days of beautiful airplanes and legendary friends.

It’s at this moment that I like to grab an icy drink, plop into my comfy camp chair, reflect upon the successful execution of so many individual tasks, and simply take it all in. The energy in the days leading up to the official beginning of the event is palpable. The twinkling landing lights in the distance could be anything from a Ford Trimotor to a Boeing 777 to a C-5 Galaxy to a sleek F-35 fighter. And whatever it is, it’s about to land directly in front of us. We might take note of some dark clouds in the distance and silently bid our incoming friends good luck, hoping everyone makes it in safely.

• READ MORE: Seeking Out Ghosts of Your Airplane’s Past

A bit later, a second realization occurs. We have a decision to make, after all—but it has nothing to do with the monotony of normal life. It’s unrelated to budgets, or home repairs, or expense reports, or annual reviews, or any of the thousands of bland, repetitive tasks that form our never ending pile of typical adult responsibilities.

Instead, we need to decide whether we’ll have a bratwurst or a burger for lunch. And perhaps which direction we should walk first to begin taking in the magic of the greatest aviation celebration in the world. And which beloved knucklehead buddy we should seek out first. For the next week, these sorts of decisions are all that’s expected of us as the weight of everyday life takes flight and contacts departure.

With our troubles behind us and nothing but happiness ahead, we smile to ourselves and wrestle with these pleasant, simple decisions. And more likely than not, we nod off for a bit in the warm Wisconsin sun and soft summer breeze as the scent of jet exhaust and the drone of endlessly approaching airplanes lazily waft over us.

After a long, cold winter, AirVenture is finally here…and so are we.

The post Flying Into AirVenture: A Carefully Orchestrated Cacophony of Chaos appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

This is the 100th installment of The New Owner, and I suppose it’s only natural that the milestone is occurring amid a maniacal blend of emotions swirling around said ownership.

On one hand, EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, is next week (July 22-28), so there’s massive excitement for epic times just ahead. On the other hand, some maintenance issues have arisen over the past couple of weeks that create severe trepidation and directly threaten those amazing times.

It’s a perfect representation of aircraft ownership as a whole. Amazing experiences put at risk of derailment from unforeseen circumstances, fighting back and forth like so many Hollywood heroes and villains. But instead of the villains threatening the powers of good with swords, guns, and death rays, the threats come in the form of grounded airplanes and massive repair bills.

Frankly, I’d prefer to take my chances with the guns and death rays.

• READ MORE: Airplane Types Unlock AirVenture Locations for Parking, Camping

The first sign that something was amiss came several days ago in the form of engine oil. More specifically, a few extra drops on the hangar floor, slightly higher consumption than normal, and a new sheen collecting on the bottom of the engine. It wasn’t that my Continental engine was leaking oil. That’s pretty typical for most old Continentals. It was that mine was quite suddenly leaking in new places, at higher volumes, much differently than normal.

At any other time of year, it would be a simple matter of postponing future flights and booking some time with my mechanic. But this was Oshkosh month, a time when the severity of any mechanical problems increases exponentially as the date of the magnificent fly-in nears. And being that the big event was only a couple of weeks away at this point, panic quickly set in.

I immediately texted my mechanic, Ryan. He’s a great guy who embodies rural Wisconsin friendliness and honesty. He’s the kind of person who will bend over backward to help you and happily provide educational lessons about the tasks he’s performing along the way. He and his brother own and operate Johnson Brothers Flying Service in Lone Rock, Wisconsin, about 40 miles west of Madison.

While I was waiting for his reply, I examined my engine. I couldn’t quite pinpoint the source of the oil, but I suspected my Continental C-145 was experiencing weepy pushrod seals. This is a known issue with the type, as well as with the later version, the O-300.

I’ve always been amused at the engine’s midproduction name change from C-145 to O-300. Continental evidently figured that referring to the engine by the displacement (300 cubic inches) made it sound more powerful and impressive than referring to it by the 145 hp it produces. Marketing 101, I suppose.

Ryan replied that he would try to make it out sometime during the week before my departure to Oshkosh. But because he was so busy, he couldn’t guarantee it. I’d just have to wait and hope. In the meantime, I opted to remove my upper and lower cowls for a closer inspection.

