A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Best warbird to own



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 7th 03, 04:37 PM
Gregg Germain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:

: 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"?



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

  #12  
Old November 7th 03, 04:39 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Nov 2003 21:45:26 -0800, (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


How about an A-37 (or T-37) Tweety Bird? Two seats, reasonable
handling, not too bad on fuel.

Al Minyard
  #13  
Old November 7th 03, 04:50 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:39:34 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote in Message-Id:
:

How about an A-37 (or T-37) Tweety Bird? Two seats, reasonable
handling, not too bad on fuel.


Are these actually available? Do you have any idea of the going
price?
  #14  
Old November 7th 03, 05:29 PM
rv4flyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The Raven" wrote in message ...
"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?


There's a Wirraway for sale in Australia. Should hit max points for rarity
in the US, I believe they are easy to fly and have parts commonality with
other aircraft.


See this one for sale, Cdn dollars...I know this aircraft and it is
in great shape. The company also has others for sale.

http://www.aviatorsale.com/aix446/

Joe Hine
  #15  
Old November 7th 03, 05:52 PM
Gregg Germain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

--


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

  #16  
Old November 7th 03, 05:56 PM
Gregg Germain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.aviation.military Roger Halstead wrote:
: On 7 Nov 2003 12:37:59 -0400, Gregg Germain
: wrote:

:In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:
:
:: 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"?

: Every thing is relative.

That's why I added "Or harder to fly than 'normal'" and why I put
normal in quotes.

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".


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

  #17  
Old November 7th 03, 05:59 PM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #18  
Old November 7th 03, 06:03 PM
Erik Pfeister
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 have two brand new, less than 250 TT Henschel Hs 126, Greek Air Force
markings.
100 K Euros each.


  #19  
Old November 7th 03, 06:18 PM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 Nov 2003 12:37:59 -0400, Gregg Germain
wrote:

In rec.aviation.military Charles Talleyrand wrote:

: 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"?


Every thing is relative.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)




--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558


  #20  
Old November 7th 03, 07:00 PM
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rv4flyer wrote:
See this one for sale, Cdn dollars...I know this aircraft and it is
in great shape. The company also has others for sale.

http://www.aviatorsale.com/aix446/



The engine needs an immediate overhaul. As it said, TBO is 600 hours with a 50
hour extension. This bird has 632 on the engine.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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
FA: 5 Airplane Model Kits - Bomber, Jet, Warbird Disgo Aviation Marketplace 0 February 22nd 04 05:00 PM
FS: Aircraft Instruments Parts Avionics Warbird Parts Bill Berle Home Built 0 January 10th 04 02:20 AM
New B-24 Double Feature Now Showuing at Zeno's Warbird VideoDrive-In! Zeno Military Aviation 0 September 16th 03 03:59 PM
Warbird Runway Crash Mark and Kim Smith Military Aviation 3 September 14th 03 07:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.