Best warbird to own

"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.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"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.

Prime piece http://www.jerrychristian.com/birddog51.htm

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

Yes, that is the TBMs I was referring to. If someone wants to buy them and
continue to operate them as retardant tankers and needs a pilot, call me



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

T-33, T-34

--
No good deed goes unpunished!

- 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

Cessna O2 (C337)

All but aerobatic. Not too rare, though. And "easy on the eyes" is
in the eyes of the beholder.

Gerd

"CC" wrote in message
. ..
T-33, T-34

--
No good deed goes unpunished!


There is or was an outfit in Mass that was importing reworked O-1's with
Italian markings and a turboprop on the front end. They had a couple at Sun n
Fun
two years ago.

Leanne

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