16 May 2025, 10:18 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough?  Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 10:23 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/14
Posts: 2091
Post Likes: +1564
Location: Huntington Beach, CA (KFUL)
Aircraft: 1971 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Low pass at KSC at the 5:00 mark.........watch the altimeter spin on the pull up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHaQ-8ta9EYI'm happy when I'm light and I see 1500 feet/minute.... That's gotta be something close to 1000 feet/SECOND initially!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough? Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 18:48 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 7297
Post Likes: +4793
Location: Live in San Carlos, CA - based Hayward, CA KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Low pass at KSC at the 5:00 mark.........watch the altimeter spin on the pull up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHaQ-8ta9EYI'm happy when I'm light and I see 1500 feet/minute.... That's gotta be something close to 1000 feet/SECOND initially!
I counted the altimeter needle go around 18 times in about 30 seconds. You are almost right, and not just for the first couple thousand feet.... wow.
_________________
-Jon C.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough? Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 21:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20009
Post Likes: +25057
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: [youtube]https://youtu.be/I0v-QUMiVFI[/youtube] The shots of the landing gear really make it plain just how much F104 DNA is in an MU2. Mitsubishi built F104J in the early 1960s during the time the MU2 was designed. No parts are interchangeable that I know of, but you sure can see the design influence in a few places. I guess that means the MU2 design is partly Lockheed. Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough? Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 06:25 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 7357
Post Likes: +4086
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Anyone know why it shakes so much? In a lot of phases of flight.
I first saw the pilots hand shake just after rotation so I thought it had something to do with the spinning tires coupled with gear retraction.
Phil The tip tanks move (wiggle) a lot, like the Mu2 they are relatively flexible so that camera looks funny. There would probably be some aero buffet since it ain’t got much wing (boundary layer control air fed by bleed air). I assisted on the SF crew a few times back when they did airshows, with Tom Delashaw (RIP). Those motors make some really goofy sounds at idle.
_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough? Posted: 10 Jun 2018, 11:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/09
Posts: 1287
Post Likes: +137
Company: Red Hawk
Location: TVC - Traverse City, MI
Aircraft: 2014 RV7A
|
|
Or try an F4 Phantom. When I flew the P51C (Collins Foundation) a couple years ago, you could also buy an hour in their F4 for a mere $11,000.00.  Still would have been a once in a lifetime.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough? Posted: 11 Jun 2018, 01:01 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/22/16
Posts: 559
Post Likes: +654
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Or try an F4 Phantom. When I flew the P51C (Collins Foundation) a couple years ago, you could also buy an hour in their F4 for a mere $11,000.00. Still would have been a once in a lifetime. You should have Ed. When flown clean the F-4 approaches the performance of a '104.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Stallion 51 just not enough? Posted: 13 Jun 2018, 19:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/11/08
Posts: 474
Post Likes: +183
Aircraft: PA28-161
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Or try an F4 Phantom. When I flew the P51C (Collins Foundation) a couple years ago, you could also buy an hour in their F4 for a mere $11,000.00. Still would have been a once in a lifetime. You should have Ed. When flown clean the F-4 approaches the performance of a '104.
It's news to me that the Phantom "approached" the performance of a 104. The Phantom owned the time to climb to 40K and the time to reach 40K at Mach 2.2 after the Starfighter and I guaran damned good and tee you it could out hustle a 104 with four AIM 9s and two Aim 7s (not to mention you couldn't even find a place on the 104 to bolt all that stuff let alone drag a full 600 gal centerline tank off the carrier deck).
Performance specs for cleaned up, stripped out, civilianized warbirds are a little disingenuous in that this condition was never encountered in military life but, based on the above, I'd be very surprised if a buffed out, no radar in the nose, well tuned Phantom couldn't run away from a similarly configured Starfighter.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
