Show your Plane(s)

Our other fun times are in the air. Our MT prop was recently sent to Germany for overhaul. After 2 months they finally admitted that there was no estimated completion date because the glue needed to finish it was on backorder. We bought a new one so we could run and fly the airplane. Some day maybe we'll get the original one back so we can sell it. The jet in the background is one we work on. We own a maintenance facility on Addison airport.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well said Rudy!

 

One of many. I have a car problem, my wife has an airplane problem. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

My favorite P-40, with the lengthened tail arm. As a kid in 1942-1944 I watched these airplanes at Sarasota Air Base when they were in OTU and being flown by recent grads of advanced training schools. Many did not survive .

 

Mine as well - and none fo the funky look fo the K models. LuLu Belle is a M model which I prefer to the final N models as she still has the lovely scallops behind the pilot that are iconic to a P-40. Our plane was in Canada for WWII --- so it saw a ton of action ). Lack of any real action allowed it to be a survivor and is still probably 98% original metal and rivets. We are thrilled to be its current caretaker. Lovely flying plane with the nicest feel on the ailerons.

 

P-40 is such a beautiful aircraft... great photos of Lulu Belle Steve, love the Paint Scheme...amazing.

 

This airplane is for once has a proper finish and markings instead of the phony shiny waxed olive drab and incorrect lower surface grey. She looks like those that I remember. The only negative comments that I can recall is that it was too heavy but then that's how so many trainees survived some serious crashes at Sarasota AB. My buddy and I would ride our bikes out to the air base on Saturdays to watch the flight operations and we saw many accidents. P-40 pilots that I have known always say that it was a nice flying airplane. Not many harsh words about it.

 

I should have added that her flying activities attracted the interest of her brothers who then went into the business of manufacturing airplanes.

 

Just sealed the deal on this 74’ Q! No partner, all me! So much fun I’m broke!!! Hangared at KFWS. More pics on the journey home.

cheers
Dave
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well, what you said is just another way of saying the FAA did not FULLY spin certify it.

According to Stough and DiCarlo, "Both the Cirrus and Lancair were certified using spin-resistance certification standards; however, neither was certified as fully spin resistant." Cirrus, which had already made the decision to include a standard parachute system to solve other safety problems, proposed this as an ...Feb 5, 2003

You can read more about the exemption here from AOPA:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2003/february/pilot/spinning-in

 

You can try to parse my words in weird ways all you want but what is definitely NOT true is that “Cirrus HAD to add the chute due to FAA requirements” which is a direct quote from you. The FAA in no way forced Cirrus to add the chute. 100% incorrect statement.

 

Just don't think it's fully 100% spin certified and it would be considered unairworthy by the FAA if it didn't have a chute but you could prob get a ferry permit.

 

The big problem with the P-40 was that they were underpowered and had poor altitude performance. The XP-40Q fixed that, but did not make it into production since the P-51 late models were superior.


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well I don’t know what to tell you since you seem stubbornly resistant to facts. BTW - how do you feel about twins? Are they “fully spin certified”?

 

Rudy, it's pretty simple, take the chute off the cirrus and the FAA will declare it unairworthy.

 

You are quite dense aren't you? There are a lot of things that you can't take off an airplane and keep it airworthy. That doesn't mean it has a major flaw. And again, Cirrus completed the EASA / JAA required spin matrix for certification (with over 60 demonstrated spin entries) and here are the results (quoting directly from the report):

Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above referenced reports.

And remember that no twin is "spin certified" including all the twin jets like the Citation I fly and that does not make them any less safe than a single piston which should be obvious to most people.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you, you have your mind set on a silly falsehood that you seem hell bent on defending and it isn't worth my time. Hopefully others reading this who don't have a weird bias like you are able to see the reality.

 

Like I said, remove the chute and the FAA grounds the plane (but possible ferry permit might be allowed to get it to the shop to put the chute back on).

 

Realize that we are talking mid 30's design on the P-40 compared to nearly a decade later for the P-51. A lot of change happened during that period in aviation history. And yes, the XP-40Q and P-51 had much superior engines in them which where not available earlier in the war. Personally, greatly prefer the flight characteristics of the P-40 compared to the P-51. The P-40 remains light and agile on the controls throughout most of its flight envelope, the P-51 gets very heavy on the flight controls as it increases in speed - many compare it to flying a Mac truck at speed --- a very, very fast Mac truck. Please, let's not get started on a comparison of WWII fighters --- as far better folks than I have said, "the best fighter is always whichever one I am sitting in".

 

Thank you for noticing ---- authenticity is very important to me and all the shiny WWII fighters are a pet peeve.

 

Steve- Affirmative, my father always said the P-40 was a real joy to fly. Plus they cost a lot less than a P-51, or at least they did for quite a while. The Allisons in the P-40 and P-51A tended to be pretty bullet proof, too.

No comparison of WW-II fighters? That is half the fun.

 

Wouldn't surprise me it that were intentional to make it harder to overload the airframe. Not as though NA did not know how to design very light flight controls.

 

I don't own it but dry leasing this M2 now.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interior
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I love 310’s. Congratulations.

(nice paint, btw)

 

That is amazing! When you say "one of many" what is the full collection??