Best warbird to own

On 7 Nov 2003 12:37:59 -0400, Gregg Germain
wrote:

In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:

: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
: vintage and type.

Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
"normal"?

Every thing is relative.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)




--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

In rec.aviation.military Roger Halstead wrote:
: On 7 Nov 2003 12:37:59 -0400, Gregg Germain
: wrote:

:In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:
:
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

: Every thing is relative.

That's why I added "Or harder to fly than 'normal'" and why I put
normal in quotes.

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message ...
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

I myself have no idea, and will defer to people with actual knowledge. But
this is the scuttle-butt around this household.

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...
:: There are lots of P51s out there, so they are not rare enough.
:: Further, they are said to be even harder to fly than normal for
:: vintage and type.
:
: Where does it say P-51's are hard to fly? Or harder to fly than
: "normal"?

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached - it's certainly
harder to fly than a Cessna 152, but not nearly as hard to fly as the
space shuttle.

I'm assuming he compared them to aircraft contemporary with the P-51
since he used the word "vintage".

Was it harder to fly than the P-39? the 39 has some tough spin
characteristics.

Other than the 51 being somewhat less stable when the aft gas tank
was full, I don't know of any other difficult characteristics.

Just curious what he meant by "harder".

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks
and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher
than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

I myself have no idea, and will defer to people with actual knowledge.
But
this is the scuttle-butt around this household.


The P-51 is a little more unforgiving than some other WWII fighters because
of it's high speed laminar-flow wing - this gives it speed and range, at the
cost of a more 'sudden' wing stall and a higher stall speed.

The Spitfire is more forgiving to fly because, due to a design quirk, it's
airframe actually gives a little shudder to warn you you're near a wing
stall state.

Matt

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

I've read three things. The p51 is unstable in pitch with full tanks and the
resulting aft CG, and that a p51 has a high speed stall that's tougher than
most other WWII fighters. And finally the p51 has a higher stall speed
than other contemporary fighters.

The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have had
this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which isn't
out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than the
Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the stall
and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that few
military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to the
stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
om...
I'm fantasy shopping for my new warbird or historic aircraft. My
requirements are ...

- Historic value (rare and interesting aircraft)
- Reasonably easy to fly
- No turbines and under 12,500 lbs (no type rating needed)
- Seats two
- Aerobatic
- Easy on the eyes

I have two brand new, less than 250 TT Henschel Hs 126, Greek Air Force
markings.
100 K Euros each.

T-33, T-34

--
No good deed goes unpunished!

"CC" wrote in message
. ..
T-33, T-34

--
No good deed goes unpunished!


There is or was an outfit in Mass that was importing reworked O-1's with
Italian markings and a turboprop on the front end. They had a couple at Sun n
Fun
two years ago.

Leanne

T6G Harvard. Nice bird, acrobatic, parts available.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
T6G Harvard. Nice bird, acrobatic, parts available.
Walt BJ

You guys are much to conventional in your thinking for a
fantasy plane. How about making it something useful when
you want to make that back woods fishing trip? Say a
J2F Grumman Duck, a SO3C Curtiss Seamew on floats or
even a SC Curtiss Seahawk. There might be problems with
the last two being unobtainium rare but the Duck should
be doable.