Surprise visit

getback wrote:Is that a Peashooter?

Hi Eric, this is a P-26 Peashooter:



or parts thereof.

The plane pictured in the magazine is a clipped wing (for air racing) P-63 KingCobra.

Thinking about clipping the wing on one of mine to duplicate it.

i've seen power line inspection out here, with guys sitting on the chopper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmFHAFYwmY

which? gets a big old NOPE - from me....

Funny Bob, a few days ago my son and I were talking about planes we would like to fly and I mentioned to him that the best time to have bought an old war bird would have been a few yrs after the war.

Your post about buying a P-51 for $3500 made me realize that maybe available, but certainly expensive for the time. Untouchable now though.

Ron

Cribbs74 wrote:Funny Bob, a few days ago my son and I were talking about planes we would like to fly and I mentioned to him that the best time to have bought an old war bird would have been a few yrs after the war.

Your post about buying a P-51 for $3500 made me realize that maybe available, but certainly expensive for the time. Untouchable now though.

Ron

Why a dollar today is worth only 7% of a dollar in 1946
Updated: February 10, 2022
$100 in 1946 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,441.78 today, an increase of $1,341.78 over 76 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.57% per year between 1946 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,341.78%.

This means that today's prices are 14.42 times higher than average prices since 1946, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index. A dollar today only buys 6.94% of what it could buy back then.

The inflation rate in 1946 was 8.33%. The current year-over-year inflation rate (2021 to 2022) is now 7.48%. If this number holds, $100 today will be equivalent in buying power to $107.48 next year. The current inflation rate page gives more detail on the latest inflation rates.

So, a P-63 @ $1000.00 in 1946 would cost $14,417.00 in today's dollars.

While using inflation of the $ is always increasing over time. Other Inflation forces are at work usually but not always, raising the cost per item. One force, in this case, is dwindling supply of repair parts and complete end units. Another force, in this case, is FAA certifications from the late 30s to present has dramatically increased with more and more subsystems requiring current technology certifications which must meet VFR and communication flight rules/standards.

There are still bone yards full of WWII/Korea/Viet Nam aircraft and many can be bought relatively inexpensively BUT making them airworthy, in most cases, requires very deep pockets.

Post Desert Storm and as Army was transition into a new series of ground vehicles DRMO was selling Duce n a Half's for $1750 and thousands were sold a lot to rural fire departments, My town has three and I have been consulted a few times as I am school trained on that 2.5 ton truck. Most were all built in the mid 40s to late 70s, sold mid 90s to early 2000s. Wish I had bought one but they are fuel hogs and even worse in the multi fuel configuration that can run on av gas, mogas, diesel or any combination.

Whew, stuff ain't cheap anymore that's for sure! Just glanced through the Menards Sale flyer. Was shocked to see a section of sheet metal items for furnace ducting. In the late 70's I'd price out residential duct systems, one item that stuck in my mind was a 6" Dia 90 degree was 69 cents 6-90= $.69. Menards has them on "SALE" for $4.49 each. Had a hard time convincing people to change their furnace filter at .49 -79cents each back then....now they are $4.99 for "cheap" to $17 for a Ultra Allergen rated, Geeze!

BUT, on the hobby side of life I just received 40 MAS/TopFlight/Cox props for $.25 each that were hobby shop priced at $1.89 to $3.98 each, so there is that. Oh, also in the lot were some Ex-Models crankcase gaskets and a Cox International Piston/Cylinder set with a receipt from 2013. HHmm, is that old enough to be Vintage??

rsv1cox wrote:Cessna 150.  

Not actually designated a 150 Bob.  O1 Bird Dog.  Can't say I've see one in normal civilian use before, outside of an airshow.

Oldenginerod wrote:

rsv1cox wrote:Cessna 150.  

Not actually designated a 150 Bob.  O1 Bird Dog.  Can't say I've see one in normal civilian use before, outside of an airshow.

"A rose by any other name" Rod.  (Romeo and Juliette) But yeah, military markings, Bird dog more appropriate.  Got one by Aurora in the basement, maybe a couple.  Built a Scientific model back in the 1950's powered by one of the first Babe Bees.

Local one.  Mark took this picture.



Navion. Mark recently flew with a friend to Nashville in one marked like this:



In January. Cold at 9 thousand feet with only a little electric heater to keep you warm.

Actually, the Bird Dog was a development of the Cessna 305, which itself was an offshoot of the Cessna 170.  Compare the tail surfaces of the Bird Dog to the tail surfaces of a 170.





The Historian Mark

batjac wrote:Actually, the Bird Dog was a development of the Cessna 305, which itself was an offshoot of the Cessna 170.  Compare the tail surfaces of the Bird Dog to the tail surfaces of a 170.



The Historian Mark

Yep. The "Great Wiki" backs that up. They narrowed down the rear fuselage to allow better rearward vision plus added two "windows" in the cabin roof. While the cabin design looks similar to the 150, the Bird Dog was introduced well before the 150 came onto the market. Also, the 150 always had the tricycle gear.

Well, he was back again the next day.  Crossed back & forth for probably nearly an hour. I wished I was up there with him.  No wind, mild temperature, nice and low, just cruising along real gentle checking the lay of the land.

Wouldn't this be fun!!!!!!!

Sadly, this happened a couple of days ago not too far from us- Fatal.


All too common in these parts sadly.  They do aerial fertilising here because the land is too steep for ground spreading.  Too often those hills just sneek up on you.  

Now that's not fun. Pilot or mechanical failure.

rsv1cox wrote:Now that's not fun.  Pilot or mechanical failure.

That hasn't been stated at this stage, but generally in this region it's pilot error.  The land is just so steep it only takes a slight miss-judgement and it's too late.  Sadly many pilots have gone the same way.

This is a typical landscape in the exact area that the accident happened.