With the homebuilts, or with the warbirds?
http://www.wanttaja.com/zero_gl.jpg
Ron Wanttaja
Printable View
With the homebuilts, or with the warbirds?
http://www.wanttaja.com/zero_gl.jpg
Ron Wanttaja
With the antiques, with the warbirds, with the homebuilts, or with the ultralights?
http://www.wanttaja.com/little_tiger.jpg
Ron "Weeding out some old pictures" Wanttaja
The RV-6A is a legitimate warbird by the rules. The Nigerian airforce used them. (WoA doesn't require your plane to actually have been owned by a military, just the same model, a lot of the L-17's out there never were owned by the military).
We'll park old homebuilts in Vintage if you insist provided they were actually built before the end of 1970 (for classics) or 1945 (for antiques). Occassionally someone slips in a "looks like that old" recent built in there, but according to the actual rules they are ineligible (only those that can be legitimately judged in our categories).
Good to know! :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingRon
http://www.wanttaja.com/red_rv.jpg
Ron "Larger right seat for the moose" Wanttaja
I park my L16 in the vintage area rather than the war birds as the "Liaison" part of the war birds area kind of an afterthought as far as much traffic going by. It's much better being camped where the 'action is' anyway.
Years ago before I started volunteering there (now they recognize me coming in and escort me to my space) I got caught in a loop at Oshkosh. Vintage sent me to warbirds and warbirds turned me around to vintage (this is before they came up with the sign idea). On the second loop, I stopped at Vintage and told them I wasn't a warbird.
If you want to get technical (and it would appear that you do:)) the model used by the Nigerian AF was not a stock -6A but was modified into something called the "Air Beetle." So an Air Beetle would qualify as a WB but not a stock -6A.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingRon
Now, when the "homebuilt" Spitfire replica showed up a couple years ago, that created quite the conundrum! WB didn't seem interested, so we took him in homebuilt and proudly displayed it... right across the taxiway from warbirds.
It was called the "Air Beetle" but I'm not sure what modifications were done. I thought Van just shipped them RV6A kits. Taiwan used Pazmany PL-1s as well. There are the only two "eligible" warbird homebuilts I know about.
I don't think the "Air Beetle" moniker ever became an official designator? According to the NAF's own information, "The Air Beetle is a Van RV-6A"
And if RV-6A models qualify, a standard RV-6 would not, no? Different model.
I'll have to research the NAF (for that matter any military around the world) and see if they ever used a C-172. That would make C-172's eligible for warbird status, no? Imagine a mass fly-in of C-172's all headed to warbird parking, lol.
"The Cessna T-41 Mescalero is a military version of the popular Cessna 172, operated by the United States Air Force and Army as well as the armed forces of various other countries as a pilot training aircraft."
The 172F and 172H are the corresponding civilian airframes for the T-41. I don't know what the WoA rules for these are. I've got Corinne's email around here somewhere if you want to ask her.
I knew I recalled some info on Vans website back in the day, and thanks to the payback machine, I found it. This is from the 1999 version of Vansaircraft.com. It stuck in my mind because I started my RV-6 in 1999 and had this site committed to memory. A partial quote and a link to the website:
The RV-6A was modified to include extensive electronics, and other minor aerodynamic changes to suit Nigerian flying conditions.
https://web.archive.org/web/19981206...ns/spe-naf.htm
There was a long string on this topic on the Warbirds site of this forum last year. It is a sore topic for some, including me. There are people (and I try to be one of them) that research a plane, find one, spend a lot of time, effort, and money to restore and maintain an airplane with combat history as a piece of living history. This has been an endeavor far more expensive than if I had bought and maintained a C-337A through F. But it is worth it to me because I am preserving history. Then, to have someone come in with a a model of an aircraft that in some variation of its type certificate had seen service in some military somewhere at some time, and then park it among the warbirds because of that (with or without bothering to paint-it up) is kind of disheartening. Now, if that particular C-172 had actually started life as a T-41A, then come on down and I appreciate what you have done to keep the history alive!
I am not entirely dogmatic about it. One year, a C-337, painted up quite nicely as an O-2B was parked next to my O-2A. I could tell from the serial number and other minor differences that wasn't an O-2B (although the 42 O-2B's the Air Force bought actually started life as civilian demonstrator models of the Skymaster.) I asked the pilot about it. He told me that the plane belonged to his father, who had recently died. He was trying to sell it and thought it would get more interest if it were parked in Warbirds than if he parked it in Vintage. I welcomed him as my next door neighbor and I was more than happy to steer all interested parties in his direction.
But generally I am NOT happy about such things. Personal preference and I know that WoA allows it. (They just can't be judged as warbirds.)
Navions are much the same way. L-17s came off the line just like every other Navion of the same time period. You can put one in to Military markings and the only way to tell is to look up the serial number. A lot of L-17s I've seen in Warbirds don't look particularly authentic. The laughable one was the one marked Ar Farce One up there. Never looked to see if that one was a real L-17 that had been ludicrously civilianized or just someone's idea that parking in Warbirds would be fun.
I always thought flying around in cricles during the L-bird demo might be fun some year,...
I feel your pain Chris, and we have a similar situation in the homebuilt area with factory-built examples of LSAs that want to park among the homebuilts. We don't always catch them all but when we do they are spun around and headed north (as in north 40.)
The Air Beetle discussion was just an academic exercise and stroll down memory lane. Personally, I think anyone who shows up in an RV and tries to park in WB should be sent of to Fond du Lac... except for maybe a certain senator.
IIRC The Air Beetle had a taller canopy to accommodate the Nigerians. After spin testing they had to increase the rudder/VS height as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Point
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/.../6/1712640.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by bigdog
Tail definitely looks taller. Hard to tell, with a slider vs. the more usual tip-canopy, but the bow does look taller.
