Whats that one aircraft you want to fly for no real reason? - Page 2

General » Aviation

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Whats that one aircraft you want to fly for no real reason? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/8/2017 11:30:18 PM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
The Cessna "Tweet", just because.

View Quote

hell yes!

Posted: 3/8/2017 11:32:56 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
Threads like these are unfair because I can't pick. I've flown nearly 50 different GA types and nine helicopters, I'm type rated in two jets and I'm typed in two tactical unmanned aircraft.

Basically, if it has wings I want to fly the shit out of it.

View Quote

braggart.

Posted: 3/9/2017 10:46:54 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

Have flown in one (in the back) never have flown one. They do fly very slow.
Here is a video from our museum's last airshow someone shot of the AN2 currently has a blown engine (again, long story).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB951YS75Y0

ETA: apparently have to be a member to embed video sorry here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB951YS75Y0

For me it would be an Ercoupe. Have seen lots of them around over the years but never flown one. I want to fly an original though, no rudder pedals. I like the open cockpit idea and am intrigued by steering with the yoke and what that is like. The museum I volunteer at has one the that is being rebuilt (took a hard landing) so I may get to someday. I am a bigger pilot so might be a problem making weight with another person in there though.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/1946_Ercoupe_Advertisement_in_Skyways.jpg

After that probably a Stearman of a Waco. I have flown in a UPF7 but never flown one.

View Quote

There's a reason they are called an Erpscoop.

Posted: 3/10/2017 1:46:31 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

braggart.

View Quote

You spelled "airplane whore" wrong.

Posted: 3/10/2017 7:56:58 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

There's a reason they are called an Erpscoop.

View Quote

Or Scarecoupe.

Neat little planes, though.
I think I forgot to mention: B-58, for when you've got to get to your destination before your departure time.

Posted: 3/10/2017 8:42:14 AM EDT

[#6]

Spitfire , don't really care which Mark.

Posted: 3/10/2017 8:08:15 PM EDT

[#7]

Super Tucano.

Piper Ag Wagon.

Ryan STM or A.

The Tucano is out, because without
a military ticket, you can't even ride
in one.

I always sort of keep an eye out for an
AG Wagon for Ryan. Gotta dream.

Good thread.

Posted: 3/10/2017 8:23:11 PM EDT

[#8]

This!

Was really cool in the pattern

Posted: 3/10/2017 9:32:41 PM EDT

[#9]

P-47 , SR-71, F-4

Posted: 3/11/2017 11:07:31 AM EDT

[#10]

This is a Viagra substitute

Posted: 3/11/2017 11:42:56 AM EDT

[#11]

Volpar Beech 18. PT-6s and twin tails!

There are many Golden Age planes I'd love to fly. Number one is the Curtis BF2C-1 Goshawk / Hawk III. Radial powered, open cockpit biplane with retractable gear.

The Thais faired well with these vs French indochina in 1940.

Posted: 3/11/2017 12:06:08 PM EDT

[#12]

A10.... but really a AH6 copter

Posted: 3/11/2017 5:35:13 PM EDT

[#13]

I'm #3 on making my 1st call a Super Tucano.

I was the avionics manager for a company that had six EMB-120's, and I asked the Embraer Tech Rep if he could get me a ride in one; he laughed and said "That's all anybody ever ask's me about these days."

Posted: 3/11/2017 7:38:39 PM EDT

[#14]

Always kinda wanted to take a Long EZ for a spin. Would never have a serious desire to own one but it'd probably make for some fun flying for a day.

Attached File

Posted: 3/11/2017 9:58:59 PM EDT

[#15]

I'm a glider pilot, so the most obtainable glider I would like to fly is the MDM Fox since it is the holy grail for aerobatic gliders

And as far as unobtainable, I would not mind a flight in the U-2, just so I can be the highest person next to those on the ISS.

Posted: 3/11/2017 10:12:37 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Not your dream aircraft, but you know, that one you see all the time and want to take for a spin

For me its the Mi17. I would love to get into the Army program in them. Zero real reason other than they are neat.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0d/6d/3d/0d6d3d061f92467ba1f4969ccb1497a3.jpg

View Quote

AH-6

Posted: 3/11/2017 10:16:58 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
There is a Grumman Albatross that sits at the field I fly out of during the winters. I want to take that for a spin along with some landings on Lake Mead.

View Quote

Yea, any Grumman amphibian.

