Best warbird to own

"Alan Minyard" Not to mention a P-38 with "tip tanks", that must have been
one rare
bird!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I meant drop tanks!

Gregg Germain wrote in message ...
In rec.aviation.military Ed Majden wrote:


: Back in the 1950's I saw a privately owned P38 with USA markings land at
: the Regina airport in Saskatchewan. Three guys climbed out of it. They
: un-screwed the back of a tip tank and removed their suitcases! Don't know
: who owned it and I didn't write down the N---- tail number. I wonder if
: this P38 is still around???
: Ed

THREE guys? Wow I'm impressed. Was one in the nose? ;^)

I've seen a film of Gary Cooper unfolding himself from teh back seat
of a P-38 and he was really crammed in there.

I've read that the rearward extension of the cackpit to accomodate the
second seat shifted the CG back causing stability problems. Stuffing
a third passenger in the nose probably helped correct that.

For an exotic warbird how about the Dutch Fokker G-1. A twin engine
fighter-bomber/recon plane originally designed for a crew of 2 or 3
it had the same configuration as the p-38 but with a lot more glass.
I think less than a hundred were made, production stopped when
Germany invaded Holland so maybe there are none left flying.

An Illyushin II Stormovitch flying tank might fit the bill too.

--

FF

On 7-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell wrote:

- 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


Two seat Spitfires are just ugly.


Well, to my eye the Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever
made. And from what I understand it is reasonably easy to fly -- it would
have to be considering the relatively green RAF pilots in the Battle of
Britain. But if you think the 2-seat mod is ugly, so be it. It's your
fantasy, after all.

Since you didn't rule out a twin, I suggest that a deHaviland Mosquito might
fit the bill, although I am not sure its (fully loaded) weight would be
under 12,500 lbs.

It looks like I am kind of leaning towards British aircraft. Then again,
the Brits certainly did field some fine airplanes in WWII, to say nothing of
the incomparable Rolls-Royce Merlin engine (that powered both the Spitfie
and the Mosquito as well as many other Allied airplanes of the era).

--
-Elliott Drucker

In article ,
writes

On 7-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell wrote:

No he didn't. Please be careful with your snipping. This is not my text,
and you have snipped all of what I wrote, which mentioned the Hawker Sea
Fury T Mk 20, which I think would be the best match to the criteria. I
don't know if there are still any airworthy examples.

- 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


Two seat Spitfires are just ugly.


Well, to my eye the Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever
made. And from what I understand it is reasonably easy to fly -- it would
have to be considering the relatively green RAF pilots in the Battle of
Britain. But if you think the 2-seat mod is ugly, so be it. It's your
fantasy, after all.

Since you didn't rule out a twin, I suggest that a deHaviland Mosquito might
fit the bill, although I am not sure its (fully loaded) weight would be
under 12,500 lbs.

It looks like I am kind of leaning towards British aircraft. Then again,
the Brits certainly did field some fine airplanes in WWII, to say nothing of
the incomparable Rolls-Royce Merlin engine (that powered both the Spitfie
and the Mosquito as well as many other Allied airplanes of the era).


--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

(Charles Talleyrand) wrote:

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

My thinking suggests dive and torpedo bombers might be the solution.
They typically seat two or more, and the naval aircraft should have
reasonable low speed handling. Is this sound thinking? Would a
Dauntless or Devistator or even a Stuka fit the requirements?

My only time in a 'warbird' was an hour of casual instruction
in a Tiger Moth - not exactly zoom and glamour, but a joy to fly, and
highly aerobatic, but a little weak on the verticals ;-D

The SBD Dauntless is supposed to be a very nice 'pilot's
airplane', made to fly comfortably on long scouting missions - it's
not real fast, but is aerobatic also.

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 11/12/03 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(Charles Talleyrand) wrote:

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

My thinking suggests dive and torpedo bombers might be the solution.
They typically seat two or more, and the naval aircraft should have
reasonable low speed handling. Is this sound thinking? Would a
Dauntless or Devistator or even a Stuka fit the requirements?

