It doesn't really "fly backwards". Well, it does, but not like you would think. It can get to some pretty low speed without stalling, so you can position it in such a way that the wind will push you backward.
There was an An-2 giving air tours at the Luftfahrtmuseum Finowfurt, where the last two Chaos Communication Camps were held. (Unfortunately the Camp will have to move to another location this year.)
I took one of those tours in 2007 and it was a pretty different experience from other planes in terms of the extreme maneuverability. What I most remember is that the pilot didn't really bother to approach the runway. Instead, he just flew toward the airport. When we got to the airport, he just sort of hung a quick left onto the runway and landed. It felt almost like taking a turn in a car!
As the An-2's stall speed is considerably slower than freeway traffic, we might actually have been going at about the speed of a car at that point.
> As the An-2's stall speed is considerably slower than freeway traffic, we might actually have been going at about the speed of a car at that point.
Depending where you live, other planes have stall speeds considerably slower than freeway traffic (a Cessna has a stall speed of 50mph/80kmh), the An2 is in the range of urban speed limits (the article and wikipedia both quote pilots reporting full control at 30mph/50kmh airspeed).
Interestingly, it doesn't even trade maximum speed for being unstallable.
> Interestingly, it doesn't even trade maximum speed for being unstallable.
Depends on how you interpret it. The bi-plane design does impose quite a drag at higher speeds. There has been research into making the design faster, so far, that meant getting rid of the lower wings.
On the other hand, the designer never intended her to go fast.
I've almost done this in a Taylorcraft. It is fun as long as you can get back to your airport. It also probably wansn't the safest/smartest time to go for a joyride, but the wind was right down the runway.
I flew a Cessna 152 "backwards" during my checkride. Any airplane can fly backwards relative to the ground given sufficient wind. What is impressive about the An-2 is its super-slow stall speed (the minimum airspeed necessary for flight).
From Wikipedia: "The An-2 indeed has no stall speed quoted in the operating handbook. Pilots of the An-2 say one can fly the aircraft in full control at 30 mph (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 50 mph)."
My grandfather liked to tell the story of when he flew a Luscombe 8A backwards by pointing the nose into a headwind that was too strong for the plane's tiny 65hp engine to overcome.
> They are also dirt cheap to buy ($20 - 30K) but they burn A LOT of fuel.
She does. However, given a well-maintained engine, and 10 to 12 passengers, cars are easily rivaled, and given favourable conditions, even undercut. We did the math, briefly said, the plane has a higher cruise speed, and can fly in a straight line between destination, etc. pp.
> I'd always day-dreamed about getting one but I can't imagine it's practical.
Well...I co-own one with some other crazy blokes. While a 3.5-ton dry mass can't be put into the bike rack in front of your house, it hardly affects your daily life. I.e. she's next-to-none more inconvenient than owning a small Cessna or the like.
Edit: Judging from your user name, there's a different story though. From what I've heard, the U.S./FAA doesn't really like this soviet plane, and you've got some artificial prohibitive rules on it (compared to Europe).
For those of you located in Switzerland; you can "hitch" a ride at http://an2.ch – though you must become a club member or ride as a guest of another member (This is required by swiss law for non-commercial flights). Another possibility is to show up at airshows; where tours may be, and are given to the visitors for a modest fee.
It's quite an impressive experience, especially while starting, when the audio of the power plant's huge displacement is felt by your stomach.
I recall reading something about WWI fighter pilots who could actually fly backwards (as opposed to "forwards into a headwind"). Apparently, with the right plane and a really really good pilot, it was possible to throw it into something like a bootlegger turn, spinning 180 degrees around the Z-axis and cruising backwards for a second or two to fire on an unsuspecting pursuer, before quickly slewing back around to resume normal flight. IIRC, Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron, was known for the maneuver.
I think you're mixing up a couple ideas here. It sounds like you're thinking of Pugachev's Cobra, which is a maneuver that can be performed by supermanouverable aircraft.
In terms of maneuvers that could be performed in a WWI aircraft, I suspect it's either a hammerhead turn or a flat spin. In a hammerhead turn you climb vertically until the aircraft stalls, then use the rudder to yaw the aircraft to a vertical dive. Like an upside down u-shape. In a flat spin you do a power-on stall and yaw the aircraft in the same direction that your prop is torquing you.
Either of those maneuvers would be pretty risky - while you're stalled out you'd be a sitting duck.
I saw a documentary animation that involved the plane yawing 180 degrees and very briefly proceeding tail-first while firing back the way it had come. It specifically involved WWI aircraft, and IIRC emphasized that it was only practical with their low speeds. I can't find it now, though, so I can't vouch for the source or expand on any details I may have missed.
It was definitely presented as nearly impossible to do, in any case. I vaguely recall that it required a plane with a very short wingspan (e.g. a triplane), but I could be imagining that bit.
Everything can fly in all directions, including backwards, if you pick the right frame of reference (duh!). Misleading title, it's still frontal air current that keeps the plane in the air.
