Best warbird to own

A B-52H would be nice!

Dashi

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:E3Rqb.335357$pl3.165203@pd7tw3no...

"Peter Twydell"
I'm fantasy shopping for my new warbird or historic aircraft. My

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).

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

Sounds like one of the birds that was converted to aireal photography.
I believe it's the EAA Museum that has one of those, converted back to
a proper single seater.

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

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

if it was my dime: an A-10.

redc1c4,
either that, or an A-1 Dump truck %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

On or about 6 Nov 2003 21:45:26 -0800, (Charles
Talleyrand) allegedly uttered:

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

Mosquito, no question. Reliable, fun to fly, seats two, plus carries
up to 4,000lb of "baggage". Of course finding one to buy could be a
little tricky, but we are talking fantasy here.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Gregg Germain wrote:

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

There was a modification of the P-38 that added a passenger seat in the nose.
The troops gave it the nickname "droop-snoot". Since it replaced the guns, it
was not a popular mod with the pilots. The military radio gear lived in a hole
behind the pilot and was quite substantial. Remove that, and you can fit a
rather cramped seat back there.

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

Peter Stickney wrote:

A Bf 108 would be rather neat, or one of the French Nord Bf
108 followons.

When I bought my Maule, TAP had an ad for a 108 for the same price. It was a
hard choice.

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

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.

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.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article ,
"killfile" wrote:


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.


I've never flown a Spitfire, but if you miss the buffet on a Mustang you
must be brain-dead.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote:



Mosquito, no question. Reliable, fun to fly, seats two, plus carries
up to 4,000lb of "baggage". Of course finding one to buy could be a
little tricky, but we are talking fantasy here.

Hmmm, if you're thinking of a twin I'd go with the P-61 Black Widow.
You'll need an LOA but oh man, talk about an evil looking airplane!!

Think of the excitement you'll cause among the "black helicopter" crowd.
G

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Gregg Germain wrote:

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


There was a modification of the P-38 that added a passenger seat in the nose.
The troops gave it the nickname "droop-snoot". Since it replaced the guns, it
was not a popular mod with the pilots. The military radio gear lived in a hole
behind the pilot and was quite substantial. Remove that, and you can fit a
rather cramped seat back there.



Not exactly a "passenger" seat, but rather another crew position for
use as a level bomber, employing a Norden bombsight and a bombardier.
Also, the P-38M night fighter variant had a second seat installed
behind and above the pilot, with it's own canopy hatch- not sure
what they did with the radios.

Mike