What kind of Cessna

[George]

I'm taking my aunt back and forth to the doctor/hospital by car. It takes one
and half hours one way. It would take 30 minutes one way by Cessna 172. Her
first husband was a corporate pilot back in the 1930's and 1940's. I remember
him flying a Beech staggerwing, but to her it was a Beechcraft.

She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war effort,
and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft was Cessna making
in the 30's and 40's? I have the funny feeling she expect me to show up the
"Songbird".

George

[Dave Stadt]

"George" > wrote in message
...
> I'm taking my aunt back and forth to the doctor/hospital by car. It takes
> one
> and half hours one way. It would take 30 minutes one way by Cessna 172.
> Her
> first husband was a corporate pilot back in the 1930's and 1940's. I
> remember
> him flying a Beech staggerwing, but to her it was a Beechcraft.
>
> She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war
> effort,
> and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft was Cessna
> making
> in the 30's and 40's? I have the funny feeling she expect me to show up
> the
> "Songbird".
>
> George\\

Airmaster, 4 place full cantilever high wing, 145hp or 165hp warner round
engine and could do almost 1 mph per hp. An outstanding airplane in both
looks and performance.

[George]

The Airmaster may be the one. I think the company had to traded down. Uncle
France was very unhappy when he lost his staggerwing. I don't think he would be
unhappy to have to fly a Bobcat.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:08:12 GMT, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:

>Airmaster, 4 place full cantilever high wing, 145hp or 165hp warner round
>engine and could do almost 1 mph per hp. An outstanding airplane in both
>looks and performance.

George

[Dave Stadt]

"George" > wrote in message
...
> The Airmaster may be the one. I think the company had to traded down.
> Uncle
> France was very unhappy when he lost his staggerwing. I don't think he
> would be
> unhappy to have to fly a Bobcat.
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:08:12 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
>>Airmaster, 4 place full cantilever high wing, 145hp or 165hp warner round
>>engine and could do almost 1 mph per hp. An outstanding airplane in both
>>looks and performance.
>
> George

The Bobcat was not around in the '30s.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "George" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Airmaster may be the one. I think the company had to traded down.
> > Uncle
> > France was very unhappy when he lost his staggerwing. I don't think he
> > would be
> > unhappy to have to fly a Bobcat.
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:08:12 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Airmaster, 4 place full cantilever high wing, 145hp or 165hp warner round
> >>engine and could do almost 1 mph per hp. An outstanding airplane in both
> >>looks and performance.
> >
> > George
>
> The Bobcat was not around in the '30s.

But it WAS around in the 40s. Ever hear of the UC-78 "Bamboo Bomber?" I
think that the uncle would not have been too happy trading a Staggerwing
for a BB. They did not have full-feathering props, so "twin-engine
reliability" became "twin-engine liability."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George" > wrote in message
...
>
> She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war
> effort,
> and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft was Cessna
> making
> in the 30's and 40's?
>

DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50.


>
> I have the funny feeling she expect me to show up the
> "Songbird".
>

Well, the original "Songbird" was a T-50.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> The Bobcat was not around in the '30s.

The question was, "What kind of business aircraft was Cessna making in the
30's and 40's?" The Bobcat first flew on March 26, 1939.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war
>> effort,
>> and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft was Cessna
>> making
>> in the 30's and 40's?
>>
>
> DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50.

You forgot the AW, DC-6A, DC6-B (DC-6 was not made in the '30s) C3, 120,
140, 170, 190, 195, C106 and P10.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> The Bobcat was not around in the '30s.
>
> The question was, "What kind of business aircraft was Cessna making in the
> 30's and 40's?" The Bobcat first flew on March 26, 1939.

