Jump to content

Video: Flying a J2 Auster for the first time


Tomo

Recommended Posts

Just a typical tailwheel of the period. Grass this time I note. . NO flaps? I think the ones I've flown had a little Cirrus minor in them ( Blackburn) What'd you think of it? Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up. Every time I "click" to view the video on iPad it locks and I can't get it to run.

 

I am obviously stuffing something up... Help please anyone?

 

Kaz

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a typical tailwheel of the period. Grass this time I note. . NO flaps? I think the ones I've flown had a little Cirrus minor in them ( Blackburn) What'd you think of it? Nev

Yeah thought I'd use the grass since that's what Louis does... no flaps on this one. It felt almost exactly like a J3 Cub in the air, bit easier on the ground than the cub due to the fact you can actually see a tiny bit out the front!

 

Nice landing.Whats a Pittsworth, a lot more than a piecost I guess?

Actually surprised myself with the landings, must be a particular J2 Auster that is easy to land! Not a lot at mighty Pittsworth, only fun thing would be Louis's plane! 003_cheezy_grin.gif.c5a94fc2937f61b556d8146a1bc97ef8.gif (actually a real nice little airfield... but sshh we don't everyone to know that!)

 

Sorry about the video not working on mobile devices, silly Youtube decided the soundtrack I'm using this time didn't allow for it work. You'll just have to use the computer instead. 078_pc_revenge.gif.92f2d38a0e662b2e0b6cba4dc0ba5c35.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Austers are known for the reactive bungee cords in the maingear, which can be a challange on takeoff as well as with wheeler landings on a rough/undulating strip. (They start to bounce)

 

I have mostly done 3-pointers with them because one of their best attributes is their low speed capability. ( Not quite so evident on the smaller ones which have no flaps). but if you are making a slow approach it tends to lead on into a three pointer. They are pleasant enough planes,

 

The first one to have a flat motor was the MK5. most have a Gipsy major of 130 hp or the larger 145 HP for the four seaters (Autocar) IF they are fitted with four stub exhausts they are far too noisy in the cabin to be pleasant.

 

Some have had Lycoming or Continental engines retrofitted, which are generally lighter than the gipsy. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomo,

 

I cannot play the video on my PC either, but something has stuffed up since the last windows 7 auto update and I cannot play any videos .. bugger cause I wanted to see that cute little J2 fly.

 

The J2 is a cub really but I think C.G. Taylor slightly changed the wing profile on the Austers as well. The early Austers, (not the J2s) had 100HP Cirrus Minors as Nev had suggested and the later ones like mine has the Gipsy major 130 HP and I believe some had the later Gipsy Mark II 145 HP (the same motor as the DH Chipmunk), that would be nice.

 

As Nev said the difference between the Cub and the Taylorcraft and Auster was the type of bungee suspension and this largely gave the Auster the 'Built in bounce' reputation. There is no rebound damping. The Auster rebound is quite dramatic if you touch down anything above stall speed she will eject herself straight back into the air ... they were born to fly. That is what I love about the Auster, the challenge of getting a nice landing, especially in a cross wind. Three pointing is the safest and most stable method IMHO.

 

As Nev said the later Austers like my J1B were specifically designed as STOL aircraft and were used for observation, spotting and espionage purposes during WWII dropping spies into Europe during the war (they were fitted with a large muffler to silence them). The J1b has a massive 36ft wingspan and a large chord, I am not sure what profile it is. The short field approach speed in the J1B is 40 knots with full flap with which there is lots of drag, so needs a powered approach and she sits down at nothing above 24 knots and all you need is a puff of wind from the side to make it all real exciting ... LOL ... just ask Kaz. She needs 137 metres at 906Kgs MTOW to get off at ISO atmosphere. They do have a nice big rudder.1046413376_Nowraapproach2004.jpg.14f78746262c9d89001adf92656eaebf.jpg

 

