P-51 props

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I believe that Cessna stopped production of a number of their light aircraft in the mid/late 80s because liability insurance had priced them out of the market. They kept only the larger business "class" aircraft. Production resumed in the Mid 90s.

According to Wiki. " Cessna cites the 1990s resumption in producing general aviation aircraft such as this model due to change in U.S. liability laws"

It may also be due to the available fleet getting enough smaller after almost 10 years that enough people would pay the higher price for a new airplane rather than look for a good used one.

I am not sure if any Piper or Beechcraft models took a building "holiday" at this time.
 
I just checked the price of a new Cessna 172, it isn't $150,000, in 2012 it was $275,000.

Guess i'll have to back up and punt.
 
piper almost went down the tubes in the 80s. i was looking for the reference to cessna stopping production of GA ac and staying with military and small commercial ones but couldnt find it quickly.

something is wrong when j3 cubs are going for 30K....and little light sport stuff is over 20K. if it has an "N" number ( with a few exceptions )...the price goes way up.

BARNSTORMERS.COM
 
Cessna did NOT quit producing lightplanes because of liability insurance. They stopped because the liability timeline was essentially unlimited. Some idiots were flying a Ceessna 150 that was 25+ years old and were buzzing their hunting camp, didn't remember to fly the plane, and crashed when they got slow enough to stall at low altitude.

The familys sued Cessna for producing a plane that could be stalled and won millions of dollars. Cessna annouced cessation of production shortly thereafter (almost immediately) and didn't resume until the liability limits were stopped at 15 years by congress. They then added the price of company liability insurance for 15 years to the price of the plane and restared production on a very limited number of lightplanes.

It ALL had and HAS to do with the legal climate, not the ability to produce parts for a P-51, a Spitfire, OR a Cessan 172.

You can easily make a P-51 or a Spitrfire. The issue is what happens when the pilot falls into unfortunate circumstances and dies. His family then wants to go after everyone ...

If and when that ever ends, and it should, we could see a resurgence of warbirds that are brand new. Otherwise, they'll slowly retire and gradually move into museums as static displays. I hate that. Properly maintained and repaired, the airframe life is VERY long. All you have to do is replace over-time items with new ones and keep flying. Things like mainspar, longerons, etc ... and that doesn't happen often. The rebuild from ground up is usually only once every 70 years or so. Not too bad ... IF you can get rid of the ridiculous liability laws. If not, the items for rebuild will NOT be available from anyone and the planes will retire.
 
there is a manufacturer in eastern Europe that will make new mustang blades...I forget the name, but they can be had. The cuffs can be applied to any blade for about 4,000 a piece. The cuffs improve airflow into the carb scoop. A mustang prop will run you around 120,000...and they are out there, just gotta know where to look

Jim

http://www.aviapropeller.cz/activities.htm
 
Last edited:
Weren't Hoffman, in Germany, building P-51 props?
Click to expand...

Hoffman make reproduction jablo Rotol props for Spits etc. I worked on a fixed pitch four bladed wodden Hoffman prop from a hovercraft once when I was in the prop shop. The HS 24D40 prop of the P-51 can take larger HS blades from other applications once they are cut to the right size. It's all in the HS Hydromatic manual. The hub blade opening diameter is the same as on the 23E50 that was fitted to the DC-3, B-17, B-25 etc, so can take similar blade part numbers. I trimmed a set of blades for a 23E50 fitted to a Yak-3 once, the blades came from a Privateer and the hub from a C-47.
 

I don't think this is purely a fair comparison. I just bought a 2013 Camaro with the base engine, 220 cu. in. six cylinder, for about $27,000. The technological difference between this car and a 1967 Camaro is massive. My car includes multi-air bags, crash protection in collision and roll over, anti-lock brakes, major, and expensive, improvements in pollution control, unbelievable improvements in gas mileage, six-speed transmission, full independent rear drive suspension, voice activated controls (you can ask it to play a song and it will, totally cool), and a head-up display. In addition, comparing the 220 cu.in. 2013 engine with the 225 cu. in. 1967 engine is like comparing a jet to piston engine. It has a dual overhead cam, direct fuel injected, V-6 with over twice the hp of the 1967 engine. Oh, and it also has pw, pb, ps, and air. The gross weight of the '67 is 2500 lbs, my Camaro weighs 3800 lbs. It also has something else the '67 didn't have, great handling.

I do not think that there has been such a tremendous technical upgrade to the 172 (which, by the way was my first solo aircraft, only we called it a T-41).
 

Attachments

  • 003 (640x480).jpg
    85.6 KB · Views: 75
  • 002 (640x480).jpg
    89.5 KB · Views: 75
Last edited:
davparlr said:
I do not think that there has been such a tremendous technical upgrade to the 172 (which, by the way was my first solo aircraft, only we called it a T-41).
Click to expand...

