Official Aviation Thread...

[BlackbirdM3]

For only 5 pics, its not worth my effort to post anything more. This new setup is a PITA, and for only 5, screw that. No more pic posting till they fix this.

Will

[flyboyx]

well, they are five good ones though.....

[BlackbirdM3]

What is this crap about only being able to post 5 pics at a time? What a waste of time. Not cool.

Will

[BlackbirdM3]

So I found a nest of Swifts this morning This afternoon I got to do two things I've been itching to do for a very long time. An Air to Air shoot, and to go flying in a small plane for the first time since 1998. The owner of a beautiful '46 Swift with a 210hp engine told me to jump in, and I wasn't about to say no to the opportunity.

Swifts are wonderful flying airplanes. Very precise, clearly designed for fighter pilots who were used to flying P51s and that sort of thing. With 210 hp the plane was a rocket.
A nice head on shot of the one I got to go up in.

The air to air... shot through the windscreen... Not ideal, nor was my lens choice (24-85mm and I managed to turn the stabilization off accidently...)

The 3rd Swift I found was also mean. I dig the 3 blade prop on it.

Today was a good day.

Will

[BlackbirdM3]

Will. You know I am sucker for your B&W work and those do not disappoint in anyway

I'll indulge you further then...





Will

[mrsleeve]

Will. You know I am sucker for your B&W work and those do not disappoint in anyway

[BlackbirdM3]

How about some monochrome shots?






Will

[flyboyx]

Oh, forgot to mention: both the classic CFM and the leap 1a produce 26,000lbs of thrust per engine on the a320.

I need to take a ride in the cockpit of a maddog to get an idea of fuel flow in a horribly inefficient airliner to see how it compares.

[flyboyx]

a lear 25 has cj610's hanging off the back end. they are a very archaic straight jet engine that produces around 3000lbs of thrust per side. that engine burns about 600lbs an hour of jet A taxiing around the airport and 600lbs an hour at 41,000 feet. i would say that converts to roughly 80+ gallons an hr per engine. i don't remember the burn in climb, but it seems like it was around 2200lbs an hour. this airplane also holds about 6 to 8 people, so i guess it equates fairly well to the howard.

as a contrast, today we jam up to 186 people in an Airbus 320. the NEO version that i flew yesterday burns 700lbs of fuel on taxi per side, about 4800lbs of fuel in low altitude climb, and about 2100lbs of fuel per side in cruise. (almost the exact same numbers as an Embraer 175) A classic engine option airplane will burn about 2800lbs of fuel per side at cruse.

so....the new airplanes will save around 1400lbs (over 200 gallons)of fuel per hour under the same circumstances. when fuel prices go back up and the economy goes to shit, this will be a game changer.

[BlackbirdM3]

There was a great article in july’s aopa(?) magazine about those 2 flying Howard’s. Apparently, the guy that owns both of them has a third he is restoring now. The article also mentions that for every hour of flight time, the airplane gets 10 to 15 hrs of maintenance. That is truly an insane number. It also states the engines are about 2500hp each and burn 100gal of fuel per side an hour! I think they are 18 cylinder Wright 3250’s. The same engine on a dc6.

That is an airplane for a guy with very deep pockets.

He also owns a pretty impressive Grumman Albatross that is set up like a flying yacht. He had both the Howard and the Albatross there. The Howard uses a pair of Pratt and Whitney R2800s, the same engine as the Hellcat, Tigercat(x2), Bearcat, Corsair, B26 Invader (x2) and the Lockheed PV2 Harpoon (from which the Howard was loosely based on. The Lockheed Loadstar became the Ventura, and the Ventura was reworked into the Harpoon. Lockheed built a few Super Venturas, which is really what the Howard was based on.)

Yes the fuel burn is high, but if you look at early jets, they weren't any better, heck, even now I'd bet they burn about that per engine (Not sure) All the big radials are thirsty. As for the maintenance time, I kinda feel that is exaggerated. I didn't see so much as an access panel open at any time. I saw the other 500 at Reno a few years back and again, not so much as a access panel open. In both cases, they simply fired it up and left.

Will

[varg]

No way in hell will a T6 or a T28 go 343, let alone 440 mph.

Like I said, numbers from the wiki, top speed of a T28 vs a P51. I don't know where you got anything about the T6 from that given the context of my reply. 343mph is probably T28 VNE or something, hell if I know.

[flyboyx]

There was a great article in july’s aopa(?) magazine about those 2 flying Howard’s. Apparently, the guy that owns both of them has a third he is restoring now. The article also mentions that for every hour of flight time, the airplane gets 10 to 15 hrs of maintenance. That is truly an insane number. It also states the engines are about 2500hp each and burn 100gal of fuel per side an hour! I think they are 18 cylinder Wright 3250’s. The same engine on a dc6.

That is an airplane for a guy with very deep pockets.

[BlackbirdM3]

A few more...
Will

[BlackbirdM3]

That's the thing that sucks about aesthetics, they're too subjective. To me the T28 is a stubby looking tricycle geared abomination, a hideous thing, T-6 is not beautiful but far better proportioned. 343mph vs 440mph (wiki as a source), doesn't really matter that much. Money no object, neither plane is in my dreams. But for $200,000 my money would be in the aerobatic category, not the ugliest warbird.

No way in hell will a T6 or a T28 go 343, let alone 440 mph. Not possible short of attaching a rocket to either one. 250 is about it for both. Too much frontal drag, and with the T6, the prop tips are breaking the sound barrier so that is causing drag and a loss of efficiency as well.

As far as aesthetics, I'd say they are both on par. Neither one is strikingly good looking, but neither is hideous either.

Will

[BlackbirdM3]

well, i think the t28 is an infinitely better looking airplane than a t6.(i think the texan is uglier than a smashed ass) in fact, i absolutely love the way the t28 looks. not as much as a 51, but hey.....

with your reasoning: 400mph costs 200 grand. 500mph costs 2 mil. i don't know about you, but i could be pretty happy with the radial engine advanced trainer.

If you can make a T28 go 400 mph, please tell. They are hard pressed to make the cut at Reno at 280.

The Howard 500 will go 400, and you can take lots of your friends with you, for a bargain $750K (It is for sale.)

The pic of the Travel Aire was shot at F22 at 1/25 hand held. It would have been nice had it been sharper overall, but bouncing through the grass at 1/25 isn't going to garner many totally sharp shots. At that slow of a shutter speed, the harmonics of the plane come into play and some things will be out of focus where others are tack sharp. I could have shot it faster, but I was trying for the full prop circle.

Will