Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

A REAL airplane

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
JessMan said:
Allison 501-D22 (5000 shp de-rated to 4300) with Ham Stan props, streched 14 1/2 feet. The type can be both 340 & 440 'cause they converted both, mostly the military C-131 'cause of the beefed-up floor.

Rog....thanks. I kinda got out of the loop on what they were doing with those old beasts. I have about 7500 hrs in the 580 and another 7500 in the 340/440. The pistons were really nice. Quiet enough to converse in normal voice on take-off. The 580 had the power but oh the noise level. Almost as bad as the C-130 which was worst of all.

DC
 
A real airplane means something a bit different to each of us, for sure. Mine is ol' Double Ugly, the F-4 Phantom. I was supremely fortunate enough to fly it at a special place and a special time. I'll never forget, as a backseater, taking the controls, adjusting the rear view mirrors to see the swept up wingtips, and saying to myself "ohmyGod, I'm flying an F-4 phantom." I was fortunate enough to understand at the time just how lucky I was and to swear I'd never forget that feeling. I haven't. Thanks to the outstanding men I flew with, absolutely the best time I ever had in an airplane.
 
Grumman Guy said:
There is only one un-disputed real airplane. Its very simple but quite difficult for most airline types. The ultimate REAL airplane is the Grumman Goose.

Here is why!

1. Tail dragger

2. Twin radials R-985's

3. Amphibious

4. Throttles(not power levers) on the roof.

5. Made by Grumman


Everything that makes an airplane cool is incorporated here!


Agreed, has all the elements I talked about earlier. Having flown Grumman myself I can attest to there manufactuaring gunius.
 
Last edited:
Almost as bad as the C-130 which was worst of all.

Funny. The first time I got in a C-130, I had to keep looking out at the props and then back at the torque gauges during the takeoff roll. I though it was too quiet and too smooth. It was unnerving.
 
anything with both a radial engine and a tailwheel
well I was thinking conventional gear too, never flown the P51 Mustang but would have to say it qualifies.
 
Last edited:
I have an RV-8 in my garage that, hopefully by this summer, will be considered a real airplane. It even has a tailwheel, as it should...
 
Ok I see there are some fellow tow-rs out there and they are probably the only ones to get this, if you could do a swing in a trbo prop, single pilot wearing nothing but shorts and flipflops; THEN it would be a REAL airplane. But untill you've done a short/Soft field landing between the corn and the hanger +over a 80' obstacle... you haven't seen what makes flying truly fun!
 
90 HP cub, now that's fun!

I used to fly a 90 HP J3 cub a few years back. It was great, I'd untie it, turn into the wind and take off from the tie down spot. It was always airborne in about 10 to 15 feet if there was any wind at all.
 
DaveJ said:
I used to fly a 90 HP J3 cub a few years back. It was great, I'd untie it, turn into the wind and take off from the tie down spot. It was always airborne in about 10 to 15 feet if there was any wind at all.

A 180 horse J3 is an awsome plane too, used to tow banners in them. Flown a lot of 180 horse Super Cubs also, another fun one, but the J3 with the O-360 up front was a greattttt plane.
 
Most of my Cub time has been in the J3 with the C-65. I have flown the PA12 a few times and really like the extra power. I couldnt imagine 180 horses on the front of one though; that makes me want to tow banners just for that experience!

My friends and I always joke about how the FAA should have a "Low Perf. Endorsement" for the C-65 Cubs and other aircraft of the like.

au
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom