So I have very little flight time in crappy little planes. I'd love a P-51 but pilot friends tell me an L-39 is better cus its a lot less $ + it has an ejection seat. How many hrs would make one competent enough to fly an L-39 starting from scratch ? Thanks
I was up close and personal looking at some recently while in for a chopper first flight.. they sound like they suck juice at a prodigious rate.. are you sure going to be cheaper than a P-51?
Probably need an ejection seat in the L39 given how often I hear about those things crashing and killing the pilots. Not so much with the P51, which probably has a more death-free track record...at least for the ones that haven't been made to go faster than originally intended (i.e. Reno a few years ago ).
Not sure what the FAA regs might be but at least a few hundred at minimum. You are gonna need to start with some of those crappy little planes and gradually work your way up in complexity and speed. I'm not sure the L-39 is particularly dangerous.... More like it being the closest thing to a fighter jet that is more or less available. People get enough just competent enough to fly it and then crash when they either don't realize their limitations or can't handle it when thing go awry.
L-39 is not very difficult at all to fly but you must have 1000 hours in order to get a rating to fly one. I think there are more requirements besides the total time. You might look up a guy in Sante Fe who gives rides in one. I think there are others who do it as well. Plan on a fuel burn of 170 gallons per hour and jet fuel is approximately 5 to 6 dollars per gallon. A decent one can be bought for under 200K and there are a lot of them for sale. There have been a lot of crashes with them ever since they were first brought into the country. As a matter of fact 2 just crashed about 2 hour ago in Reno with no injuries. Almost all of the crashes have been pilot error.
Isn't this like asking "how many hrs would make on competent enough to drive a '70s F1 car starting from scratch?" F4U: is there a recurring theme with these L-39 crashes due to pilot error i.e. stalling, running out of fuel, etc?
My personal belief is that some of the accidents are due to overexcuberance from the pilot. High performance machines have a way of making you feel like you are much better then you really are. I have experienced several occasions where pilots have been transformed into thinking they were superhuman pilots once they feel the performance of the aircraft. Not all accidents are caused by this but I would like to think the ones I describe above are avoidable.
From what I have heard, a good number of the L-39 accidents were a result of failure/inability to anticipate the spool up time of the turbine. I used to think I wanted one. Now, I just want an Extra! I'd get a p-51, but that's just me. Either way, you're looking at A LOT of training, not only to satisfy the FAA, but also to make sure you avoid an early dirt nap.
Thread reminded me of this: 172 to L-39: Making the jump to jets - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Chapter 9 OTHER AIRMEN AUTHORIZATIONS ~1090 hours if you are starting from 0.
The accidents I remember One disappeared in Lake Michigan doing aerobatics 2 fatal There was one that crashed in Alaska in near 0/0 conditions 1 fatal A good friend of mine in Alabama had the door open and FOD out the engine 1 fatal Crash during the Reno races 1 fatal 2 crashed at Reno today no injuries Recent crash in Iowa 1 fatal unknown cause Crash on Take off I think Nevada or Arizona 2 fatal I know there a lot more but these are the ones I remember off the top of my head. The Extra is a great airplane. I bought mine new in 1996 and it is one of the best flying airplanes there is.
If I recall correctly P-51s sell for around $1.5M versus $200k for the L39. You can buy a lot of fuel for that delta. I think L-39s are inherently safer too. Turbo-jet engines are a breeze to operate. P-51s have so much torque, many pilots have corkscrewed them into the ground on go arounds. We've often been trained to jam the throttles forward and doing such in a P-51 turns the bird upside down from all the torque. Of course that alone makes me want to have one.
Also I think most L-39s have the ejection seat rendered inop. It's an explosive and as such I think you need a permit from the ATF just to have it, not sure about that though. There seems to be a big concern with them going off uncommanded as well. P-51 will have better potential for appreciation I would think. Also, isn't the P-51 just a big 12 cylinder piston engine? As such you would only need a private pilots license and high performance endorsement, attainable after 40 hours. You'll kill yourself for sure, but I believe that's all the regs would require.
The Mustang is 1000% more dangerous then a L-39 except in one area. And this is why I parked my little jet several years ago. If you have ever seen a WW2 warbird make a belly landing, it is usually a non event. Even when a friend of mine went through trees that tore off his wings he still got out with just a scratch on his fore head. But when you belly in a jet you have a lot of inertia that will stop rather quickly. With a piston airplane if the crash is severe enough the engine will leave the airframe and a lot of the inertia will leave with it. With a jet a sudden or quick declaration can cause the engine (in the Back) to break from its mounts and the next item forward is the fuel tank and then of course the pilot. There fore the fireball. 2 Mustangs crashed in the last 5 years due to the same thing that has plagued them since the beginning, exactly as mentioned earlier you can not cobb the throttle at low speed and live. I have about 75 hours in the L-39 and over 500 in the Mustang, they are both great machines but have to be respected for their dark corners. The Extra literally has no bad traits that I am aware of.
If a pilot with moderate time doesn't have the feel of an "airplane", any airplane, chances are that his time in it will be short. I have seen this many times where a pilot knows all the ground school work and can move the controls to achieve the desired maneuver but does not have that innate sense of what the airplane is doing. One incident that illustrated this was a flight on which my wife and I were invited by a friend who just received his license. before takeoff he missed hitting an airplane that was landing because he didn't hear the tower order s to stay put. On take off he pulled the airplane up to near stall speed and I had to push forward on the yoke when we were getting below 50MPH. Landing at Roche Harbor he made his approach into a setting sun that was blinding him and we were straddling the left boundary of the runway that had rows of large shielded lights. Again, I had to take the airplane when he said that he couldn't see anything. I somehow managed to get the airplane straightened out and down. Flying back at night, I watched him like a hawk and thanked the good Lord when we touched down safely at Boeing Field. All subsequent invitations to go flying with him were politely refused. Anyone who contemplates simply getting some lessons and then getting into a high performance jet is playing against long odds of surviving and hopefully has that sense of feeling the airplane before he gets many many hours of instruction and experience. There are fliers and drivers. If you buy a jet you had better be a flier first.
I couldn't agree more And then add in the hero factor "I fly jet fighters" and death is certainly on it's way. I have yet to meet an L-39 pilot call his aircraft a trainer. They call it a fighter. I have a couple of funny stories about the ego's, fighter ownership and flight suits but I don't think it would be proper to put it on an open forum. I have seen fully loaded airliners exceed their Vne to try and beat me into the airport when I was flying my Soko jet. And I have had multiple times were a high time instructor type was trying to get me to do low level aerobatics just because there was a crowd watching. I am never comfortable in a new type until I have a 100 hours in the airplane.
Can't you just feel the love of aviation with the crappy little planes comment. Those little planes have a lot to teach you long before you move on to the faster stuff. Learn to enjoy the less complicated aircraft until you feel totally comfortable in them. What you learn at the lower airspeed and altitudes will stay with you for your entire flying career. Rushing into anything usually is not a good idea....especially in aviation. As you build time and experience you may still want to move on to faster aircraft and will be better prepared for the upgrade. After a life and career in aviation I've never seen a crappy airplane large or small. Some are better than others but all give us the gift of flight as long as we treat them with respect and operate them within their limitations. Having flown many years ago a Super Pinto Jet I can understand the attraction you feel though. Haven't had that much fun with my clothes off.
I think in reverse now, looking back at the happier days and what I did. I make no statement to embellish the experiences because they were nothing to crow about. I don't have a gazillion hours because most all of my flying was in smaller airplanes with limited duration and none of it achieved a fig of recognition except that it was a most enjoyable exposure to what went before the modern equipment. I flew something like 45 different little airplanes, the largest being a 1933 Boeing 247 but only for an hour in 1966. I was in the right seat and Jack Leffler was PIC. I flew Ernie Gann's Cessna 310 and Mike Strong's Lockheed 12 for about two hours in each, three good landings in the Lockheed. Then there was a long list of little guys that would be boring to recount all but on the list is a 1930 Pietenpol Air Camper, a 1930 Kinner powered Brunner-Winkle Bird, a Monocoupe 90AW, the biplane Fly Baby, the monoplane Fly Baby, several old Aeroncas, 1946 Champs, most all of the Pipers starting with a 1937 Cub, a clipped wing Champ with a 125 Lycoming that was a horrible mess, and all of the PT series. My point to make is that I learned a treasure of things from each one of the machines that allowed me to face their idiosyncrasies and they all had them. One has to quickly engage with a strange airplane and discern what its signals are and how to react to them and then fly them the way THEY want to be flown. It's an enjoyable experience as well as an educational one because you quickly learn to cancel future flights in those with less endearing personalities. I learned early on to join with the airplane and FLY IT EVERY MINUTE to achieve the joy of being in control and, most of all , making friends with the airplane. If not, they can be nasty when you ignore them. My favorites are still the old Cub and the Stearman PT-13. I can't believe that I forgot my 2 hours in a DC-3 with Classic Airlines.
To call any little airplane "crappy" (ok, maybe a Tomahawk) is to show ones ignorance of aviation. Please don't attempt to move up the ladder by skipping those rungs. You won't be around very long if you do.
Start in a Cub or a Champ. Nothing crappy there and they are the best. As a completely more modern option, do what the US Air Force does, start in a Cirrus SR 20 - it even has a built in parachute. Not as good as a Champ, but quite the modern, fast and flown by professionals and celebrities everywhere. The place to go would be Harmony Air in Nashville. Randy Harmon has taught many celebrities and professionals in their own Cirruses, and is a great guy. He can later check you out in a jet if you want. OBTW: More L-39 in action: http://news.yahoo.com/no-injuries-reno-plane-collision-air-races-150759349.html
William, My 'guess' would be to start with a nice T-28B/C. You have 80% of the performance of the P-51 with 20% of the price. It is easy to land. Minimum requirements are 500 hours to be rated in the T-28B/C. With Jets you need buckets of money + a lot of flight time. The price for admission, is well beyond the cost for the basic MIG-21BIS waiting to fly.