The type certificate for the T-50 was issued in March 1940. None were
delivered to the civilian market in 1939.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>
>>> She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war
>>> effort, and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft
>>> was Cessna making in the 30's and 40's?
>>>
>>
>> DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50.
>>
>
> You forgot the AW, DC-6A, DC6-B (DC-6 was not made in the '30s) C3, 120,
> 140, 170, 190, 195, C106 and P10.
>

No I didn't. The AW was built through 1929 and the DC6A and DC-6B were
DC-6s like the F-16A and F-16B are F-16s. The 120, 140, 170, 190 and 195
were all postwar so not affected by the war effort. The C-3 was an
extensive modification of an AA that had been built in 1928. The C-106 and
P-10 were experimental aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>>
>> The question was, "What kind of business aircraft was Cessna making in
>> the 30's and 40's?" The Bobcat first flew on March 26, 1939.
>>
>
> The type certificate for the T-50 was issued in March 1940. None were
> delivered to the civilian market in 1939.

So you're saying 1940 is not part of the '40s?

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>>
>>> The question was, "What kind of business aircraft was Cessna making in
>>> the 30's and 40's?" The Bobcat first flew on March 26, 1939.
>>>
>>
>> The type certificate for the T-50 was issued in March 1940. None were
>> delivered to the civilian market in 1939.
>
> So you're saying 1940 is not part of the '40s?

Yes but you said it was available in the '30s. Anal is as anal does.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>>>
>>>> She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war
>>>> effort, and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft
>>>> was Cessna making in the 30's and 40's?
>>>>
>>>
>>> DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50.
>>>
>>
>> You forgot the AW, DC-6A, DC6-B (DC-6 was not made in the '30s) C3, 120,
>> 140, 170, 190, 195, C106 and P10.
>>
>
> No I didn't. The AW was built through 1929 and the DC6A and DC-6B were
> DC-6s like the F-16A and F-16B are F-16s. The 120, 140, 170, 190 and 195
> were all postwar so not affected by the war effort. The C-3 was an
> extensive modification of an AA that had been built in 1928. The C-106
> and P-10 were experimental aircraft.


Last AW was built May 1930. DC-6A and B were different airframe and
different wing than the DC-6. Not the same airplane by any stretch of the
imagination. 120, 140, 170, 190, 195 were in one form or another business
aircraft answering the original question. C3 was a business aircraft built
in '33 certified in '34, it was not an AA. It had a totally different
wing, extensive fuselage modificationas and obviously a different engine
than an AA and was certified as a C3 not an AA. The C106, C106A and the
P-10 were business aircraft built during the time period in question.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Yes but you said it was available in the '30s.
>

I did not.

[Jose]

> So you're saying 1940 is not part of the '40s?

Actually, 1940 is not part of the '40s.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:59:42 -0600, George >
wrote:

>I'm taking my aunt back and forth to the doctor/hospital by car. It takes one
>and half hours one way. It would take 30 minutes one way by Cessna 172. Her
>first husband was a corporate pilot back in the 1930's and 1940's. I remember
>him flying a Beech staggerwing, but to her it was a Beechcraft.
>
>She said the company gave the Beechcraft to the government for the war effort,
>and replaced it with a Cessna. What kind of business aircraft was Cessna making
>in the 30's and 40's? I have the funny feeling she expect me to show up the
>"Songbird".

C37. Here is an ad for one on controller.com
http://tinyurl.com/dbeqv

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> So you're saying 1940 is not part of the '40s?
>
> Actually, 1940 is not part of the '40s.
>

So is 1940 part of the '30s? I know your getting that from the Millennium
crap that this millennium didn't start until 2001 and that is true because
there was no year Zero and millennium means 1000 years.

But that little jewel of trivia doesn't apply to nicknames we give decades
or even centuries.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Last AW was built May 1930. DC-6A and B were different airframe and
> different wing than the DC-6. Not the same airplane by any stretch of the
> imagination. 120, 140, 170, 190, 195 were in one form or another business
> aircraft answering the original question. C3 was a business aircraft
> built in '33 certified in '34, it was not an AA. It had a totally
> different wing, extensive fuselage modificationas and obviously a
> different engine than an AA and was certified as a C3 not an AA. The
> C106, C106A and the P-10 were business aircraft built during the time
> period in question.
>

The original question was what kind of Cessna business aircraft might have
replaced a Staggerwing taken for the war effort. Perhaps you believe the
war referred to was Korea or Vietnam, but I think most, like me, believe it
was WWII. That would rule out the 120, 140, 170, 190, and 195.

