Fast Jets, eg - provhost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mate was in the USAF flying F15s - a provhost should be no problem:-)
I wish I had te skill/confidence/money to take up a Jet, but I thinhk that's way on the horizon for me!
Thanks for all your help - I've passed it on.
WF.
I wish I had te skill/confidence/money to take up a Jet, but I thinhk that's way on the horizon for me!
Thanks for all your help - I've passed it on.
WF.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal,
My sentiments exactly (I'll just go fix the lottery) - but isn't it strange that the TwinStar cost 60% more (inc VAT) than the L39C?
Anyone got any tax advice *cough* we can use?
I'm going to paint mine with flying pigs.
When I win the lottery, alongside my G1000 Diesel Twin Star, I think I'll have an all singing, all dancing L39, painted black with red stars on the wings..... (about $300,000 should buy a nice one)
Anyone got any tax advice *cough* we can use?
I'm going to paint mine with flying pigs.
Last edited by Confabulous; 13th Jan 2005 at 16:04.
The Mk 4 was the fastest. It had the Viper 202 rated at 2450Lbs, same as the Mk5. However, he Mk5 had the pressurisation which took away some of the oomph, but you could get that back on the MK5 by switching it off. That would give you another 10knts at low level, up to 370 at max chat on a cold day. Great, except that you could see the fuel guages moving! However, the MK5 had the bigger canopy which added a bit of drag. Also, when it was discovered that the larger canopy made it more unstable in the spin, the roughened leading edges and nose strakes were added in an attempt to stabilise it. These added more drag and increased the low level fuel burn by 5lbs a minute.
Only flew the Mk3 once - on the CFS course. I remember lots of noise, no movement and a desire to take it back to the line and put it US due to lack of power as we were still trying to scrabble airborne after 6,000' of Scampton's 10,000' runway had pased us.
Not a bad aircraft, simple, stable, safe and easy to fly. But I will open a new debate by stating the Tucano is better - even if it is slower!
Only flew the Mk3 once - on the CFS course. I remember lots of noise, no movement and a desire to take it back to the line and put it US due to lack of power as we were still trying to scrabble airborne after 6,000' of Scampton's 10,000' runway had pased us.
Not a bad aircraft, simple, stable, safe and easy to fly. But I will open a new debate by stating the Tucano is better - even if it is slower!
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 13th Jan 2005 at 17:48.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,618
Received 486 Likes
on
258 Posts
As an ex-RAF pilot trained on the JP and a bit more experience on type in another later role .... I ask a simple question. What is the likely outcome of an engine failure on these aircraft, bearing in mind the threshold speed and inertia of the type?
Are the ejector seats live? If not, I presume parachutes are worn at all times. What is the recommended minimum abandonment height? I wouldn't want personally want to be putting one down in Farmer Giles's ploughed field because there was no other option.
Are the ejector seats live? If not, I presume parachutes are worn at all times. What is the recommended minimum abandonment height? I wouldn't want personally want to be putting one down in Farmer Giles's ploughed field because there was no other option.
Welshflyer, if your chum has flown F-15s, the odds of him finding anything comparable are extremely minimal, and certainly not in a Jet Provost. Clearly he will have a lot of flying ability, and I doubt he's lost the ability to learn.
If they have a lot of money, then a Hunter out of somewhere like Kemble would probably be a lot closer - it was, after-all, a fighter, and a joy in it's light and responsive handling (some might argue a poor fighter, but he's not going to war in it, just wants to enjoy himself). If he hasn't, he'd be far better off looking sideways at something like a Pitts or Yak, backwards at a fun historic aeroplane like a Steerman, replica spitfire, Harvard in which he can enjoy some proper hooliganism as well as the pleasure of learning to fly something new.
Hard to disagree that a cherokee is boring (comfortable and practical as well mind you - I love mine for touring, but rarely fly it for pure fun), but I'm unconvinced that an elderly (and, let's be honest, deeply ugly) jet trainer with about 45 minutes endurance is the right way for your friend to restore his love of flying.
Mind you, Neville Duke still flies a Cherokee.
G
If they have a lot of money, then a Hunter out of somewhere like Kemble would probably be a lot closer - it was, after-all, a fighter, and a joy in it's light and responsive handling (some might argue a poor fighter, but he's not going to war in it, just wants to enjoy himself). If he hasn't, he'd be far better off looking sideways at something like a Pitts or Yak, backwards at a fun historic aeroplane like a Steerman, replica spitfire, Harvard in which he can enjoy some proper hooliganism as well as the pleasure of learning to fly something new.
Hard to disagree that a cherokee is boring (comfortable and practical as well mind you - I love mine for touring, but rarely fly it for pure fun), but I'm unconvinced that an elderly (and, let's be honest, deeply ugly) jet trainer with about 45 minutes endurance is the right way for your friend to restore his love of flying.
Mind you, Neville Duke still flies a Cherokee.
G
