"Unlimited Piston Engine Letter of Authorization"
- Thread starter BCTAv8r
- Start date
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
To fly certain aircraft, for example an old warbird like a P-51 or a B-17, you need to have a LOA to fly it. A pilot with this unlimited LOA does not need an individual LOA per aircraft.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
First off, there is no such thing as a "checkout" in any part of the FARs. If you can find that word in pt 61, I'll pay you 100$. If you have the apropriate rating ans endorsements, you can hop into an airplane you have never seen before and take off. If you're legal to fly a Cirrus, you can hop right into a Caravan.
Re: LOAs
They are required for any aircraft in the experimental catagory having over 800 HP, and a Vne over 250,. This keeps you from getting your tailwheel checkout in a cub, then buying a P-51. A holder of a LOOA (Letter of Operational Authority) must train you in that aircraft to prove you can handel it. Having a LOOA is basicly a CFI rating for that specific type.
Once you get 3 different LOAs you can apply for a LOA in "all types and makes of high-performance single- or multiengine piston-powered airplanes", AKA an "unlimited" LOA. If you can handel a P-51, a F4U, and a Spitfire, then you can handel a F8F bearcat. However you are still required to get the proper training from someone with an LOOA in that type, and they have to endorse your logbook acordingly.
WacoFan
Bigly
I wonder wonder how many people have this unlimited LOA?
Before the jets, and type ratings they had Horsepower ratings. My grandpa had one of these from his days with TWA in the 50's. I believe his was "unlimited" and I forget what the cut-offs were, but I do think his said "12,000+" or "unlimited".
Before the jets, and type ratings they had Horsepower ratings. My grandpa had one of these from his days with TWA in the 50's. I believe his was "unlimited" and I forget what the cut-offs were, but I do think his said "12,000+" or "unlimited".
Hacker15e
Dunning–Kruger Observer
And are small enough. I can't close the door on the Spit, else I end up with a big bruise midway down my left bicep. That airplane was not made for tall men with wide shoulders.
The Bearcat is the same way for me.
Give me a Corsair, Jug, or Mustang with a HUGE cockpit any day of the week.
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
id gladly and willingly, with a large grin, squeeze my way into any of the above.
Hacker15e
Dunning–Kruger Observer
FWIW, that's like saying you'd be happy to marry a stupid or annoying woman, as long as she was attractive enough.
I know you're saying that fairly tongue in cheek, but I would have outright agreed with you at one point. I've been fortunate enough to fly some pretty interesting airplanes, and that has forged my opinion about 'em.
The thing about warbirds is...they're just airplanes. After the initial euphoria wears off, it's a little bit of a letdown. After that letdown, "annoyances" like being able to comfortably sit in the cockpit take on more importance.
After I got to fly a Mustang for the first time -- which was a lifelong dream for me -- I described it to the friend who arranged the ride for me as "seeing the prom queen the next morning with her makeup off". It was a big letdown.
The letdown was realizing that the Mustang is just another airplane that flies just like every other airplane I've flown. The performance of the thing was not nearly as exciting as I'd dreamed, nor was the sound of that Merlin 10 feet in front of me.
So, that's not to say that I did not enjoy it -- I loved it! It's not as if I wouldn't gladly go take one for a spin again...it's just that once the dreamy vision of what I "thought" flying a warbird was like had disappeared, it turned out to just be another airplane.
So, if my objective was to just admire how good I looked in a warbird, then I would endure a little discomfort. But...if I were actually interested in enjoying the experience then I'd go for a cockpit that fit me well and an airplane whose flight characteristics were enjoyable.
I know you're saying that fairly tongue in cheek, but I would have outright agreed with you at one point. I've been fortunate enough to fly some pretty interesting airplanes, and that has forged my opinion about 'em.
The thing about warbirds is...they're just airplanes. After the initial euphoria wears off, it's a little bit of a letdown. After that letdown, "annoyances" like being able to comfortably sit in the cockpit take on more importance.
After I got to fly a Mustang for the first time -- which was a lifelong dream for me -- I described it to the friend who arranged the ride for me as "seeing the prom queen the next morning with her makeup off". It was a big letdown.
The letdown was realizing that the Mustang is just another airplane that flies just like every other airplane I've flown. The performance of the thing was not nearly as exciting as I'd dreamed, nor was the sound of that Merlin 10 feet in front of me.
So, that's not to say that I did not enjoy it -- I loved it! It's not as if I wouldn't gladly go take one for a spin again...it's just that once the dreamy vision of what I "thought" flying a warbird was like had disappeared, it turned out to just be another airplane.
So, if my objective was to just admire how good I looked in a warbird, then I would endure a little discomfort. But...if I were actually interested in enjoying the experience then I'd go for a cockpit that fit me well and an airplane whose flight characteristics were enjoyable.
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
well im sure it all pales in comparison when you have an F15 strapped to your rear end ;-)
and yes, i bet i would look rather dashing in a spitfire.
.....realistically though, im sure my admiration and respect for my fellow countrymen who risked and gave their lives in the machines, would only grow, with the intimate knowledge of the machines they waged war in.
but yeah, it would still be f'in sweet to fly a warbird sometime.
and yes, i bet i would look rather dashing in a spitfire.
.....realistically though, im sure my admiration and respect for my fellow countrymen who risked and gave their lives in the machines, would only grow, with the intimate knowledge of the machines they waged war in.
but yeah, it would still be f'in sweet to fly a warbird sometime.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I've heard the same thing about most warbirds. They look really good from the outside. But from the inside, they're very noisy, cramped, HOT down low, they leak, very cold up high, ect. I've talked to a few vets who flew them in WW2, and they described them as killing machines. Flying in Europe must have been really miserable, and the Pacific was probably worse.
That's not to say I still don't love to see them flying, and wouldn't blow a significant part of my retirement to keep one up in the air.