Best warbird to own

Dale wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

orary 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.


I only have 1 hour in a Mustang, but when doing stalls it gave plenty of
warning with the stall occuring at about 81KIAS. We did not however do
any accelerated stalls.

That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
some other factor that causes this?.
--

-Gord.

I nominiate the Polikarpov I-16. Fits the bill nicely except for being two
seat. However it makes up for this by being open cockpit.

see http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/i-16-links.html

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

In article ,
Frank Stutzman wrote:

I nominiate the Polikarpov I-16. Fits the bill nicely except for being two
seat. However it makes up for this by being open cockpit.

see http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/i-16-links.html

The first of the "modern" monoplane fighters, and a true
classic. Reputation for tricky handling on the ground and
in landing, though - backed up by comments in Aeroplane
mONTHLY a year or so ago when they had an article by
someone who'd just flown one.

If we regard this as simply an exercise in theory - that
is, it doesn't matter that there aren't any for sale
then I'd be inclined to go out on a limb and suggest
one of the classic Hawker two-seaters (Hart, Hind, Demon
or Osprey - pretty, fast for their day and the Kestrel
should be usefully less thirsty than a Merlin. Or a
Fairey Fox, for that matter. And having brought Fairey
up, I'd be inclined to go right out on a limb for the
monoplanes and suggest a Battle or Fulmar - Merlin
powered, so plenty of upgrade potential for power,
usefully quick (you're not going to be hanging a
full bomb load under tha Battle..), agile (spectacularly
so in the case of the Fulmar), notably sweet-handling and
viceless, certainly in the case of the Fulmar (Norman
Hanson reckoned it to be one of the most polite aeroplanes
he'd flown) and tough as old boots, especially in the case
of the Fulmar again (a carrier aeroplane *and* a Fairey
product - go figure). You could probably pack at least
another seat in too.

Failing that, and if you can compromise on turbines, how
about a DH Vampire trainer - two side-by-side seats,
easier handling 'tis said than late-generation piston-
engined warbirds, small and neat.

--
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)

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..

That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
some other factor that causes this?.

From the cockpit the prop turned clockwise. As for stall warning there
was more than enough, and landing stall was closer to 75mph than 95
Having flown several thousand hours in the Mustang, other than in
extreme crosswinds, all my landings were three point .
Flying a Mustang to it's limit is one of the greatest challenges, and
one of the greatest pleasures, one can ever experience.

Howard Austin

(Howard Austin) wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..

That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
some other factor that causes this?.

From the cockpit the prop turned clockwise. As for stall warning there
was more than enough, and landing stall was closer to 75mph than 95
Having flown several thousand hours in the Mustang, other than in
extreme crosswinds, all my landings were three point .
Flying a Mustang to it's limit is one of the greatest challenges, and
one of the greatest pleasures, one can ever experience.

Howard Austin

Thanks Howard...so it must be something other than prop rotation
that decides which wing will drop. The Argus dropped the right
wing so severely that in a 'clean power on' stall you'd swing
around almost 180 degrees, but would recover very quickly by
putting the controls forward.
--

-Gord.

"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 don't know enough to find the right aircraft.

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. The P51 is one of the few WWII fighters that looks
good in a two seat variant.

Flying Me-109s are quite rare, but I've read they are just too tough
to land and only seat one person.

Two seat Spitfires are just ugly.

The P38 and P39 are attactive because of the nosewheel gear. I
understand that the P39 was also used as a trainer in WWII (so it
might be easy to fly).

A Folker Triplane is probably a reasonable plane to fly, but I have no
desire to bath in castor oil and it only seats one person.

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?

What fantasy aircraft should I buy?
-Much Thank

Charles;
As we don't know each other, you will have to forgive my "frankness" with my
answer to your question. I don't mean to sound harsh in any way.
Many of these "fantasy" posts about owning warbirds are just plain BS to
tell you the truth, so I don't usually spend much time on them unless the
poster convinces me it's legitimate.
Quite frankly, to begin with, some of what you are "supposing" is not very
accurate. The Trike for example, is extremely difficult to fly, and can bite
a novice in one hell of a hurry. The rebuilds of this aircraft are not the
easiest planes to own and maintain either. Other than that, I'll just tell
you that owing a specific warbird is first a matter of experience. Then
comes the pocketbook factor, which can be considerable to say the least.
From what you're saying, and assuming you have reasonable means to support
your wishes, and don't have much experience in handling something like a
warbird, you might want to explore the possibility of obtaining a T34. It's
two place, aerobatic, flies like a Bonanza, and is fairly easy to maintain.
(Make sure all the AD's have been complied with of course). There was a
hefty one on the main spar if I recall.
Once you shoot higher than that; a T28 or a T6 for example, you're getting
into aircraft that require some experience, especially the T6, which would
require some fairly descent tailwheel training in type. If you have the
means; fine, but I don't suggest buying above your experience level unless
you have access to an extremely competent checkout program given by someone
who really knows what the hell he/she's doing; and I mean that sincerely.
Fantasy has absolutely NOTHING to do with safely operating a warbird.
Experience, currency, and proper maintenance are the ONLY factors that
apply. Everything else is pure bull**** and will kill you as it has killed
many others who didn't realize that horsepower and money don't necessarily
equate!!!!
If you're serious, best of luck to you, and if you find something I'm
familiar with, please don't hesitate to ask for advice. If you're not, just
disregard my rather "frank" post on this subject. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

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!

On 11-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell wrote:

On 7-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell wrote:

No he didn't. Please be careful with your snipping.


My apologies for careless snipping.
--
-Elliott Drucker