P-64 Replica Arrives at Military Aviation Museum

[VintageAviationNews]

Few pictures from Richard - this article went live Saturday but i forgot to post it

http://www.warbirdsnews.com/aviation-mu ... useum.html

[Matt Gunsch]

That is not even close to a P-64, it still has the Mea west's the rudder is a SNJ-2, the razor back is too low, the engine is too small, and the landing gear doors are T-6.
Maybe a NA-50, but no where near a P-64.

[VintageAviationNews]

That is not even close to a P-64, it still has the Mea west's the rudder is a SNJ-2, the razor back is too low, the engine is too small, and the landing gear doors are T-6.
Maybe a NA-50, but no where near a P-64.

As one of the readers commented...'What else can we make out of the great SNJ?"

[Snake45]

That is not even close to a P-64, it still has the Mea west's the rudder is a SNJ-2, the razor back is too low, the engine is too small, and the landing gear doors are T-6.
Maybe a NA-50, but no where near a P-64.

Yah, it looks about as much like a Commonwealth Boomerang as it does a P-64.

Actually, it kinda reminded me of THIS thing:

[Obergrafeter]

The engine is too small........................what did a P-64 have in it?

[Dan K]

That is not even close to a P-64, it still has the Mea west's the rudder is a SNJ-2, the razor back is too low, the engine is too small, and the landing gear doors are T-6.
Maybe a NA-50, but no where near a P-64.

Matt, you are so correct on all those items.

And yet, for me the most obvious fail of a converted SNJ is the wing. The P-64's is a thing of beauty..shades of the Vultee Vengeance!





If EAA really wants to make this Airventure a tribute to Paul P's life, aerobatics in their P-64 would do it proud. Anyone want to suggest a pilot?

[Chris Brame]

Anyone want to suggest a pilot?

Anyone want to point out the landing gear lever to him?

[Matt Gunsch]

The 64 had a Wright 1820 of 800hp when built, they were upgraded in the field with 1000hp engines.
The replica that Carl Schmieder built had a 1820 of 1425 hp, it was a monster in that airframe, hit the starter and as the prop turned, the whole airframe rocked side to side. We never did find out if it could take off at full power as we could not find a runway wide enough.

The wing is neither SNJ or T-6, it was a mix of a SNJ-2 center section and Yale outer wing panels

Last edited by Matt Gunsch on Mon May 19, 2014 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Zachary]

If EAA really wants to make this Airventure a tribute to Paul P's life, aerobatics in their P-64 would do it proud. Anyone want to suggest a pilot?

Uh, no!

[Obergrafeter]

[quote="Matt Gunsch"]The 64 had a Wright 1820 of 800hp when built, they were upgraded in the field with 1000hp engines.
So how is the 1400 H.P. in the replica too small?

[Matt Gunsch]

The cowling looks too small to be a 1820, if it is, then they got something going for it. It would be interesting to see how they got it in there, we had to have the oil tank behind the rear seat because the engine had to sit too close to the firewall to fit a oil tank in the normal T-6 location. We also had 2 oil coolers, one in the engine bay and one under the baggage compartment floor. The tail cone was a busy place as we also had a smoke oil tank, O2 bottle and the battery in there.

[Obergrafeter]

It had a 1820 in it when it lived in my hangar (Nelson built it), but not sure since Robby re-built it. Wasn't that fast, but could out climb most any prop plane!

[Matt Gunsch]

It had a 1820 in it when it lived in my hangar (Nelson built it), but not sure since Robby re-built it. Wasn't that fast, but could out climb most any prop plane!

The guy who picked up the 64 when it was going to Lone Star said the same thing, he said from a standing start to 5000 ft nothing could touch it. I think Carl got it up to 315 in a dive, but because of the diameter of the engine it created a low pressure zone that included the front canopy and it sucked the right side panel out of the canopy. When pieces came off, that was our VNE.

[sandiego89]

Wow, not much love in this thread. It looked great in person when I saw it up close on the ground and in flight this past weekend at the Wings over the Beach show. Sounded great (no hint of SNJ sound, it has a three-bladed prop).

Is it a perfect, exact P-64? No, and they don't profess it to be. Is it a nicely done representation? Yes. My hats off to the team to give us something different. I doubt anyone will ever make a flying 100% example. I like a little varierty, and if we can pay tribute to some obscure types- fantastic.

Should we should scrap the Tora converted aircraft because they are not perfect and still have a SNJ wing? (that is sarcasm by the way).

[AFWhite]

I agree with "sandiego89", it looks great in the air and sounded fantastic.

Seems to me, that if they went back to a standard SNJ/T-6 tail/rudder they'd be a little more in the ballpark. None the less, very nice to see.

I recall an NA-50 on the airshow circuit back in the mid to late 80s making appearances at the old "New England Escadrille" airshows up in Manchester NH, that was a fine looking aircraft that had a unique sound to it as well.