My first flights were in a T-41A in Casa Grande, AZ in 1968. I still have my checklist. Engine was a Continental O-300-D, 145 horsepower. Yes, a 76-inch fixed-pitch prop. My very first airplane was a 57 C-172 with the same powerplant.Originally Posted by rwanttaja
As Ron notes, the R172 (actually R-172E) was the T-41B. Lots of differences besides the constant speed, 210 HP IO-360D engine. It is really a different airplane -- and was a lot of fun to fly. The T-41A was the same airframe as the C-172 F, G, and H. The only difference was some military instruments and, or course, the paint scheme. T-41Cs were also R-172E's, but with a fixed pitch prop.
Yep..Navions in Warbirds. L-17's were NA-145 and Ryan Navion A. If I ever sell the Skypig, I could see getting a Navion. Almost as fast as the O-2, with similar useful load and only one engine to feed and care for. I would probably even paint it up in Army colors, but unless it had a military pedigree, I would like to think I would resist the urge to park it with WB. Some of the ones there are genuine L-17s. There is one that has been there the past couple of years that is a genuine L17,with full records and meticulously restored. Most are not former military. Generally the pilots are honest enough to tell you if you ask. (Tip: L-17s did not have wingtip tanks. Not saying than someone may not have an STC to add them on later, but...) On the other hand, if we didn't have the (non-L-17) Navions there, the Liaison line would be much less dense than it is.
Flying around in circles. More exciting than you might think. Dissimilar aircraft at the same altitude with about 1000' nose to tail (that's my story and I am sticking to it), 200' separation between stacks, and very tight maneuver box. Recovery is even more exciting. Spend more time taxiing and holding on the ground than in the air.
Year before last they let me do a "rocket run" with pyro on the ground. That was fun.:-D
Sorry, Chris. First, NA-145 was North American's designation for the production Navions (which were Navion and Navion A, the latter primarily differentiated by the change in the carb/fuel system). The L-17A was pulled from the Navion production. The L-17B and L-17C came from the Navion A production. After the first 1200 or so, the TC and production went to Ryan. Ryan introduced the Navion B (260HP engine). The Navion C was a one-off that was used as part of the competition that eventually became the T-34 (Beechcraft). It was argued that the military didn't want side-by-side seating.
One of the alternative Navion type clubs used to give out two awards at Oshkosh. One for the best (civilian) Navion and one for the best L-17. It had to be a real L-17, not a civilian delivered one modded to look like one. I only remember this as I on the civilian award that year.
Ron, thanks for providing the correct information. I knew that you were the expert on this and if I got it wrong, you would provide clarification.
There were a few "A"s procured for the USAF for screening pilot applicants. Lots of "B"s. I suppose that you can bring any old Skyhawk and pass it off as a warbird. An "A" would be easier. To pass as a "B", it would need the IO-360, the CS prop, the 4th tiedown, 700-7 mlg tires, 600-6 nose wheel. Last but not least, remove the spinner so everyone can see the naked prop dome. Do you suppose that the Pilot's manual is wrong to call it a R-172 R?
Bob, I have the pilots handbook right in front of me: It says "Cessna Model R172E (Army Model T-41B) Flight Handbook. According to Walt Shiel's "Cessna Warbirds" the USAF version of the R-172E had a fixed pitch prop and was designated T-41C.
Thanks for the input. My old dash ten is some where out in my shop. I think that what the R172R came from was it said that the B was a Reims Rocket. Back in the 60's, the French factory in Reims, (made Cessnas) made a model withe the IO360 and CS prop based on a Skyhawk airframe. The manual said that was the ancestry of the B. Just guessing based on the "R"s in the designation. Witchita could call it what they wanted. Just guessing at this point.
You would guess that it may have been a hot rod but I was dissapointed. Some days, I flew both a 1972 flying club Hawk and the T-41B within an hour of each other. They both performed about the same: Load carrying, ROC, cruise, TO distance. One difference was that you feel the extra weight in the nose on flare. The T41B had lot better altitude performance. I ballparked the Hawk at about 8 GPH. The fuel flow gauge in the T41B said about 12 GPH at the same IAS. I much preferred the T-42.
Bob
BTW, have never laid eyes on a T41A or C.
I have seen T-41A's at USAF Flying Clubs, although I suspect they were upgraded to the 180 hp engine. I read that this was a common practice. I flew a T-41 with 180 HP engine that belonged to the CAP. I also flew CAP T-41B and Hawk XP that belonged to CAP. My impressions were much the same as yours. I preferred the T-41B. The Hawk was a bit quicker, but it was better streamlined, with spinner and more tightly cowled nose. The B was roomier -- or seemed to be, anyway, and had beefy landing gear. Although they both had IO-360 engines, the Hawk was only rated at 195 HP. That was associated with an upper RPM limitation. As you noted, in practice (normal flight) there was little difference in performance.
Shoot...now you have got me thinking that a T-41B might be a nice replacement for what I have. (Although Ron could probably convince me that what I am really looking for is a Navion.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote