Best warbird to own

[Charles Talleyrand]

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

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Charles
Talleyrand > writes
>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

2-seat Hawker Sea Fury T Mk 20.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Cub Driver]

>I don't know enough to find the right aircraft.

Look in the classifieds under Piper / L-4.

Ship of dreams!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[The Raven]

"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.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[EDR]

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.

[Vicente Vazquez]

Hey Dan,
Have you seen this one, restored here in Brazil?
http://www.abaac.com.br/L-4.jpg
Vicente

"Cub Driver" > escreveu na mensagem
...
> Look in the classifieds under Piper / L-4.
> Ship of dreams!
> all the best -- Dan Ford

[Keith Willshaw]

"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
>

One of my near neighbours has a Yak-11 for sale
complete with UK permit to fly and a zero time
engine, he uses another as a personal hack.

http://www.yakuk.com/Yak11.htm

Keith

[Gregg Germain]

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

[rv4flyer]

"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

[Gregg Germain]

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

[Gregg Germain]

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

[Ed Majden]

"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

[Erik Pfeister]

"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.

[Roger Halstead]

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
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

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

[Ron Natalie]

"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.

[Tom S.]

"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

[CC]

T-33, T-34

--
No good deed goes unpunished!

[gwengler]

> - 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

[Leanne]

"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

[Stu Gotts]

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.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"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.

[Eric Ulmer]

(Charles Talleyrand) wrote in message >...
> 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/Beginnings/Jenny.htm

[Ed Majden]

"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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[WaltBJ]

T6G Harvard. Nice bird, acrobatic, parts available.
Walt BJ

[John Keeney]

"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.

[John Keeney]

"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.

[John Keeney]

"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.

[killfile]

"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

[Dashi]

A B-52H would be nice!

Dashi

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>
>

[redc1c4]

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

if it was my dime: an A-10.

redc1c4,
either that, or an A-1 Dump truck %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Peter Kemp]

On or about 6 Nov 2003 21:45:26 -0800, (Charles
Talleyrand) allegedly uttered:

>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

Mosquito, no question. Reliable, fun to fly, seats two, plus carries
up to 4,000lb of "baggage". Of course finding one to buy could be a
little tricky, but we are talking fantasy here.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gregg Germain wrote:
>
> THREE guys? Wow I'm impressed. Was one in the nose? ;^)

There was a modification of the P-38 that added a passenger seat in the nose.
The troops gave it the nickname "droop-snoot". Since it replaced the guns, it
was not a popular mod with the pilots. The military radio gear lived in a hole
behind the pilot and was quite substantial. Remove that, and you can fit a
rather cramped seat back there.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> A Bf 108 would be rather neat, or one of the French Nord Bf
> 108 followons.

When I bought my Maule, TAP had an ad for a 108 for the same price. It was a
hard choice.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> 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.

The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have had
this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which isn't
out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than the
Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the stall
and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that few
military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to the
stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Dale]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

orary fighters.
>
> The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have
> had
> this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
> 1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which
> isn't
> out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than
> the
> Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the
> stall
> and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that
> few
> military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to
> the
> stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
> Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.


I only have 1 hour in a Mustang, but when doing stalls it gave plenty of
warning with the stall occuring at about 81KIAS. We did not however do
any accelerated stalls.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article >,
"killfile" > wrote:


> 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.


I've never flown a Spitfire, but if you miss the buffet on a Mustang you
must be brain-dead.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:


>
> Mosquito, no question. Reliable, fun to fly, seats two, plus carries
> up to 4,000lb of "baggage". Of course finding one to buy could be a
> little tricky, but we are talking fantasy here.

Hmmm, if you're thinking of a twin I'd go with the P-61 Black Widow.
You'll need an LOA but oh man, talk about an evil looking airplane!!

Think of the excitement you'll cause among the "black helicopter" crowd.
<G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Michael Williamson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Gregg Germain wrote:
>
>>THREE guys? Wow I'm impressed. Was one in the nose? ;^)
>
>
> There was a modification of the P-38 that added a passenger seat in the nose.
> The troops gave it the nickname "droop-snoot". Since it replaced the guns, it
> was not a popular mod with the pilots. The military radio gear lived in a hole
> behind the pilot and was quite substantial. Remove that, and you can fit a
> rather cramped seat back there.



Not exactly a "passenger" seat, but rather another crew position for
use as a level bomber, employing a Norden bombsight and a bombardier.
Also, the P-38M night fighter variant had a second seat installed
behind and above the pilot, with it's own canopy hatch- not sure
what they did with the radios.

Mike

[[email protected]]

Dale > wrote:

>In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
>orary fighters.
>>
>> The balance problem is caused by the aft fuselage tank. Many Mustangs have
>> had
>> this removed. In any case, you won't need to fill it unless you're planning a
>> 1600 mile trip. Stall speed in military configuration was about 95, which
>> isn't
>> out of line with other fighters of the era and is actually a bit lower than
>> the
>> Bf-109. I've read, however, that the plane doesn't give warning before the
>> stall
>> and drops the left wing dramatically when it does. Len Deighton claims that
>> few
>> military pilots three-pointed the Mustang because that gets you too close to
>> the
>> stall speed. Some years back, I got to watch 52 of these planes land at Sun'n
>> Fun. Every landing was a wheel landing with the tail slightly low.
>
>
>I only have 1 hour in a Mustang, but when doing stalls it gave plenty of
>warning with the stall occuring at about 81KIAS. We did not however do
>any accelerated stalls.

That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
some other factor that causes this?.
--

-Gord.

[Frank Stutzman]

I nominiate the Polikarpov I-16. Fits the bill nicely except for being two
seat. However it makes up for this by being open cockpit.

see http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/i-16-links.html

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>
>I nominiate the Polikarpov I-16. Fits the bill nicely except for being two
>seat. However it makes up for this by being open cockpit.
>
>see http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/i-16-links.html

The first of the "modern" monoplane fighters, and a true
classic. Reputation for tricky handling on the ground and
in landing, though - backed up by comments in Aeroplane
mONTHLY a year or so ago when they had an article by
someone who'd just flown one.

If we regard this as simply an exercise in theory - that
is, it doesn't matter that there aren't any for sale :)
then I'd be inclined to go out on a limb and suggest
one of the classic Hawker two-seaters (Hart, Hind, Demon
or Osprey - pretty, fast for their day and the Kestrel
should be usefully less thirsty than a Merlin. Or a
Fairey Fox, for that matter. And having brought Fairey
up, I'd be inclined to go right out on a limb for the
monoplanes and suggest a Battle or Fulmar - Merlin
powered, so plenty of upgrade potential for power,
usefully quick (you're not going to be hanging a
full bomb load under tha Battle..), agile (spectacularly
so in the case of the Fulmar), notably sweet-handling and
viceless, certainly in the case of the Fulmar (Norman
Hanson reckoned it to be one of the most polite aeroplanes
he'd flown) and tough as old boots, especially in the case
of the Fulmar again (a carrier aeroplane *and* a Fairey
product - go figure). You could probably pack at least
another seat in too.

Failing that, and if you can compromise on turbines, how
about a DH Vampire trainer - two side-by-side seats,
easier handling 'tis said than late-generation piston-
engined warbirds, small and neat.

--
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)

[Howard Austin]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...

> That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
> wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
> of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
> higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
> dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
> rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
> rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
> some other factor that causes this?.

From the cockpit the prop turned clockwise. As for stall warning there
was more than enough, and landing stall was closer to 75mph than 95
Having flown several thousand hours in the Mustang, other than in
extreme crosswinds, all my landings were three point .
Flying a Mustang to it's limit is one of the greatest challenges, and
one of the greatest pleasures, one can ever experience.

Howard Austin

[[email protected]]

(Howard Austin) wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
>
>> That's interesting about 'little warning' and dropping the 'left'
>> wing. I'm only familiar with some heavies and they all gave lots
>> of warning, very 'fine' buffeting progressing to coarser and
>> higher amplitudes before the 'real thing'. Also they all six
>> dropped the 'right' wing. Would that be a function of the prop
>> rotation direction? I notice that all six had right hand
>> rotation, does the Mustang have left hand rotation?, or is it
>> some other factor that causes this?.
>
>From the cockpit the prop turned clockwise. As for stall warning there
>was more than enough, and landing stall was closer to 75mph than 95
>Having flown several thousand hours in the Mustang, other than in
>extreme crosswinds, all my landings were three point .
>Flying a Mustang to it's limit is one of the greatest challenges, and
>one of the greatest pleasures, one can ever experience.
>
>Howard Austin

Thanks Howard...so it must be something other than prop rotation
that decides which wing will drop. The Argus dropped the right
wing so severely that in a 'clean power on' stall you'd swing
around almost 180 degrees, but would recover very quickly by
putting the controls forward.
--

-Gord.

