Down Memory Lane - From the Log Books #8

[Guest TOSGcentral]

And now for the ‘French Connection’ – and a few more from elsewhere.

 

 

While the dominant countries tended to rule obtainable production supply to the majority of world clubs, other nations had their own gliding situations as well. They broadly looked after themselves and their wares did not travel far into other countries. The following are a few of them.

 

 

I will start expanding descriptive terminology also and begin sharing with you ‘Pilot’s Eyes’. This is where you run your eyes over an aircraft and just from appearance the machine tells you what it will be like to fly (assuming that it is serviceable and within weight and balance limits) Some look benign and boring; others look ‘a bit off- it , maybe angular or something – does not fit the eye’, others you fall in love with at first sight and like a potential partner you want to know – you cannot wait to get your hands on, knowing it will be great! Others turn out to be just a one night stand, attractive but no staying power once you get involved with the fundamentals.

 

 

Bijave. France had established an active gliding community and the Wassmer company were the mainstay French leaders serving clubs.

 

 

Like any sensible manufacturer supplying clubs, they strove to offer a basic club fleet. This comprised the Javelot (later the Super Javelot) as the entry level single seater and the Bijave as the supporting trainer. Presumably ‘Bijave’ is a contraction name for two place Javelot. All of these types came out in the mid to late 1950s and were to remain in service for several decades. There were a lot of similarities between the single and two seaters with a few new approaches to utilitarian design that it is worth mentioning.

 

 

They are all tube steel and fabric fuselage efforts with some fibre glass panelling to assist with streamlining (around the nose etc). The wings are three piece with the centre section being parallel chord and nowhere near as heavy as the backbreaking Slingsby Skylark series.

 

 

The outer wing panels tapered evenly to the tip to assist in controlling induced drag and also contained the glider’s dihedral – the centre section being flat. Connecting the outer panels was via three interconnected bolts that were operated by a lever kept stowed in the cockpit when not in use. It was a neat system that was easy to use but then involved having wing gap covers that were a little untidy once they became older.

 

 

There were actually four ailerons (two on each side) and the pairs were intercoupled but on different throw bellcranks. This caused the outer ailerons to move about half as far as the inners and therefore assisted in reducing aileron drag.

 

 

The Schempp Hirth airbrake system was massively powerful and you could put all the types exactly where you wanted from seemingly impossible positions. The paddles had large multiple holes in them that created air vortex and were largely responsible for the air brake’s power – they also caused the gliders to howl like starving wolves when you opened them.

 

 

The Bijave itself was quite a large machine and at nearly 17 metres had more span and area than it’s German contemporary trainers. It was a tandem two seater, the cockpit arrangement being similar to the Bocian with the rear occupant sitting much higher than the front seat and consequently need a step in the fuselage side to assist climbing up to get in. The wing was placed in the shoulder position so visibility from the back seat was good.

 

 

Visually the Bijave was certainly not ugly but neither was it particularly graceful. It had very much a no-nonsense ultility image of a well bred workhorse and that is what you got.

 

 

M200. I never flew one of these although there are a couple in Australia but I did not manage to catch up with one. I wanted to because I had owned a M100s which was the single seater that the M200 was developed to support as a trainer – and the M100 certainly had some oddities that I wished to see if they had also transferred over.

 

 

The glider was Italian, quite a few were made and apparently worked well at their task.

 

 

It was quite a large aircraft at over 18 metres wing span and looked reasonably elegant if ‘not quite right’ and a bit on the plump side. This was primarily because the glider tended towards the pod and boom style of design which results in a large nose in proportion to the rear of the aircraft.

 

 

This should put pilot’s on notice that the aircraft may be susceptible to rudder overbalance. If you are not familiar with the term this means that beyond certain yaw angles the keel area of the nose forward of the centre of pressure dominates the natural yaw stability of the aft keel area and fin and the machine will lock into the yaw. There is nothing particularly frightful about this and a good shove on the opposite rudder pedal promptly unlocks the situation – but the sink rate is usually extremely high in the condition and could take you to places that you would prefer not to be!

 

 

Effort was made to make the M200 less blunt not just by the work that went on streamlining the nose area but also introducing staggered side by side seating. This enables the fuselage to be narrower but more importantly enables the aircraft to be flown solo from the front seat without having to start fiddling around with ballast that is required on full side by side gliders.

 

 

The particular design feature that was very prominent on the M100 and I wanted to take a look at with the M200 is the Freise aileron system.