Ron Wanttaja
http://zero.peachcountry.com/images/zero09_jpg.jpg
http://zero.peachcountry.com/images/zero38_jpg.jpg
http://zero.peachcountry.com/images/zero32_jpg.jpg
Car was formerly owned by my great grandpa, a fighter pilot, who actually fought Zeros.
I don't think my dad ever told him what he did to his car ;-)
One of the reasons I picked the same colors for my plane; I loved riding around in Zero. My dad would say, "Let's go flying!", and as fast as my dad drove, we might as well have been flying.
More pictures: Zero - My Dad's Old Car after High School
http://air-war.org/Marlee2_in_water.jpg
The "Dash 10" (Operators manual) describes it as a R172R. Further describes it as a REIMS ROCKET. Six cyl TCM & CS prop. 4th tiedown point aft of the nose wheel. Not really a Skyhawk.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleB
I believe that was the T-41B. The T-41A had an O-300 and a fixed-pitch prop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Dingley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T-41_Mescalero
I got a few hours on a T-41A, back as a CAP cadet in the '70s. Don't remember the engine, but it did have a fixed pitch prop.
Ron Wanttaja
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Dingley
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingRon
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Dingley
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil
From my research, the T-41 versions were all on the same type certificate as the C175, P172D (which I own), R172 (Reims Rocket), 172RG (Cutlass RG), and 172XP--which is not the type certificate of the 172. There are some functional differences between the two type certificates, not just the engines and CS vs. fixed pitch props (or the geared engines on the 175). Incidentally, although none of the T-41s have spinners, they are required equipment on the civilian equivalents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
The higher powered versions don't go much faster than the others, but they climb better and higher. My P172D has a 180hp Lycoming instead of the original 175hp Continental, both with a CS prop. It will go neck and neck with an XP at cruise, although the XP will slightly out climb it. I've had mine to 15,000', the alleged service ceiling, but it's a real strain; 14,000' is more consistently doable except in the hottest weather. An XP's service ceiling is 17,000'.
But in the end, they're all 172s of one sort or another, and they all fly very similarly. None of them are particularly quick; even the quickest (the Cutlass RG) is no speed demon at allegedly 140 knots cruise but from my experience more likely to cruise at under 135 knots. The draggy airframes just don't allow for speed. But they're all pretty pleasant to fly, without any bad habits or "gotchas".
Cary
Cary, great information about the C-175 type certificate also covering the T-41B, C, and D. However, the T-41A is the same type certificate for the 172. The FAA Type Certificate for the C-172 (172, and 172 A-S) shows the 172F and the 172H as also being T-41A.
WOWQuote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
I did a story about that airplane, the Bradley Special, in Sport Aviation in March of 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by C 172 Pilot
Updated - see attached .PDF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Warbirds or Transports?
http://www.wanttaja.com/awacs.jpg
Ron Wanttaja
Actually, we had fun with the Snowbirds at Oshkosh this summer. We were drinking with Snowbird 10 (Naughty) and 11 (Sticky) when the were at Dulles. These guys were told that THE Oshkosh experience was to camp with their plane. They were going to do it at least one night. I told them that it's not the same if they were up on the Basler ramp where most of that stuff gets parked. Then it occurred to me that the Tudors they were flying were old enough to park in Vintage. I told them if they wanted to park and camp with us, I'd arrange a prime spot in the Vintage area. They figured they couldn't do it for security reasons.
Well, these guys are pretty crafty and banged on the Airventure staff. So for one night, they tugged Snowbird 10's aircraft down to Vintage and we parked it in front of our operations building. The EAA donated two tents, sleeping bags, air mattresses, chairs, and a cooler of local beer (they are Canadians after all) so they could camp:
Here is a picture of several of us setting up their campsite in Vintage:
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...f7&oe=5995B534
Later hanging around at our campsite drinking, Naughty wanted to know about the dots on the runway. After explaining it, he said that flying the Ripon arrival was one of their bucket list items. I told them that we could go out and do it in the Navion. In fact, we got two Navions so both 10 and 11 could go in separate planes. We even rangled an RV for a camera plane.
Here's 10 in my plane forming up on 11 in Trevor Smith's Navion (you'll note that Trevor and his Navion, despite the stars and bars, are Canadian). After letting them fly formation for a while and them teaching us a little formation flight, we let them each do ONE landing at an outlying field and then made them fly the RIPON procedure back to Oshkosh. Naughty's landing was a whole lot better than Sticky's. Naughty missed the dot but landed softly. Sticky slammed Trevor's plane pretty hard into the dot.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...e5&oe=594C9CF6
I asked them what was left on their Oshkosh bucket list. They said they had already made plans to direct traffic on the runway with the pink shirts but they wanted to drive one of the volkswagons (a bunch of modified VW bugs are assigned to various chairmen on the field). No problem, says I. I run over to the chairman and tell him I'm taking the bug for 20 minutes and we let Sticky and Naughty take turns driving it down the length of Vintage.
Alas, Naughty couldn't reciprocate and take me flying in the Tudor, but they did let us sit in one....
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...2a&oe=59826D50
The Snowbirds Tudor in Vintage camping is one of the most incongruent aviation pics I have ever seen and I love it. Another incongruent pic is the Navion in formation with Navy plus US insignia with a large Canadian registration.
Neat stuff, Ron. Thanks for sharing that.
Chris, You wouldn't be happy with a T-41B. See if you can find a USAF U-17B (Cessna 185). The "Ravens" used them, plus a lot of small Airforces. Last but not least, the VNAF flight school used them as primary trainers. VNAF flt school was the adjoining unit at my base at Nha Trang by-the-sea in RVN. They had the standard USAF grey paint with the slightly altered US national star and bar. Air America also used them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
Bob