[Dudley Henriques]

"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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Gregg Germain > wrote in message >...
> 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.

I've read that the rearward extension of the cackpit to accomodate the
second seat shifted the CG back causing stability problems. Stuffing
a third passenger in the nose probably helped correct that.

For an exotic warbird how about the Dutch Fokker G-1. A twin engine
fighter-bomber/recon plane originally designed for a crew of 2 or 3
it had the same configuration as the p-38 but with a lot more glass.
I think less than a hundred were made, production stopped when
Germany invaded Holland so maybe there are none left flying.

An Illyushin II Stormovitch flying tank might fit the bill too.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On 7-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell > wrote:

> >- 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


> >Two seat Spitfires are just ugly.


Well, to my eye the Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever
made. And from what I understand it is reasonably easy to fly -- it would
have to be considering the relatively green RAF pilots in the Battle of
Britain. But if you think the 2-seat mod is ugly, so be it. It's your
fantasy, after all.

Since you didn't rule out a twin, I suggest that a deHaviland Mosquito might
fit the bill, although I am not sure its (fully loaded) weight would be
under 12,500 lbs.

It looks like I am kind of leaning towards British aircraft. Then again,
the Brits certainly did field some fine airplanes in WWII, to say nothing of
the incomparable Rolls-Royce Merlin engine (that powered both the Spitfie
and the Mosquito as well as many other Allied airplanes of the era).

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Peter Twydell]

In article >,
writes
>
>On 7-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>
No he didn't. Please be careful with your snipping. This is not my text,
and you have snipped all of what I wrote, which mentioned the Hawker Sea
Fury T Mk 20, which I think would be the best match to the criteria. I
don't know if there are still any airworthy examples.

>> >- 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
>
>
>> >Two seat Spitfires are just ugly.
>
>
>Well, to my eye the Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever
>made. And from what I understand it is reasonably easy to fly -- it would
>have to be considering the relatively green RAF pilots in the Battle of
>Britain. But if you think the 2-seat mod is ugly, so be it. It's your
>fantasy, after all.
>
>Since you didn't rule out a twin, I suggest that a deHaviland Mosquito might
>fit the bill, although I am not sure its (fully loaded) weight would be
>under 12,500 lbs.
>
>It looks like I am kind of leaning towards British aircraft. Then again,
>the Brits certainly did field some fine airplanes in WWII, to say nothing of
>the incomparable Rolls-Royce Merlin engine (that powered both the Spitfie
>and the Mosquito as well as many other Allied airplanes of the era).
>

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[[email protected]]

On 11-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell > wrote:

> >On 7-Nov-2003, Peter Twydell > wrote:
> >
> No he didn't. Please be careful with your snipping.


My apologies for careless snipping.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Ed Haywood]

That's what the rabbi said!

> My apologies for careless snipping.
> --

[Orval Fairbairn]

One of my friends owns the only EADS Epsilon in civil captivity. I have
had the privilege to fly with him in it for about an hour. It is made
for primary basic training of French jet pilots and responds similarly.
It is a fingertip plane and will not drink you out of house and home,
with a Lycoming IO-540.

It is faster than a Marchetti SF-260 (quite a bit faster than a
big-engined T-34) and, IMHO, flies better than the Beech.

[Kirk Stant]

OK, on the assumption that I just won the lottery, here are my 4
choices:

1. OV-10 - 2-seat, tandem with sticks, fully acro, relatively simple,
reliable, you can take it anywhere with a friend and lots of stuff
(camp in the back!), real "warbird" so you can look cool at airshows,
airframes and parts available. It would be a wonderful plane to
explore the US (or anywhere) in, with awesome vis and twin reliability
for low level recce. I got a couple of backseat rides in them when I
was on active duty and they were a gas to fly!

