Running costs for a Fairchild PT-19? | Page 2 | FerrariChat
Buy

Running costs for a Fairchild PT-19?

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by GrigioGuy, Oct 22, 2007.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Blue@Heart

    Blue@Heart F1 Rookie

    Jun 20, 2006
    3,889
    Yellowknife, NWT
    Full Name:
    David
    #26 Blue@Heart, Feb 28, 2010
    PRC?
     
  2. GrigioGuy

    GrigioGuy Splenda Daddy
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Nov 26, 2001
    33,425
    E ' ' '/ F
    Full Name:
    Enzo Gorlomi
    #27 GrigioGuy, Feb 28, 2010
    How very cool. I did pick up the book; it's in storage right now along with everything else.

    Yup. And still planning to get a trainer warbird at some point. It's just been an interesting ride since I first posted the thread.
     
  3. pistolpete19

    pistolpete19 Rookie

    Feb 27, 2010
    3
    #28 pistolpete19, Feb 28, 2010
    Did you see the pictures I posted of the PT??
     
  4. GrigioGuy

    GrigioGuy Splenda Daddy
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Nov 26, 2001
    33,425
    E ' ' '/ F
    Full Name:
    Enzo Gorlomi
    #29 GrigioGuy, Mar 1, 2010
    Yes I did. Beautiful plane, thanks for posting them.

    How's your ownership experience been?
     
  5. pistolpete19

    pistolpete19 Rookie

    Feb 27, 2010
    3
    #30 pistolpete19, Apr 7, 2010
    The 19 has been a real pleasure, only trouble to speak of has been the brakes and that was caused by my using the wrong fluid when servicing. It handles really nice and a bad landing has to be intentional,
    I also have a Steen Skybolt and transition to it in landing is intense. The oil consumption (and/or leakage) is as I have always heard, approx. one quart per hour of running time.
     
  6. ArtS

    ArtS F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Nov 11, 2003
    14,028
    Central NJ
    #31 ArtS, Apr 12, 2010
    Tillman,

    Are you set on WWII or would Korea work? The L-17 Navion might be worth a look.

    Regards,

    Art S.
     
  7. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #32 snj5, Apr 12, 2010
    I think a Navion is a good practical choice as well, although I'm partial to earlier planes.

    If you just want to have very inexpensive fun while you're saving your money... go to barnstormers.com and search "nieuport", and then search "ww1" for some replica Nieuport and Fokker LSA/UL planes. Cheap fun and real flying.
     
  8. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    8,018
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    #33 Bob Parks, Apr 12, 2010
    I don't know of a more practical or enjoyable aircraft than the Navion. They are very nice to fly, sturdy, stabile, and reliable. They aren't as fast as the Bonanza or as sexy but they are a great and solid airplane.
     
  9. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #34 snj5, Apr 14, 2010
    And no wood center section.
    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
     
  10. Mark1651X

    Mark1651X Rookie

    Sep 2, 2012
    1
    #35 Mark1651X, Sep 2, 2012
    I am considering the purchase of a PT-26 as a historical tailwheel aircraft. I originally was considering a Chipmunk, but it may be a PT-26 is more practical and a little bigger. I was curious about the comments on this thread regarding the aircraft's durability and suitability for aerobatics. Clearly, originally it would have needed to perform aerobatics but these days the pt community seems to not use these aircraft this way, as opposed to the BT, PT-17, and Chipmunk community. Is there any reason for that or any reason why these aircraft should not be used for modest low-g aerobatics (e.g. rolls barrel rolls, loops, )?
     
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page