For a plane that can truly (albeit briefly) fly backwards, checkout the Sukhoi-30. It is a Russian fighter jet with truly vectored exhaust - think F-22, but 2 axes vs. 1 axis. Here is a video of it doing loops and Cobra maneuvers:
Modern missiles cannot be dodged. It's mostly just a way to show off the plane's agility. It could just barely be useful for shooting at a target behind you, but you sacrifice a lot of energy moving your aircraft like that.
I used to have a Piper Colt parked at San Carlos (CA) that had a 50kt stall. Occasionally I'd go out to the ocean on a windy day, catch the 60-70kt winds over the ocean cliffs, and fly backwards. :) It was a fun way to freak out passengers.
I was with a friend who was flying his Helio to Orange County Airport (b4 it was named John Wayne Airport). On approach, tower asked for a slow flight demo. He obliged, and flew at 33KIAS, ~25 feet altitude along most of the runway (the shorter one), then touched down about 50 feet from the last taxiway, exiting there with a nice short field landing demo. It felt truly bizarre to fly that slowly in a fixed wing aircraft.
As the article says, this plane was developed for the Soviet Forestry Ministry and is still used by their smokejumping units. [1] Smokejumpers are firefighters who parachute into remote areas to fight forest fires.
29 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadEdit: Seagulls do this too!
I took one of those tours in 2007 and it was a pretty different experience from other planes in terms of the extreme maneuverability. What I most remember is that the pilot didn't really bother to approach the runway. Instead, he just flew toward the airport. When we got to the airport, he just sort of hung a quick left onto the runway and landed. It felt almost like taking a turn in a car!
As the An-2's stall speed is considerably slower than freeway traffic, we might actually have been going at about the speed of a car at that point.
Depending where you live, other planes have stall speeds considerably slower than freeway traffic (a Cessna has a stall speed of 50mph/80kmh), the An2 is in the range of urban speed limits (the article and wikipedia both quote pilots reporting full control at 30mph/50kmh airspeed).
Interestingly, it doesn't even trade maximum speed for being unstallable.
Depends on how you interpret it. The bi-plane design does impose quite a drag at higher speeds. There has been research into making the design faster, so far, that meant getting rid of the lower wings.
On the other hand, the designer never intended her to go fast.
From Wikipedia: "The An-2 indeed has no stall speed quoted in the operating handbook. Pilots of the An-2 say one can fly the aircraft in full control at 30 mph (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 50 mph)."
They are also dirt cheap to buy ($20 - 30K) but they burn A LOT of fuel.
I'd always day-dreamed about getting one but I can't imagine it's practical.
She does. However, given a well-maintained engine, and 10 to 12 passengers, cars are easily rivaled, and given favourable conditions, even undercut. We did the math, briefly said, the plane has a higher cruise speed, and can fly in a straight line between destination, etc. pp.
> I'd always day-dreamed about getting one but I can't imagine it's practical.
Well...I co-own one with some other crazy blokes. While a 3.5-ton dry mass can't be put into the bike rack in front of your house, it hardly affects your daily life. I.e. she's next-to-none more inconvenient than owning a small Cessna or the like.
Edit: Judging from your user name, there's a different story though. From what I've heard, the U.S./FAA doesn't really like this soviet plane, and you've got some artificial prohibitive rules on it (compared to Europe).
It's quite an impressive experience, especially while starting, when the audio of the power plant's huge displacement is felt by your stomach.
In terms of maneuvers that could be performed in a WWI aircraft, I suspect it's either a hammerhead turn or a flat spin. In a hammerhead turn you climb vertically until the aircraft stalls, then use the rudder to yaw the aircraft to a vertical dive. Like an upside down u-shape. In a flat spin you do a power-on stall and yaw the aircraft in the same direction that your prop is torquing you.
Either of those maneuvers would be pretty risky - while you're stalled out you'd be a sitting duck.
It was definitely presented as nearly impossible to do, in any case. I vaguely recall that it required a plane with a very short wingspan (e.g. a triplane), but I could be imagining that bit.
Either the BBC editor is woefully ignorant of the difference between airspeed and ground speed, or he deliberately chose a clickbait title.
http://www.wired.com/2011/05/video-young-pilot-prepares-for-...
https://youtu.be/ujenrmoeALE?t=84
I was with a friend who was flying his Helio to Orange County Airport (b4 it was named John Wayne Airport). On approach, tower asked for a slow flight demo. He obliged, and flew at 33KIAS, ~25 feet altitude along most of the runway (the shorter one), then touched down about 50 feet from the last taxiway, exiting there with a nice short field landing demo. It felt truly bizarre to fly that slowly in a fixed wing aircraft.
Fun fact, when landing with two people you can open both doors simultaneously as air brakes. Stops real fast.
OK, so how do you know? :)
[1] http://environment.nationalgeographic.com.au/environment/nat...