The C-106 project was a small transport for the military using a minimum of
strategic materials. One prototype flew under the registration NX24176, the
project was cancelled and the airplane scrapped before the end of the war.
It was not a business aircraft.

The C-106A was an improved version of the C-106. One prototype flew under
the registration NX44600. A contract for 500 was issued by the USAAF but
the project was cancelled before any were built. The sole airplane was
scrapped before the end of the war. It was not a business aircraft.

The P-10 was to be a high performance two place multiengine trainer in the
same class as the Curtiss AT-9. One prototype using many T-50 components
was completed and flew under the registration NX34751 in October 1941. The
military was not interested and the airplane was dismantled the following
year. It was not a business aircraft.

According to Bob Pickett, the official Cessna historian, and Mitch Mayborn,
who co-authored "Cessna Guidebook", the sole C-3 was an extensive
modification to AA c/n 124, NC5335. Changes included a NACA cowling over
the 125 hp Warner, a wider 4-place cabin, and a DC-6 type landing gear. The
rebuilt airplane was sold under the registration NC12568. I see no reason
to believe they are wrong and you are right.

The DC-6 was originally powered by a 170 hp Curtiss Challenger. All but the
first one were re-engined with the 225 hp Wright J-6-7, becoming equivalent
to the DC-6B. The DC-6A was built with a 300 hp J-6-9 and the DC-6B was
built with a 225 hp J-6-7.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, 1940 is not part of the '40s.
>

How so?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> So is 1940 part of the '30s? I know your getting that from the Millennium
> crap that this millennium didn't start until 2001 and that is true because
> there was no year Zero and millennium means 1000 years.
>
> But that little jewel of trivia doesn't apply to nicknames we give decades
> or even centuries.

Right. "The '40s" means the years 1940 through 1949.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:48:51 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

<snip>

>Last AW was built May 1930. DC-6A and B were different airframe and
>different wing than the DC-6. Not the same airplane by any stretch of the
>imagination. 120, 140, 170, 190, 195 were in one form or another business
>aircraft answering the original question. C3 was a business aircraft built
>in '33 certified in '34, it was not an AA. It had a totally different
>wing, extensive fuselage modificationas and obviously a different engine
>than an AA and was certified as a C3 not an AA. The C106, C106A and the
>P-10 were business aircraft built during the time period in question.

Picture is of a '52 B model (I think), but somebody at Cessna was
trying to suggest the 170 could be used for business:

http://www.havasreti.com/images/sales_brochure_1.jpg

I don't know if earlier ads for the late 1940s 170 ragwing had the
"Businessliner" moniker or not....

I like this picture too:

http://www.havasreti.com/images/sales_brochure_4.jpg

Makes it look like he's riding in the back of a 1947 Packard!
Not to mention the fact that the 170 probably wouldn't get off the
ground loaded with all that luggage in the back....

(I own/fly a '54 C-170B so I'm allowed to make fun of
the ads....). 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> Last AW was built May 1930. DC-6A and B were different airframe and
>> different wing than the DC-6. Not the same airplane by any stretch of
>> the
>> imagination. 120, 140, 170, 190, 195 were in one form or another business
>> aircraft answering the original question. C3 was a business aircraft
>> built in '33 certified in '34, it was not an AA. It had a totally
>> different wing, extensive fuselage modificationas and obviously a
>> different engine than an AA and was certified as a C3 not an AA. The
>> C106, C106A and the P-10 were business aircraft built during the time
>> period in question.
>>
>
> The original question was what kind of Cessna business aircraft might have
> replaced a Staggerwing taken for the war effort. Perhaps you believe the
> war referred to was Korea or Vietnam, but I think most, like me, believe
> it was WWII. That would rule out the 120, 140, 170, 190, and 195.
>
> The C-106 project was a small transport for the military using a minimum
> of strategic materials. One prototype flew under the registration
> NX24176, the project was cancelled and the airplane scrapped before the
> end of the war. It was not a business aircraft.
>
> The C-106A was an improved version of the C-106. One prototype flew under
> the registration NX44600. A contract for 500 was issued by the USAAF but
> the project was cancelled before any were built. The sole airplane was
> scrapped before the end of the war. It was not a business aircraft.
>
> The P-10 was to be a high performance two place multiengine trainer in the
> same class as the Curtiss AT-9. One prototype using many T-50 components
> was completed and flew under the registration NX34751 in October 1941.
> The military was not interested and the airplane was dismantled the
> following year. It was not a business aircraft.
>
> According to Bob Pickett, the official Cessna historian, and Mitch
> Mayborn, who co-authored "Cessna Guidebook", the sole C-3 was an extensive
> modification to AA c/n 124, NC5335. Changes included a NACA cowling over
> the 125 hp Warner, a wider 4-place cabin, and a DC-6 type landing gear.
> The rebuilt airplane was sold under the registration NC12568. I see no
> reason to believe they are wrong and you are right.
>
> The DC-6 was originally powered by a 170 hp Curtiss Challenger. All but
> the first one were re-engined with the 225 hp Wright J-6-7, becoming
> equivalent to the DC-6B. The DC-6A was built with a 300 hp J-6-9 and the
> DC-6B was built with a 225 hp J-6-7.


Sorry Steve but when it comes to Cessna history you aren't even in the ball
park. Quote Pickett and Mayborn from their paperback book and Ed Phillips
and an Eye to the Sky if you care to procure those books but you will still
have a long way to go.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Sorry Steve but when it comes to Cessna history you aren't even in the
> ball park. Quote Pickett and Mayborn from their paperback book and Ed
> Phillips and an Eye to the Sky if you care to procure those books but you
> will still have a long way to go.
>

Okay. Let's see how extensive your knowledge of Cessna history is. What
businesses operated Cessna C-106s, C-106As, or P-10s? How many were built?
How many 120s, 140s, 170s, 190s, and 195s were built before the end of WWII?

[Jose]

> But that little jewel of trivia doesn't apply to nicknames we give decades
> or even centuries.

It certainly applies to centuies. The first 100 years began with year 1
and ended with year 100. I suppose the ninteenth century (1801-1900)
and the "eighteen hundreds" could be "off by one" should you wish call
the "1940s" 1940-49.

And if we give nicknames, we can nickname them anything we want. So
there. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> Right. "The '40s" means the years 1940 through 1949.


Agreed.

And yet ...if a baby is born Jan 5th 1939, on Jan 4th 1941 that baby will
still be only one calender year old. '39, '40, '41. Hmm? :-)


Montblack
"What people thought happened in the 60's really happened in the 70's"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know if earlier ads for the late 1940s 170 ragwing had the
> "Businessliner" moniker or not....
>

So how went the war effort in the late 1940s?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So is 1940 part of the '30s? I know your getting that from the Millennium
>> crap that this millennium didn't start until 2001 and that is true
>> because there was no year Zero and millennium means 1000 years.
>>
>> But that little jewel of trivia doesn't apply to nicknames we give
>> decades or even centuries.
>
> Right. "The '40s" means the years 1940 through 1949.
>

And that decade was part of the 1900's along with 1900.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> But that little jewel of trivia doesn't apply to nicknames we give
>> decades or even centuries.
>
> It certainly applies to centuies. The first 100 years began with year 1
> and ended with year 100. I suppose the ninteenth century (1801-1900) and
> the "eighteen hundreds" could be "off by one" should you wish call the
> "1940s" 1940-49.
>
> And if we give nicknames, we can nickname them anything we want. So
> there. :)
>
> Jose
> --
The 1800's and the nineteenth century are no the same thing. But that is
beside the point you never answered if you thought 1940 was in the 30's or
not.

[Jose]

> And that decade was part of the 1900's ...

1900s

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:28:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I don't know if earlier ads for the late 1940s 170 ragwing had the
>> "Businessliner" moniker or not....
>>
>
>So how went the war effort in the late 1940s?
>

You will have to wallow & wrestle in the mud by yourself
this time.... 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

[Jose]

> The 1800's and the nineteenth century are no the same thing. But that is
> beside the point you never answered if you thought 1940 was in the 30's or
> not.

Ok, I'll concede. The third decade (21-30) is not the same as the
"twenties" (20-29).

