Author Topic: Titan Aircraft T-51 Mustang (Read 2926 times)

Maverick · « **Reply #45 on:** December 09, 2006, 11:35:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Heater
Nope

RV6 (late 89-91) <- still flying but now in France
Kitfox #1 98 <- Still flying here in the Netherlands
Kitfox #2 2003 <- Crashed last year young pilot showing off cliped a tree with the gear.

Ok that's why I wanted to ask you that. My recomendation was going to be for the RV, either an 8 or a 9 if you figure on taking it like a multi passenger situation.

The biggest thing I was looking at is that an aluminum skin plane means riveting and the RV's would be a better choice for a first timer there IMO. Since you've already built an RV6 you have that set of skills already. I was looking at the performance of the TF51 and figured an RV8 would have had it beat in just about everything and would do so with, again IMO, a far better power plant like a Lycoming IO360 and a constant speed prop. Rotax is ok but not to the same standards as the Lyc situation.

I'm also not that big of a fan for retracts, even though I owned one for more than 10 years. The RV's do nicely with fixed gear and a far simpler system.

Chairboy · « **Reply #46 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:23:28 PM »

The RV-8 is really a sweet plane for aerobatics, value, and long legs for metal planes from what I hear. The RV-10 looks like a great family plane too, RV-8+ performance but no aerobatics in exchange for two extra seats. I know some folks who are putting 20B rotary engines into their RV-10s, so they'll have fast and smooooth rides.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 09, 2006, 06:09:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
The RV-8 is really a sweet plane for aerobatics, value, and long legs for metal planes from what I hear. The RV-10 looks like a great family plane too, RV-8+ performance but no aerobatics in exchange for two extra seats. I know some folks who are putting 20B rotary engines into their RV-10s, so they'll have fast and smooooth rides.

Performance with the rotary depends a lot on how it's built and there's quite a bit of variation on these lines but it does seem to have a good power to weight ratio. Biggest downside to them though is the sound. They are incredibly loud and raspy. I'd guess they could be pretty fatiging over time.

cav58d · « **Reply #48 on:** December 09, 2006, 08:38:20 PM »

<--- Flew a go-kart with a fan and a hang glider wing in 2005 out of Griswold in Connecticut. Needless to say, I will never fly one of those death traps again. Got downwind, cut power, and starting sinking like a rock. Put full power back in, and didn't cut to idle until the main gear touched down. Never again.

cav58d · « **Reply #49 on:** December 09, 2006, 08:41:10 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErgpJzcAS6s

nuff said.

Habu · « **Reply #50 on:** December 09, 2006, 09:36:23 PM »

I fly a trike all the time in the summer.

100HP 4 stroke engine. Hang Glider type wing but rated for 500 kg.

Hardly a death trap but it does take skill to fly it.

I would say if you don't have the skill don't even attempt it.

If you went full power on mine you would have a hard time keeping the climp below 1500 fpm. It is impossible to go down with full power on. The wing has too much lift and the engine too much thrust.

cav58d · « **Reply #51 on:** December 09, 2006, 09:42:19 PM »

Not sure what it was that I was flying. Flew into the airport that day with my old CFI to grab lunch, and ran into some of his buddies who fly ultralights...Guess the experience is different for each individual person, but it's definately not for me

Habu · « **Reply #52 on:** December 10, 2006, 04:55:23 AM »

Did it look like this?

6500 feet up and 100 kph airspeed. Not a toy

sluggish · « **Reply #53 on:** December 10, 2006, 09:12:26 AM »

Those are some nice shoes.

cpxxx · « **Reply #54 on:** December 10, 2006, 10:17:53 AM »

Dunno, I think I might develop a fear of heights in one those:eek: . But like any aircraft they are only as safe as the pilot who flies them. Even in that crash video, the guy's downfall wasn't so much his engine failure as his height over the trees. He hit the treetops about six seconds after the engine stopped. He was too low over the trees, yet there was a nice straight road just below him. It might as well have been on Mars for all the chance he had to land there.

Good airmanship means thinking about stuff like that. It doesn't mean taking the fun out of flying but it does reduce the risks. I don't care whether you fly a powered lawn chair or a space shuttle. You have to think about avoiding situations that will get you killed. Quite often it will be as simple as the one illustrated above. Don't fly close to the trees while climbing.

It's all common sense but I don't take much credit for it. My instructors beat it into me. I learned from others mistakes.