Best warbird to own

If you want a Cobra helicopter take a look at this:

http://www.caaviation.com/aircraft/d...y&resid=2232&t
ree=319

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

If you want a Cobra helicopter take a look at this:


US Forest Service now flies a couple of Cobras for fire work.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/news_info/latest_news.html


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Matt:
You are right......we are refining this thing. A T-28A in Standard category
does not need an LOA, while the T-28B/C in Experimental does need an LOA.
VL

"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?
-Much Thank

Charles;
As we don't know each other, you will have to forgive my "frankness" with my
answer to your question. I don't mean to sound harsh in any way.
Many of these "fantasy" posts about owning warbirds are just plain BS to
tell you the truth, so I don't usually spend much time on them unless the
poster convinces me it's legitimate.
Quite frankly, to begin with, some of what you are "supposing" is not very
accurate. The Trike for example, is extremely difficult to fly, and can bite
a novice in one hell of a hurry. The rebuilds of this aircraft are not the
easiest planes to own and maintain either. Other than that, I'll just tell
you that owing a specific warbird is first a matter of experience. Then
comes the pocketbook factor, which can be considerable to say the least.
From what you're saying, and assuming you have reasonable means to support
your wishes, and don't have much experience in handling something like a
warbird, you might want to explore the possibility of obtaining a T34. It's
two place, aerobatic, flies like a Bonanza, and is fairly easy to maintain.
(Make sure all the AD's have been complied with of course). There was a
hefty one on the main spar if I recall.
Once you shoot higher than that; a T28 or a T6 for example, you're getting
into aircraft that require some experience, especially the T6, which would
require some fairly descent tailwheel training in type. If you have the
means; fine, but I don't suggest buying above your experience level unless
you have access to an extremely competent checkout program given by someone
who really knows what the hell he/she's doing; and I mean that sincerely.
Fantasy has absolutely NOTHING to do with safely operating a warbird.
Experience, currency, and proper maintenance are the ONLY factors that
apply. Everything else is pure bull**** and will kill you as it has killed
many others who didn't realize that horsepower and money don't necessarily
equate!!!!
If you're serious, best of luck to you, and if you find something I'm
familiar with, please don't hesitate to ask for advice. If you're not, just
disregard my rather "frank" post on this subject. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

(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

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?

My only time in a 'warbird' was an hour of casual instruction
in a Tiger Moth - not exactly zoom and glamour, but a joy to fly, and
highly aerobatic, but a little weak on the verticals ;-D

The SBD Dauntless is supposed to be a very nice 'pilot's
airplane', made to fly comfortably on long scouting missions - it's
not real fast, but is aerobatic also.

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 11/12/03 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(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

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?

My only time in a 'warbird' was an hour of casual instruction
in a Tiger Moth - not exactly zoom and glamour, but a joy to fly, and
highly aerobatic, but a little weak on the verticals ;-D

The SBD Dauntless is supposed to be a very nice 'pilot's
airplane', made to fly comfortably on long scouting missions - it's
not real fast, but is aerobatic also.

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.




With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 12 Nov 2003 15:47:59 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.


With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer

Well, certainly the B-47 delivering early free-fall nukes "over the
shoulder" is a good example of that. Virtually any aircraft can be
rolled--barrel-rolled usually since some don't have sufficient aileron
authority to complete an aileron roll before the nose collapses well
below the horizon. But, getting a big bird "over-the-top" is usually
out of the question. BUFDRVR will probably confirm that the big Boeing
beast is only stressed to about 2.4 G, which means you might be able
to get a light one pulled into the vertical, but probably couldn't get
much more than a flop onto its back and God help you with the
pull-out.

As far as "best warbird to own" there would be a lot of factors at
play. Since you aren't going to war in it, you don't need weapons
systems. Considerations would be that elusive "panache" factor and fun
to fly, plus simplicity to maintain and high reliability.

