dark light

Which warbird would you most like to have a flight in ?

For those of us less fortunates, if you were given the opportunity to fly in ONE warbird, ANY warbird, what aircraft type would you choose ?

I’d go for a ……. Spitfire

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

373

Send private message

By: willy.henderick - 5th August 2004 at 09:58

David Burke, the aircraft I refered to had been completely stripped of fabrics, engine dismantled and zero-timed.Don’t know the type of this check for private aeroplane would be similar to a C-check on airliners.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 5th August 2004 at 08:32

Has anyone got information on the landing speeds for later marks?
Cheers
Andy

From a flight test report by the late Jeff Ethell, flying Rudy Frasca’s MkXVIII:

Touch-down at around 85kts (or 97.9mph)

But that’s a restored one – probably a bit more with an in-service machine, I would imagine.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,127

Send private message

By: Mark12 - 5th August 2004 at 00:26

Top of the props.

The Lancaster is top of my list by a mile.

However since recent events, the Mig 29 or EE Lightning do have appeal.

Mark

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

311

Send private message

By: adwwebber - 4th August 2004 at 22:08

i would have to say a trip to Thunder City would pretty much cover me, but would’nt turn down anything if it was offered and especialy a chance to fly in 558 or a victor.

ah well !! the dream is still festering in the bottom of the penny jar on the fire place looks like about £100 in it now only another £10,000 till i get to South Africa !

better go now off to wander the house looking for odd change lying around !!

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,233

Send private message

By: Andy in Beds - 4th August 2004 at 22:07

if they land as slow as I’ve been told (about 75 MPH?)

Right Patty I’m going to get a bit technical now so if you can’t keep up just ask and I’ll explain again more slowly.

According to ‘British Flight Testing. Martlesham Heath 1920-1939 by Tim Mason published by Putnam 1993 Spitfire Mk.I K9787 was tested at Martlesham in early 1939 and the landing speed was measured at 60 MPH. This particular aircraft was fitted with the early type two-pitch three blade propellor and a Rolls Royce Merlin II engine.
Has anyone got information on the landing speeds for later marks?
Cheers
Andy

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 4th August 2004 at 21:33

An early Mk. Spitfire, as I really would like to see if…

1. they’re really that aerobatic, like a Pitts with a Merlin engine. And,

2. if they land as slow as I’ve been told (about 75 MPH?)

Ahh, but they do, Steve. I flew a Mk1 in a previous life. Much nicer to fly than a Mustang 😉

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,355

Send private message

By: David Burke - 4th August 2004 at 21:22

Willy – In fairness any aircraft you fly in has just come out of some kind of maintenance. It could be a full strip down or just oil/fuel and wipe the windscreen . Having looked at some aircraft that are flying about I would say
that an aircraft straight out of maintenance is no bigger risk than something which has a fault developing.

As for choice of warbird flight has to be L-5 Sentinel .

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,462

Send private message

By: ALBERT ROSS - 4th August 2004 at 21:19

I’d go for something even larger and be a Jimmy Stewart for a bit….
The B-36 Peacemaker….have to be the later ones with the 6 turnin’ and 4 burnin’….. 🙂

…and in which airworthy B-36 would that be in??? :confused: :confused:

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

705

Send private message

By: srpatterson - 4th August 2004 at 21:15

An early Mk. Spitfire, as I really would like to see if…

1. they’re really that aerobatic, like a Pitts with a Merlin engine. And,

2. if they land as slow as I’ve been told (about 75 MPH?)

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

197

Send private message

By: Feather #3 - 4th August 2004 at 20:44

Sea Fury!

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

119

Send private message

By: yak139 - 4th August 2004 at 16:02

Me I’m not fussy, the chance of just one of the above mentioned aircraft will do me!

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

373

Send private message

By: willy.henderick - 4th August 2004 at 14:42

I wouldn’t, as a schoolboy I survived, fortunately uninjured, a stall at take-off caused by a dead engine coming just out of maintenance in aformer US Air Forde liaison aircraft.
Now, I never fly anymore in an aircraft coming out of maintenance (Wathever the number of engines), a single-engined aircraft of anything oldrr than I am.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,995

Send private message

By: Firebird - 3rd August 2004 at 09:46

With the criteria of having to be currently airworthy and have more than one seat…… :rolleyes:

A tough choice then between either PA474 or either of ThunderCities 2 x Lightning T.5’s……. 😀

A few years ago it would have been an easy descision….RR299….. 🙁

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,892

Send private message

By: mike currill - 3rd August 2004 at 09:28

Hunter

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

119

Send private message

By: st170dw - 30th July 2004 at 22:08

Any!

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 30th July 2004 at 12:15

Wouldn’t mind a go in a B-17. I was standing right by Sally B for much of Flying Legends – and I never went aboard!! 🙁

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

65

Send private message

By: Nosedive - 30th July 2004 at 09:27

It would have to be a Hind, A fantastic sound and sight when in flight

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

50

Send private message

By: Woody - 30th July 2004 at 00:36

Erm…….airworthy: Spitfire

Including soon to be airworthy: Tempest II

Any: Tempest V

Woody

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,549

Send private message

By: turbo_NZ - 29th July 2004 at 03:19

Slight problem, none flying.

Perhaps we should limit this to currently airworthy warbirds, as Steve Young’s already suggested.

Otherwise, I’d like to change my choice to a Me323 Gigant!!! 😀

I’d go for something even larger and be a Jimmy Stewart for a bit….
The B-36 Peacemaker….have to be the later ones with the 6 turnin’ and 4 burnin’….. 🙂

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

25

Send private message

By: airtanker - 29th July 2004 at 02:18

Ride

Why the Mid Atlantic Air Museums P-61.
don 😮

1 2 3
Sign in to post a reply