Slick Goodlin dead at 82

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:z5L7f.472406$x96.142332@attbi_s72...
Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is
his
own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.


The "outs" are due to Yeager modifying his will and other financial matters
to include the "female episode" which happens to be his wife. Damned good
pilot, by the way. The wife, that is.


I think Jim Weir likes him as a hangar neighbor?

I said he is my hangar neighbor, period. Son of a bitch used to steal
peaches from my orchard when he cut across my place walking up to the
airport from his house.


Jim

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:z5L7f.472406$x96.142332@attbi_s72...
Has anybody ever met anyone that actually likes Yeager. Latest word is
his
own kids are now on the outs after his recent female episode.


The "outs" are due to Yeager modifying his will and other financial
matters
to include the "female episode" which happens to be his wife.

Which happens to be half his age and younger than his kids as I understand.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Damned good pilot, by the way. The wife, that is.


I think Jim Weir likes him as a hangar neighbor?

I said he is my hangar neighbor, period. Son of a bitch used to steal
peaches from my orchard when he cut across my place walking up to the
airport from his house.


Jim

Goodlin doesn't seem to have been slammed by Yeager, according to my
recollection of Yeager's book. Though noting the high figures demanded
(or contracted for), I remember the other evaluating pilot saying that
Goodlin deserved "every dime". I think the USAF wanted to grab the
project because it coincided with the official inauguration of the AF
as a separate service. That's the impression I got from Yeager's book
- which seems implicitly lauditory when you think of how low Yeager
held civilian test pilots in esteem. Civilian test pilots? They do it
for the money. They pick up an airplane, play around with it, then
discard it without contributing any useful information about it. Even
George Welch gets the treatment. The pilot of the F-104 that collided
with B-70 No. 2? A NASA pilot. It's not the same deal in NASA, Yeager
says - he'd stand up any day for those shuttle drivers. But during the
golden years of aviation, Goodlin emerges favorably.

I read years later that Goodlin flew Spitfires for the Israeli AF in
'48 - this from an Israeli magazine that mentions Goodlin having been a
test pilot, but omits any mention of the X-1.

Jay Honeck wrote:
He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
marginal on the gages.


I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on the
gauges are totally different skills.

In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of a
skillful, competent IFR pilot.

Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

tomcervo wrote:
"I've read that Slick wanted a huge bundle of dough to test the X-1,
which is why Yeager, who was willing to do it for regular service pay,
got the job. "

Goodlin said that he asked for the amount he was contracted for--and an
extra amount, agreed upon by the other pilots, for the widow of a pilot
killed earlier in the testing. The scene in the movie was total
fiction, like many of the scenes in the movie.

I just quickly re-read "Tex" Johnston's account of this in "Tex
Johnston Jet-Age Test Pilot". IIRC, Johnston was Chief Experimental
Test Pilot at Bell during the initial X-1 flights. He says "Likewise
much has been made of the purported pilot bonus (hazard pay) committed
by Bell Aircraft for the Phase 1 testing of the X-1 aircraft and the
amount demanded by Goodlin. I was never privy to either of those two
numbers..."

Johnston's recollection of Bell losing management of the X-1 project
goes like this:

Goodlin flew the first powered X-1 flight on December 9, 1946. He
reported satisfactory handling with no comments concerning aerodynamic
control or longitiudinal trim characteristics.

After several more flights, Johnston, based at Bell's Niagara Falls,
NY factory, received a call from the X-1 project officer at Wright
saying that the air force technical people at Muroc (Edwards) say
Goodlin is uncooperative and are unhappy with progress to date.

Johnston flies to Muroc and is told that Goodlin has engaged a
Hollywood agent and instructed that the Wright X-1 project office that
any meetings with Goodlin should be arranged through his agent.

Johnston flies the X-1 (books includes a copy of his "Pilot's Report"
for the flight) on May 22, 1947. He can't believe that "a pilot
[Goodlin] could fly this airplane for two months and never mention the
severe and dangerous deficiency in the longitiudinal trim system." He
grounds the plane until this is fixed. The next day Johnston gets a
call from Stanley at Bell telling him that Wright Field is taking over
the program.

