The General Airplane Thread

  • Thread starter Crash
  • 2,744 comments
  • 191,756 views
This past Thursday and Friday there was a display by "Wings of Freedom," who tour the country with a B-17, a B-24, and a B-25, along with a P-51 or two. They were at the local airport on, but since I work for a living I was unable to get out and see them. when i consulted their website I saw that they were in nearby Destin for the weekend, so I packed the camera and hopped on the FJR to go over and see. The B-25 was not here, but the other bombers were, and there were two P-51s.

For 15 bucks you get to crawl through the bombers and gaze upon all the aircraft. If you have $450 you don't need elsewhere, you can go for a 30-minute ride in either of the bombers. For 2200 bucks you get a 30-minute training flight in the P-51, or 60 minutes for 3200. The P-51 does not do passenger flights, so while in the back seat, you are a student pilot. It's the law, apparently. Needless to say, I was content with the walking and crawling, and did no flying.

B-17 "Nine O Nine"
40581908882_c2d41bc6bf_o.jpg


Climbing up into the aircraft, the flight deck is to the left.
39913932264_c88b532545_o.jpg


There's a navigation station there, and the you head aft through the bomb bay
39913932124_a967552802_o.jpg


You go through a radio equipment space, then crawl past the belly turret
39913932004_f3b899500a_o.jpg


Then you arrive at the waist guns. I've turned around and am looking forward now.
39913931774_9519f411b1_o.jpg


B-24 "Witchcraft"
This is the only flyable B-24 in the world
39728433245_f5ee8211c0_o.jpg


This tour entered at the rear, encountering the waist guns first, with the belly turret visible just ahead
39913931644_53f405e05c_o.jpg


At the belly turret. Forward and down is the bomb bay, and above the bomb bay is... something else. :) The B-17's fuselage is not as tall, and did not have a space above the bomb bay.
39913931134_09ea7444da_o.jpg


Before climbing down into the bomb bay (and finding I couldn't pass through it...) I turned around and shot rearward. There is a lot more room here than the comparable space on the B-17!
39913931014_bf31828b78_o.jpg


This is at the forward end of the bomb bay. This space was roped off with netting and inaccessible, so I stuck the lens through the net. The bopmbsight is visible below, and the flight deck above.
39728774715_12f0a08628_o.jpg


One of the P-51s, "Toulouse Nuts," awaiting the runway
This is a small airport, no passenger service, just civil aviation from a single runway. As the P-51 waited, three aircraft came in to land. One wonders what those local pilots thought of seeing a P-51 holding short as they landed!
40581909602_90e8f41b16_o.jpg


The other P-51, "Alabama Rammer Jammer," and a little fish-eye fun.
39728433575_d1065b25c8_o.jpg


40581909232_92b77b287b_o.jpg


39728433375_6c97cd67dc_o.jpg


As for crawling through the aircraft, the B-24 was easier to get through, except for the walkway through the bomb bay. I got my fat gut through the B-17, but was unable to pass through the B-24's bomb bay walkway, as the bomb racks to either side were closer together in the -24. It was only a couple of feet from the walkway to the ground through the open doors, so I sat on the walkway and hopped out, walked to the other end and climbed back in. :D In most compartments the B-24 was tall enough to stand upright, where that was never possible in the -17. The worst part was waiting for kids to get tired of playing with the waist guns so you could move on through. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I love these first generation straight-wing jet fighters.

Vought F6U Pirate


McDonnell F2H Banshee


North American FJ-1 Fury


Northrup F-89 Scorpion


Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck


Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-9


SAAB 21R


Yakolev Yak-23


Dassault Ouragan


Supermarine Attacker


Republic F-84 Thunderjet


Hawker Sea Hawk


Grumman F9 Panther


McDonnell FH Phantom


Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star


De Havillard Venom


De Havillard Vampire


Gloster Meteor


Lockheed F-94 Starfire


Messerschmitt Me 262
 
Last edited:
I love these first generation straight-wing jet fighters.

Vought F6U Pirate


McDonnell F2H Banshee


North American FJ-1 Fury


Northrup F-89 Scorpion


Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck


Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-9


SAAB 21R


Yakolev Yak-23


Dassault Ouragan


Supermarine Attacker


Republic F-84 Thunderjet


Hawker Sea Hawk


Grumman F9 Panther


McDonnell FH Phantom


Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star


De Havillard Venom


De Havillard Vampire


Gloster Meteor


Lockheed F-94 Starfighter


Messerschmitt Me 262
Interesting to note, the 262 was never a straight wing. They were one of the first, if not the, to produce a swept wing jet fighter. Although it never went to supersonic speeds, they managed to find it out well before jets could go these speeds.
 
That is not a Starfighter. It's a Starfire. This is what a Starfighter looks like:
View attachment 720501
Dangit. I know the difference. Really! I got carried away with my typing. Speaking of the F-104, anyone here a fan of MST3K? They riff on "The Starfighters" in episode 612. A hilariously bad movie with almost zero plot but lots of stock footage of F-104s in action.
 
Last edited:
Dangit. I know the difference. Really! I got carried away with my typing. Speaking of the F-105, anyone here a fan of MST3K? They riff on "The Starfighters" in episode 612. A hilariously bad movie with almost zero plot but lots of stock footage of F-105s in action.

Interesting clip, however I didn't see a single F-105 Thunderchief in it; did I miss it somewhere? I did, however see lots of Lockheed F-104 Starfighters.
 
