Excluding a few specialized airparks, you can't park your plane in your driveway and tinker with it at the spur of the moment. Thats what way more accessible to me means.
Who here owns a plane?
- Thread starter dogememe
- Start date
AMEN! There is nothing like an airplane, and ALL of them are great! From the Cub to the A380 and everything in between. If you like strong acceleration, the Gulfstream business jet is said to be able to achieve a 10 second 1/4 mile. Best we've been able to do is in the mid 11 second range at 144MPH. But we did not want to start the take off with the brakes locked and burn off the tires. The interesting thing is, it will continue to put 'ya into your seat well into the 400MPH (350Kt) range.
Not that I would ever do this, but a lowly Cessna 172 can "lap" Sebring racetrack faster than the fastest cars.
I started the private pilot route but gave it up. Cost was a factor as was safety (still much more dangerous than driving), but a big issue was practicality. Unless you’re going for an instrument rating, in most parts of the country there are surprisingly few days when an extended VFR flight cross-country is wise. And in those situations, you may be at a destination you don’t want for an unplanned day or two.
Oh, and I forgot the noise and turbulence. I’ll stick with cars…
Oh, and I forgot the noise and turbulence. I’ll stick with cars…
That's why I prefer gliders.
All true.
In the hangar next to mine at F45, Jupiter, FL, there is a company that retrofits an American Garrett (now Honeywell) 731 engine into the L39. They remove up to 1600 pounds of unnecessary weight, and install new avionics along with the 731-3, or -4 or -5 (depending on performance desired) as removed from a business jet, with at least 1000 hours remaining on the hot section. In private ownership, the engine will never need to be removed for scheduled MX.
Possibly of interest, the 731 engine is significantly more efficient, so the Tip Tanks are removed. Even so, range is almost double, and thrust to weight is also about double.
Fuel burn is in the range of 115 gal/hr in cruise (at nearly 400Kts TAS) and 185 GPH in climb, and 60 GPH in descent/approach.
East 2 West Aero
www.east2westaero.com
I'll add that the 172 (and also the 150/152) are certified for utility category when W&B is configured appropriately. That means 4.4 G. They're not considered aerobatic but they do all the commercial maneuvers (chandelles, lazy eights, eights on pylons). And approved for intentional spins. Nothing you can do in a car is anywhere near as fun. Or get a Citabria, even more fun. And on a budget.
I did my private in a Tomahawk. Very nice flying little airplane and seriously under powered. My instructor and I were both big strong farm kids and I'll promise you every time we took off, we were over gross.
Thought you guys might enjoy what the G600 cockpit looks like at night. We typically cruise at M 0.91. Or about 530Kts TAS. Climb is M 0.87. This thing is a time saver, that's for sure.
I'm sorry, that's just cheating.
Oh how I envy you!
I had friend who owned a Luscombe that we would take up and have a competition for an hour at a time to see who could do the best precision spins. After that all amusement park rides are dull and boring.
There was also the Pitts S2B that the owner traded instruction for hours in his Pitts. Beyond exciting, thrilling, whatever you want to call it. That little bi-plane will punish you with Gs and laugh at you trying to break it. It's structural failure limit is +-18Gs. You could go as fast as you wanted straight down and pull as hard as you wanted and you could never break it. It will ALWAYS break you first. There are very few airplanes in the world you can't break by pulling too hard. You want to know what it feels like to have 9x your weight on your shoulder straps? Do an outside square loop and push as hard as you can stand it, until your eyeballs hurt and your shoulders feel like they are getting crushed. Try a Lomcevak if you think you're man enough! Do a full rudder steady state spin and push forward on the elevator, you'll learn a new definition of wound-up! Man, what a blast that airplane is...
Last edited:
I miss her.....pic I found online of her and her current owner (I would never let the gear legs get rusty
);Yes but, there is a lot of liability involved doing any sort of mechanical work on an aircraft, no matter what size it is.
Lives and property are involved when something goes wrong. And its more of a glorified 1960's Volks Waggon engine than a lawn mower engine. All the parts have to be certified, and have a paper trail, that all adds to the cost. Also the parts used to do an overhaul add immensely to the total overhaul cost.
In that night time cockpit picture, are those synthetic vision systems? That as well as flir, and sar would be a huge safety device for night flight and fog etc. as well as mountainous terrain, in VFR conditions.
What's wrong with the EC? It's probably my favorite helicopter to work on (so far)
Last edited:
Aviation engines actually do have a lot in common with lawnmower engines. Air cooled, static timed, magneto fired, carbureted, etc. But unlike lawnmower engines, they are individually hand-built, tested and certified. The high cost is due to certification, low production volume, and high-touch manual labor.
We had a local Pits pilot who performed at the Pittsburgh Regattas a couple of times and after I saw him perform one time, I happen to come across him sitting in front of his hanger down at Rostraver airport and I mentioned to him that he's going to fly the Wings off of that thing someday because he snapped rolled it way too quickly. He told me that he had a new set of wings hanging up in the back of the hanger and he replaces them after a certain number of hours and pointed to them. To this day I wonder whether or not he had installed them, but the next time he performed at the Pittsburgh Regatta he snapped off a set of wings on one side and flew it on the rudder sideways with the other set of wings facing the water over the river until he decided to land it in the river upon which it immediately sank with him still strapped in it. When they pulled it out the next day he was still strapped in it dead of course.
So yes, you can break a Pits.
By the way, I have a couple of thousand hours of flying remote control model airplanes and have seen many go in over the years. Sometimes I've seen them go in because they were over stressed, usually with two large of an engine on it and someone pulling way too quick of a maneuver with it at too high of a speed. That is one of the reasons I had a suspicion that the local pits pilot was seriously over stressing his aircraft. Because I had seen large remote control model airplanes lose a wing in the air when someone had over stressed it. I also know that some people don't build remote control model airplanes with the quality that they should but when it is a quality built aircraft and it still breaks apart you can tell that someone really snap rolled it too quick or pulled some other maneuver too quick. And again one of the most memorable ones I recall was someone had too large of an engine on an aircraft and that was an RC airplane.
I used to do tight circles over the area in the woods where someone' RC aircraft had gone in so when they were hiking in the woods they could know where to look for the remains.
Did that many times.
As to full size, I took lessons and got to the point where I could take an aircraft up and bring it back down without the instructor doing anything but I didn't have the money to be able to travel with an aircraft and use it for traveling and decided that it wasn't worth me putting any more money into getting my pilot's license because I would never use it for anything anyhow.
Last edited:
When they go through enough loading cycles, of course. I'm talking about a properly maintained airplane.
Extra 300L, operated in the experimental exhibition category. More powerful engine, Dynon EFIS avionics. Much weight removed.
A friend is purchasing a Cirrus SR22, GTs. The cirrus is probably the top choice for a personal plane. There are many older aircraft options that perform as well. But the cabin comfort and shoulder room of the cirrus are hard to beat. Not to mention the ballistic parachute, which (for various reasons) is making the cirrus safer. As I understand it, it may work lower than specified.
Although it was not always so, the parachute does seem to be working out well now (the last few years). However it is not cheap to re do the parachute every so often.
Although it was not always so, the parachute does seem to be working out well now (the last few years). However it is not cheap to re do the parachute every so often.
Last edited:
