Best warbird to own

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:11:45 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"EDR" wrote in message ...
In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

Look in the classifieds under Piper / L-4.

The L-17 is a nice one. Howver it's not acrobatic (neither is the L-4 for that matter).
That was one of his requirements.

Glad you pointed that out.

"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 . com...
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.

What fantasy aircraft should I buy?
-Much Thank

Stearman? (not too rare)
http://www.ohtm.org/stearman.html

Jenny? (If you restored one, it'd sure fit your rare and historic requirement)
http://www.ohtm.org/jenny.html
http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/garber/jenny/jenny.htm
http://www.brooks.af.mil/ABG/MU/jenny.html
http://lsss2.homestead.com/JN4D.html
http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos...ings/Jenny.htm

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

I couldn't belive it either until I saw the three of them get out. One
of them couldn't see out.
Ed

In article ,
EDR writes:
In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

Look in the classifieds under Piper / L-4.

(You beat me to it, Dan.)
I recommend any "L-bird"... easy to fly, cheap to insure, sips fuel and
oil.

There are a lot of options in that area, too. If an L-4 or L-5 (Cub
on steroids - the Stinson L-5's rather a bit roomier, more powerful,
and can haul a bit more, but isn't as much fun to fly as a Cub) is a
bit too cold & drafty, give an L-19 a try. There are others, as well
- When Army Aviation went through an explosive expansion during the
Korean War, they chose teh L-19 as the main Liason/Observation
airplane, but Cessna couldn't build them fast enough, so the Army also
bought a whole radt of Aeronca 7 Champs (L-16), and Piper Super Cubs
(L-18 and L-21). Even teh Navion (L-17) will do, if you want to bring
teh family along.

If you're looking for aerobatics, the best choice for a light airplane
would probably be a T-34A or T-34B. Most of teh stucture is Beech
Bonanza/Debonair (The conventionally tailed Bonanza), they're
aerobatic, 2 seats, tricycle gear, etc. Unfortunately, they're so
much fun, and relatively practical to fly, that the purchace price is
sky high. A Bf 108 would be rather neat, or one of the French Nord Bf
108 followons.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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

"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.

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:f0Zqb.337796$pl3.116303@pd7tw3no...

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

I couldn't belive it either until I saw the three of them get out.
One
of them couldn't see out.

The photo conversion I was talking about had a camera worth about
as much as the plane at the time. For the camera operator to bail
out he had to jettison the camera (on its own parachute) to make a
hole he could reasonable expect to get out through.

"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.

"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