I was just gonna say, "Except those aren't F-105s." :lol:

Here's a Thunderchief, from the Air Force Armament Museum outside Eglin AFB, with a selection of its toys. Three frames stitched, because the room wasn't big enough to get far enough back for the whole thing.

38925366450_4be0299d6a_h.jpg
 
Interesting clip, however I didn't see a single F-105 Thunderchief in it; did I miss it somewhere? I did, however see lots of Lockheed F-104 Starfighters.
I was just gonna say, "Except those aren't F-105s."
Welp. That's it. I've had a good run but it's clear I'm becoming senile in my old age.
 
Interesting to note, the 262 was never a straight wing. They were one of the first, if not the, to produce a swept wing jet fighter. Although it never went to supersonic speeds, they managed to find it out well before jets could go these speeds.
I might be misreading your post, but I don't think the slight sweep on the Me-262 was for performance reasons. The sweep was added to help balance the aircraft aerodynamically because the engines were so far forward rearward.

While the 262 does have sweep, it's only a very moderate amount.

EDIT - and I end up saying it backwards. The engines were too far rearward relative to the wing.
 
Last edited:
I came across this old article from Plane & Pilot Magazine. The original article is long gone, but can still be read thanks to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. (I put the photos in myself since those weren't saved.)

Top 10 All-Time Favorites
With more than 100 years of combined experience, our editors selected the best of general aviation’s used aircraft

By The Editors



One thing we knew right up front was that no matter what airplanes we chose, we were bound to miss someone’s favorites. Despite the obvious Walter Mitty aspect of any best-airplane story, we wanted to keep most of this list realistic and avoid choices such as the $4.5-million Piaggio Avanti or the $3.5-million Citation Jet. With the exception of the P-51, all the airplanes listed below are available for less than $500,000.

The quest for economic reality generated choices such as the Cessna 170, Tiger, Skylane, Mooney 201 and F33A Bonanza. We couldn’t help acknowledging the role of twins in general aviation, thus, the selection of the Seneca, 310, Aerostar and Baron. Finally, we chose dream machines such as the Stearman, Staggerwing, Husky and P-51 Mustang to balance the practical airplanes.



1 Beech F33A Bonanza

The late Roy LoPresti perhaps said it best when I asked if there was anything he could do to improve cruise speed on the straight-tailed Bonanza. “That’s an awfully clean design. Perhaps we could redesign the cowling a little to pick up some speed, but Walter Beech already did an excellent job of designing a fast, efficient airplane.”

The cliché is that nothing handles like a straight-tail Bonanza, and while that’s a cliché (fly a Bellanca Viking or a Marchetti SF-260 and you’ll understand), the Bonanza is a wonderful-handling machine, smooth, quick and positive in both pitch and roll. Just watch the CG location.

Unlike the V-tail model 35, the F33A has experienced few structural failures, effectively nullifying the argument that model-35 tail breaks were all pilot-induced. The F33A’s combination of strength, performance, comfort and handling make it a difficult airplane to resist.

Model: Beech F33A Bonanza
Seats: 5
Max Speed: 182 knots
Retail Price Range: $106,000 to $247,000

Why we chose it:
Many pilots regard the F33A as the best single-engine airplane ever built. With strong climb and an easy 165-knot cruise, the F33A offers a quiet, smooth, comfortable vehicle for covering the miles. Adding interior comfort to its solid, unique handling characteristics, we’d argue that the F33A is the ultimate development of the four-seat Bonanza.



2 Aerostar 601P

Aerostars came in five varieties, depending upon normal aspiration, turbocharging, pressurization and engine size. The last model 700Ps with a pair of 350-hp Lycomings climbed at 1,800 fpm and were capable of 261 knots (300 mph) cruise, best reserved for those who owned a refinery. As proof of the airplane’s speed, an Aerostar 700, running full throttle all the way, won the 2001 London-to-Sydney Air Race at 279 knots (321 mph).

Range at more reasonable settings is about 1,000 nm plus reserve. Along the way, Aerostars offer their owners the lightest, most responsive handling of any medium twin. Roll rate is double that of a 300/400 Cessna or Baron/Duke, and the airplane is a delight to maneuver in the pattern or on the ILS.

Standard seating is for six with a narrow aisle, but most owners take out the left middle seat to open up the cabin in a five-place configuration. But the best seat in the house is the left front.

Model: Aerostar 601P
Seats: 6
Max Speed: 261 knots
Retail Price Range: $129,000 to $178,000

Why we chose it:
Sheer unadulterated speed. Although the airplane is loud (the prop tips are just outside the pilot’s window) and passengers complain that the cabin is tiny, the two seats up front are a pilot’s dream come true. The Aerostars were the fastest piston machines in their respective classes when they were introduced, and today, almost 35 years later, they still are.



3 Boeing Stearman

It’s becoming progressively tougher to find folks who learned to fly in Stearman PT-17s in preparation for WWII combat. The airplanes have outlived most of their pilots, undergoing an almost continuous series of restorations. Most used 220-hp Lycoming radial engines, although many have been converted to 450-hp P&W powerplants.

Stearmans were the American military’s primary trainer (thus, the designation “PT”) in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and they did that job well. In training mode, there wasn’t much need for speed or range, so the Stearman had little of either (90 knots and 400 nm), but it was a delight to fly, a telegraphic airplane for students and a great first step toward the cockpits of P-51s and P-47s.

