taildragger checkouts

[AirFrame]

I suspect i'd be as disappointed with a ride in a P-51 as the earlier poster.

I'm speechless

Don't misunderstand... I think it's an awesome airplane, and love the sound of that engine. But I temper that with the knowledge that any P-51 that I could afford a ride in wouldn't be one that I could have "free and clear" for 15 minutes to put it through its paces. Sitting in the back of a P-51 while someone else does loops and rolls wouldn't feel a lot different than doing it in the back of a Pitts, Harmon Rocket, or even a Chipmunk. It would be neat to fly in a two-person plane that goes 400mph, but on a clear day i'm not sure I would notice the speed so much. In an RV, flying at twice the speed of the Cessna I learned in, the ground doesn't move much faster visually when you're at 4000'. You only really notice it when you pass close to a cloud (maintaining appropriate VFR separation, of course...) and see how fast it goes by.

The hype of the P-51 far outweighs any enjoyment i'd extract by actually riding in one. I love to see them fly, I love listening to them, but i'd rather keep my own mental picture of how much fun it would be to fly one... I doubt any 15-20 minute flight could live up to it.

FWIW, that opinion was reinforced this summer when I heard Richard Bach (author) tell his story about owning a P-51... He was disappointed in it as well.

[mike53]

, but I'd trade some body parts for the opportunity. I'll bet it would have some stories to tell.

Price is around $2500 down in Florida for a 1/2 hour ,question is which body part goes for $2500.I'm thinking I really only need 1 kidney.

[Hedley]

Do it! You do really only need one kidney

I flew "Crazy Horse" (?) a TF-51 Cavalier converted
dual seat/dual control P-51D with Lee Lauderbach (?)
around 20 years ago. USD$1500. Worth every
penny. Would I do it again? No. But like flying into
OSH, every pilot should do it once, and experience
it for himself.

(more blatant heresy follows - warbird fans, avert your eyes)

Personally, I think an L39 is a much better personal
warbird than any of the WWII piston fighters. Purchase
price is much less, far less maintenance - the ones I fly
were made in 1981 and are bulletproof, with less than 2000
hours on the airframe and less than 200 hours on the
turbines. Lots of speed and great fun to fly. And no, you
don't have to be . Yeager to fly one. The pilot workload
is higher in the C421, IMHO.



Pardon the Justin Beiber haircut - I have since found time
to visit my barber

[AirFrame]

Okay, an L39 would be cool. But another price point above a P-51, no?

And it's not a taildragger, so it really doesn't belong in this thread...

I think what might discourage me most from the "ride in a P-51" places is that they're commercial operations... I'd feel like I was buying a ride. Which I would be, but it's different than someone you know taking you for a ride. I've flown in about three dozen different single-engine piston airplanes, but i've never paid someone to take me for a ride. I've offered to pay for some gas a few times, but always been turned down. In the aviation community I grew up in, that's just the way it was. The pilots just occasionally offered rides, and people occasionally went along. Harvard, Chipmunk, Waco, Glasair, RV, Cessna, whatever. I always understood that it would be my job one day to do the same for the next generation, in whatever airplanes I ended up owning.

Trading an RV ride for a P-51 or L-39 ride may not seem like a fair trade, but it's not about a fair trade... It's about people having fun flying what they can afford and sharing that enjoyment with others. If I knew someone with a P-51 and could trade rides on that basis, I suspect i'd enjoy it a lot more. It might cost the owner of the P-51 $1000 in gas, and me $100 in gas, but none of the pilots I would fly with would have a problem with that. I'm not interested in going along on a "we-have-20-minutes-so-we'd-better-get-everything-we-can-out-of-it" flight... I'd much prefer a "hey, i'm going up to fly around for a bit, want to come along?" flight. I'd get some stick time, i'd get some sitting-back-and-enjoying-it time, and I wouldn't be looking at a clock making sure I got my full 20 minutes worth.

[Hedley]

an L39 would be cool. But another price point above a P-51, no?

Huh? An L39 costs around 15% of what a P-51 costs. And the maintenance is far, far less.

As far as your opinion that you shouldn't have to kick in any money for a warbird ride, and your opinion that an RV ride should be swapped even with a P-51 ride ... I dunno. Let me know how well that utopian ideal works out for you.

[AirFrame]

An L39 costs around 15% of what a P-51 costs. And the maintenance is far, far less.

I agree on both counts (and was already aware of both facts). I was thinking more in terms of the incremental cost of taking someone for a 1 hour flight. Assuming you've already got an L-39 or P-51 that you can afford to fly for 100 hours a year, what's the incremental cost to fly it 101 hours instead. Fixed costs won't change (maintenance, insurance) so the difference is probably mostly the fuel and oil costs. How does the fuel burn on an L39 compare to a P-51? I'm guessing the jet burns it faster, but I don't know for sure. Maybe they're comparable.