Posted: 3/11/2017 11:06:38 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Always kinda wanted to take a Long EZ for a spin. Would never have a serious desire to own one but it'd probably make for some fun flying for a day.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/EZ-6-163764.JPG

View Quote

My FIL and his daughter (my wife) started building a Long EZ and a Cozy back when she was in middle school. Both are incomplete projects. I have no idea what will come of them. I think it would be great to see both projects finished but I'm kind of the outsider in all of it.

Posted: 3/13/2017 10:01:49 PM EDT

[#19]

Start + Flug Salto

Having seen how Manfred Radius gets in his I am not even sure my ass would fit in one.

Posted: 3/16/2017 8:30:43 PM EDT

[#20]

SR-71

Posted: 3/17/2017 11:00:37 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
SR-71

View Quote

That's a dream flight, not "fly for no real reason".

Posted: 3/17/2017 11:37:11 AM EDT

[#22]

I'd be thrilled to fly pretty much anything. What most fits this thread though is that flying saucer experiment thing from the 60s.

Posted: 3/17/2017 2:57:05 PM EDT

[#23]

I have an infatuation with wierd flying devices. Been lucky to fly some oddball machines in the course of work, but nothing like what I really want to fly:

The wasp. It's just an engine with a platform to stand on. Manual throttle control for thrust and weight shift for attitude control. No gyros or stabilization of any kind.

Also the einmannhubschrauber! It's a tiny piston engine and counter rotating fixed pitch props. Thrust is rotor rpm and yaw is controlled by moving the vertical fin in the prop down wash. Cyclic control is weight shift - the tiny seat hangs from the engine and the handlebars are fixed to the engine, so you shift your hanging weight like a hang glider.

Posted: 3/25/2017 8:18:59 AM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'd be thrilled to fly pretty much anything. What most fits this thread though is that flying saucer experiment thing from the 60s.

View Quote

The saucer with jet exhaust ducted to the perimeter of the disc, and vanes to control the direction of the exhaust as it exited the ducts?

It never got out of ground effect during the test program. Neat idea, but it required far more thrust (to get out of ground effect) than the developers had thought.

In the early 1990s, it was sitting in a back corner of one of the storage buildings at Garber. Looked really odd to see a government storage building crammed with various airplanes, and a flying saucer sitting on the floor in the back.

Posted: 3/27/2017 12:38:03 PM EDT

[#25]

F-105 This.

I want to go downtown.

Posted: 3/27/2017 8:15:27 PM EDT

[#26]

Pitts Special; make no difference which one.

Posted: 3/28/2017 8:25:46 PM EDT

[#27]

B-1

Posted: 3/28/2017 10:40:20 PM EDT

[#28]

Navaho, Aztec, Comanche, 310, Baron. Mooney. 727. Any early turbo-jet transport. Pretty much any GA aircraft. I don't expect any crazy performance, but I kinda want to feel the difference between them.

Posted: 3/29/2017 8:40:15 AM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
Navaho, Aztec, Comanche, 310, Baron. Mooney. 727. Any early turbo-jet transport. Pretty much any GA aircraft. I don't expect any crazy performance, but I kinda want to feel the difference between them.

View Quote

You could keep yourself busy for a while.

Baron - stock configurations vary from the B55, to E55, to B58, to 58P (and then there's the rare 56TC, and a few other less common models). There are differences between each model. Toss in upgrades like the Colemill STCs, and each one 'feels' different.

Cessna 310 - same as above.

Aztec - again, a few choices.

Comanche - Factory options went as high as 400hp.

Navajo - PA-31 with no wing lockers and standard turning, normally aspirated 300hp engines, PA-31-310 with no wing lockers and standard turning, turbocharged 310hp engines, PA-31-325 with wing lockers and counter turning, turbocharged 325hp engines, and PA-31-350 with wing lockers, longer fuselage, and counter turning turbocharged 350hp engines. ...and there are STC'd upgrades available, along with the ability to switch from counter turning to standard turning.

Posted: 3/29/2017 10:52:04 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
You could keep yourself busy for a while.

Baron - stock configurations vary from the B55, to E55, to B58, to 58P (and then there's the rare 56TC, and a few other less common models). There are differences between each model. Toss in upgrades like the Colemill STCs, and each one 'feels' different.

Cessna 310 - same as above.

Aztec - again, a few choices.

Comanche - Factory options went as high as 400hp.

Navajo - PA-31 with no wing lockers and standard turning, normally aspirated 300hp engines, PA-31-310 with no wing lockers and standard turning, turbocharged 310hp engines, PA-31-325 with wing lockers and counter turning, turbocharged 325hp engines, and PA-31-350 with wing lockers, longer fuselage, and counter turning turbocharged 350hp engines. ...and there are STC'd upgrades available, along with the ability to switch from counter turning to standard turning.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Navaho, Aztec, Comanche, 310, Baron. Mooney. 727. Any early turbo-jet transport. Pretty much any GA aircraft. I don't expect any crazy performance, but I kinda want to feel the difference between them.