To someone like me with close to zero mechanical aptitude, dismantling your airplane’s upper and lower cowls to reveal an entirely naked engine is simultaneously empowering and intimidating.

In one respect, it makes you feel like you know what you’re doing. Anyone walking past the open hangar door would naturally assume you possess some rudimentary level of knowledge and proficiency. But in another respect, you’re pretty sure you’re fooling nobody.

For the purposes of an engine inspection, however, it worked out just fine, and I was able to trace the leak to the oil temperature probe on the back of the engine accessory case. I forwarded this intel to Ryan.

The next afternoon, I received a text from him. Unbeknownst to me, he made it out to my plane and addressed the leak. I was ecstatic and headed right out to the airport for a shakedown flight prior to my trip up to Oshkosh.

Sure enough, the oil leak appeared to be taken care of. I preflighted the airplane, pulled it out of the hangar, and hopped in—only to discover that the throttle was inexplicably encountering some kind of blockage halfway into its travel.

Thinking that a running engine might somehow solve the problem, I started it up but found that nothing had changed. The throttle knob would only advance about halfway to full throttle before encountering a hard stop.

Now, things were getting serious. It was a Friday evening, less than a week before my planned departure to Oshkosh. Ryan was busy and wouldn’t be able to chat until Sunday or Monday. Desperate not to miss the big event, I gave my friend Dan a call.

“Hey, man, have you sold your Ercoupe yet?” Dan replied that he had not. “And you’re not going to make it to Oshkosh this year, right?” “That’s right,” he replied. “We’ll be in Michigan all week.”

• READ MORE: Flying In to AirVenture: A Carefully Orchestrated Cacophony of Chaos

He knew I was angling for something, so I explained.

“I’m dealing with some mechanical issues on the 170, and I’m not sure if it’ll be fixed in time for Oshkosh,” I said. “If it’s not, how about I take the Ercoupe up and hang some of those big ‘for-sale’ signs on the prop so a half million people see it?”

After considering this for a moment, Dan agreed that it would be a win-win sort of situation.

With a backup plan firmly in place, Saturday came and went. On Sunday morning, I received a text from Ryan. He was available to zip out to the hangar and have a look at my throttle issue.

The fix took him all of about five minutes. He explained that he must have inadvertently dislodged part of the throttle cable while inspecting something else during the oil leak work. He assured me it wasn’t likely to occur again and said he’d be entirely comfortable flying it. He also said that because it was his fault, he wouldn’t be charging me for the trip out. I gave him a 100-dollar bill anyway to show my appreciation.

At the time of this writing, I have just about everything packed up. My tent, sleeping bag, cooler, chairs, underwing party lights, and coffee supplies are ready to go. This afternoon, I’ll fly a shakedown flight to check for any errant oil leaks and confirm all is in order. With any luck, I’ll be flying my own plane up to Oshkosh tomorrow and, much as I sincerely appreciate Dan’s offer, hopefully not an Ercoupe.

If you wonderful readers will also be at Oshkosh next week, please come find me. I plan to be somewhere around Row No. 67, right up on the airshow crowd line. I’d like to thank you in person for your readership and support over the past few years and give you a sticker or two.

Just look for the blue 170 with Alaskan Bushwheel tires. Or, depending on how things go, a classy little Ercoupe.

The post When Unforeseen Circumstances Threaten to Derail Amazing Experiences appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

But silhouettes mask details and size, and a closer look reveals how the massive Hughes XF-11 was a vastly different aircraft—with a vastly different fate.

The size of the XF-11 isn’t readily apparent in most photos. Only when a person or automobile is positioned next to it does the scale really sink in. At over 101 feet, the wingspan is greater than that of an early Boeing 737, and at over 58,000 pounds, it’s heavier than a 50-passenger regional jet.

The scale of the engines is equally impressive. Compared with the 1,600 hp Allison V-12s fitted to the P-38, the XF-11 utilized massive Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major 28-cylinder radials—the same engines found on the Convair B-36 Peacemaker. Unlike the Peacemaker, however, each of the XF-11’s engines was designed to turn two four-bladed contra-rotating propellers.

