Classic aircraft

[WaspJunior]

That's weird Ultra long hauler, I owned PH-VHN in the mid 1980's a while after she came on the British register as G-BFPH. Strange to see her in her true colours, a lovely 172 with a silky smooth 0-300 Continental. Still flying at Gamston I believe.

Classic aircraft I'd love to try:

FW 190 (short nose, BMW radial).
Boeing (Stearman) PT13/17.
Hawker Hurricane.

[Old Fella]

Classic's

Just cannot believe that nobody has mentioned the Lockheed Legend, the C130. First in service in 1956 and still in production. There surely has never been a more versatile airlifter built, which does not mean I do not think of the C47 (DC3) with similar admiration.

[Tupperware Pilot]

The J-3....and I'm not just saying that because I have one.....
[IMG] B&W edit of my new toy... by Air Frame Photography, on Flickr[/IMG]

[goldeneaglepilot]

Tupperware pilot - they are nice aircraft to have a share of. Are there any more shares free in the AF Group?

[foxmoth]

Chipmunk had nicely harmonized controls but was a bit underpowered and needed a decent inverted fuel system

agree with this and the comments by Shaggy

I'd agree with him on both counts. And I'd add that a CS prop would be good when aerobatting (constantly pulling back what little power there is to avoid overspeeding the engine in aeros does nothing for conserving height).

But with those changes it wouldn't be a Chippy, wouldn't have the character. That's why I flew a Yak52 for a few years. Missed the Chippy, though, and returned eagerly to my first love when the Yak group folded.

The aircraft that I think fits this is the RV8, possibly some of the others in the RV stable as well, but do not really know these, and, nice as it is, too new to be a classic (yet).

[Ultra long hauler]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

come on guys, the C172 is many things but it will never be a "classic" airplane

Over 50 years in production, having been sold more than any other type and NOT a classic?
I guess we are playing semantics when it comes to the word "classic"; because in my book it is!

Originally Posted by WaspJunior

That's weird Ultra long hauler, I owned PH-VHN in the mid 1980's a while after she came on the British register as G-BFPH. Strange to see her in her true colours, a lovely 172 with a silky smooth 0-300 Continental. Still flying at Gamston I believe.

Haha, I just googled 172 and chose a "classic" looking one, with a Dutch registration! Small world..........

Originally Posted by kevmusic

For ULH's benefit:

Spitfire:

Hurricane:

Thanks Kev, but sorry: I don´t see the big difference!
They´re both lookers though!

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by WaspJunior

I owned PH-VHN in the mid 1980's a while after she came on the British register as G-BFPH. Strange to see her in her true colours, a lovely 172 with a silky smooth 0-300 Continental. Still flying at Gamston I believe.
.

PH-VHN is 1970's vintage C 172 with a lycoming engine. You can tell from the square rear side windows, the fairing over the tubular main gear and the fat exhaust pipe out the right side of the cowling. (The Contintental 0 300 engine powered ones had oval side windows, unfaired flat main gear springs and two small exhaust pipes on the bottom of the cowl). It also has the 1973 factory paint scheme.

[WaspJunior]

@ Big Pistons Forever, It is probably because it is a French assembled one that the differences occur. I can assure you that it has got an O-300 engine. From the register:

Mark:G-BFPH Current Reg. Date:14/12/2005
Previous ID:PH-VHN

Manufacturer:REIMS AVIATION SA
Type:REIMS CESSNA F172K
Serial No.:0802

Popular Name:SKYHAWK
Generic Name:172
Aircraft Class:FIXED-WING LANDPLANE
EASA Category:CS-23E: Normal and Utility Category Aeroplane
Engines (Propellers):1: 1 x CONTINENTAL MOTORS CORP O-300-D ( MCCAULEY 1C172/EM7653 )

MTOW:1043kg Total Hours: 8734 at 31/12/2010
Year Built:1971

[Chuck Ellsworth]

WaspJunior::

['India-Mike]

Well, in the unobtainable class....Gloster Gladiator

In the nearly obtainable class....the Beaver. I've had two passenger trips in the Beaver (well 3 if I include a stopover at Saltspring Island en-route to Vancouver from Pat Bay). What an impressive lifter, even on floats. The sound and the feel of being airborne was visceral. I'd love to have a shot at flying one

As an aero engineer and a pilot, I have to say the Cessna 172 is a true design classic. Does exactly what it says on the tin. Had the opportunity of flying an amphibian version yesterday (off land and water) and it just solidified my impression of the design. A true classic

For the perverts amongst us, I think the Robinson R22 is a classic - well, a classic piece of design at least. Frank Robinson is an engineering genius

I haven't mentioned the Chipmunk - that's because I'm a part-owner of one. It's good; it's very good, even without inverted oil/fuel, vp prop and another 40 hp. But to my mind it's not a classic, just a very very nice little aeroplane that did its job extremely well

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hmm, 172.

It is an incredibly effective and safe aeroplane, for touring or training. I have occasionally actually enjoyed flying one.

However, I'm afraid that for me it is basically the aeronautical equivalent of intercourse whilst wearing an extra thick condom. Utterly safe, and basically enjoyable - but changing just about anything would make it more satisfying.

G

['India-Mike]

Tut tut G...and you're an engineer too

[Big Pistons Forever]

Well you learn something new everyday. All American built C 172,s after 1967 had Lycomings engines but it seems the Reims built aircraft kept the Continentals until the early 1970,s. I assume that was because they wanted to keep the European built Rolls Royce Continentals over having to buy US built Lycomings.

I will second your comments about the engine being very smooth if properly maintained.

As for its status as a "Classic" .........well we will have to agree to disagree on that

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have found the Reims Rocket - a fuel injected, VP prop equipped, 210hp FR172J as something of an improvement upon the standard US versions. But it is however still a 172.

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Re the 172 - I have to agree with Ghengis. I've spent many hours driving various marks of 172 around the sky and they have always failed to inspire. Competant, safe.... elevator is quite nice, flaps on the older ones (40 degrees) are excellent, but oh those vague ailerons, stiff and unco-ordinated rudder, and everything else that makes it what it is.

Bit of a rice pudding, I'm afraid.

What concerns me about this, the similarly dull PA28, and a few others colloqually known as 'spam cans' is that many PPLs have probably never experienced anything else and think all aeroplanes are like that.

They are not! There are lots of delightful machines out there, Lotus Elises compared to Ford Cortinas, many with the little wheel at the other end!