Author Topic: Titan Aircraft T-51 Mustang (Read 2927 times)

Heater · « **on:** December 08, 2006, 06:57:57 AM »

Anyone know anybody building one?

Looking at building one.

http://www.titanaircraft.com/

Cheers

Oops just relaized I was in the genreal form, Skuzzy move this to the O'Club if you want

sluggish · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2006, 08:25:53 AM »

I knew someone who built one of these. He's dead. He was a local engine builder. He built an all aluminum Chevy V-8 for it. He ground looped on landing. These things are dangerous. They are 3/4 scale which makes them even more touchy than a full scale mustang. I believe they are catagorized as an experimental which means they are very easy to get certified for which means the least qualified pilots will probably be the ones flying them.

This would be an awesome plane to build, but unless you are a highly skilled pilot, I wouldn't fly it.

edit> After reading more about this aircraft, it's either a different kit the person I knew didn't have a V-8 in his.

Airscrew · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2006, 09:19:07 AM »

pretty plane. I think someone posted something about these a few months ago because I've recall seeing that before. It looks about the same size as an RV-8 but the wings sure do seem abit small to me.

Chairboy · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2006, 09:41:12 AM »

Sluggish, could you clarify your assertion that "experimental planes = bad pilots"?

sluggish · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2006, 10:41:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Sluggish, could you clarify your assertion that "experimental planes = bad pilots"?

Could you point out where I said anything about bad pilots?

Golfer · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2006, 10:53:47 AM »

Sluggish another company (Thunder Mustang) makes a kit that is 3/4 scale built for a V-12 Falconer engine. There are a few of these racing at Reno and the performance in climb either meets or exceeds that of the real mustang.

It'd been a while since I read anything about them but waay back when Papa 51 Ltd. was making something similar however were in financial trouble and Thunder Mustang wanted to buy them.

The Titan airplane kit is built in Ohio and I'd seen one. Compared to the Titan its a lawnmower and doesn't look just like a P-51 like the Thunder/Papa51.

sluggish · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2006, 11:05:56 AM »

AAhh... I see. When I was reading the specs on this one it didn't jibe with me. Thanx golfer.

Chairboy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2006, 11:57:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by sluggish
Could you point out where I said anything about bad pilots?

Perhaps I misread the following:

Quote

I believe they are catagorized as an experimental which means they are very easy to get certified for which means the least qualified pilots will probably be the ones flying them.

I'm not sure what this means.

1. Experimental planes aren't certified as a matter of rule, unless it's part of an R&D effort where a certified plane passes through the experimental category. Most homebuilts are registered as experimental at the end of the build cycle and not certified.
2. If you're referring to the DAR's final inspection, "very easy" isn't usually the description of the procedure, but you have to meet requirements for testing it with ranges defined for where you can fly, usually a 40 hours of flight period w/o any passengers, etc etc.
3. Most builders will either get what's called 'transition training' with a completed example of the plane or (if it's a one seater) the community will identify a two seater that has similar behavior that they can train in.
4. The test regime involves extensive taxi training, including high speed taxis on the runway, working up to flight and understanding what every system is doing at every step of the way.

In a lot of ways, a home builder ends up being the most qualified person to fly a plane. No Cessna pilot will know as much about the mechanics of the plane as they do, and there's no special magic wand of competence that flyers of certified planes are given that I'm aware of. PP-ASEL=PP-ASEL, everything else is training.

Are there exceptions? Sure. For that matter, have certified aircraft ever been involved in accidents because a pilot made an error or wasn't qualified for a situation they got themselves into? I'll let you answer that.

Golfer · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:19:20 PM »

Being an experimental enthusiast also qualifies you to fly aircraft types and configurations that you have no business being in without training as well.

I am a certified aircraft enthusiast. As such the first time I hopped in a tailwheel aircraft it was with someone qualified and competent to teach others how to operate it. This is because I was not certified to be an enthusiast of this type of airplane without training. Because Chairboy's an experimental enthusiast he was qualified to simply hop in a kite with a tailwheel and give it the old college try or "experiement."

