If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
T6G Harvard. Nice bird, acrobatic, parts available.
Walt BJ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:E3Rqb.335357$pl3.165203@pd7tw3no... "Peter Twydell" I'm fantasy shopping for my new warbird or historic aircraft. My The P38 and P39 are attactive because of the nosewheel gear. I understand that the P39 was also used as a trainer in WWII (so it might be easy to fly). Back in the 1950's I saw a privately owned P38 with USA markings land at the Regina airport in Saskatchewan. Three guys climbed out of it. They un-screwed the back of a tip tank and removed their suitcases! Don't know who owned it and I didn't write down the N---- tail number. I wonder if this P38 is still around??? Ed Sounds like one of the birds that was converted to aireal photography. I believe it's the EAA Museum that has one of those, converted back to a proper single seater. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:f0Zqb.337796$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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military & vintage warbird slides for sale | Wings Of Fury | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 10th 04 01:17 AM |
Florida Mil Comms; Tico Warbird Acft | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 4 | March 16th 04 01:49 PM |
Keeping Me Out of Your Warbird? | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 47 | February 12th 04 04:34 PM |
Vintage & Warbird mailing list. | Darryl Gibbs | General Aviation | 0 | September 13th 03 09:53 AM |
Vintage & Warbird mailing list. | Darryl Gibbs | Owning | 0 | September 13th 03 09:53 AM |