The Stearman lazed through all the standard inside aerobatic maneuvers and possessed legendary strength and stability. The story goes that two young lieutenants, instructors at a training base in Texas, bored and frustrated at being stuck in the States when there was a war raging overseas, decided to see if they could pull the wings off a PT-17. Each pilot suited up with a main and reserve parachute, then they climbed the Stearman to 12,000 feet, pitched over into a full power vertical dive, waited for terminal velocity and simultaneously pulled back on the stick as hard as they could. When they woke up, the airplane had already recovered to straight-and-level flight as if nothing had happened.

Model: Boeing Stearman
Seats: 2
Max Speed: 135 mph
Retail Price Range: $65,000 and up

Why we chose it:
World War II will probably end up being the apex of aviation, at least in respect to the sheer number of airplanes and pilots in the sky. Looking back at that period in history, no single airplane did so much for so many as the Stearman. Not only a classic, the aircraft best represents wind-in-your-face, stick-and-rudder airplanes.



4 Cessna Skylane

Why choose the 182 rather than the 172? It may sound like blasphemy, but despite the greatness of the Skyhawk, the Skylane is a better airplane in virtually every respect. (Okay, we’ll grant that the ’Hawk has a better engine.)

The Skylane does more things well and has fewer limitations than the ’Hawk. Although the airplane has gained 300 pounds with age, gross has jumped to 500, so the new airplanes can carry more, but with slightly less performance. Cessna 182s of all descriptions have four seats that can actually be used with a reasonable fuel load.

Uphill and cruise performance is consistently good, if not great. Climb is less likely to drop below zero on a hot day in Denver, and cruise speed is nearly equal to that of a light retractable, about 140 knots in a clean, happy airplane.

Best of all, though, the Skylane just feels stronger and more secure, capable of meeting most reasonable challenges—if you are.

Model: Cessna Skylane
Seats: 4
Max Speed: 148 knots
Retail Price Range: $43,000 to $294,000

Why we chose it:
Although the Cessna 172 is, by far, a more successful design, at least in terms of the number of aircraft sold, the C-182 is much more the successful compromise of room, performance and utility in a small single. Skylanes have continued to evolve since their birth in 1956, but the model was so well-conceived that even the older models have most of the same talents as the new ones.



5 Beech Staggerwing

For those who need to make a statement, you can’t do much better than a Beech Staggerwing. Beech’s Model 17 premiered in the early 1930s and was to evolve through a variety of iterations: fixed gear or retractable with horsepower ranging from 225 to 700.

By far, the most popular model was the G17S that flew behind the legendary P&W R-985, a 450-hp radial engine capable of pushing the Staggerwing along at better than 200 mph. Remember, this was the 1930s, and 200 mph was quite an accomplishment in a civilian airplane, especially one with struts, flying wires and two fat wings hanging in the wind.

In fact, the configuration of those two wings gave the Staggerwing its name. The top airfoil was mounted well aft of the bottom wing and continued flying after the lower wing had stalled, making the airplane effectively “stallproof.” Technically, stall speed was a low 60 mph, allowing good short-field performance.

Two buckets up front and a bench seat in back accommodated up to five souls, and the U.S. military used the airplane for reconnaissance and personnel transport during the war as the UC-43. It’s probably best remembered, however, as the ultimate civilian single prior to the Bonanza.

Model: Beech Staggerwing
Seats: 4-5
Max Speed: 173 knots
Retail Price Range: $110,000 and up

Why we chose it:
Design meets beauty. The Beech Staggerwing has become the inarguable icon of classic aircraft. Nothing before or since has offered quite the cabin comfort, remarkable speed and pure flying pleasure, all in a single package. Period.



6 Piper Cherokee Six 300

The Six’s big cargo doors open up a huge cavity in the left side of the airplane, providing access for everything from caskets and drilling equipment to mail bags and cancelled checks. If the load in back is heavy, there’s even a nose baggage compartment to help regulate the CG.

Leave the doors off altogether and the airplane makes an excellent machine for skydiving, dropping hay to stranded cattle, even air-to-ground or air-to-air photography, the latter something that we know a little about here at Plane & Pilot.

Despite the low wing, Cherokee Sixes frequently see service in the world’s hinterlands, cruising to their destinations at an easy 140 to 145 knots. As long as the runway is reasonably flat and the pilot is talented, the Big Six will deliver.

Model: Piper Cherokee Six 300
Seats: 7
Max Speed: 156 knots
Retail Price Range: $65,000 to $115,000

Why we chose it:
Versatility. From the beginning, the Cherokee Six made a name for itself as a heavy hauler. A stretched, widened, powered-up version of the Cherokee 160, the original Cherokee Six premiered with 260 hp out front and could lift nearly its own weight in useful load. A later version adopted the 300-hp engine for extra performance, and that airplane became a legend. The Sixer has flown thousands of missions as a business airplane, a family airplane and a freight hauler.



7 Piper Super Cub

You just have to love a Cub, and if it’s a Super Cub, you have to love it that much more. Perhaps sadly, Super Cubs are in such demand in the bush world that good ones are rarely available on the used market. The 150-hp models are famous for their off-airport talents and make popular airplanes in the hands of ranchers and farmers who live far from town and can land on a meadow.

Fitted with balloon tires for boondock operation, a Cub becomes the next best thing to a helicopter. Slow is the byword rather than fast. Cruise is typically only about 95 knots, but stall is well below 40 knots. Slow-fly a Cub into any significant wind on landing, and you almost feel you could jump out and run alongside. Even better, the airplane is so predictable that pilots know exactly when the wing will pay off in the flare, an important feature for a bushplane.

The Cub’s two seats are mounted in tandem and there’s plenty of plexiglas, often including an overhead skylight window, so visibility is generally excellent. Looking out or looking in, the Super Cub is an attractive package that has retained its appeal for almost 70 years.

Model: Piper Super Cub
Seats: 2
Max Speed: 113 knots
Retail Price Range: $33,000 to $90,000

Why we chose it:
Although there are many aircraft that have come along over the years that can do some things better than Cubs, we were hard-pressed to think of any one machine that can do so many things so well. In the hands of competent pilots, Cubs can do things that are downright amazing, not the least of which is leap off in 200 feet and land in 300 feet!



8 Cessna 310

Sex appeal has always counted for quite a bit in general aviation and the Cessna 310 certainly has more than its share of aesthetics. Compared to the airplanes of the day, even the original 310’s flat tip tanks (often called tuna tanks) and swept fuselage look almost jet-like, especially in contrast to Piper’s bulbous, homely Apache. The later R model with the extended nose, sharply angled tail and rakish, canted tip tanks is still one of the sexiest airplanes on any ramp.

The first 310s began life with 240-hp Continental engines, but those were quickly upgraded to 260s and, eventually, to 285-hp mills. The airplane retained twin 285s through 1981, when Cessna discontinued the 310 altogether to make way for the semi-cabin-class 303 Crusader (a mistake, as it turned out).

Model: Cessna 310
Seats: 5-6
Max Speed: 210 knots
Retail Price Range: $46,500 to $217,000

Why we chose it:
The 310 combined 570 hp and slick aerodynamics to produce an airplane that would leap uphill at nearly 2,000 fpm, then race along at 190 knots in normally aspirated trim and 215 knots with blowers attached. In combination with a large, six-seat cabin that really would accommodate six in modest comfort, the 310 gets our vote as one of the best of the best.



9 Grumman-American Tiger

If any four-seater ever hung its hat on quick handling and a sporty image, it was the Grumman-American Tiger. A product of the fertile imagination of speed guru Roy LoPresti, the Tiger was something special. It sprang from the earlier Traveller and offered near-retractable speed with fixed gear, a fixed-pitch prop and 20 less horsepower.

Built for only five years, from 1975 to 1979, the Tiger was the most exciting airplane in its class. Like the Grumman jets, the AA5B was built Hell for stout. It was blessed with bonded, rivetless, aluminum wing skins, a one-piece, carrythrough, three-inch diameter steel tube wing spar and an aluminum honeycomb cockpit framework, not exactly standard construction for a general-aviation airplane in 1975.

Granted 135 to 140 knots cruise, the quickest handling since the Bellanca Viking and the added attraction of a sliding canopy, the Tiger was a definite breath of fresh air in a world of Cherokees, Skyhawks and Musketeers. Grumman-American built some 1,300 of the type before opting out of the little-airplane business altogether. American General revived the type certificate in the early ’90s for a few years, and a new company, known simply as Tiger Aircraft, relaunched the airplane a third time last year.

Model: Grumman-American Tiger
Seats: 4
Max Speed: 148 knots
Retail Price Range: $46,000 to $85,000

Why we chose it:
If you haven’t flown one, you may not understand—but trust us: There’s nothing that flies quite like a Tiger. Ideas from the people who made fighters for a living (Grumman), combined with input from a speed genius (Roy LoPresti), makes the Tiger handle and perform like nothing in its class. And having that much fun flying, while easily outrunning everything else in its class on just 10 gallons an hour, has got to be a winning combination.



10 Aviat Husky

The Husky won’t bark at anything. Whether landing on a dirt strip, field, glacier, beach or lake, the short-field capability of this loyal friend makes for safe landings on pretty much any surface. Its versatility has gained the trust of the U.S. departments of the Interior and Agriculture and the Kenya Wildlife Service.

Its talent in the bush extends far beyond the short-field landing. No need to sleep under the wing! The Husky’s 810 pounds of useful load (832 pounds for floats) allows lots of camping, fishing or hunting gear to be loaded in the baggage compartment. And the 180-hp Lycoming O-360 with a constant-speed propeller takes you to the boonies in a flash.

Since the Husky emerged as recently as 1985, it had the benefit of computer-aided design. This advantage may have contributed to its quick certification, which was already completed by 1987. Today, Aviat still proudly produces the Husky and it’s one of the largest-selling light general-aviation aircraft in production.

Model: Aviat Husky
Seats: 2
Max Speed: 126 knots
Retail Price Range: $69,000 to $122,000

Why we chose it:
Few aircraft can compete with the Husky’s ability to hold its value in the used aircraft market. The reason is the aircraft’s versatility for taking on the bush. Take off the big tires and put it on floats, the Husky has the brawn to eat whatever’s put on its plate.



Runners-Up



Cessna 170

It seems taildraggers lose favor with each passing year. That’s partially because there so few of them are manufactured. For the first half-century of flight, tailwheels were the rule, and several of today’s nosedraggers had their foundation in conventional-gear models.

The Skyhawk that most civilian pilots rented or flew as baby birds is a descendant of the Cessna 170, the latter one being the best of the postwar, four-seat singles and, as it turned out, one of the few survivors. With its 145-hp Continental (or 165-hp Franklin on later versions), the venerable 170 was in production for almost a decade, finally phased out in 1957 to make way for its progeny, the tricycle-gear 172.

Like the Skyhawk, the 170 couldn’t even come close to flying with full seats and full fuel, but the type could generate 105 to 110 knots in cruise with two folks and 42 gallons aboard. It also manifested landing characteristics more in line with a tricycle-gear machine than a tailwheel configuration. The steering wheel was in the rear, but the airplane handled so gently during transitions from ground to sky and back that pilots hardly knew they were flying a tailwheel.

Model: Cessna 170
Seats: 4
Max Speed: 122 knots
Retail Price Range: $26,000 to $33,000

Why we chose it:
While there’s a plethora of talented bush birds out there, few offer the possibility of four passengers, and none of them make flying quite as easy as the 170. In every sense, it’s everything that made the Skyhawk the world’s most popular airplane—except with the advantages of a tailwheel.



Mooney 201

Back in the early 1970s, Mooney and Aerostar were briefly part of the same company, Butler Aviation, and many of us thought it was a perfect marriage—the most efficient single-engine retractable and the fastest, quickest-handling twin under the same banner. Sadly, the Mooney/Aerostar marriage was annulled after only two years. Ted Smith wound up, once again, in control of his Aerostar and Mooney went its own way with the Executive as its top model.

By 1976, it was time for a change at Mooney, and that change was the 201, a dramatically updated version of the Executive that realized a whopping 17-mph speed increase with the same 200-hp Lycoming engine. The improved aerodynamics boosted cruise to 195 mph (169 knots in pilot-speak). In combination with a fuel burn of less than 11 gph and a 64-gallon fuel capacity, the 201 offered the best fuel economy in general aviation. At reduced power settings, the 201 could reach out and touch destinations 1,000 nm away.

The 201, later renamed the MSE and finally the Allegro, lasted through 1998 and fostered the turbocharged 231, 252 and Encore, but many pilots regard the original 201 as the best four-seat retractable ever built.

Model: Mooney 201
Seats: 4
Max Speed: 175 knots
Retail Price Range: $87,000 to $245,000

Why we chose it:
All of Al Mooney’s designs are small, but the performances are big. When the 201 finally moved up to the larger engine, it became the first airplane to accomplish the 1:1 power to speed ratio—200 mph from a 200-hp engine. While some pilots might not admit it, most of us are in love with speed and few aircraft can touch Mooney’s tradition for putting the pedal to the metal.



Beech Baron

Descending from the original Beech 95 Travel Air, the model-58 Baron made its maiden flight in 1969. Although it would enter into a world of multi-engine aircraft from both Piper and Cessna, the Baron, aside from the Seneca Seminole, is virtually the only American piston twin still in production.

Early versions of the airplane incorporated the 285-hp Continental, and although some power enhancements were later to come down the line, important changes came in 1976 with the introduction of both a turbocharged and pressurized version, the 58TC and 58P, respectively. By 1982, the 58TC was discontinued due to lack of enthusiasm on the sales floor, with the pressurized version outselling it by a three-to-one margin. It, too, was discontinued after 1986, leaving only the original, normally aspirated Baron 58. Now produced by Raytheon, the Baron 58 is still being built.

Model: Beech Baron
Seats: 6
Max Speed: 208 knots
Retail Price Range: $143,000 to $925,000

Why we chose it:
There’s that old saying you hear about cars, the one about the wonderful, solid sound of shutting the door of a Rolls-Royce. For airplanes, it’s a Baron. For the pilot who can afford to own and operate the six-seater, it remains the paradigm of luxury, speed and handling for light twins.



Piper Seneca III

The Seneca represents the ultimate development of the Cherokee Six idea, expanded to a twin-engine airplane. The Seneca has sold well enough to remain in semi-continuous production for 30 years. Today’s Seneca has evolved to the Roman numeral “V.”

All Senecas, except the first one, have been instrumental in bringing charter capability to the little guy. (The original Seneca I had a single-engine service ceiling below 5,000 feet and didn’t qualify for Part-135 operation.) The Seneca II was a major improvement in the type and the III was even better with an extra 20 hp for climb.

The PA-34-200T series offered turbocharged Continentals that pushed the service ceiling to 25,000 feet and cruise to 190 knots. With counter-rotating props, the airplane doesn’t demand Bob Hoover’s skills to get home with one mill caged.

Like the Cherokee Six and Saratoga that share the same fuselage, the Seneca makes a good business transport and a great light family twin, with plenty of room for the family.

Model: Piper Seneca III
Seats: 7
Max Speed: 196 knots
Retail Price Range: $174,000 to $292,000

Why we chose it:
Few could argue that the Cherokee airframe has been an immensely successful design. What better airplane than one that’s the end of that same design evolution? Where cost must match capability, the Seneca remains the six-seat winner.



North American P-51 Mustang

Last on our list, and first in the minds of the vast majority of pilots, is the airplane generally regarded as the world’s preeminent piston fighter. Okay, so it didn’t start off as a general-aviation airplane, but it’s definitely one now that it’s out of the military arsenals.
If you’d never seen or heard a Mustang, you might buy it for the look and the sound alone. And don’t believe everything you read about the Mustang’s reputation as a pilot eater. P&P senior editor Bill Cox recently flew the P-51 “Crazy Horse” in Kissimmee, Fla., and reported the airplane was surprisingly easy to handle in all modes of flight, from takeoff and landing to formation, high-speed/low-level practice ground-pounding and simulated aerial combat.