The XF-11’s long, thin, high-aspect-ratio wing and powerful engines provide clues to its intended purpose. Capable of reaching 42,000 feet with a 5,000-mile range, it was positioned as an ideal solution for photo reconnaissance work—a task that became increasingly necessary during World War II. With so many Japanese enemy bases positioned so far away from U.S. bases, top military officials saw value in developing a purpose-built aircraft for the task.

Although the XF-11 proposal beat out competing ones from Boeing, Lockheed, and Republic, Hughes soon found themselves struggling with production and logistics issues. A number of major components, such as the wing and the engines, were delayed by as much as seven months, placing the program well behind schedule. Adding to the company’s woes, other components, such as the propellers, were consistently problematic—a problem that led to the loss of one of the two XF-11s that were ultimately produced.

On July 7, 1946, Howard Hughes himself took the controls for the first official flight of the XF-11. Despite the right-side propeller exhibiting mechanical issues prior to the flight, Hughes elected to continue with the flight. He also elected to extend the duration of the flight considerably beyond the original 45-minute plan. 

Just over an hour into the flight, the right-side propeller lost oil pressure and changed pitch. This drastically increased drag on that wing. Control inputs to counter this deployed the left-side roll-control spoilers, further increasing the aircraft’s overall drag.

Unable to maintain altitude, Hughes attempted to make an off-field landing at a golf course in Beverly Hills, California. He was unable to extend the glide that far, however, and crashed into a neighborhood. He struck several houses, causing the aircraft to burst into flames and leaving him with multiple severe injuries.

The Hughes Corporation continued developing the second prototype. In an effort to eliminate the cause of the first aircraft’s crash altogether, they opted against using the original contra-rotating propellers and fitted it with simpler, standard four-blade propellers instead. This aircraft went on to undergo further testing at other air bases, but when the program was terminated in 1949, it was scrapped.

The photo-reconnaissance role for which the XF-11 was designed was ultimately filled by far more cost-effective modifications of existing airframes, such as the Boeing RB-29. Ironically, another such replacement was the F-4 and F-5 photo-reconnaissance versions of the P-38 Lightning, of which over 1,300 were manufactured and flown.

The post The Hughes XF-11, a Behemoth That Never Made It Out of Testing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

As is the case with any first-time airplane owner, he’s pretty excited and has been asking me all kinds of thoughtful questions about the logistics of flying into the biggest aviation celebration in the world, EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. One of his first questions pertained to the geography of the July 22-28 event and in what area he should plan to park and camp.

• READ MORE: Oshkosh 2024 Notice Outlines Changes for Pilots Flying to AirVenture

Without hesitation, I recommended that he join a mutual friend and me in the centrally located vintage area. A solid week of knuckleheaded antics with a couple of old friends as our airplanes are parked side by side at Oshkosh is the stuff of dreams. As I looked into it, however, I discovered that his airplane—a beautiful 1973 Bellanca Super Viking—was built just past the 1971 cutoff for the vintage category.

I found this to be frustrating. I know the cutoff has to be made somewhere, but his Super Viking is relatively rare, with a sweet design and old-school craftsmanship. It seems wrong that it’s not permitted in the vintage area while scores of Bonanzas and Mooneys that are barely distinguishable from their 1980s-era counterparts fill the rows there. 

As it turns out, the Experimental Aircraft Association clearly defines not just the vintage category of aircraft but the subcategories as well. Within vintage, they are as follows:

• Antique: Aircraft manufactured before August 31, 1945
• Classic: Aircraft manufactured from September 1, 1945, through December 31, 1955
• Contemporary: Aircraft manufactured from January 1, 1956, through December 31, 1970

Chris, therefore, needed a quick lesson on the lay of the land at AirVenture. And so I presented him with an overview of his options, such as they are.

As his aircraft doesn’t fit into the EAA’s categories of vintage, experimental, or warbird, he will be directed to one of two areas upon landing—the “North 40” or the “South 40.” Located at the far north and far south ends of Wittman Regional Airport (KOSH), respectively, these are the largest areas where most airplane owners park and camp.

• READ MORE: Flying Into AirVenture: A Carefully Orchestrated Cacophony of Chaos

They are, however, quite different. And while arriving aircraft are not guaranteed to have a choice of which they’ll be directed toward after landing, pilots can print and display a sign requesting one or the other.

If the incoming traffic flow and the workload of the ground marshallers allow, they’ll direct you to your preferred area. So it’s good to know how they differ. 

