On Dec 5, 8:04 pm, "karl gruber" wrote:
That P-3 must be a fun airplane to fly.

wrote in oglegroups.com...


Yep, its a lot more fun than the Cessnas and Pipers I had previously
flown (not that I had an issue flying those though...). Unfortunately
it has very little value for transportation which means it gets
replaced sometime in the next few years with something a bit more
practical that the family can ride in. That's why I had been starting
the conversations on light twins vs. singles.

The P-3 has by far the best handling of anything I have flown except
the Pitts S2B. Its also built like a tank, which is a good thing for a
warbird approaching 50 years old. It is a lot more solid than a T-34,
although you pay the price in lower climb performance because the
airframe is so heavy. The other nice thing is that the interior is huge
for a 2 seat plane. I'm 6'2" and there is a lot of extra space inside.
I've had passengers who are 6'5" in the back seat and they had the seat
raised up off of the lowest position to give a better view over the
nose, with no headroom issues.

The European warbirds tend to be cheaper than the US ones because
nobody knows what they are. I've only landed at a couple of airports
where I wasn't asked what the plane is.

Anyway, I'd highly recommend the P-3 to anyone looking for something
really fun & different to fly, at roughly the same price & operating
cost as an older Cherokee Six, 210, 206, 182RG, etc... I'd love to be
flying a radial engined warbird someday (T-6, T-28), but those are
really out of my league on operating cost.

Where are you based out of Karl?

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html