failing that a twin turboprop such as the Shorts Skyvan or the Twin Pioneer or even a Brit & Norman Islander would do the trick, and you would even stand a good chance of surviving the trip.

Ahem. Considering your comments about the “non suitablity” of a Citabria for the task in hand, due to mainly, it´s age, I would like to point to you the fact that the Shots Skyvan is already about 50 years old, and is based very firmly on the Miles Aerovan of 1946. The TwinPin is also little over 50 years old. The Islander is also pushing 50, so what is your point about the Citabria being too old?

Is it possible that your glider might have been the Let-Kunovitce Blanik?

It was czech made in the sixties, and very popular world wide.

and weather it is a flyer or not.
G-ANPK

From the website “possibly to flying condition but more likely to be for static display.”

That is fantastic:D

I’ve never really understood why the British designers seemed so reticent to embrace swept wings even after the war.

It might have something to do with the fact, that the Country of England was basically bankrupt after the war. Money for the testing of radical new designs, was simply not there, so progress was slow.

England and Germany made the good ole US of A what they are to day. The americans didn´t have a jet engine until the british gave them the drawings. They didn´t have the swept wing until they took it from the germans (along with the axial flow jet). The flying tail as used on the X1, and the Sabre, was a british invention, planned for the Miles M52, given to the americans by the labour government in 1946, without which it is doubtful the X1 would have gone through the sound barrier.

The very design of the Miles M52 was streets ahead of the X1. For one, it was designed to go supersonic using an experimental afterburning Whittle engine, while the X1 was rocket powered from the outset. The M52 was also designed as a lead in to a supersonic fighter, that’s why it was to take off on it’s own, rather than being carried aloft. Whether the M52 could have broken the sound barrier will never be known, because it was cancelled by a bankrupt goverment amidst spiralling costs, but if it had been continued with, it should have been some months ahead of the X1 through the barrier.

British designers were by no means backwards at the time. One only needs to look at Barnes Wallis ideas of a supersonic transport*bomber that he drew in the late 40’s early 50’s. It is all down to a bankrupt country after the end of the war. If they had not been so bad money wise, the brits could have been ways ahead of the americans.

One only needs to remember the Canadian Avro Arrow and the british TSR2 to see how the americans deal with designs that look like they are going to exceed their own capabilities.

Having read the missives re looping aircraft, the stresses on a loop are not all that great, my C150 Aerobat shows 3.5G in a loop.
The a/c is stressed +6G, -3G therefore + 3.5G is well within design standards and a spin is a 1G manoevre.
When I was training for my ppl One of my instructors looped a C152 without a G meter fitted as it is quite a gentle manouvre.
About 5 years ago I was present when a Fiat G222 was rolled at an airshow but cannot remember where(either Farnbororough or Fairford)

Having read that, I must ask, do you know the limit load factor for the B-17? It is certainly not +6/-3, that is for aerobatic category aeroplanes. A normal C- 150/152 (non-aerobatic version) is stressed to +4.4/-1.52 limit load. A C-172 is normally only +3.5 limit load, but with certain conditions being met (forward C of A) it is also +4.4/-1.52. So, yes, these can be looped safely at the +4.4 limit.
Transport category aircraft today are loaded to +2.5 g limit load. I´ve tried to loop a B-737 simulator, staying within the 2.5 limit during pull up (otherwise the sim will actually break up on pull up), and it is impossible. It will get roughly to the top of the loop before stalling, falling down on it´s back and breaking up when trying to recover.

Looping big aeroplanes is not possible, no matter how hard you try. Some of them (the well built ones) will get home with a lot of damage, the rest will be a smoking hole in the ground. Looping B-17, Lancasters etc. is an urban myth that has nothing to do with reality. If they survived, the pilot would have had brown pants and the aeroplane would never fly again, which would not be a good thing. So maybe the starting question should have been about the aeroplane flying again after a loop. If you loop an aeroplane that size, you will not be able to use it again, so the starting question really should have been about B-17 that looped and were used again. If a B-17, Lancaster, etc, ever looped without becoming smoking holes in the ground, the aeroplane certainly never flew again, which rather defeats the objective!!!!!!

Most aeroplanes can be aileron rolled, and there is no great myth attached. Just build the speed up a little, gently pitch the nose up about 20°, centralize the elevators, apply full aileron with coordinating rudder, and around she goes. If flown well you only induce about 1.2-1.5 g´s (positive, no negative) on the airframe.

B-17, Lancasters, Andovers, F-27 etc. can be rolled safely. Loops, forget it!:eek: 😮

Hence one of the better wind ups on here when we referred to the engine in my Rearwin as being either an 8-cylinder single row or twelve two row!

I thought we had reached some sort of a conclusion on that one. Your Beaver is powered by a single cylinder small bore engine that has an AD on it because of bad lubrication.