Actually Dave, the T-41 and the 172 are two different aircraft, at least according to the FAA, they carry different Type Certificate Data Sheets, so some meaningless Friday trivia for ya!
 
You could always tell the difference between the T-41 and a regular 172 by the mounting brackets under the fuselage for the proposed mounting of a Vulcan gatling gun on the AT-41 version. The project was cancelled when they had too much trouble synchronizing the gun to fire through propeller!
 

Most of the additions your new Camaro has you call improvements are standard on almost any car sold in the USA, you get power brakes and power steering on all cars, even 4 cylinders, now days whether you need it or not. Saying it costs more because of the added convenience and safety items that every car of it's time has is like saying that 1970 Mustang is worth than a 1926 Model T because the Mustang had roll up windows ,and 4 wheel brakes, but the Model T didn't.

A little more Friday trivia, that 67 Camaro came with a 230 ci 6 cylinder of 140 hp. standard, and it's gross weight would be a great deal more an 2500 lb. more like 3600 lb., but it's CURB weight was 2800 with a 6. Even a 67 Corvair weighed 2500.
 
Last edited:
You could always tell the difference between the T-41 and a regular 172 by the mounting brackets under the fuselage for the proposed mounting of a Vulcan gatling gun on the AT-41 version.
Click to expand...

That would have been a fun thing to consider using when I was doing endless circuits in a '172 all those years ago!
 
The project was cancelled when they had too much trouble synchronizing the gun to fire through propeller!
Click to expand...

Couldn't they just mount it outboard of the prop arc? Would've made a heck of a noise when it was fired, would'a slowed it down a little too!
 
nuuumannn said:
Couldn't they just mount it outboard of the prop arc? Would've made a heck of a noise when it was fired, would'a slowed it down a little too!
Click to expand...
the only thing you want to shoot outside of a T-41 (or 172) is maybe a hand held .45. Just the thought of mounting any type of ordnance on a 172 gives me images of an aluminum rain shower.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
the only thing you want to shoot outside of a T-41 (or 172) is maybe a hand held .45. Just the thought of mounting any type of ordnance on a 172 gives me images of an aluminum rain shower.
Click to expand...

Of course FLYBOYJ got it as I expected. The SUU-16 gun pod weight loaded is 1650 lbs, or about the empty weight of the 172. And, since the gun generates a large amount of reverse thrust it would cause the 172 most likely to go backwards. Mounting it outside the prop arc would cause the 172 to spin like a Frisbee!


I never called anything "improvements", just technological, most driven by law, changes. You stated "You can't blame it all on lawyers and liability issues, most of it's just plain old inflation." However, the cost increases to the automobile has been severely impacted by technology far more than the 172. If you built a 1970 Mustang today with no changes (i.e., no crush protection, no computer controlled injection system to save pollution and gas, no airbags, no anti-lock disk brakes, simple suspension system, small bias ply tires, non-power anything, etc., in other words just inflation) the cost would be far lower than the $26-30K, probably in the realm of a highly illegal $10-15k.

A little more Friday trivia, that 67 Camaro came with a 230 ci 6 cylinder of 140 hp. standard,
Click to expand...
Yes, technical data error. The 250 engine was an option, but the point is still valid.
and it's gross weight would be a great deal more an 2500 lb. more like 3600 lb., but it's CURB weight was 2800 with a 6. Even a 67 Corvair weighed 2500.
Click to expand...
Obviously a mental lapse on my part. Gross weight is primarily an aircraft term and I don't know if I have ever heard it used in reference to an automobile. Values were indeed Curb/shipping weight. Still no impact to the discussion.
 
Actually you can build a 67 Camaro or 67 Mustang right now, there is a company that sells assembled shells, made from reproduction parts. But the price for that shell is about what you're quoting about $15,000-17,000. But that's just a shell. No Suspension, no drivetrain, no windows, interior, no nothing but body shell.
If you took that body shell, and did all the work yourself, all the additional parts, unless you found a lot of used, unrestored parts, would at least triple the price, i've heard of nobody who's done it for less than $50,000.
If you're interested, look up Dynacore, it's one of the corporations doing this. Several other bodies than just 67 Camaro and Mustang too.
 
Last edited:
Thev SUU-16/A gun pod is the 20mm gun pod, way too heavy for a 172, plus it's powered by a ram turbine, that required about 300 mph to work.

But the 7.62mm SUU-11/a could work, a more likely 300-350 lbs.
Plus they mounted plenty of them on Cessnas for real, but on a Cessna A-37.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
14K
Reluctant Poster
R
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
12
Views
805
MIflyer
M
W
P-51 with contra-props
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
Deltafan
D
P-51 6 x .50 ammo increase to 400 rpg complications?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
drgondog
Menu
Log in
Register