As for panache, I'd love to revisit my youth with a 105 (none
available world-wide) or a Phantom (lots still left, but fails the
simplicity test and reliability by a long shot!)

That being dealt with, some of my candidates would be an F-86H from
the Korean era; a P-51 (possibly too common, but still a thrill,) a
P-38 (loads of panache, but maybe weak on reliability), and although
not a "war" bird, a T-38--take a friend, go fast, look cool and low
cost of upkeep (relatively).

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 11/12/03 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 12 Nov 2003 15:47:59 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Best warbird to own
From: (John S. Shinal)

The Lockheed Ventura was supposed to be surprisingly aerobatic
as well.


With the right pilot everything is aerobatic.

Arthur Kramer

Well, certainly the B-47 delivering early free-fall nukes "over the
shoulder" is a good example of that. Virtually any aircraft can be
rolled--barrel-rolled usually since some don't have sufficient aileron
authority to complete an aileron roll before the nose collapses well
below the horizon. But, getting a big bird "over-the-top" is usually
out of the question. BUFDRVR will probably confirm that the big Boeing
beast is only stressed to about 2.4 G, which means you might be able
to get a light one pulled into the vertical, but probably couldn't get
much more than a flop onto its back and God help you with the
pull-out.

As far as "best warbird to own" there would be a lot of factors at
play. Since you aren't going to war in it, you don't need weapons
systems. Considerations would be that elusive "panache" factor and fun
to fly, plus simplicity to maintain and high reliability.

As for panache, I'd love to revisit my youth with a 105 (none
available world-wide) or a Phantom (lots still left, but fails the
simplicity test and reliability by a long shot!)

That being dealt with, some of my candidates would be an F-86H from
the Korean era; a P-51 (possibly too common, but still a thrill,) a
P-38 (loads of panache, but maybe weak on reliability), and although
not a "war" bird, a T-38--take a friend, go fast, look cool and low
cost of upkeep (relatively).



At our airbase in Florennes there was a guy who claimed it have slow rolled a
B-26 Marauder. He even had witnesses. But I take it all with a grain of 100
0ctane. It is sort of like slow rolling a garbage truck.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
At our airbase in Florennes there was a guy who claimed it have slow
rolled a
B-26 Marauder. He even had witnesses. But I take it all with a grain of
100
0ctane. It is sort of like slow rolling a garbage truck.

Arthur Kramer

I have a friend who slow rolled an EB-66 on his way back from Southeast Asia
combat missions...every one!

Regards,

Tex Houston

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[respectfully snipped for brevity]

...and although not a "war" bird, a T-38--take a friend, go fast, look
cool and low cost of upkeep (relatively).

Colorado State University (in your neck of the woods, Ed) operated
a civil registered (N8234) F-101B to study severe storms. However,
the ultimate "go-fast-look-cool" warbird would be the F-101F -- a
fully-combat capable F-101B w/dual controls.

From the pitot tube on her purty pointy nose to her tiny batwing and
cherry T-tail, the huge Voodoo is manly yet graceful and sleek when
viewed from any angle.

The exposed aft sections of the engines along with her long, slender
tailboom that are scorched black from the extreme heat and exhaust
from the roaring afterburners mightily exude her awesome power even
while parked on the ramp!

Stressed for 7.3 G, the old Voodoo flew well -- as long as the pilot
avoided radical pitch maneuvers, of course. And she had panache
galore thanks to her spectacular rate of climb plus she could range
out to more than 2,000 miles with external tanks.

She was dependable and could be dispatched quickly on very short
notice: once during a scramble back in the late '60's, Dad said he
went from Klamath Falls, Oregon to Ogden, Utah in his powerful
Voodoo in less than 45 minutes....

Mind you, that's going from snoozing in his humble cot upstairs in the
alert hangar at Kingsley Field -- to engines shut down and wheels in
the chocks at Hill AFB some 450 nautical miles away.

She wasn't called the "One-Oh-Wonder" for nothing!