The J1B was imported as a modified Autocrat frame from the UK with a larger fin and mass balance rudder to take the Australian built Gipsy Major 130HP engine. They were 4 seaters in this configuration in the UK and NZ but here CASA made you remove the 4th set of belts and limited them to 3 seaters. They have a real practical cargo space and capacity. The J1B is unfortunately too heavy for RA Aus rego.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...As Nev said the difference between the Cub and the Taylorcraft and Auster was the type of bungee suspension and this largely gave the Auster the 'Built in bounce' reputation. There is no rebound damping. The Auster rebound is quite dramatic if you touch down anything above stall speed she will eject herself straight back into the air ... they were born to fly. That is what I love about the Auster, the challenge of getting a nice landing, especially in a cross wind...

And a challenge it is!

 

Beautiful photo, David. She looks perfectly loveable and innocent... No teeth showing at all.

 

Austers were a very important platform for artillery spotting and the like, but they were also used as the station hack to ferry pilots around, to investigate potential airfield sites and to pick up or drop off those whose special work was done behind enemy lines. Mine was in the last consignment to the RAF and saw service in Germany.

 

The ability to arrive very slowly in a power on landing gave it extremely good STOL character. The factory test pilot actually took off over the top of an Austin A40 to demonstrate its short field character to RAF boffins but only gave himself 75 yards in which to do it. He misjudged a tad and lost one gear leg on the car roof. Undeterred, he did a circuit and landed on one leg keeping it upright until it came to a standstill. That sold a lot of aeroplanes for the little company.

 

Incidentally' the Austin A40 and the Auster had some parts in common. They share the handbrake (useless) and a window winder/trim control (hypersensitive).

 

Kaz

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are U/L, T/Wheelers that are much less forgiving. I have seen Austers doing circuits and people having quite a time with them, recently, bouncing all over the place. They try to do wheel landings. ( which you hardly ever did before they had any kind of TV). The only time I have had trouble is on take off on a field with "woopsie's"( I'll call them) and once she starts bouncing you either shut the throttle and stop, or haul it off and fly in ground effect till the speed builds up enough to climb away. They are not really any big deal, you just have to keep your wits about you, or you will look foolish. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I was old and stupid... Seems I'm just old :-(Kaz

Don't worry Kaz, that video just took me back almost half a century.

 

Good on you Tomo, just another to add to the avitar.

 

PS I have a Flymo Tomo, when do you have time to give it a flight test?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used to say that if you can land an Auster then you can land anything. I still can't land anything and I'm not too sure about Austers.

Modesty is very becoming of you, DJP :-)

 

I seem to recall a Pitts was part of your repertoire? They are a close-coupled beastie with not a lot of scenery visible out the front once the TW settles on the ground.

 

I forget who your friend is that is shown on Youtube doing a rather spectacular cross-wind landing in an Auster at the old Mooraduc strip, but that performance just takes my breath away. Oh to be able to have that degree of control <sigh>

 

kaz

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austers were actually fitted with a number of different engines over time, but a great many (including mine) started life with an 0-290 Lycoming of 135 HP provided by the Yanks on the Lend-Lease programme.

 

After the war, many of these were sold for export sans engine (including mine) and fitted with a Gipsy at the destination (like mine).

 

BYM was totally rebuilt a while back and that's when the 0-320 was added. She has just ticked over 1000 hours TT.

 

Kaz

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a time in australia where gipsy major engines were everywhere. The ones fitted to the Austers had fuel pumps as distinct from the ones fitted to the DH 82. Gipsy's are becoming less reliable today and they are heavy.

 

The 290 lyc was probably a good size and obviously the more available 0-320 would also be OK but they are often worn out and too high time to be worth fitting. Before you think of using a Lyc compare the real price of a brand new one with the REAL price of a rebuild and there are lots of different versions with different cylinders, engine mounts etc. Parts cost varies enormously from some models to other very similar models by a large margin. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...