Additionally, each area has its own unique vibe, with differences not readily apparent in the Oshkosh Notice and markedly different pros and cons. Here’s how I described them to Chris:

North 40

The North 40 is the area surrounding Runways 9-27 at the north end of the airport.

It’s got a lot going for it. The proximity to businesses and restaurants makes it easy to walk to grab a bite of non-EAA food or pick up some supplies. The latter comes in handy when a severe storm approaches and materials for last-minute hail protection suddenly become needed.

Because parking/camping spots are arranged on both sides of the runway, the views of arriving and departing aircraft are fantastic. One needs only walk to the end of their row to sit and watch all the arrivals and departures. It’s not at all unusual for your morning wake-up call to come in the form of multiple P-51s banking directly overhead as they depart for a dawn patrol formation flight. Few alarms are so sublime.

Amenities abound in the North 40. In addition to a small shower trailer on the north side of 9-27, the south side has two separate shower/restroom buildings. Several rows down, there is also a cafe that serves full meals and a small store for toiletries, snacks, and necessities.

A regular procession of dedicated school buses makes constant loops from the show entrance to the Basler ramp in the northeast corner of the airport. Simply flag down one as needed, settle in among your new friends for the ride, and call out the row number where you’d like to be dropped off. I like to leave a small tip for the driver after reaching my destination.

The biggest downside? The steady noise from Interstate 41 and adjacent roads. While mostly just background noise, it adds something of a rest area vibe to an otherwise magical aviation experience. At night, it’s not uncommon for an errant semitruck, Harley-Davidson, or emergency vehicle to wake you up from an otherwise peaceful slumber.

South 40

If the North 40 is city living, the South 40 is quiet life out in the country.

The very southern end borders a 55 mph county road, but there’s otherwise no automobile traffic noise to speak of at night. It’s a peaceful, relaxing vibe.

While the peaceful tranquility is nice with respect to cars, it’s a bit of a downer when it comes to airplanes. Situated well south of Runway 36-18, there are no great views of the runway and only approaches—not landings—are visible from most rows. The vast majority of the South 40 is well south of the action.

The EAA has done a good job bringing the recently expanded South 40 up to speed with amenities. It still falls short of the North 40, but it now has a small store, and showers are easy to find. In addition, there are now more numerous and more frequent shuttles to and from the main show grounds, making it easier to get back and forth. 

For those regularly frequenting the ultralight strip, the South 40 sits in relatively close proximity. Campers stuck walking back to their airplanes after the legendary STOL demo and Twilight Flight Fest face a walk of only a mile to the most distant row in the South 40. This compares with a walk of nearly three miles to the most distant row of the North 40 and provides strong motivation to catch the last shuttle before being shut down for the night.

Armed with a clearer understanding of his camping options, Chris is now better prepared for his first trip to AirVenture in his first airplane. With any luck, the EAA will gradually expand the cutoff for the vintage category to include his sweet Viking.

Until then, I’m sure he’ll have a blast wherever he ends up.

The post Airplane Types Unlock AirVenture Locations for Parking, Camping appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Among the two dozen or so individual models that have been built over the years, only a few types have been produced in quantities of more than two or three. Fewer still were both manned and powered, and the small Horten HX-2 is a member of that exclusive group.

There are several reasons for the rarity of flying wings. Airliner versions never caught on due to their size and overall footprint—a flying wing capable of carrying 50-plus passengers would generally be too large to utilize traditional taxiways, ramps, and ground infrastructure. Most passengers in the voluminous structure would be seated far away from the extremely limited number of windows. Additionally, effectively evacuating a large number of passengers from such an airframe presents several daunting challenges.

• READ MORE: The Hiller Hornet and its Ill-Fated Ring of Fire

This leaves only a few categories in which flying wings make sense. They’ve succeeded in a number of military applications, as their unique advantages of internal volume, aerodynamic and structural efficiency, and stealth benefits outweigh the negatives. They’ve had some limited success in the glider and UAV categories. And while they haven’t caught on in other applications, they have potential in applications requiring smaller airframes and fewer seats, such as business and private aviation.

