Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,446
Likes: 951
R
Member/10,000+ posts!
Member/10,000+ posts!
R Offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,446
Likes: 951
Dennis,

Interesting comparisons. I've got a friend who owns a Taylorcraft L-2. I've always thought the swiveling rear seat was interesting, but figured it was built for very small people.

I was not aware of the design changes in the airplanes you mentioned - however, they sound like they degrade performance rather badly, so, in a rational world, they would be worth less than the civilian airplane.

But, who ever said aviation was rational? wink

(Can you imagine how good the pilots had to have been to fly those off of roads and farm fields in Europe doing the things they did with the horsepower they had available? Wow.)

Sliding the thread a little further from the topic, it's interesting to compare the "L" airplanes of World War II with their minimal power and "just give us something we can use as quickly as possible" design philosophy with the Cessna L-19 from less than ten years later in Korea. While the L-19 was designed and thrown together in a matter of days when the Army put out a "build us something yesterday" letter, it was not an off the shelf airplane converted for the military as was the later O-2 and the earlier Pipers, Aeroncas, Stinsons and Taylorcraft (yeah it used a lot of Cessna 170 parts, but it was a new design). It has a very large, comfortable cockpit, a boatload of power and delightful handling (although the stick is about six inches longer than makes sense).

The last I saw L-19s were demanding high five-figure prices and while I like flying them a lot and have a ball with the 60 degrees of flap, for that kind of money I'd get a Cessna 180 or 185 rather than having the cachet of owning a "warbird" in which I can only carry one passenger and cruises about 20 knots slower than a 180 on the same fuel burn.

Best regards,
Rick

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,446
Likes: 951
R
Member/10,000+ posts!
Member/10,000+ posts!
R Offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,446
Likes: 951
Originally Posted by Catherine
Originally Posted by Rick_Durden
You are in trouble - that's the hard-nose conversion with all those .50s up front. Catherine can use it to punch right through the bunker like a hot knife through butter.


laugh


Hey, Poobs!

I think you should pay attention to the tone of what Catherine's not saying.

You're doomed.

Helmet on, staying well clear of Texas mode,
Rick

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 35,588
Likes: 565
DA POOBS
Member with 30,000+ posts!!
DA POOBS
Member with 30,000+ posts!!
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 35,588
Likes: 565
Originally Posted by Rick_Durden
Originally Posted by Catherine
Originally Posted by Rick_Durden
You are in trouble - that's the hard-nose conversion with all those .50s up front. Catherine can use it to punch right through the bunker like a hot knife through butter.


laugh


Hey, Poobs!

I think you should pay attention to the tone of what Catherine's not saying.

You're doomed.

Helmet on, staying well clear of Texas mode,
Rick



Rick!!!




...you're not helping.... eek grin


[Linked Image from animatedimages.org] [animatedimages.org] [Linked Image from visitedstatesmap.com]
Imagine a united world.
Join the Popular Front for the Reunification of Gondwanaland.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,015
B
Member/1000+posts
Member/1000+posts
B Offline
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,015
Rick, you have a warbird! Go here and scroll down to Civil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_150

(I got an email from a club advertising their fly-in. They said free breakfasts for warbirds who flew in. So I sent him this site.)

Last edited by Jean; 05/04/11 06:21 AM.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,847
Likes: 264
Member/2500+posts
Member/2500+posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,847
Likes: 264
Originally Posted by Dennis_Geivett

Rick-
Can't vouch for an L-2 or L-4, but a military model L-3 is a different beast from the Champ or Chief. On our plane the rear seat could be turned towards the rear and a small map table could be folded down. Our L-3 had a non-working coffee grinder radio w/ a trailing antenna that was quickly removed from the plane because of weight issues.

But the biggest differences were in the airframe and wings. The fuselage was reinforced to military specs making the weight/balance critical. The tail was heavy compared to a Champ and one had to watch carefully the weight of your passenger and baggage. Gary's motto, "Fly naked" comes into play, here.

The airfoil on our L-3 wing was essentially the same used on the Chief. Our L-3 was marginally faster than a Champ, but the climb was abyssmal, (and that nearly got me killed). Not sure the wing was original L-3, but conversations with an couple of other L-3 owners confirm the W/B and the climb characteristics.

The Confederate Commemorative AirForce group at nearby St. Charles, MO.(KSET) owned a restored L-3 and it was placarded against anyone over 100 pounds in the rear seat. Another L-3 owner near Springfield was so spooked by the aircraft that he replaced the 65hp powerplant with an 85hp. His rationale:

"The hell with authenticity. I wanna survive."




Dennis,

There is one just like you described at DAW. As the story goes it had been painfully restored by a museum and then bought by its current owner. Looks great! table in the rear with reversible seat etc. The new owner didn't have much tail wheel time and so was a little afraid of it (yeah, I know) and so it sat.

Last year a harsh wind storm hit and apparently did some damage to the ailerons. Owner has yet to fix it and it continues to sit.


"If Your Cessna is older than your wife..." You might Be a Redneck.


www.abpomeroy.com [abpomeroy.com]
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0