1940 is in the 40s. But it is not in the 40's.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> 1940 is in the 40s. But it is not in the 40's.
>

1940 was in the '40s. The 40s were the years 40 through 49.

[Jose]

>>1940 is in the 40s. But it is not in the 40's.
>>>
>
>
> 1940 was in the '40s. The 40s were the years 40 through 49.
>
>
Touche.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Touche.
>

Touché.

[Jose]

> Touché.

Depends on the character encoding. I can see the accent, but people on
other OSs probably get something like "Touch#", which is why I omit most
diacritical marks.

José
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
>> 1940 was in the '40s. The 40s were the years 40 through 49.

> Touche.


Touched


Montblack

[..OOO..]
[...OO....]
i
i
i
i
We're "Going for the Cold"
(-20 F tonight. Brrrrr! Feb 17 record is -21F)

[Jose]

> Touched

While literally true, (Touché is french for "made contact with"),
"touched" does not carry the conotation of "good point", and does carry
the conotation of "crazy".

Now, I might be crazy to continue this thread, but I still side with
"touche" as the best compromise in the tower of babel the computer has
created for us.

(so what is é in EBCDIC?)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
>> Touched

Um, touched was a past tense joke :-)

> (so what is é in EBCDIC?)

"Extended"
(I'm on a roll now... <g>)


Montblack

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:11:18 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Touché.
>
>Depends on the character encoding. I can see the accent, but people on
>other OSs probably get something like "Touch#", which is why I omit most
>diacritical marks.
>
>José

Olé!

Don

[George]

The DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50 looks like a good list. They all
fit the time period. I discounted the DC-6 and T-50, because I thought they
would be a step up from a staggerwing. but maybe he loved his staggerwing and
didn't want to give it up. Do professional pilots fall in love with and
airplane? :>) I'll get pictures of the above airplanes and run by my aunt.

I remember my "SKYKING" especially Penny but for the life I can't remember the
name of the boy. Come the thing of it, I think of what Skyking's name was. Uncle
something?

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:57:10 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:


>
>DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50.
>
>
>>
>> I have the funny feeling she expect me to show up the
>> "Songbird".
>>
>
>Well, the original "Songbird" was a T-50.
>

George

I thought computers could spell better the typwriters

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George" > wrote in message
...
>
> The DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50 looks like a good list.
> They all fit the time period. I discounted the DC-6 and T-50, because I
> thought they would be a step up from a staggerwing. but maybe he loved
> his staggerwing and didn't want to give it up. Do professional pilots fall
> in
> love with and airplane? :>) I'll get pictures of the above airplanes and
> run
> by my aunt.
>

I don't know about that. Beech introduced the D17 series Staggerwing in
1937, the D17S had a 450 hp P&W R-985. I wouldn't consider moving from that
to a DC-6 or T-50 to be a step up.


>
> I remember my "SKYKING" especially Penny but for the life I can't remember
> the name of the boy. Come the thing of it, I think of what Skyking's name
> was.
> Uncle something?
>

The boy's name was Clipper. Uncle Sky's full name was Schuyler J. King.
The show was "Sky King".

[Jim Macklin]

Don't forget the Spartan Executive, still a few flying.
They had roll up side windows, just like your car.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "George" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > The DC-6, C-34 thru C-38, C-145, C-165, T-50 looks like
a good list.
| > They all fit the time period. I discounted the DC-6 and
T-50, because I
| > thought they would be a step up from a staggerwing. but
maybe he loved
| > his staggerwing and didn't want to give it up. Do
professional pilots fall
| > in
| > love with and airplane? :>) I'll get pictures of the
above airplanes and
| > run
| > by my aunt.
| >
|
| I don't know about that. Beech introduced the D17 series
Staggerwing in
| 1937, the D17S had a 450 hp P&W R-985. I wouldn't
consider moving from that
| to a DC-6 or T-50 to be a step up.
|
|
| >
| > I remember my "SKYKING" especially Penny but for the
life I can't remember
| > the name of the boy. Come the thing of it, I think of
what Skyking's name
| > was.
| > Uncle something?
| >
|
| The boy's name was Clipper. Uncle Sky's full name was
Schuyler J. King.
| The show was "Sky King".
|
|

[George]

Thank, That was bugging my wife and I.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:39:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>The boy's name was Clipper. Uncle Sky's full name was Schuyler J. King.
>The show was "Sky King".