2. A-37 - 2-seat, side by side, fully acro, relatively simple,
reliable (I see a trend here), awesome performance (that you can
actually use) due to big wing and LOTS of grunt! Also rare on the
warbird circuit but still readily available. Bummed a ride in one in
the PI during a Cope Thunder and flew the whole 1.5 except for engine
start and shutdown, and 10 minutes of FACing on Crow Valley - even got
to engage and chase off a marauding Aggressor F-5E that tried to
engage us at low alt - had no problem lead turning him and closing for
a minigun pass until he realized what was happening and bugged out!

3. T-28B - Just about the perfect useful round-engine fun plane. And
yes, I've got about 8 hours in one, so I am definitely prejudiced.
Not much glamour status, but for just jumping in and blasting around
with a friend - perfect!

4. Mi-24 Hind D - 2-seat (plus a bunch of your drunk friends in the
back), tandem, sticks (and collectives), reliable (it's Russian! -
hire a full time mechanic to go with it!). Nope, never flown this one
(yet - hope springs eternal) but it would have to be a lot of fun to
run around in, terrorizing all the locals. Definitely high on airshow
chick magnet quotient - dress up in Sov uniforms while drinking water
out of Vodka bottles (well, at least the designated pilot would have
to) - and with the big cabin you can bring all the stuff you need to
have a good time. I'm surprised a private-owned one hasn't shown up
yet (yes I know about the Army's).

Sigh, oh well, back to picking 6 good numbers...

Kirk
Retired F-4 WSO and glider racing fanatic

[EDR]

In article >, Kirk
Stant > wrote:

> 1. OV-10 - 2-seat, tandem with sticks, fully acro, relatively simple,
> reliable, you can take it anywhere with a friend and lots of stuff
> (camp in the back!), real "warbird" so you can look cool at airshows,
> airframes and parts available. It would be a wonderful plane to
> explore the US (or anywhere) in, with awesome vis and twin reliability
> for low level recce. I got a couple of backseat rides in them when I
> was on active duty and they were a gas to fly!

I wasn't aware OV-10's were available for civilian acquisition?
If you don't already have significant hearing loss, get a pair of
REALLY GOOD noise cancelling headsets if you acquire one of these
aircraft. The props are right by your head with those Garrett's
spinning.

[Frank Stutzman]

In rec.aviation.owning EDR > wrote:

> I wasn't aware OV-10's were available for civilian acquisition?

Dunno about civilian acquisition, but getting close...

In about '94 I stopped by Watts-Woodland airport in Northern California to
visit the Beech dealership. They had 3 or 4 OV-10s in the hangar that they
were under contract to modify for the Forest Service. Apparently the
Forest Service was going to use them as spotting planes for fire
suppression. Don't know if it ever came to anything.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Bill Higdon]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning EDR > wrote:
>
>
>>I wasn't aware OV-10's were available for civilian acquisition?
>
>
> Dunno about civilian acquisition, but getting close...
>
> In about '94 I stopped by Watts-Woodland airport in Northern California to
> visit the Beech dealership. They had 3 or 4 OV-10s in the hangar that they
> were under contract to modify for the Forest Service. Apparently the
> Forest Service was going to use them as spotting planes for fire
> suppression. Don't know if it ever came to anything.
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>

I'm kind of partial to the OV-1, the Modified Beech Debs that they used
in Nam, or a C-123.
Bill Higdon

[Marc Reeve]

Frank Stutzman > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning EDR > wrote:
>
> > I wasn't aware OV-10's were available for civilian acquisition?
>
> Dunno about civilian acquisition, but getting close...
>
> In about '94 I stopped by Watts-Woodland airport in Northern California to
> visit the Beech dealership. They had 3 or 4 OV-10s in the hangar that they
> were under contract to modify for the Forest Service. Apparently the
> Forest Service was going to use them as spotting planes for fire
> suppression. Don't know if it ever came to anything.
>
It did. They're a common sight around here during fire season.

Some good shots of them during the recent Southern California firestorm
showed up on local news as well.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[John Godwin]

Frank Stutzman > wrote in
:

> Apparently the Forest Service was going to use them as
> spotting planes for fire suppression. Don't know if it ever came to
> anything.

Yep, California Department of Forestry has one based at the Hollister
Airport (3O7).

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[Tiger]

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????