 

 

For those that are not familiar with the system a brief description is as follows. The aileron is hinged from a point aft of the leading edge and the hinge point placed such that the upgoing aileron has the leading edge protrude downwards into the airflow and thus cause drag. The drag caused balances the aileron drag of the downgoing aileron on the other side and is notionally a method of eliminating adverse yaw.

 

 

The system is not popular on gliders because the Total Drag is constantly being increased every time the ailerons are used and this has an impact on performance (particularly for ‘pudding stirrers’!).

 

 

On the M100s the situation is further irritated by the aircraft being light on yaw stability anyway and the rudder pedals were hinged on a pivot through their vertical centre – which gave an odd foot/knee movement.

 

 

I did not fly my M100s all that often and consequently found that I had to really concentrate when I did fly it or it was slipping and skidding all over the place. I would be most interested in hearing the view of anyone who has some time in the M200.

 

 

The other oddity of the M100/M200 was the airbrake system which was just about unique. There was a complicated arrangement of linked levers with paddles on the ends of them. Opening the brakes resulted in six paddles emerging from above and below each wing (24 paddles in all). This gave, for onlookers, the appearance when the glider was on approach that they were about to be monstered by something with an awesome array of fangs!

 

 

The system was certainly effective but dear me it was a bastard to re-adjust for a flush fit after a major inspection. Adjust one paddle on one wing and you put the other eleven out of adjustment. So you felt that you were constantly chasing yourself.

 

 

Mg19 Steinadler. I never flew one of these either but was dead set on owning one and only the offer of a job in Australia foiled my intent. I was then (and still am) deeply in love with the gull winged gliders of yesteryear, already owned a Minimoa and had flown other classics. Now I wanted a two seater to go with the Min. I went to the other end of the planet and flew Kookaburras instead!

 

 

The Steinadler however was, and was not, a prewar aircraft – it did not fly until (guess!!!!) 1951! So the type has a place in my overall embracing tale as it is quite a curiousity.

 

 

The machine is Austrian by design and manufacture, being virtually a copy of the successful 1937 Mg9. The Mg19 was therefore effectively a vintage replica – but was put into series production, many were built and successfully served their clubs, becoming the main Austrian home grown trainer.

 

 

The machine itself was a graceful tandem two seater that was quite large at 17.6 metres and 480 kg MTOW, displaying all the classic lines of pre-war state of the art gliders with well shaped wood monocoque fuselage and deep chord shapely rudder.

 

 

The gull wings were, unlike the shallow gull of the Kranich 1 & 2, quite heavily cranked and set in a low mid wing position that really sets off the glider’s lines whilst giving great visibility.

 

 

This was a truly beautiful glider and I deeply regret never owning one. After I left UK one was imported and fully restored – securing itself a major place in the UK Vintage Glider movement.

 

 

2.22. For all the major world dominance of the Americans in so many areas, they never

 

really made the grade in the world gliding arena. But they had a large manufacturer (Schweizer) that served the gliding industry that was mainly FBO (Fixed Based Operator) commercial schools and hire outfits.

 

 

The Americans got going early after the war. I suppose they could as their homeland was undamaged and the rest of the world took a few years to recover from the ruins that it was in. The 2.22 was really the first serious post war production trainer, first flying in 1947, and fitted in with a single seat matching type (The 1.26). Certainly a number of ex military glider trainers were pressed into service also around that time but they do not seem to have lasted long as they were hardly light sporting aircraft.

 

 

I caught up with both an early 2.22 and a 1.26 single seater at RAAF Richmond – the club there having an example of each – so it was an opportunity not to be missed.

 

 

The 2.22 was not really a large glider in terms of wing span etc yet physically it was quite big. It seemed just that it’s uncompromising blunt lines sort of terminated your eyes straying onwards. For example it had a large door in the side so you could get into the rear seat.

 

 

So on visual impression the trainer did not promise much as a glider but looked reasonably proportioned and not ‘odd’ enough to arouse suspicion. And so it was. Just an early model basic trainer that made very little impression on me to the point that I have to think hard about the time I even flew it.

 

 

Later on both the two and single seater range were developed and better styled but they still give me the impression that they were rather like the Blanik in some ways – they were a vehicle to access gliding and soaring. That is fair enough and they were very successful in doing so. But that is all that they were.

 

 

So I suppose it comes down to a perception and even need of the human participant. For myself my aircraft is my partner in each voyage into the sky and I like good quality partners that keep me turned on – either because they are demanding and/or have to be watched, or simply that they have character that demands your affection and total immersion in them.

 

 

Next time we will take a look at Oz two seat gliding. Warning – this series looks like reaching about 40 instalments so if you are getting ticked off with it then let me know.