GeorgeC

[Jim Macklin]

It is available on DVD.



"George" > wrote in message
...
| Thank, That was bugging my wife and I.
|
| On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:39:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
| > wrote:
|
| >The boy's name was Clipper. Uncle Sky's full name was
Schuyler J. King.
| >The show was "Sky King".
|
| GeorgeC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Ti3Kf.98307$4l5.36928@dukeread05...
>
> Don't forget the Spartan Executive, still a few flying.
> They had roll up side windows, just like your car.
>

They weren't built by Cessna.

[Jim Macklin]

No, they were built by Spartan. But some of the other
aircraft mentioned were not built by Cessna either.

I was just mentioning a very modern early business aircraft.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Ti3Kf.98307$4l5.36928@dukeread05...
| >
| > Don't forget the Spartan Executive, still a few flying.
| > They had roll up side windows, just like your car.
| >
|
| They weren't built by Cessna.
|
|

[Matt Barrow]

"George" > wrote in message
...
> Thank, That was bugging my wife and I.
>
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:39:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>The boy's name was Clipper. Uncle Sky's full name was Schuyler J. King.
>>The show was "Sky King".
>
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0043232/

Enjoy the memories!!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:UffKf.99304$4l5.364@dukeread05...
>
> No, they were built by Spartan. But some of the other
> aircraft mentioned were not built by Cessna either.
>

All of the aircraft listed in the message you responded to were built by
Cessna.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Don't forget the Spartan Executive, still a few flying.
> They had roll up side windows, just like your car.

Yes, a friend of mine has one hangared here. He almost bought the only
nosegear Spartan Exec but wanted a real Exec instead.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Don't forget the Spartan Executive, still a few flying. They had roll up
>> side windows, just like your car.
>
> Yes, a friend of mine has one hangared here. He almost bought the only
> nosegear Spartan Exec but wanted a real Exec instead.

Did he happen to buy one out of northern IL? Polished and blue with a very
low time P&W 985.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, a friend of mine has one hangared here. He almost bought the only
> nosegear Spartan Exec but wanted a real Exec instead.
>

I don't think there were any nosegear Executives. Spartan built 34 Model
7Ws before the war. They named this airplane "Executive", all were built
with conventional gear. Late in WWII they were working on two new aircraft.
The Model 12 was clearly based on the Executive but it was a new airplane.
The project was cancelled before the prototype flew. While it is frequently
called an "Executive" today I don't believe Spartan ever called it that, it
appears they just called it the Model 12.

The other airplane they were working on was to be a 6/8 seat twin for
business and feeder airline use. It was cancelled before it got as far as
the Model 12, probably when Spartan realized they'd be competing with many
military surplus aircraft.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't forget the Spartan Executive, still a few flying. They had roll up
>>>side windows, just like your car.
>>
>>Yes, a friend of mine has one hangared here. He almost bought the only
>>nosegear Spartan Exec but wanted a real Exec instead.
>
>
> Did he happen to buy one out of northern IL? Polished and blue with a very
> low time P&W 985.

It is polished and blue. Don't know about the hours on the engine. The
interior had been completely redone in a grey and blue fabric.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes, a friend of mine has one hangared here. He almost bought the only
> > nosegear Spartan Exec but wanted a real Exec instead.
> >
>
> I don't think there were any nosegear Executives. Spartan built 34 Model
> 7Ws before the war. They named this airplane "Executive", all were built
> with conventional gear. Late in WWII they were working on two new aircraft.
> The Model 12 was clearly based on the Executive but it was a new airplane.
> The project was cancelled before the prototype flew. While it is frequently
> called an "Executive" today I don't believe Spartan ever called it that, it
> appears they just called it the Model 12.
>
> The other airplane they were working on was to be a 6/8 seat twin for
> business and feeder airline use. It was cancelled before it got as far as
> the Model 12, probably when Spartan realized they'd be competing with many
> military surplus aircraft.