For a modern prototype, the HX-2 has a unique and deep lineage. Like aircraft manufacturer Flight Design, Horten is a subsidiary of Lift Air, itself part of the large Lindig Group based in Germany. But unlike most other upstarts in aviation, Horten has direct ties to early aviation pioneers—specifically, Reimar Horten. A designer of several flying wings, including the jet-powered Ho-229 fighter/bomber, Reimar contributed to the design of the HX-2’s predecessors in the late 1980s and early ’90s. 

• READ MORE: The Unfulfilled Promise of the Fairchild T-46

With a 32-foot span, a 100 hp Rotax 912iS, and a fuel capacity of 63 gallons, the two-seat HX-2 is a far cry from World War II-era bombers. Indeed, the basic stats place it in a category consisting of modern LSAs and legacy two-seaters like the Grumman AA-1 and Cessna 150. But the unique, flying wing configuration offers some similarly unique advantages in a private GA application.

Efficiency is perhaps the most compelling attribute of the HX-2. Initial testing demonstrated a cruising speed of 87 mph while burning less than 2.65 gph. This equates to an impressive 32.8 mpg.

The design has other inherent benefits. Although internal volume is plentiful and could easily be utilized for cargo and baggage, there would be very little center of gravity (CG) variance. Accordingly, the HX-2 would be difficult or even impossible to load outside of the CG limits. The flat profile has also reportedly demonstrated excellent handling qualities during crosswind takeoffs and landings.

When Horten actively marketed the HX-2 prior to 2020, the company presented it as the initial version of a family of aircraft. Horten planned a kit version, buildable by individuals or in concert with the manufacturing facility, as some manufacturers do today. From there, the company envisioned a four-place version optimized for short-range air taxi operations.

A more distant goal was a hydrogen-powered version. The voluminous design of the HX-2 was particularly suited to this, as large-volume hydrogen storage has always been a significant hurdle for more traditional aircraft designs. According to Horten, the aircraft would have been able to achieve a 1,000 nm range with hydrogen power.

One of the company’s most recent efforts was to position the HX-2 as an ideal platform for unmanned operations. With relatively few modifications, it could provide a range of 2,175 miles or an endurance of 20 hours. Although Horten never actively marketed the HX-2 as a manned military aircraft, it observed that the two-seater has sufficient internal space for the installation of a toilet and a bed.

• READ MORE: Horten HX-2 Takes Flight in Germany

When we visited Horten’s facilities adjacent to Lift Air near Eisenach, Germany, in 2019, and studied the HX-2 in person, the construction appeared to be first rate without sloppy details inherent in some prototype and proof-of-concept aircraft. The two-seat cockpit was indeed spacious, with comfortable seating.

While visibility was decent in most directions, downward visibility was effectively zero, a natural side effect of sitting within the wing. Cockpit access was impossible without a ladder, and one wonders how Horten might have developed stowable, built-in steps to address this.

Unfortunately, while the Horten website is still live and touts the HX-2, development and marketing efforts appear to have stalled since 2020. But the presence of the website nevertheless offers hope that with another round of investment, the program could pick right back up from where it left off.

With any luck, the convergence of funding and market conditions will breathe new life into the HX-2 so that it may take flight once again. 

The post The Untapped Potential of the Horten HX-2 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Rosen Sun Visors ($550)

Moreover, this was the only modification I’d prepared before even taking delivery of my airplane. They’re that good.

Hop into any legacy Cessna with original visors, and it becomes clear why. Undersized to begin with, the flimsy plastic or vinyl-covered stock visors leave much to be desired. If, after decades of use, they miraculously remain intact, there’s little chance that they go into the position you desire and stay there. More likely, they freely flop around and swing out of position, blinding you and creating a distraction all their own.

Everything about Rosen’s visors exudes precision. From the high-quality acrylic that doesn’t alter colors to the beefy, machined aluminum hardware, they have a solid feel and will surely outlast stock visors. Move them into position, and they remain there without complaint. Best of all, they’re translucent, so you can block the sun without blocking your vision.

Like a good set of shoulder harnesses in a vintage aircraft, I considered these a legitimate safety improvement and continue to enjoy them nearly every time I fly.

BAS Tail Pull Handles ($345-$435)

Although my airplane came with a good, solid tow bar for the tailwheel, I discovered that there were plenty of instances where moving my plane around became unnecessarily challenging. There were times I flew someplace and left my tow bar behind, and there were other times when I only needed to adjust the plane’s position slightly and didn’t want to bother with it.

