Best warbird to own

ArtKramr wrote:

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

At least once........

Bob McKellar

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.


Yep - proven on video by the gutsy - no brain Army Warrant Officer that
decided to do a loop in his OH-58C and have a buddy video tape it for
posterity.......

The members of the Flight Eval Board were "Not" amused........


Helomech.......

ubject: Best warbird to own
From: "Helomech"
Date: 11/12/03 4:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.


Yep - proven on video by the gutsy - no brain Army Warrant Officer that
decided to do a loop in his OH-58C and have a buddy video tape it for
posterity.......

The members of the Flight Eval Board were "Not" amused........


Helomech.......



They never are these days. In WW II it would have all been dismissed as "Boys
will be boys".


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

In article ,
John S. Shinal wrote:
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

Trouble is, I keep remembering Norman Hanson's comments on the
beast. In his book (Carrier Pilot) he said that if a Tiger Moth
were the last flying maching on Earth, he'd rather walk. His
comments outside the written medium were a lot less flattering
to it ;0

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:

Trouble is, I keep remembering Norman Hanson's comments on the
beast. In his book (Carrier Pilot) he said that if a Tiger Moth
were the last flying maching on Earth, he'd rather walk. His
comments outside the written medium were a lot less flattering
to it ;0

Heh - he's likely right, an hour's worth is hardly out of the
honeymoon period. I was suprised by your suggestion of the Fairey Fox
- the only Fairey aircraft I had seen looked more like articulated
greenhouses with wings - but that Fox looks like good fun - fast, too.




----== 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 =---

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

Hmmmmmmm, Military verision of the Beech D 17 Stagerwing. Rare Enough for
you????