A friend of mine, Colgate Darden, owns the rights to the Spartan
Executive. Apparently, a weak point is in the main gear trunions. One
broke on his a few years ago -- the plane has been repaired.

It is a BIG machine!

[Dave Stadt]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Yes, a friend of mine has one hangared here. He almost bought the only
>> > nosegear Spartan Exec but wanted a real Exec instead.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think there were any nosegear Executives. Spartan built 34 Model
>> 7Ws before the war. They named this airplane "Executive", all were built
>> with conventional gear. Late in WWII they were working on two new
>> aircraft.
>> The Model 12 was clearly based on the Executive but it was a new
>> airplane.
>> The project was cancelled before the prototype flew. While it is
>> frequently
>> called an "Executive" today I don't believe Spartan ever called it that,
>> it
>> appears they just called it the Model 12.
>>
>> The other airplane they were working on was to be a 6/8 seat twin for
>> business and feeder airline use. It was cancelled before it got as far
>> as
>> the Model 12, probably when Spartan realized they'd be competing with
>> many
>> military surplus aircraft.
>
>
> A friend of mine, Colgate Darden, owns the rights to the Spartan
> Executive. Apparently, a weak point is in the main gear trunions. One
> broke on his a few years ago -- the plane has been repaired.
>
> It is a BIG machine!

Friends of mine had an Exec and they had new trunions machined. It cost a
fortune but put to rest the gear collapse worry. Also had the only factory
tri-gear Exec. at our airport for a while. It totally changed the character
of the airplane and certainly not for the better. Sitting in the rear seat
of an Exec. is like sitting in a living room. There is enough room for a
big screen and refrigerator.

[Newps]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:


>
>
>
> A friend of mine, Colgate Darden, owns the rights to the Spartan
> Executive. Apparently, a weak point is in the main gear trunions. One
> broke on his a few years ago -- the plane has been repaired.
>
> It is a BIG machine!

Yes, it's big. Talk about turning money into noise. I only saw a
picture of the nose gear Exec he was going to buy. Looked pretty ugly.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

Also had the only factory
> tri-gear Exec. at our airport for a while. It totally changed the character
> of the airplane and certainly not for the better.

That was the one my friend was considering before he bought the one he
did. Not a good looking bird on the ground.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Also had the only factory
>> tri-gear Exec. at our airport for a while. It totally changed the
>> character of the airplane and certainly not for the better.
>
> That was the one my friend was considering before he bought the one he
> did. Not a good looking bird on the ground.

Where does your friend live? The Exec. I am very familiar with I think went
to Montana or somewhere up north. It is a stunner and not soon forgotten.
On a sunny day you could not stand next to it due to the heat being
reflected off the polished surface.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> Also had the only factory
>>
>>>tri-gear Exec. at our airport for a while. It totally changed the
>>>character of the airplane and certainly not for the better.
>>
>>That was the one my friend was considering before he bought the one he
>>did. Not a good looking bird on the ground.
>
>
> Where does your friend live?

He lives in Michigan, Montana and Hawaii. Depends on the season.


The Exec. I am very familiar with I think went
> to Montana or somewhere up north.

Yes, it is in a hangar on one of his smaller parcels(1000 acres) of land
just outside of Absarokee, MT. I land my Bo up there and show people
the plane. And the Caravan, 182 and 3 Cubs he keeps there.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>
>>> Also had the only factory
>>>
>>>>tri-gear Exec. at our airport for a while. It totally changed the
>>>>character of the airplane and certainly not for the better.
>>>
>>>That was the one my friend was considering before he bought the one he
>>>did. Not a good looking bird on the ground.
>>
>>
>> Where does your friend live?
>
> He lives in Michigan, Montana and Hawaii. Depends on the season.
>
>
> The Exec. I am very familiar with I think went
>> to Montana or somewhere up north.
>
> Yes, it is in a hangar on one of his smaller parcels(1000 acres) of land
> just outside of Absarokee, MT. I land my Bo up there and show people the
> plane. And the Caravan, 182 and 3 Cubs he keeps there.


That would be the fella.