Even if you remember to bring one along, tow bars often present a dilemma. If they’re small enough to fit nicely into the baggage compartment, they tend to be small and flimsy. But if they’re large and beefy enough to work well, they’re also large enough to be cumbersome in the airplane. Mine was firmly in the latter category, weighing about 15 pounds and requiring disassembly to fit into the airplane.

BAS Inc.’s tail pull handles solve this issue cleanly and simply. Nothing more than retractable, tubular aluminum handles that manually extend and retract into and out of the side of the aft fuselage, they are completely hidden until you need them. In addition to providing a sturdy handhold with which to move your plane around, they also dissuade ham-fisted helpers from grabbing and placing undue stress upon relatively fragile fairings and stabilizers.

Installation is quick and easy for any A&P. BAS states that this requires only 1.5 hours, keeping the final, total cost of the upgrade well under $1,000. They’re available for Cessna taildraggers, the Luscombe 8-series, and experimental taildraggers.

Pro tip: When having them installed in an aluminum fuselage, ask your mechanic to save the small round blanks that are cut from the fuselage. Then use them to make a couple of small keychains as souvenirs. 

The Perfect Stepladder ($215)

Whether you’re fueling, washing, or inspecting a high-wing airplane, it pays to have a completely stable, sure-footed stepladder. A couple of winters ago, I learned this the hard way. Fed up with the cheap, flimsy aluminum ladder my airport keeps out by the fuel pumps, I clambered up onto my 170 using the tire and wing strut for support and proceeded to wrestle with the stiff, inflexible rubber hose.

Just as I finished topping off my right tank, I stepped backward, aiming my foot toward the tire. In a series of slow-motion still frames, I felt my foot slip off, saw blue sky, and then landed on my upper back. I landed hard and heard actual snaps that X-rays later determined to be multiple broken ribs in my chest and back. 

Months later, when I regained my mobility, I opened up my laptop and went ladder shopping with the ferocity of a new father looking for his first pair of New Balance sneakers. After hours of research and several measurements at my plane, I finally found the perfect ladder—a Werner PD6204. It is the perfect height for a Cessna, even on tundra tires. More importantly, it has a roomy platform upon which to stand, enabling a wide stance for stability when fueling or scrubbing the airplane.

While this is perhaps not the most impressive or flashy item I’ve purchased for my airplane, I genuinely enjoy and appreciate it every time I use it. 

McFarlane Vernier Mixture Knob ($225)

Vintage aircraft have vintage technology. Most of it is charming, transporting us back to the era in which the machine was built. But some of it is simply bad. Old Cessna mixture knobs certainly fall into the latter category.

Closely resembling a small push-pull carb heat knob, my original mixture knob offered about 3 inches of fore and aft travel. This made leaning the engine with any precision an exercise in futility. More than once, while rolling out after landing, I pulled what I thought was a small amount of mixture out to lean the engine for taxiing, only to inadvertently starve it of fuel and momentarily stumble. 

Recalling the nice, refined switchgear in the modern aircraft used by my Part 141 school years ago, I again went searching. I found McFarlane’s MC600-72 mixture control knob. It works as a mixture knob should, offering quick push-pull adjustment as well as vernier adjustment for fine-tuning.

To anyone flying modern aircraft, the inclusion of such an item in this list must seem comical. But to anyone dealing with old, antiquated controls from the 1940s or ’50s, the upgrade is a no-brainer and has proven to be pure luxury.

Sporty’s PJ2+ Hand-Held Comm Radio ($249)

I’ve wanted a good hand-held radio for many years for three reasons: first, for fun and to monitor airshow traffic; second, to coordinate efforts between pilots in the air and people on the ground during events like photo shoots; and finally, to serve as a backup in the event of a radio failure in flight.

I’d never been too impressed with industry offerings. Many include wholly unnecessary functionality, such as GPS, VOR navigation, and ILS approach capability. The latter is downright comical to me. While I suppose such a radio solidly mounted to the panel might suffice as an ILS backup in an extreme emergency, the thought of using a hand-held radio to fly an ILS seems downright comical.

