For you P38 lovers

[Golfer]

My P-38 would have an EFIS display 

So will my scale P-51 if the insurance premium for the hull alone wasn't equal to my annual operating budget. 

when i finally do go for my instrument rating, it will never be deliberately used for an ifr filight, but rather it'll be simply to improve my skill, and as insurance if i happen to run into those conditions.

That'll get you killed.  If you do decide to pursue an instrument rating (I would highly recommend it) the most important thing is to keep current.  The next is to know your limitations and stay within them regarding weather conditions.  You'll learn a better understanding of weather, forecasting, decision making and above all a finer level of aircraft control.  You'd be foolish to get the rating and never intend to use it much less keep current.

[CAP1]

My P-38 would have an EFIS display 

So will my scale P-51 if the insurance premium for the hull alone wasn't equal to my annual operating budget. 

That'll get you killed.  If you do decide to pursue an instrument rating (I would highly recommend it) the most important thing is to keep current.  The next is to know your limitations and stay within them regarding weather conditions.  You'll learn a better understanding of weather, forecasting, decision making and above all a finer level of aircraft control.  You'd be foolish to get the rating and never intend to use it much less keep current.

i would keep it current....with a cfi. i tend to fly with bob whenever he has time...even if i feel i don't have a need to, i do it anyway. no matter what, i ALWAYS learn something from him.
 i would practice it, i just would probably not delibretly go up in ifr conditions, as that tends to tkae the fun out i think. i was thinking of it to increase my ability in general.

 aas for knowing my limitations? i have a reputation in our flying club of actually adhering to them. when i make an error, it;s on the side of caution. everyone that knows me knows that....and when the day comes that i do end up having to land somewhere besides an airport, and i say it wasn't my fault.....those that know me won't doubt me.

 you're bringing up your stang again.....how;s it going with that? i'm frakkin jealous dude....

[Golfer]

It's not.

I've found other round engined airplanes to keep my attention for now.  Not to mention the price is right 

[Dawger]

THAT is art of the reason i never chose a career in aviation. i felt it would've possibly taken the fun out of flying for me. i don't really do anything useful withj my ppl. i go up, and burn holes in the sky and my wallet. it's my recreation. i love beng in the air.

<<S>>

Don't get me wrong, flying is better than working for a living. I've done both. If I fully described exactly what I do to earn my ridiculous salary right now you wouldn't believe me.

I tell my wife weekly that someday I'll have to go back to work but for now I'm retired on double pay. 

[CAP1]

It's not.

I've found other round engined airplanes to keep my attention for now.  Not to mention the price is right 

please tell? some of us have to live vicariously through those of you that can do these things. 

[Bodhi]

R-2800 thank god is still reasonable!

Talked to a friend today, it's about $2 - $3k for a Merlin carb overhaul.  Depends on condition.  Anymore than that and you are getting raped.

[Bodhi]

Golfer, what kind of scale Mustang you looking at?

[Golfer]

The latest iteration of the Fighter Escort Wings kit with an LS7 engine.  I wasn't totally sold on the reduction unit for its reliability but when I got an insurance quote it gave me the official door slam.  The earlier experimentals using car engines had a horrible record and the actuarial tables reflect that.  I was working with some Corvette racing enthusiasts to tweak an LS7 which would have had the engine operating at a fairly low setting (~3000rpm) giving me all the shaft horsepower I'd need.  Again coming back to the poor reliability with the propeller speed reduction unit really had me apprehensive about aerobatics so I shelved that idea.

Know of anything that uses an honest to goodness aircraft engine (up to a Lycoming 540) with reasonable looks with scaling, +6/-4G, 4 hours endurance and 2 seats for 150k or less?

I'd really like a replica but my budget ranges from a Swift, RV8 and Marchetti in terms of what I'd realistically expect with aerobatic and cruising capability.  I've got some Yak-52TW time and with the swapping out of that god awful pneumatic braking system for conventional Cleveland hydraulic brakes it's a good airplane.  Cruises marginally faster than a 172 unfortunately.

Combine all this with "boy I sure hope my airplane doesn't get sold..." compared to a year ago it's all just dreaming.

[33Vortex]

Wow that looks like a very nice kit! If you're seriously looking for reliability why not take a look at rotary engines? I know there are a lot of people suspicious about rotaries but let me tell you that new advanced alloys have solved all problems of the rotary engine. How about 20.000 hrs between overhauls? There was a company at AERO Friedrichshafen that promised me that when I looked at their rotary engines, which were also multi-fuel capable btw and can run on pretty much anything, regular car gasoline, diesel, jet A1 etc etc. These engines typically run at 6000 rpm max, so a reduction gear unit is obviously necessary.