Model: North American P-51 Mustang
Seats: 2
Max Speed: 380 knots
Retail Price Range: $1,000,000 and up

Why we chose it:
At a minimum $1-million per copy for a decent airplane, Mustangs definitely aren’t for everyone, but pilots who have flown them still salivate at the thought of owning a P-51 (although not at paying the maintenance bills). With a 12-cylinder Merlin engine capable of pumping out 1,600 hp, a top speed well over 350 knots plus Bonanza handling (below 250 knots), the North American P-51 deserves its place as the ultimate general-aviation airplane.
 
Time to revive this thread. And my account.

I live in DFW, so I frequent both DFW and DAL. DFW is American's home hub, and DAL is Southwest's home base, so we get to see a decent amount of special planes from each airline. DFW is also the main international gateway to Dallas, while DAL is almost exclusively Southwest (with the exception of a few flights by Delta, Virgin-Alaska, and Alaska SkyWest).

First up is one of my favorites in the American heritage fleet, even though it's an ex-US Airways frame, the America West scheme on N838AW. I do wish American kept N828AW in the older America West scheme as I tend to prefer that one.
53TLwdw.jpg


AirCal is my second favorite, painted on N917NN.
uAmqy6o.jpg


Reno Air, painted on N916NN.
DQwjVyA.jpg


New Mexico's state flag looking bright and vibrant on N781WN.
nClkm2S.jpg


A few of my other favorites.
D3OA97i.jpg

LdJ88Rr.jpg

MzPmWf7.jpg

PDlf2X2.jpg

XOdrf5M.jpg
 
It's a shame Delta doesn't do special liveries but rather only small insignia's on the front of the nose.

I recall one day flying stand-by out of Pittsburgh and seeing the same Southwest Maryland paint scheme 737 3 times in the span of 7 hours...
 
It's a shame Delta doesn't do special liveries but rather only small insignia's on the front of the nose.

Yeah it would've been nice if Delta kept one or two heritage liveries for Northwest on one or two of their Airbuses. Kinda like how American did with N578UW; full US Airways livery with American titles slapped on.

n578uw-american-airlines-airbus-a321-231_PlanespottersNet_627485_4dfaff86fa.jpg


This plane is a frequent visitor to DFW, usually from the ex-US Airways hubs of PHX, CLT, or PHL.
 
Some recent sightings at DFW.

The Queen ascending to Her throne in the sky. Atlas 747-400 wet-leased to Nippon Cargo heading to Chicago.
jNfeg0V.jpg


Japan Airlines 787-9 heading back to Tokyo.
sQ33fK7.jpg


American MD82; N501AA is looking good at 28.
2KGK6wf.jpg


Cargolux 747-8F Spirit of Schengen.
NCtcpar.jpg


American's newest heritage livery, sort of. N921NN was the last 737 delivered to American with the bare metal look. Once the MD80s are gone this will be the only bare metal plane in their fleet.
KGM5C1c.jpg


British Airways Queen.
3x0deWh.jpg


Cathay Pacific Cargo 747-8F in the new colors, it was absolutely beautiful.
75QSWDQ.jpg


American Dreamliner about to touch down from Shanghai.
QzaQ9PP.jpg


EVA Cargo running late, as usual. But the good thing is a daytime landing!
Fh5HM4O.jpg


Eastern Airlines/Dynamic Airways 767-200 coming in on a charter from Punta Cana.
4bmupxm.jpg


Swift Air 737-400 coming in on a charter from Freeport.
LtlwHrn.jpg


Hands down the best special paintjob in the skies today, More to Love by Alaska. A very special treat.
c9ZwlDz.jpg


Rounding out this post with a very special visitor to Dallas today. Funny thing, last night in a local spotters group someone asked if he would be on the VC25. Thinking he meant the 757 I told him it was safe to assume so. But I later backtracked and corrected myself. Fast forward to this morning, sure enough he's on the 747.
HXO5WYq.jpg
 
I have a picture of the VC-25 last year when the President flew into KPHX. I thought it was cool seeing the plane as I'd never seen it before. My wife had pointed it out to me, right before we got into our vehicle.

I always liked how you can tell it apart from other 747 due to all the little extra defensive equipment it has, and how there are these protrusions you'd normally not see, and if it weren't painted in it's distinctive livery, it would be easy to pick out still. I also like how it doesn't have unnecessary winglets too.
 
Rounding out this post with a very special visitor to Dallas today. Funny thing, last night in a local spotters group someone asked if he would be on the VC25. Thinking he meant the 757 I told him it was safe to assume so. But I later backtracked and corrected myself. Fast forward to this morning, sure enough he's on the 747.
HXO5WYq.jpg
How is it different from a normal 747 exactly?
 
