Wiener for sale in Carson City

[Griz882]

If I had the cash to blow...I’d rather have this one....

Grumman (Eastern) FM-2 Wildcat For Sale

1944 Grumman (Eastern) FM-2 Wildcat N909WJ For Sale. Fully restored. $1,225,000

www.platinumfighters.com

 

[nittany03]

If I had the cash to blow...I’d rather have this one....

Grumman (Eastern) FM-2 Wildcat For Sale

1944 Grumman (Eastern) FM-2 Wildcat N909WJ For Sale. Fully restored. $1,225,000

www.platinumfighters.com

Fun fact: The Wildcat pioneered the wingfold mechanism Grumman would use on many subsequent aircraft, from the Hellcat all the way up to the E-2/C-2.

 

[Jim123]

Fun fact: The Wildcat pioneered the wingfold mechanism Grumman would use on many subsequent aircraft, from the Hellcat all the way up to the E-2/C-2.

And it was the last in the line to use the original retractable gear system that the FF biplane used.

(I didn't realize that about the wing fold- that's pretty neat!)

Speaking of retractable gear systems, the system on the T-34 is basically the same system from the 1947 Bonanza (the V tail, for anyone who is fuzzy on general aviation airplanes) and almost every small piston engined Beechcraft from 1947 through present day*

(The King Air gear is entirely different; its lineage goes through the Queen Air and the Twin Bonanza which are bigger, heavier airplanes.)

* except the no longer produced Musketeer

 

[nittany03]

(I didn't realize that about the wing fold- that's pretty neat!)

I actually geeked out on Google after posting that (hey, PacNW, stuck in my house, why not). Looks like it was the F4F, F6F, E-1/W2F, and E-2 that I can find. Strangely the S2F and C1F/TF-1 folded the wings S-3 style over the top, but they must have had to change it for the Fudd due to the dome.

Speaking of retractable gear systems, the system on the T-34 is basically the same system from the 1947 Bonanza (the V tail, for anyone who is fuzzy on general aviation airplanes) and almost every small piston engined Beechcraft from 1947 through present day*

I thought I read somewhere that the T-34 was originally designed as a Beech Bonanza fuselage with a tandem cockpit and non-weird tail. Then, they got the T-34C and decided to replace the wing with the wing from a Beech Baron because it had power more equivalent to a civilian light twin.

 

[Jim123]

That pretty much sums it up. The internal company code for the T-34 is model A45. The Bonanza is the 35 (and other letter- number combinations with a 35) and later 33 and 36. The model numbers aren't sequential though, they're a little random.

The T-34 tail was used only on the T-34 and the first two production years of the model 95. I think that tail is iconic but I'm biased- I own a 1959 95.

 

[BenDog]

Dont forget the TBF/TBM. And, for all you E-2 "tube dwellers" the vent handle on the floor in the E2, same handle on the Hydraulic selector valve on the TBM. Figure Grumman had a million of of those things left over.......

 

[Griz882]

That pretty much sums it up. The internal company code for the T-34 is model A45. The Bonanza is the 35 (and other letter- number combinations with a 35) and later 33 and 36. The model numbers aren't sequential though, they're a little random.

The T-34 tail was used only on the T-34 and the first two production years of the model 95. I think that tail is iconic but I'm biased- I own a 1959 95.

The Japanese created a fat Mentor, the Fuji LM-1. I have flown one that used to be down in Fredericksburg VA. Funky...

 

[BenDog]

I have flown the T34A ( with the boat anchor O-470 ), and the 34B with a peppy -520 on it. Having never flown the 34C, does the PT6 make a big difference in performance? Any of y'all out there flown all three?
The 34A with a 470 is gutless. Fun to fly, but gutless. The 34B with 520 or 550 on it seems to make up for it. Plenty of power....

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I have flown the T34A ( with the boat anchor O-470 ), and the 34B with a peppy -520 on it. Having never flown the 34C, does the PT6 make a big difference in performance? Any of y'all out there flown all three?
The 34A with a 470 is gutless. Fun to fly, but gutless. The 34B with 520 or 550 on it seems to make up for it. Plenty of power....

I haven’t flown any but the C, but a quick glance shows more than double the horsepower, extra 8k ceiling, extra 100kts Vne

 

[RobLyman]

I've flown the 34B and the 34C, albeit 10 years apart. The 34C is a LOT more peppy!

 

[BenDog]

Thank you gents

 

[ChuckMK23]

Dont forget the TBF/TBM. And, for all you E-2 "tube dwellers" the vent handle on the floor in the E2, same handle on the Hydraulic selector valve on the TBM. Figure Grumman had a million of of those things left over.......

And in the same vein, the engine condition acuators on the CH-46 fuel control unit were repurposed fuel jettison valve acuators from the Boeing B-29 Super Fortress.

 

[nittany03]

I've flown the 34B and the 34C, albeit 10 years apart. The 34C is a LOT more peppy!

Does the B also need to be re-trimmed in all three axes if you look at it cross-eyed?

 

[HuggyU2]

The Navy gave me a T-34C ride in Corpus s a number of years ago. Good fun. I'm surprised more of the foreign military T-34C's haven't made it back to the US.

 

[RobLyman]

Does the B also need to be re-trimmed in all three axes if you look at it cross-eyed?

Yes & no. Yes, with the same power changes, trim is needed. The full throw of the throttle on the B of course equates to less power change than on the C, so in that sense, no, not as much trim is needed. Overall I would say the B doesn't feel as demanding with the trim.