If it's legal it must be safe, right?

Golfer · « **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:20:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
have certified aircraft ever been involved in accidents because a pilot made an error or wasn't qualified for a situation they got themselves into? I'll let you answer that.

I must be sick to get such a laugh out of this comment. You've been so considerate to answer this question first hand for us months ago.

Chairboy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:27:38 PM »

Golfer, I know you're perfect, and I guess my only mistake was being honest about a screwup I made. If grinding your heel into me makes you feel good, then you're entitled to it. I'm not sure if that makes you a better person, but I guess it doesn't stop you from being a great pilot.

Golfer · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:45:09 PM »

Oh no I could fill a book with mistakes I've made. Your deal was above and beyond. Remember it when you lecture others because it's incidents like yours that give the experimental community the reputation it has.

I know a few people who have died in "regular airplane" accidents. I know a few more than that who've died in experimental airplanes. I know even more who've balled up the airplane and are lucky to be around today.

If you learn from your mistakes like they from theirs you've come a long way already.

Many people don't, many people view experimental airplanes as a more lax way of flight though in some ways it is and others it isnt. It's not your job to judge someone for thinking that. It's your job to contribute for helping correct that what you feel is a misconception. That's through actions rather than words.

Grayeagle · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2006, 12:52:28 PM »

people make mistakes .. the pilots that I have met try harder than most not to.

I don't think any one of us here would strap into anything unless the CFI had cleared us to do so

I know for a fact I can build a purty straight airplane, but that first flight is always an adventure ..in trim, climb, cruise, stall, and landing ..and that's just R/C ..if I ever manage to build a real one, you can bet I will have an eagle eye on every single thing that is goin on when the prop turns over until it stops.

(I still have the Cozy MK4 and the Jurca FW-190 plans ..-sigh- .. be awhile before I have a place to build em tho .. still)

-GE

smash · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2006, 01:25:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
Being an experimental enthusiast also qualifies you to fly aircraft types and configurations that you have no business being in without training as well.[/IMG]

Being an experimental enthusiast qualifies you for nothing. Remarkable that someone who considers themselves "certified" is so uninformed.

Chairboy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2006, 02:06:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
Many people don't, many people view experimental airplanes as a more lax way of flight though in some ways it is and others it isnt. It's not your job to judge someone for thinking that. It's your job to contribute for helping correct that what you feel is a misconception. That's through actions rather than words.

Anyone who views experimental aviation as anything 'lax' is an idiot. Airplanes kill careless pilots, it doesn't matter if they're a 747 or an ultralight (what I flew, btw, not an AB classified airplane, what's referred to as 'Experimental'. Your error, but you've shown a remarkable dedication to not allowing facts to get in the way of your narrative).

Regarding it not being my place to judge, I think that perhaps you should take a look into a mirror. You've sent me PMs making accusations and implications that I'm some sort of daredevil pilot and made veiled references to other people here sharing their "concerns" about me as a pilot, it's a strange campaign you're on.

You're entitled to your opinion, you can preach all you want, but you do yourself a disservice if you keep misrepresenting the facts.

You post above that you've made mistakes in aviation. Does that mean that you're entitled to a lifetime of people judging you as a dangerous pilot because of it? If so, then lay 'em out here so people can respond with them in every time you talk about flying. If not, then what kindness have I performed that entitles me to such special attention?

I flew a tail dragger ultralight that exceeded my capabilities, learned a lesson, and used that as a learning opportunity. Didn't damage myself, didn't damage the plane, just made a real crummy landing but got a nice big reality check. I can only guess that you, Golfer, feel that just isn't quite enough. I'm not sure what benefit you see from grinding me into the dirt every chance you can, whether it's the judgemental stalking PMs you send me occasionally or these gifts you leave in the public forums, but I'm sure you have a goal.

I've been civil, I've been humble, but I guess there's just some other quality that I haven't exhibited enough of for you. You can save a lot of time if you just let me know what that is.