Sporty’s PJ2+ is great because of its simplicity. It’s only a comm radio, lacking extraneous features to complicate matters. It has an intuitive interface and runs on AA batteries or USB power. Best of all, you can plug your dual-plug headset into it, ensuring you can easily hear and be heard in flight. At $249, it’s also fairly priced.

Drawbacks? Thus far, I’ve only found a couple. The volume and squelch knobs spin far too easily. While this might seem like a frivolous concern, it means that the slightest bump or light brush against a knob can inadvertently turn it all the way up or all the way down. If the latter occurs, critical incoming audio might go unheard. A clumsy solution would be to wrap a rubber band around the knobs several times, but if Sporty’s could change to higher-friction knobs, that would be ideal.

The only other concern I’ve encountered is constant static on certain CTAF frequencies. Even when dialing the squelch all the way down, I’m unable to monitor my local airfield without nonstop static.

Even with these issues, however, the PJ2+ is everything I expect to ever need in a hand-held radio, and I’m very happy with it.

The post 5 of the Best New Aircraft Owner Products Under $500 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Had they asked the pilots a few additional questions, however, the complete picture would have been revealed. They’d have learned that the aircraft type in question was a tiny helicopter called the Hiller Hornet. It utilized two ramjet engines to achieve a top speed of just 62 knots and had a maximum range of less than 30 miles. While perhaps not as flashy as the aforementioned supersonic interceptors, some might argue that it took more guts to fly the Hornet.

The impetus behind the general design of the Hornet was torque. When power is applied to a stationary main rotor on a traditional helicopter, the fuselage naturally wants to spin in the opposite direction. The traditional tail rotor acts as a lateral propeller, enabling the pilot to push the tail left or right to counteract this torque effect precisely.

The Hornet’s designers attempted to eliminate the torque effect. They reasoned that controllability would be improved if the main rotor could somehow be powered by an engine or engines that did not apply any torque to the fuselage. Additionally, the relatively complex tail rotor assembly and associated drive shafts and linkages could be eliminated.

They brought the concept to fruition by placing two 11-pound ramjet engines on each tip of the two-blade main rotor. Each engine generated 31 pounds of thrust by drawing fuel up from a fuselage tank and through lines buried within its respective blade. Interestingly, these engines had no moving parts and could burn several different fuel types. They had a projected service life of 500 hours and were touted as being replaceable for only $200 each, amounting to $2,454 in 2024 dollars.

Unfortunately, while the torque effects were eliminated, the new design came with several very serious inherent drawbacks. Chief among them was the high fuel burn of the ramjets, which amounted to 600 pounds per hour at higher power settings. With a 300-pound fuel capacity, endurance was minutes rather than hours. 

Autorotations were also a problem. The tip-mounted engines introduced drag and inertia to the rotor, making it difficult for pilots to increase rotor RPM in the event of a power loss and then accurately convert that RPM to lift when slowing the descent rate to touch down.

While the Hornet’s design eliminated the need for a tail rotor mechanism, it did require a small gasoline engine for starting purposes. This engine spun the main rotor to an RPM sufficient for the starting of the ramjets. So, while the complexity of a tail rotor was eliminated, much of the weight saved was reintroduced with the addition of the starting engine.

The military took an interest in the Hornet and conducted an evaluation process. Although the helicopter was indeed flyable and controllable without a tail rotor, the military decided they preferred the additional yaw control that a tail rotor provides. Subsequent models of the Hornet, therefore, incorporated a small tail rotor to satisfy this requirement. The tail rotor used was small in size and was powered by the starter engine. It was unique, as well, utilizing just one blade and a counterweight as opposed to a traditional, two-blade design.

The military discovered some additional problems with the Hornet. The combination of the helicopter’s small size and the droop of the rotor blades meant that it could not be approached while the rotors were turning. This limited the usability in the field. 

Additionally, the ramjet engines created vivid, flaming exhaust trails. This produced what appeared to be a brightly illuminated ring at night. Tactically, this made the Hornet very easy for enemies to spot in the night sky, and in peacetime operations, it reportedly resulted in an overabundance of UFO sightings.

Ultimately, a total of 18 Hornets were built, and while the Army and Navy evaluated the type, no production orders resulted. Today, approximately eight Hornets are in storage and on display at various museums across the U.S.

