Today's "If I won the Lottery" daydream . . .

http://www.platinumfighters.com/#!p-51d-vh-fst/cjem

Thought some of you guys might appreciate this. For a mere $1,799,000, you, too, could own a 2 seat trainer version P-51 Mustang.

Go to those guys' website. They have some cool stuff in Australia. They have Strega on their for sale list, but no price.

I think I would buy something that was more forgiving; I think jumping in a Mustang is a good way for a nouveau riche playboy to end up buried in the side of a hill.

I've always had a thing for the Long-EZ. Yeah, it's about $1,619,000 cheaper than a Mustang, but it also looks cool!

If I won the lottery, the first major purchase (besides some impulse car buy) would be acreage. I mean a...cre...age. Then I'd hear from you folks and someone would want to start a rally stage on my land and I'd oblige them. Just watch out for the misses' new horses.

Is it bad that I've already found the house I'd buy if I hit the lotto?

It's a nice older farmhouse with a grass airstrip and a significant amount of hangar and garage space.

The way I see it, my humble collection of fun cars would share the hangar with my new Carbon Cub SS.

It's nice to dream.

I'd buy something like this, and hit the road for 10-15 years.

My current (modest) aeronautical Lotto win would be an Ercoupe. Laughed at by many, but I think they are uber cool. Some of the early ones are even LSA (Light Sport Aircraft). Available for crica $30K rather than 7 figures.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson: Oh that is cute!

I suspect I'd make a nuisance of myself at the countries racetracks in the silliest Miata Keith could build for me.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Get one with rudder pedals. An Ercoupe was for sale at a local airstrip for $6500 when I was about to move to Alabama in 1982. The wife didn't see the need in one. The guy who had it, had bought it for his wife to learn to fly in. She had no interest in flying so it sat there for a while. The same guy had a BT-13.

Any love for the Icon A5? Store it in your garage, fill it up at a normal gas pump, then tow it to take off/land on runway or water. That's one of my lottery daydreams.

Build your own for under $100,000.

http://www.titanaircraft.com/t-51d.php

In reply to nderwater:

YES, one of those. And 3-5 digit acreage with both land and water for that.

I can honestly say if I was a millionare I'd own no flying machines at all.

I would however travel the world by surface transportation. Maybe my own yacht. A yacht and an Earthroamer.

914Driver wrote: Build your own for under $100,000. http://www.titanaircraft.com/t-51d.php

I wouldn't touch one of those with a 99 1/2 foot pole. Much as they look awesome and the idea of them scores 999/10 on the cool meter, people have a really high % rate of throwing themselves at the ground in them.

If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly.

I had the thought the other day as I lumbered around town in the 'burban that if I ever win the lottery I'd paint it yellow, give it a full Nascar treatment*, bolt in 6 race seats and take people for thrill rides in the "Track Bus".

*LS7, 6-speed, steamroller Hoosiers, etc....

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

+1. except for your dinky, low-rent, single car trailer. Make mine a 3-car, stacker with matching paint. Go big or go home.

dculberson wrote: I think I would buy something that was more forgiving; I think jumping in a Mustang is a good way for a nouveau riche playboy to end up buried in the side of a hill. I've always had a thing for the Long-EZ. Yeah, it's about $1,619,000 cheaper than a Mustang, but it also looks cool!

Which is precisely why most Warbird rated CFIs won't sign your type rating for a P-51 until you have logged a couple hundred hours in the T-6 first.

WildScotsRacing wrote:

dculberson wrote: I think I would buy something that was more forgiving; I think jumping in a Mustang is a good way for a nouveau riche playboy to end up buried in the side of a hill. I've always had a thing for the Long-EZ. Yeah, it's about $1,619,000 cheaper than a Mustang, but it also looks cool!

Which is precisely why most Warbird rated CFIs won't sign your type rating for a P-51 until you have logged a couple hundred hours in the T-6 first.

Serious Q and more off topic, what did they do back in WWII? How many hours and in what did the pilots get before they were sent over to Europe or where ever to go head to head with the Luftwaffe in P51's?

I'm not sure of the number of hours in each type, but they typically started in Stearmans and went on to BT-13 and then AT-6s. They spent a good bit of time learning navigation. In WWII they weren't nearly as green as in WWI.

Screw a p-51 for 1.7mil......at that point drop 2.5mil for a Messerschmitt ME-262 replica made in the USA.....with more reliable, compact, and powerful engines. Yes, it should be faster than the originals.

spitfirebill wrote: I'm not sure of the number of hours in each type, but they typically started in Stearmans and went on to BT-13 and then AT-6s. They spent a good bit of time learning navigation. In WWII they weren't nearly as green as in WWI.

This, I don't think they'd let you fly something without hundreds of hours in training for it.....this isn't the 1948 Israeli Air Force we are talking about.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

In WWII, you required to solo in the Primary Trainers (Stearmans, Ryans, or Fairchilds: 1800 to 2500 pound aircraft with between 100 and 300 horsepower) after 8 to 10 hours of dual instruction, or you were washed out (about 50% rate). Followed by roughly another 30 to 40 hours of dual and solo work, during which time another 50% of the remaining group was either washed out or died in accidents. Then you graduated to Basic Trainers (BT-13 or BT-15: 3000 to 3500 pounds and 450 horsepower) in which you were taught navigation, more advanced areobatics, and formation flying during roughly 100 hours total flight. This group lost another 25% to washouts and accident deaths. Next was the AT-6 (Navy designation was SNJ, same airplane) at 5,000 pounds and a 600 horsepower supercharged Pratt & Whittney R-1340. It's performance level was several orders of magnitude beyond the BTs. This plane would either kill you make a real pilot. It has a wing loading approaching that of a real fighter plane, and the control sensitivity and response are exactly like a fighter. In the At-6 you were taught advanced dogfighting skills, advanced areobatics and navigation, and basic aerial gunnery and dive bombing. If you survived roughly 200 hours in the AT-6 and didn't wash out, you were finally posted to a combat training squadron and began to fly real fighters: from 6500 to 12,000 pounds and from 1300 to 2000 horsepower. By the time most U.S. fighter pilots flew their first combat mission they had logged between 500 and 700 hours total flight time. So, during the WWII Years only about 3% of all students who entered Primary became real fighter pilots, and roughly 40% of all cadets either washed out or were killed in training. It's not a head scratcher why our fighter pilots were able hold their own against the early-war superior performing German and Japanese fighter planes and pilots; they were the best of the best of a very large talent pool, that was ruthlessly culled.

In reply to WildScotsRacing:

Just out of curiosity (on this interesting tangent) at what point in that training did the other pilots "wash out" and become C47 or some other kind of pilot?

And I assume that bomber flight training was totally different- since they are multi engine.

In reply to alfadriver:

My old supervisor's dad was a bomber pilot in WWII. According to him, pilots were split early in flight training, based primarily on personality type. Hyper-responsible, follow orders, steady/unflappable = bombers. (Apparently, early on it was known that they would have to "hold formation" under pretty terrible circumstances) Wild, rebellious and a little nuts = fighters. I believe most of the flight school "washouts" went into training for other specialties such as flight engineers, navigators, maintenance officers, etc.