You could keep yourself busy for a while.

Baron - stock configurations vary from the B55, to E55, to B58, to 58P (and then there's the rare 56TC, and a few other less common models). There are differences between each model. Toss in upgrades like the Colemill STCs, and each one 'feels' different.

Cessna 310 - same as above.

Aztec - again, a few choices.

Comanche - Factory options went as high as 400hp.

Navajo - PA-31 with no wing lockers and standard turning, normally aspirated 300hp engines, PA-31-310 with no wing lockers and standard turning, turbocharged 310hp engines, PA-31-325 with wing lockers and counter turning, turbocharged 325hp engines, and PA-31-350 with wing lockers, longer fuselage, and counter turning turbocharged 350hp engines. ...and there are STC'd upgrades available, along with the ability to switch from counter turning to standard turning.

I like oddities and knowing why stuff was done the way it was. Like on a Travelair, the throttles are center on the pedestal, not in the current "standard." I kind of like the old way better.

Posted: 3/29/2017 11:02:50 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

I like oddities and knowing why stuff was done the way it was. Like on a Travelair, the throttles are center on the pedestal, not in the current "standard." I kind of like the old way better.

View Quote

If my memory hasn't gone haywire, the older Barons used a non-standard layout for the engine controls, and switched to a standard layout on the newer Barons.

Posted: 3/30/2017 9:46:40 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:

If my memory hasn't gone haywire, the older Barons used a non-standard layout for the engine controls, and switched to a standard layout on the newer Barons.

View Quote

Yep, the straight 58s have the throttles in the center, props to the left and mixtures to the right.

Posted: 4/23/2017 4:17:21 PM EDT

[#33]

Fixed wing? F-100.....If I hit Powerball, I'm going to see if Dean Cutshall is still looking to sell FW-948 (F model)

Rotary? There's just something about a Chinook

Posted: 4/23/2017 4:21:31 PM EDT

[#34]

A-6 Intruder

Posted: 4/23/2017 9:18:08 PM EDT

[#35]

C-1 Trader/S-2 Tracker
OV-10 Bronco

Posted: 4/27/2017 10:23:13 PM EDT

[#36]

When I was a kid, I had some sort of weird obsession with the SEPECAT Jaguar. Would still kill to fly one, for some odd reason. Ofcourse, I don't fly FW, so never going to happen.

For helicopters, oddly enough I've never flown a 500. That's something I want some time in.

Posted: 4/27/2017 10:30:40 PM EDT

[#37]

BD-5

Posted: 4/27/2017 10:42:27 PM EDT

[#38]

Spirit of St. Louis was the first airplane I learned about. That one, and the other would be the SR-71 which was a creation of magnificence.

Posted: 4/27/2017 10:54:08 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
BD-5
http://i.imgur.com/iKcpzRZ.jpg

View Quote

I saw one of these up close and sat in it. very light-weight to say the least! had a pusher prop though, no jet

Posted: 4/27/2017 11:50:35 PM EDT

[#40]

Attached File

F-104 Starfighter

Posted: 4/30/2017 8:30:38 PM EDT

[#41]

Attached File

Posted: 5/2/2017 6:34:22 PM EDT

[#42]

My wife's addition: BF-108/Nord 1000

Posted: 5/5/2017 2:51:51 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
Martin SeaMaster.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/11-25-14/P6M-SeaMaster-Powering-Up1_zpszacag9zr.jpg

The Beriev BE-200 would work in a pinch. Not as cool as the Martin, though.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/11-25-14/beriev-be-200-02_zpspkkl1yvl.jpg

View Quote

I'd happily jerk gear...or not, I guess, in either of those.

Next time you're around, we'll go visit one of the last of the combat boat aviators.

Posted: 5/5/2017 2:53:20 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

If my memory hasn't gone haywire, the older Barons used a non-standard layout for the engine controls, and switched to a standard layout on the newer Barons.

View Quote

Its not non-standard, but pre-WWII. Most pre-WWII designs had throttles in the center, with props on the left and mix on the right.

Posted: 5/5/2017 2:55:49 PM EDT

[#45]

Any first or first gen+ jet bomber...the Arado, B-45, Victor or Canberra being win, place and show/honorable mention. Lots of airplane when you think their design was basically speculative off of studying the Arado, or in the Ar-234 basically putting jets on an 1930s airframe and flight testing that thing in combat.