The post The Hiller Hornet and its Ill-Fated Ring of Fire appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today, things really aren’t much different. Sure, the Tonka trucks have long since been retired. And, yes, my machines of choice have evolved somewhat. But my Cessna 170B with 29-inch Alaskan Bushwheel tires perfectly embodies the spirit of Tonka truck fun and go-anywhere adventure. The combination of a sturdy taildragger and big tundra tires has enabled me to successfully negotiate muddy runways, snow, ice, and battered surfaces that would hobble many typical setups.

But while the massive, low-pressure tires indeed unlock access to destinations that would otherwise be off-limits, I’m learning that they can require some careful planning. Because the pliable rubber that turns rough surfaces into usable runways is so much softer than  traditional, high-pressure tires, it’s a good idea to avoid using them on pavement and concrete. Doing so can prematurely wear the tires, resulting in corresponding wear on one’s bank account.

Accordingly, I now think twice before popping into airports that lack any grass options.

This is easier said than done, even with the plentiful grass options that abound in my home state of Wisconsin. After all, whether it’s fuel, maintenance, or a good restaurant you’re after, these things are often only available at fully paved airports.

Recently, I flew to Janesville, Wisconsin, to help judge a national flight competition sanctioned by the National Intercollegiate Flying Association (NIFA). Back in college, I competed for four years with the Western Michigan University Sky Broncos, and I try to serve as a volunteer judge whenever I can. Dating back to 1919, it’s pure, grassroots general aviation flying, with a strong emphasis on safety and precision, and has involved names like Earhart, Trippe, and Lindbergh.

I’d been looking forward to the event for some time but still I cringed as I gently touched down on the harsh, grooved concrete. On the ramp, I was careful to avoid sharp turns that brutally scrub the inside tire. As the tires cost over $2,000 each, I felt my efforts were warranted.

Fortunately, some progress is being made when it comes to expanding grass options at airports across the country. As is so often the case, the Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) is spearheading efforts to open more destinations to pilots interested in exploring rural strips. A couple of years ago, the organization worked with the FAA and got it to officially 

acknowledge turf operations within runway safety areas. In other words, the FAA has now acknowledged that it can often make sense to conduct takeoffs and landings in grass areas immediately adjacent to hard-surfaced runways.

This isn’t just about saving money on tires. It’s also about selecting a runway surface that’s more forgiving of imperfectly aligned landings. Land a taildragger in a slight crab on pavement, and the tires will grab, setting you up for a nasty ground loop. Do the same on grass, and the tires will more likely slide slightly, making it a nonevent.

I wasn’t able to use a grassy area at Janesville for the flight competition. That airport has yet to designate any grass areas for landing, which is why I almost never fly to the fantastic airport restaurant located on the field. It’s a shame, considering it would be a short 15-to-20-minute flight for breakfast.

As it happens, my latest airport restaurant visit occurred just days after the flight competition at a rural, sleepy airport called Tri-County Regional (KLNR) in Lone Rock, Wisconsin. There, Sam’s Airport Diner proudly serves fantastic fare to pilots from Wisconsin and neighboring states. Best of all, the airport maintains a nicely mown strip of grass alongside the main runway, where taildragger pilots—or anyone with a preference for soft runways—may take off and land. 

It’s an idea that’s gaining momentum. Ask any pilot at  EAA AirVenture whether Wittman Regional Airport (KOSH) in Oshkosh has a grass option, and they’ll invariably point to the ultralight strip where the fantastic STOL demos take place. Some might mention the EAA’s nearby Pioneer Airport. But, in fact, Wittman Regional has designated a grass area adjacent to Runway 9-27 for takeoffs and landings. It’s on the south side of the runway, at the far western end, and is usable only upon request and when traffic conditions permit. 

As I seek new and interesting places to take my grown-up Tonka truck with wings, I also continue to look for nice grass options like these. If an airport provides a more forgiving, tire-friendly, and legitimately safer alternative to its hard-surface runways, I’d certainly be interested in frequenting it.

And while, sure, I could simply switch back to standard, high-pressure tires, the stable, pillowy-soft experience of my big tundras is proving to be so much fun that it’s entirely worth the trouble.

The post Landing a Tonka Truck With Wings appeared first on FLYING Magazine.