Leaderboard

May not be the case here, but rich old men playing fighter pilot in irreplaceable WW-II planes, wrecking them, endangering lives, and sometimes killing themselves is a crying shame. Jack Roush is a prime example.

I've taken my "F" from Florida to Las Vegas, New York and I picked it up in Minnesota. I generally avoid night IFR and I always avoid forecasted ice, though I've been caught to where I was forced to fly an unforeseen approach down to ILS minimums at night when fog rolled in off the gulf. I also avoid CBs, which means, in the summertime in Florida, I am VFR only -- not worth risking hitting an embedded thunderstorm and I've watched the buildups outclimb the airplane. My basic rules for long cross-county flights are as follows: 1) Avoid a wet footprint whenever possible. This means stay within gliding distance of coastline. I sweat it out for a few minutes on my occasional Key West trips. 2) If you must be at your destination by a certain day/time, plan your flight to get there a day or two early if you're crossing the continent. That way you can still make your destination as scheduled if you have to get your plane fixed or leave it behind, which brings me to item 3. 3) Plan legs and fuel stops around accommodations, maintenance and transportation; it's not worth saving $0.50/gallon on gas only to find yourself stranded on a remote field on a weekend with no maintenance, rental cars or flights to your destination. For example, I flew from Tampa Bay to Las Vegas last October. I scheduled my flight to get there two days early. My fuel stops were at KGGG (Don Maxwell), KLBB (to check out the area) and KABQ. All locations were secure, had access to Southwest if I had to leave my plane, and I would have been able to locate maintenance if I needed it. More importantly, it reduced the psychological factors that might affect decision making. If you are faced with sleeping in freezing cold weather with coyotes in the distance and then continuing on in the morning with inadequate sleep while trying to beat the next day's weather, or pushing yourself on while fatigued at night, you may find yourself making a tough decision under the confusion of being already fatigued. It's best to have the option of a comfortable hotel room, a safe place for your airplane and convenient commercial transportation to get you out of wherever you are if absolutely necessary.

In a J you can hold at 90 knots, and with careful prop, mixture, and MP settings (2100, peak EGT, 15"), you can get the fuel flow down to 3.9 GPH

Although I agree with most of your points, in this case I don't think this is valid. If the engine is destined to quit, it will quit X seconds after takeoff regardless of flaps or not (some might argue sooner with flaps because higher angle means less cooling). I think you're right that your climb angle is effectively steeper with flaps but this takes extra time. Like gear, if you can retract flaps fairly soon, that is less energy you're going to waste on drag. Actually I think (and am pretty sure) that FPM is higher with flaps retracted. However, you're right that with flaps extend (especially with headwind) you will stay closer while you get higher. When it comes to the impossible turn, being close probably doesn't help. As for being higher and/or faster I'd suspect it would be with flaps retracted.

What?? That's a pretty presumptuous statement there. Has for Jack Rousch....he's never had an accident in a warbird of any kind. In fact he is upgrading and building new Merlin/components and has done amazing things in the warbird movement. A previously poster was correct in that the number of flyable warbirds is increasing. In large part due to recoveries, technology and process allowing what was once only good for scrap to fly again. I've been around and involved with warbird my whole life and can tell you has a fact that 99.9% of the people involved are not doing what you accuse them of.

Sometimes a willing passenger can come in 'handy'

It's a shame when someone wrecks a plane, especially if someone(s) get hurt. But what's the alternative? The rich guys take their money elsewhere, the warbirds sit and rust away, and no one enjoys them at all? You can say the same thing regarding people crashing their Mooney's, but I think we're better off to have as many of them flying as possible. The wrecks keep the factory open and producing parts, and the mechanics in business! My guess is that even counting the warbird crashes, there are more warbirds in flying status because of rich guys. Look at the lengths they go to restore some of the old derelicts. I doubt most rich old guys would spend the money it takes to rebuild these things if they couldn't go fly them as they please. Steve

May or may not be the case here with this Corsair, but I could make a very long list of examples right off the top of my head. I agree completely Fantom.

ISTM, "disregard" is much too strong a word. The A&P usually has considerable latitude when it comes to methods and determination of airworthiness. "Recommended" or "not recommended" is not mandatory. Intentionally. I suppose. Frankly, I would rather have my plane (and my neck) in the hands of a smart, experienced A&P who thinks than a legalist who follows the letter of the law by rote.

Gents - I am no aerospace engineer, but my understanding was that flaps increase the angle of climb, but don't necessarily increase the rate of climb. In fact, they increase drag, thereby decreasing performance. Am I off-base with this comment? My perspective is that if you leave the flaps extended longer, you will be higher, closer to the field, should you have a problem. On a cold day in Monterey, I am 1000' AGL by the end of the runway. On a hot day, it might only by 500-600' AGL. Leaving flaps extended longer improves one's chances to make the fabled 180 degree turn and plant it on the runway (in the vicinity of the runway). Or not? To me, with only one engine, altitude is life. That is why at home, I leave flaps extended until 800' MSL - because I think I can make the turn back to the field at this point. But my M20G isn't exactly a rocket in the climb - I think it is just slightly underpowered, which is why the F model was and is more popular....

A legion of old wives tales to support the no tail stand data. Pure nonsense, and you're absolutely right Bob. Nice stand you made, BTW. Demanding data for why a tail stand is OK to use, while having no real data of why it can't be used, and suggesting a SI is mandatory is irresponsible...at best! One danger about communities like ours is people suggesting dangers where none exist, usually because of inexperience and not doing their homework, or any research before they post.

I had the same problem and fixed it with the lasar tiedown/jackpoint and put a nut on the topside. I had to use a slightly longer capscrew so it stuck through enough to put the nut on it.

The M20 was Al's 20th aircraft design. So... we suppose whatever he did was on purpose.

I always get a kick out of the auto - aviation comparison , Are car engines better ? yes , but they don't run at 75% percent power , they probably average in the low 20 to 30 % percent of power on average.....Our aviation engines run at 100% probably almost 8% of their life ... Car engines usually NEVER see 75% ..... Food for thought......

This paper (attached) studies the use of flaps to reduce take off distance. In their words "substantial reductions in the distance required by an airplane to take off and climb to a distance of 50 feet should be possible through the use of flaps". Three most useless things in aviation: Sky above you, runway behind you and the gas you left on the ground. So, obviously, using less runway is good. But I don't see any point in waiting to get the flaps up. The paper says they reduce runway used, it does NOT say they increase climb rate. Once you're off the concrete and over the obstacle, they're not useful anymore... they're just drag when what you need now is airspeed (cruise climb). Personally, me raising take off flaps has more to do with when I have a few spare cycles and can safely divert attention to retracting them rather than any performance based criteria. use_of_flaps_on_takeoff.pdf

None of the selections; all of the selections. Depends on what I'm doing after takeoff. If I'm climbing straight-away, generally pretty quickly. If I'm making a turn right after takeoff, I leave the flaps out to provide a bit better stall margin at a lower airspeed to keep the turn radius smaller. If I'm concerned about obstacle clearance, I might delay retraction until clear, but accelerating to clean climb speed may be a better solution depending on how far away the obstacles are. Just depends.