My only time in a 'warbird' was an hour of casual instruction
in a Tiger Moth - not exactly zoom and glamour, but a joy to fly, and
highly aerobatic, but a little weak on the verticals ;-D

The SBD Dauntless is supposed to be a very nice 'pilot's
airplane', made to fly comfortably on long scouting missions - it's
not real fast, but is aerobatic also.

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.




With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 12 Nov 2003 15:47:59 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.


With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer

Well, certainly the B-47 delivering early free-fall nukes "over the
shoulder" is a good example of that. Virtually any aircraft can be
rolled--barrel-rolled usually since some don't have sufficient aileron
authority to complete an aileron roll before the nose collapses well
below the horizon. But, getting a big bird "over-the-top" is usually
out of the question. BUFDRVR will probably confirm that the big Boeing
beast is only stressed to about 2.4 G, which means you might be able
to get a light one pulled into the vertical, but probably couldn't get
much more than a flop onto its back and God help you with the
pull-out.

As far as "best warbird to own" there would be a lot of factors at
play. Since you aren't going to war in it, you don't need weapons
systems. Considerations would be that elusive "panache" factor and fun
to fly, plus simplicity to maintain and high reliability.

As for panache, I'd love to revisit my youth with a 105 (none
available world-wide) or a Phantom (lots still left, but fails the
simplicity test and reliability by a long shot!)

That being dealt with, some of my candidates would be an F-86H from
the Korean era; a P-51 (possibly too common, but still a thrill,) a
P-38 (loads of panache, but maybe weak on reliability), and although
not a "war" bird, a T-38--take a friend, go fast, look cool and low
cost of upkeep (relatively).

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 11/12/03 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 12 Nov 2003 15:47:59 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.


With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer

Well, certainly the B-47 delivering early free-fall nukes "over the
shoulder" is a good example of that. Virtually any aircraft can be
rolled--barrel-rolled usually since some don't have sufficient aileron
authority to complete an aileron roll before the nose collapses well
below the horizon. But, getting a big bird "over-the-top" is usually
out of the question. BUFDRVR will probably confirm that the big Boeing
beast is only stressed to about 2.4 G, which means you might be able
to get a light one pulled into the vertical, but probably couldn't get
much more than a flop onto its back and God help you with the
pull-out.

As far as "best warbird to own" there would be a lot of factors at
play. Since you aren't going to war in it, you don't need weapons
systems. Considerations would be that elusive "panache" factor and fun
to fly, plus simplicity to maintain and high reliability.

As for panache, I'd love to revisit my youth with a 105 (none
available world-wide) or a Phantom (lots still left, but fails the
simplicity test and reliability by a long shot!)

That being dealt with, some of my candidates would be an F-86H from
the Korean era; a P-51 (possibly too common, but still a thrill,) a
P-38 (loads of panache, but maybe weak on reliability), and although
not a "war" bird, a T-38--take a friend, go fast, look cool and low
cost of upkeep (relatively).



At our airbase in Florennes there was a guy who claimed it have slow rolled a
B-26 Marauder. He even had witnesses. But I take it all with a grain of 100
0ctane. It is sort of like slow rolling a garbage truck.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
John S. Shinal wrote:
My only time in a 'warbird' was an hour of casual instruction
in a Tiger Moth - not exactly zoom and glamour, but a joy to fly, and
highly aerobatic, but a little weak on the verticals ;-D

Trouble is, I keep remembering Norman Hanson's comments on the
beast. In his book (Carrier Pilot) he said that if a Tiger Moth
were the last flying maching on Earth, he'd rather walk. His
comments outside the written medium were a lot less flattering
to it ;0

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 11/12/03 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(Charles Talleyrand) wrote:

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

My thinking suggests dive and torpedo bombers might be the solution.
They typically seat two or more, and the naval aircraft should have
reasonable low speed handling. Is this sound thinking? Would a
Dauntless or Devistator or even a Stuka fit the requirements?

My only time in a 'warbird' was an hour of casual instruction
in a Tiger Moth - not exactly zoom and glamour, but a joy to fly, and
highly aerobatic, but a little weak on the verticals ;-D

The SBD Dauntless is supposed to be a very nice 'pilot's
airplane', made to fly comfortably on long scouting missions - it's
not real fast, but is aerobatic also.

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.



With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

At least once........

Bob McKellar