One already well established rotary manufacturer is Mistral. However, afaik they are not all-aspect capable thus only for limited aerobatics. I believe the rotary engine to come very strong in the next few years in aviation. There is a lot of exciting research and development being done on the rotary to make it everything it was ever hoped to be.

[Stoney]

uses an honest to goodness aircraft engine (up to a Lycoming 540) with reasonable looks with scaling...

Well, here's the jam in my opinion.  Since very few of the period aircraft used horizontally opposed air-cooled engines, I don't know that you can find anything with reasonable looks and scaling.  For example, a scale Spitfire just doesn't look like a Spitfire with cylinders hanging out the sides of the cowling.

One motor I've been looking at for future potential is the Delta Hawk series.  They've got 6 and 8 cylinder concept engines that they're working on, with 160 and 200 HP 4 cylinder versions that are being installed on everything from RVs to Cessnas to Velocities.  The best thing is that they've got all the documentation on their website to support alternative installations, on just about anything.  I would think that almost any scale design that used an inline engine would be able to use this series of motors and not look like a scale WWII aircraft with a horizontally opposed, air-cooled engine.  I've got two concepts I'm personally working on, and the bigger of the two is a concept using their 8 cylinder powerplant.  Neither is a WWII type design.  Another concept I've considered is exploring the potential of the M14 series of engines as the basis for those aircraft that used radials.  Most of that is simply day-dreaming, but I think those two engines are the best bet for future potential.

[CAP1]

Well, here's the jam in my opinion.  Since very few of the period aircraft used horizontally opposed air-cooled engines, I don't know that you can find anything with reasonable looks and scaling.  For example, a scale Spitfire just doesn't look like a Spitfire with cylinders hanging out the sides of the cowling.

One motor I've been looking at for future potential is the Delta Hawk series.  They've got 6 and 8 cylinder concept engines that they're working on, with 160 and 200 HP 4 cylinder versions that are being installed on everything from RVs to Cessnas to Velocities.  The best thing is that they've got all the documentation on their website to support alternative installations, on just about anything.  I would think that almost any scale design that used an inline engine would be able to use this series of motors and not look like a scale WWII aircraft with a horizontally opposed, air-cooled engine.  I've got two concepts I'm personally working on, and the bigger of the two is a concept using their 8 cylinder powerplant.  Neither is a WWII type design.  Another concept I've considered is exploring the potential of the M14 series of engines as the basis for those aircraft that used radials.  Most of that is simply day-dreaming, but I think those two engines are the best bet for future potential.

didn't someone do a 3/4 scale FW190 with a lycoming in it? if so, with any other aircraft that was designed for a round engine, couldn't you "hide" a standard lycoming inside the cowl?

[Stoney]

I think power and drag would be a problem.  The Thunder Mustang is a ~3/4-5/8th scale P-51.  It uses a 650 HP motor to get P-51 performance.  In order to get that type of power for any 3/4-5/8th scale aircraft, the only horizontally opposed motor that gets close is the Thunderbolt IO-720's from Lycoming.  In order to fit that motor into a round cowling, you'd have significant areas of the cowl opening that would simply be an air inlet.  There'd be a lot of cooling drag that you'd have to get around.

I don't know, you'd have to do a lot of analysis to determine whether or not it would be suitable, but that IO-720 motor alone goes for $100,000 so it would blow Golfer's budget out of the water.

[Golfer]

Yeah.  Same with the Ryan Falconer engine and its most basic price of 65k.  The M14P is a great engine and I've got some time behind it now.  There aren't really any kits out there to build that go well with it however.

For now my dream is on the shelf.  I really like the FEW/Legendary Mustang kit in principal, have the confidence in myself to build one.  I'm still shopping for insurance options but with the LS7 powering it the insurance bill is beyond what I'd consider reasonable for my budget/current income.

Now that the thread has been thoroughly hijacked I may as well build a P-38...  

[33Vortex]

I just gave you the solution to the problems you are discussing but it went completely by.

[Golfer]

I wouldn't put a rotary engine in my truck 

You said it yourself about their limited usefulness as an aerobatic engine.  Rotary engines haven't really caught on in the USA and I'd like to put my tail behind something proven with not just a lot of time on one engine, but a lot of time on a lot of engines.

I'll very likely end up in an RV-8 type airplane for it's combination of fuel economy, parts availability, maintenance, utility and fair aerobatic capability.

My ideal airplane:
-500 mile range
-2 passengers + bags
-Aerobatic
-Cruise near/at 200kts
-IFR capable

That list gets pretty short pretty quick.