New "Old Aircraft"

[185_guy]

What has become of Found?
Are they still selling planes?


+1 to the turbine norseman!

[Rowdy]

I'd say the otter with a turbine.. but there are quite a few radial ones left to be converted first

Maybe if someone put the R985 back in production we'd see some more beavs! How bout a beech 18 too?

[GoinNowhereFast]

There is a heavily modified version of the P-51 that would work well in a counter-insurgency role. the Piper PA-48 Enforcer as it was known. Knowing the US military, it's not near advanced or expensive enough to even be considered though.

This "new, old aircraft" thing is making me wonder. Have there really been no significant aerodynamic or engine technology improvemements since the 60s? The Beaver has been around since the 50s. With modern technology, computers and all, why don't we have a better design already?

[Donald]

This "new, old aircraft" thing is making me wonder. Have there really been no significant aerodynamic or engine technology improvemements since the 60s? The Beaver has been around since the 50s. With modern technology, computers and all, why don't we have a better design already?

Not sure about the Beaver, but some designs simply wouldn't be approved if someone were to attempt certification today. Take the DHC-5D Buffalo for example, TC will not allow a civilian operator to use this aircraft for STOL operations as it was designed. I suspect that the Twin Otter would be limited to 9 pax if it's initial design certification were attempted today.

[motox415]

DHC-8-200, 300. CV990 with modern engines.

[Meatservo]

The "Canadian Defender".

[HS-748 2A]

Not sure about the Beaver, but some designs simply wouldn't be approved if someone were to attempt certification today. Take the DHC-5D Buffalo for example, TC will not allow a civilian operator to use this aircraft for STOL operations as it was designed. I suspect that the Twin Otter would be limited to 9 pax if it's initial design certification were attempted today.

Actually, the Buffalo as it is today, is not certified in civilian use to utilize full flap.

'48

[Darkwing Duck]

Actually, the Buffalo as it is today, is not certified in civilian use to utilize full flap.

'48[/quote]

I did not know this. Goes to show you, you learn something new everyday. Why can full flaps not be used in the civilian usage but it is okay in the military? Would you care to elaborate on this, 48? Thanks.

[old metal]

DC-6, Solid proven airframe, tons of range. Needs turbines anti-skid and reverse. {oh yeah and some tv's up front }

[Big Pistons Forever]

DC-6, Solid proven airframe, tons of range. Needs turbines anti-skid and reverse. {oh yeah and some tv's up front }

It allways had a TV up front....its called the engine analyzer. ..Thats why I tell everyone I have glass cockpit time

[Donald]

Take the DHC-5D Buffalo for example, TC will not allow a civilian operator to use this aircraft for STOL operations as it was designed.

Actually, the Buffalo as it is today, is not certified in civilian use to utilize full flap.

'48

That's what I said HS-748.

Why can full flaps not be used in the civilian usage but it is okay in the military?

The aircraft was certified for military use when it first came out, but only recently received civilian approval, at least in Canada. TC's thinking is that they do not want to allow a 705 aircraft that cannot meet departure climb gradients with an engine out (STOL ops), or similarly is unable to do a single-engine go-around. Some aircraft may have been grandfathered previously.

[HS-748 2A]

Donald, sorry about that. It was 3 AM I think when I wrote that and I was not on the bit at all.

Darkwing Duck, looks like we're both eating some crow.

'48

[fl80]

I've got a little time in the L-19, I'm pretty sure that you'll find it was built and operated with only 60 degrees of flaps by both the military and as a civil aircraft.

[Blaine Beaven]

How about a turbine equipped Cessna 195, a little old with new.

It has been done:

http://www.cessna195.org/gallery/photo/ ... m?page=12#
http://www.cessna195.org/common/viewer. ... g&caption=

[Kilo-Kilo]

How about a turbine equipped Cessna 195, a little old with new.

It has been done:

http://www.cessna195.org/gallery/photo/ ... m?page=12#
http://www.cessna195.org/common/viewer. ... g&caption=

Thanks BB! It looks even cooler than I imagined! Although it would be nice if they had retained the round wingtips after the clipwing mod. But talk about cool factor!

[Big Pistons Forever]

How about a turbine equipped Cessna 195, a little old with new.

It has been done:

http://www.cessna195.org/gallery/photo/ ... m?page=12#
http://www.cessna195.org/common/viewer. ... g&caption=

What a way to ruin a great airplane. It is like replacing the Vee Twin on a Harley with an electric motor

[GoinNowhereFast]

I agree, some airplanes should not have turbines, radials only.

[Kilo-Kilo]

There are enough museum quality restorations out there to allow for a few with performance or dollars per hour improvements. If you don't allow GA to experiment and grow, it will die.

[GoinNowhereFast]

With turbines on super cubs, I'm wondering why they don't buy helicopters. There will always be those who screw with classics.

[tiny]

The L19 is a nice airplane and the Italians made it even better with the 1019. Added a 180 tail and an Allison 250. Now that would be a STOL plane to put into production.

[AEROBAT]

The Helio Courier or Stallion would be an interesting plane to see put back into production but talking to a few people who have owned one it seems to be a bit more of a challenge than your average pilot is capable of today. Does anyone who has flown one want to comment? Four years ago I was going to buy one but I was told I could get A.I.D.S. { aviation induced divorce syndrome} if I did.

[AEROBAT]

The L19 is a nice airplane and the Italians made it even better with the 1019. Added a 180 tail and an Allison 250. Now that would be a STOL plane to put into production.

There is one based at Cooking Lake, EZ3. Looks cool.