As far as your opinion that you shouldn't have to kick in any money for a warbird ride, and your opinion that an RV ride should be swapped even with a P-51 ride ... I dunno. Let me know how well that utopian ideal works out for you.

Not what I was saying, but I think you know that. I was describing a friendly airport where pilots own their planes for pleasure flying, and where one pilot offers another a ride because it's a nice thing to do. Not some random RV pilot flying into an airport with a P-51 based there and asking to swap rides. The probability of success in that situation, I agree, is slim. But I suppose you never know unless you ask...

For what it's worth, 4 warbird rides later I haven't been asked to, nor expected to, kick any money in yet. And all four were before I owned my own airplane. So the utopian ideal may be a little more achievable than you might think.

[Strega]

Id rather a TS-11 ISKRA over the L-39

CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!!

Ive had stick time in the TF-51, L-29, L-39 and the ISKRA,


The Mustang is by far the funnest!

[mike53]

[quote="Strega"]Id rather a TS-11 ISKRA over the L-39

CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!!



Cheap is a relative term.Yes relatively cheap to buy but add insurance(i'm guessing around $10,000/year ,annual inspection fees(I would think $12,000/yr would cover it if you didn't have any major issues),fuel burn(again just a guess but$500/hr say),hangar space cost($4000/yr),and it quickly becomes too expensive to all but the well healed.It's easy to see why the cost of a ride in any of these toys is so high.
Still it,s nice to dream

[Big Pistons Forever]

fuel @ 500 $ an hour...... not a chance. In the L29 when asked about fuel burn I usually provide a practical example. Imagine a Guiness pint glass full of Jet A, now calculate how many seconds the engine has been running.....that is how many glasses you will need....

[mike53]

1971 PZL TS-11 ISKRA
Reg #: NX609A
TTAF: 2470
$59,500.00


Share

AIRCRAFT SUMMARY
Only 2470 TT, 387 SOH, Lead Acid Self Start Battery, Excellent Condition, Estate Sale - Make any reasonable offer!!

Details coming - On Board Battery for self start - No APU needed.
Fast, Fun and Easy to fly – No Damage History – Complete Logs – Must Fly to Appreciate.


Airframe:
600 nm Range
120 GPH (Fuel Burn)

JetA /gal X 120 anyone know the cost of jet A /gal?

[AirFrame]

fuel @ 500 $ an hour...... not a chance. In the L29 when asked about fuel burn I usually provide a practical example. Imagine a Guiness pint glass full of Jet A, now calculate how many seconds the engine has been running.....that is how many glasses you will need....

That's 450 gal/hr, about 3.5 times the Iskra, and 8 times that of a P-51 (60 gal/hr at economy cruise, according to this site).

So I guess you either pay $250K for the plane and 60 gal/hr, or you can pay $80K for the plane and 450 gal/hr. For someone who isn't scared off by the burn rate those numbers imply on their wallet, I suspect it doesn't matter which plane you choose...

[mike53]

[quote="AirFrame"][quote="Big Pistons Forever"]fuel @ 500 $ an hour...... not a chance. In the L29
That's 450 gal/hr, about 3.5 times the Iskra, and 8 times that of a P-51 (60 gal/hr at economy cruise, according to this site).

So I guess you either pay $250K for the plane and 60 gal/hr, or you can pay $80K for the plane and 450 gal/hr. For someone who isn't scared off by the burn rate those numbers imply on their wallet, I suspect it doesn't matter which plane you choose... [/quote

I'm having an awful hard time accepting 450 gal./hr for the L29.Under 200gal./hr would seem to make more sense and we are talking in cruise.

[Big Pistons Forever]

On the L29 you could see fuel flows as low as 110 GPH, but that would be at max range power setting of 83% power at 20,000 ft. Max power fuel flow at sea level is 355 GPH. Normal climb is done at 97 % power or "only" 300 GPH. My experience with the L29 was that a 45 min burn around the local area with some aerobatics used about 750 litres of Jet A. At todays prices that's over $1000. I do not know about you but that is serious money for me, and was the reason I stopped flying the aircraft even though all I had to do was replace the gas I used.

I do not have any numbers for the ISKRA but I would be shocked it used even marginally less fuel. There is a reason why these jets are so cheap. The guys who can actually affort to run them can afford a nice tricked out L 39 or better. They are not interested in clapped out straight jet first generation jet trainers.