Hey, winglets are extremely beneficial to aircraft. The drag reduction is very significant, combined with increased lift without needing a lot of additional span. Most aircraft, even smaller GA aircraft, are going to winglets or raked wingtips due to the performance increase. I know with the ERJ-145's I work on, the versions with winglets (ERJ-145XR's) have reduced drag, increased range, and a higher top speed when compared to the normal LR models. Plus, winglets are sexy :sly:
*EDIT*
Even helicopter rotor blades now have winglets on some of the more advanced ones, lol

And some pics I took:
United Express Embraer ERJ-145LR


Allegiant Airbus A321


US Coast Guard Eurocopter HH-65C Dolphin(Could be a D model though)


US Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon


Air France Airbus A380


US Navy McDonnell Douglas T-45C Goshawk


US Marine Corps McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II+


FedEx Airbus A300F


DHL/Atlas Air Cargo Boeing 767-200F




 
Last edited:
Hey, winglets are extremely beneficial to aircraft. The drag reduction is very significant, combined with increased lift without needing a lot of additional span. Most aircraft, even smaller GA aircraft, are going to winglets or raked wingtips due to the performance increase. I know with the ERJ-145's I work on, the versions with winglets (ERJ-145XR's) have reduced drag, increased range, and a higher top speed when compared to the normal LR models. Plus, winglets are sexy :sly:

Extremely is overreaching. Yes on aircraft of certain perameters it makes somewhat logical sense, you lose payload in the OEW but gain more distance theoretically due to lower drag, thus less fuel used and thus over time more money saved. However, it's a sort of band-aid it could be argued to poor wing design to begin with. Also it has some roll and yaw consequences too.

This can be overcome by better aspect ratio, taper ratio, wing geometry in general and wing twist. Also performance can be better achieved when trying to get the better out of TSFC. However, I feel some of what you said was a bit joking considering you say the one thing people in aerospace typically say when talking about winglets, and their "sexy looks".

If I didn't have to do design studies and learn from probably one of the biggest proponents of winglets I might think differently on the matter.
How is it different from a normal 747 exactly?

So since I was vague in my post or you perhaps missed it. There are protrusions all along the plane, where stuff has been added. The plane has flares, chaff, ECM items such as IR pulse equipment to fend off heatseaking missiles, UV tracking and jamming. Various antenna for potential communication to satellites. Also has more powerful engines than that standard 200s, heat shielding for the wires and tons of electronics and wiring. Plus the inside is completely turned into an office building. Also can be refueled in air.

And that's what people can gleam from photos and the little bit that has been released to the public. There is still classified stuff we don't know about it.
 
Last edited:
Extremely is overreaching. Yes on aircraft of certain perameters it makes somewhat logical sense, you lose payload in the OEW but gain more distance theoretically due to lower drag, thus less fuel used and thus over time more money saved. However, it's a sort of band-aid it could be argued to poor wing design to begin with. Also it has some pitch and yaw consequences too.

This can be overcome by better aspect ratio, taper ratio, wing geometry in general and wing twist. Also performance can be better achieved when trying to get the better out of TSFC. However, I feel some of what you said was a bit joking considering you say the one thing people in aerospace typically say when talking about winglets, and their "sexy looks".

If I didn't have to do design studies and learn from probably one of the biggest proponents of winglets I might think differently on the matter.
Well, every wing is a compromise to some extent, otherwise you wouldn't see such devices. Generally though, winglets are an easy way to net a several percent reduction in drag, and hence fuel burn, for not much added weight. While it isn't as big of an issue with the bulk of GA aircraft, for a commercial aircraft, even a few percent is enough to warrant the expense. Nearly every new or heavily updated commercial or business aircraft these days have wingtip devices, so the benefits are obviously enough for why such devices would be used, otherwise no one would bother with the cost.
 
Well, every wing is a compromise to some extent, otherwise you wouldn't see such devices. Generally though, winglets are an easy way to net a several percent reduction in drag, and hence fuel burn, for not much added weight. While it isn't as big of an issue with the bulk of GA aircraft, for a commercial aircraft, even a few percent is enough to warrant the expense. Nearly every new or heavily updated commercial or business aircraft these days have wingtip devices, so the benefits are obviously enough for why such devices would be used, otherwise no one would bother with the cost.

I wouldn't say they're obvious but more so cost effective and net a gain. In other words there are better ways to go about it, but at the risk of going over budget on what the mission is given the client in the end this is a cheaper compromise. As I've said if I weren't shown the actually AIAA papers disputing it from a well traversed member of the field I'd agree from an aerodynamics perspective. However, from a performance perspective there are way to improve fuel eff. while maintaining twisted non winglet wings.
 
I wouldn't say they're obvious but more so cost effective and net a gain. In other words there are better ways to go about it, but at the risk of going over budget on what the mission is given the client in the end this is a cheaper compromise. As I've said if I weren't shown the actually AIAA papers disputing it from a well traversed member of the field I'd agree from an aerodynamics perspective. However, from a performance perspective there are way to improve fuel eff. while maintaining twisted non winglet wings.

Yeah, cost effectiveness is the bigger issue when it comes to advanced wing design. High aspect ratio twisted wings are much more complex in terms of design and construction right now, so till that drops, easier to design and develop wingtip devices will stay in use.
 
Yeah, cost effectiveness is the bigger issue when it comes to advanced wing design. High aspect ratio twisted wings are much more complex in terms of design and construction right now, so till that drops, easier to design and develop wingtip devices will stay in use.

I agree, but I feel the other issue is range which is why I brought up TSFC eff. It seems to me that not all GAs are actually moving to winglet designs and the new ones that do seem to be short to medium range fliers. For example that last Boeing renditions didn't have winglets which they were a major driving force of to begin with. I can't recall any triple 7 with them and only the newest short wing 787 will have them, so to me it seems long range fliers don't need them due to that ability to design wings with in a certain AR and taper.
 