When Goodlin returned to Niagara Falls he was told Bell Aircraft would
not honor his X-1 contract.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:40:42 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::


Jay Honeck wrote:
He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
marginal on the gages.


I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on the
gauges are totally different skills.

In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of a
skillful, competent IFR pilot.

Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

While I understand the reasoning behind the comments of both, I find
it revealing that neither Scott nor John have anything more than
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND on their PRIVATE PILOT certificates (with
the possible exception of: MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES).

tomcervo wrote:

Probably a lot like the look on Bud Anderson's face when someone calls
him Yeager's wingman.

Does anybody really think of him that way? The only reason I know
about him was because of his book (easily one of the most memorable
fighter-pilot memoirs) which made it clear that they weren't wingmen.
My favorite part was Anderson's tale of "The Drink Not Toasted" with
Tom Lanphier, who claimed credit for shooting down Adm. Yamamoto in
1943, meeting Minoru Genda years later.

Newps wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:

He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
marginal on the gages.



I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on
the gauges are totally different skills.

In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of
a skillful, competent IFR pilot.


Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

How so?

Matt

Newps,

Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

With all due respect, having flown with a few hundred pilots as a
flight instructor, my observation is that pilots who have their
instrument ratings are better all around pilots than those who do not.
(Again, that is a general statement, there are certainly exceptions,
but it is true in general.) It does not make them a worse VFR pilot.
Well to the contrary, in fact, it improves their VFR skills due to
their ability to fly the airplane more precisely, something that seems
to make a big difference on crosswind landings (once they get past
spending too much time head down in the cockpit, which is also true of
VFR pilots with a moving map GPS). While it is only my observation,
pilots without instrument ratings tend to be sloppier on speed control
on landing approach, and are more likely to err on the fast side,
something that is a common cause of loss of control accidents on
landing - more energy, a squared function, to manage, and it doesn't
always get managed well. Noninstrument rated pilots also, in my
observation, tend to be far sloppier on altitude and heading than
pilots with instrument ratings and seem to be more likely to fly at
altitudes that are in violation of the east-west rule.

While the instrument rating is certainly not for everyone, the skill
sets it teaches, mostly the process of thinking much further ahead of
the airplane than one is used to doing when flying VFR, has positive
carryover value, as is usually the case with any additional training,
it has benefits beyond the specific areas being addressed.

As was stated here, fighter pilots in WWII got a lot of instrument
time, especially in the European Theatre where the weather often was
just plain lousy. In fact, they were known to shoot approaches down to
less than 200 and a half to get in after missions.

Interestingly, Al White, combat fighter pilot in WWII with victories,
then military test pilot and then test pilot for North American, was
probably the finest pilots with whom I've ever flown, even when he was
in his late 60s. His handling of the airplane was absolutely fluid and
I've never, ever seen anyone fly more precisely than he could, VFR or
IFR. During one series of maneuvers in a Cessna 402, I tapped the
altimeter on my side of the cockpit because it had not moved through
several 60 degree banked turns and I thought it was stuck. It wasn't.


All the best,
Rick

All the best,
Rick

Matt Whiting wrote:


Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.


How so?

Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
That's necessary when you can't see anything. It's also why guys in a
172 get all puckered up when the runway is only 3000 feet long, they
start to worry it's too short. They never explore the low end of the
performance envelope. I bought my Bonanza in August. The first thing I
looked at when I was deciding if I wanted a Bonanza was where is the
bottom of the white arc. My 182 was 60 MPH, the Bo is 62. Perfect I
thought, I won't give up hardly any short field performance.(And I
don't, the Bo lands in 550 feet, takeoff in 550-600) Then I started
asking Bo pilots what speed they fly on final with a load of just
themselves and a half tank of gas. The lowest was 90 MPH IAS and the
highest was 110. That's right, there's morons out there flying at 110
on final when the stall speed is less than half that. Instrument pilots
all. They are so scared of their planes I don't know why they even fly.