I agree, but I feel the other issue is range which is why I brought up TSFC eff. It seems to me that not all GAs are actually moving to winglet designs and the new ones that do seem to be short to medium range fliers. For example that last Boeing renditions didn't have winglets which they were a major driving force of to begin with. I can't recall any triple 7 with them and only the newest short wing 787 will have them, so to me it seems long range fliers don't need them due to that ability to design wings with in a certain AR and taper.
Well, the 787 does have wingtip devices, the raked wingtips, which are fitted to some 767 variants. The P-8 Poseidon also has raked wingtips. The new Embraer ERJ-175E2 has raked wingtips, while normal ERJ-175's use winglet-like devices that are between the raked wingtips and conventional winglets. IIRC they have slightly better performance over normal winglets. Then there are the split winglets of the 737-Max, which are being retrofitted to older Next Gen 737's. Those supposedly are even more efficient.
 
Well, the 787 does have wingtip devices, the raked wingtips, which are fitted to some 767 variants. The P-8 Poseidon also has raked wingtips. The new Embraer ERJ-175E2 has raked wingtips, while normal ERJ-175's use winglet-like devices that are between the raked wingtips and conventional winglets. IIRC they have slightly better performance over normal winglets. Then there are the split winglets of the 737-Max, which are being retrofitted to older Next Gen 737's. Those supposedly are even more efficient.

Yes but they're not winglets, and they play into many factors one of thos being the Dihedral angle as well as manipulating the vortices. When I talk about the short range going to a winglet design that is vastly different than the main (current) 787.

p20012cc8g38001.jpg


Also it's not just raked wing tips anyways the entire wing is raked due to the fact these planes operate as such higher machs than say a decade and a half to two decades ago. I've also read they have better wing performance, but again that is because they were designed with that thought in mind from the get go and not to be an added on feature 5-10 years down the road.
 
these planes operate as such higher machs than say a decade and a half to two decades ago.

That's not strictly true, the rough cruise for a 737-100 was 0.82 compared to 0.85 for a 787. The latter is the same as the cruise for the monstrous A380 double decker, a demonstration that modern cruise speeds are not a pure function of aero design as much as they are of modern engines. Flight cost indexes are set by engine performance. The VNAV and cruise speed are set by engine performance and efficiency (calculated in all as cost index), improving the slipperiness and aero effectiveness of an aircraft just adds to the engine efficiency. Wing chord/rake on passenger jets is always a compromise between the CoGs allowed in the trim envelope and the huge range of weights that an aircraft will operate at - very few aircraft can land as heavy as they take off (hence circle/dump procedures for returns). That means that the wings are never truly optimised for pure aero performance.
 
That's not strictly true, the rough cruise for a 737-100 was 0.82 compared to 0.85 for a 787. The latter is the same as the cruise for the monstrous A380 double decker, a demonstration that modern cruise speeds are not a pure function of aero design as much as they are of modern engines. Flight cost indexes are set by engine performance. The VNAV and cruise speed are set by engine performance and efficiency (calculated in all as cost index), improving the slipperiness and aero effectiveness of an aircraft just adds to the engine efficiency. Wing chord/rake on passenger jets is always a compromise between the CoGs allowed in the trim envelope and the huge range of weights that an aircraft will operate at - very few aircraft can land as heavy as they take off (hence circle/dump procedures for returns). That means that the wings are never truly optimised for pure aero performance.

That's not necessarily true, I've actually seen the empirical data for engine performance and what they put in a nice brochure isn't the end all for what these aircraft can operate. Many of them easily see mach .92, and I've had to actually run the VBA on the data to get performance outputs to see what L/D is at that mach, what the TSFC is and so on. These aircraft are capable of these numbers due to being more advanced, and more efficient. However, the issue becomes structural integrity and not adhering to the Area rule either. Flight cost index are set by more than just engine performance, as we just discussed with the winglet debate. There are other factors too, like general aircraft being used.

I would say as far as the wing goes, yes we hit at that idea of it being a mixture of performance guys and GNC guys setting a balance. You're kind of echoing what we were getting at, and at the risk of hearing a very slimmed down version of aircraft performance classes that I've done, I think we can move on in respect to that portion. Simplest way to put it, nothing is optimized in the development of an aircraft, because you have aero design guys, performance guys, stability/control guys, structure guys and propulsion guys all working in unison and having to give and take to yield the best product for the mission at hand. What the main thing I was getting at was there can and should be compromising to yield better long term performance rather than cheaper short term gains.
 
However, the issue becomes structural integrity and not adhering to the Area rule either.

I thought it went without saying that the engines can (and always could) take the airframe way out of a survivable envelope ;)

I've had to actually run the VBA on the data to get performance outputs to see what L/D is at that mach, what the TSFC is and so on.

So you'll be aware that the times an aircraft runs true along its origin are absolutely nil, the variations are even greater for pressurised aircraft, that's why it's all about compromise.
 
I thought it went without saying that the engines can (and always could) take the airframe way out of a survivable envelope ;)
It's not way out, though many of the engines we ran data for were easily .88-.9 mach values. The outside is the supposed .95-1

So you'll be aware that the times an aircraft runs true along its origin are absolutely nil, the variations are even greater for pressurised aircraft, that's why it's all about compromise.

What do you mean by "runs true along its origin"? The variations are great due to various factors some of which aren't going to be the same there to here per say. Performance though here is set on CFR guidelines and that's what dictates alot of what aircraft are allowed and not. Thus compromises come from it.
 
Back