Costs about $800K USD, which is a few tens of millions less than the real thing.
Apparently you also see the GTO cars racing in the classic races, as a stand in when the owner owns the real thing.
I think some actual GTOs are driven in anger as well. I saw the Monterey historics in 2006, and I believe the cars were original per the rules.
As an aside, I think the 250TR is one of the absolute prettiest cars ever built. Prettier even than the 250GTO. I'm equally unlikely to own either though.
I used to work for a guy who owned a 1972 Ferrari 365 GTS2 - one of only about 100 made.
He did track days with it, and set very respectable times. (He also raced a 1969 Ford Mustang in the local historic class. He was a fairly fast driver for a club racer. Not professional race driver fast, but he certainly wasn't babying his cars.)
My father had a fake lotus racing car in the same vein. Mostly made out of beetle bits and what I suspected was a bathtub. Motor came from a Toyota, with lots of modifications.
I know it did drive, but my memory only includes pushing it up a hill so we could try starting it using gravity.
I really want to build a Beck Speedster kit car with a Subaru engine one day. I haven't been able to justify the price though. I'm reverse midlife crisis ing. The older I get, the less I can justify a crazy outlay on a car.
Pretty cool, I guess, but that puny Rotax under the engine cowling pales in comparison to the V-1650's that powered the real deal Mustangs which ran at almost 10x the horsepower and double the cruise speed, 50% better climb speed despite being 10x heavier, etc.
It's got comparable performance to a Cirrus SR22. Not much of a replica if you ask me.
On the other hand, imagine the maintenance costs in current US dollars on a modern 12-cylinder supercharged aircraft engine. Would get ridiculous very quick.
My guess is that in combat conditions where the 1490hp was getting used, probably only a few of them ever lasted long enough to get to a valve clearance service interval...
It is interesting how the GA planes today have a fraction of the power of WW2 planes. I understand there are valid reasons, but... it would be too cool to fly something with the original power!
Also, even with modern jets: "This plane has enough power at max or mil" - said no fighter pilot ever.
When i was in ground school in San Diego, the instructor explained that just what you said was the reason so few p51 mustangs still exist. Folks bought them cheap as surplus, rotated (wheels off the ground), would gun the huge engine whose torque at low air speed would counterrotate the fuselage and crash.
That too, but GA pilots are notorious for overestimating their competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect is real. Doing touch-and-gos a few times a month in a C172 does not prepare one for handling high-performance fighter aircraft.
I used to work in Search and Rescue and the number of GA pilots who do bone-headed things getting themselves or others killed would shock you.
Yes, but there are already higher performance aircraft available beyond a Cessna and pilots still flock to what they can afford.
There is no regulation preventing aircraft manufacturers from selling GA performance beasts. There is just not a big enough market to sell into to make it sustain a business.
It's not going to sound right, either - the Merlin is a very distinctive-sounding engine that is probably seared into the minds of everyone who's been to a WWII-era aircraft show. Then again, you've got nothing to fear; the Rotax engine will be fine as long as the Bf 109 replicas also have them ;)
The SR22 is a fully assembled and certified four seater. This is an experimental kit two seater that you have to assemble at least 51% yourself, so it's not really comparable. The base SR22 also has a more expensive electronics package from what I can tell.
The more expensive "ready to fly" kit is more comparable to a Cessna 172 in price, though with more than double the range. But you still have to assemble most of it yourself, the "Ready to fly" version isn't actually ready to fly.
160 hp seems a little disappointing considering the original merlin-powered variant had 1,490 hp. i realize this thing is a lot lighter, but would’ve been really cool to see a turboprop or more power.
OT. A former neighbor has been a pilot for Air Tractor for decades ferrying planes from their factory in Olney, Texas to buyers all over the world. He's flown every type of plane that they've built over the years. Air Tractor has always had an excellent product.
Now I'm trying to imagine what a peculiar sight it must be to see an Air Tractor show up at the airport in Iqaluit, Nunavut on one of the stages of a multi-hop ferry flight via Greenland to Europe.
I had a brother-in-law once who owned a Toyota Supra for about a week, until he put it upside-down in the ditch opposite his folks' house trying to head home on a rainy night. Stone sober, not that kind of family - "too much car for me," he said, after he'd sold it on again at a loss incurred by the repairs.
No idea why that old story came to mind just now. He wasn't hurt, if anyone's wondering. Of course, it was a pretty shallow ditch.
I'm 100% certain "full military power" aircraft are well outside the set of compromises general aviation pilots are prepared to accept. (And probably outside what the FAA would allow you to build and fly?) I wonder what the service 8intervals were on a 1490hp Mustang? (Did they even bother with "service intervals" on planes that probably didn't come home often enough to make it to the 2nd service?)
> I wonder what the service intervals were on a 1490hp Mustang?
"For some airplanes, such as the P-51D, use of WEP [war emergency power] required that the engine be inspected for damage before returning to the air.[4] 5 hours' total use of WEP on the P-51D required a complete tear-down inspection of the engine.[4]"
Closest thing it reminds me of on land is those Toyota MR-2 Ferrari 355 pseudo-replica cars. It's quite (a lot) slower than a P-51 but I think that's a smart choice. The performance is much more in line with the sort of thing your average GA pilot might be expected to handle. (I'm sure I remember reading or hearing about WW2 era pilots having enormous right thighs from stomping on the rudder to counteract p-factor, torque from those monster engines.)
62 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadCosts about $800K USD, which is a few tens of millions less than the real thing. Apparently you also see the GTO cars racing in the classic races, as a stand in when the owner owns the real thing.
As an aside, I think the 250TR is one of the absolute prettiest cars ever built. Prettier even than the 250GTO. I'm equally unlikely to own either though.
He did track days with it, and set very respectable times. (He also raced a 1969 Ford Mustang in the local historic class. He was a fairly fast driver for a club racer. Not professional race driver fast, but he certainly wasn't babying his cars.)
This is a thing, and its based on a similar car.
Started out with a built 1640cc VW motor, ended up with a Mazda 13B rotary.
Years later, he offered it to me for free. I turned it down.
My father had a fake lotus racing car in the same vein. Mostly made out of beetle bits and what I suspected was a bathtub. Motor came from a Toyota, with lots of modifications.
I know it did drive, but my memory only includes pushing it up a hill so we could try starting it using gravity.
I wouldn't expect them to handle like a modern vehicle, and that's before the lack of crumple zones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Seven
It's got comparable performance to a Cirrus SR22. Not much of a replica if you ask me.
It's also fair to say that you probably don't want to climb into anything driven by a 'good enough for the Army'-rated engine.
At least, I know I wouldn't.
Also, even with modern jets: "This plane has enough power at max or mil" - said no fighter pilot ever.
I used to work in Search and Rescue and the number of GA pilots who do bone-headed things getting themselves or others killed would shock you.
There is no regulation preventing aircraft manufacturers from selling GA performance beasts. There is just not a big enough market to sell into to make it sustain a business.
Ouch. I mean it’s in line for new plane pricing but still, ouchie.
The more expensive "ready to fly" kit is more comparable to a Cessna 172 in price, though with more than double the range. But you still have to assemble most of it yourself, the "Ready to fly" version isn't actually ready to fly.
Undoubtedly in the many millions of dollars per unit purchase price category, so a whole other thing than something that's cheaper than a Cirrus SR22.
No idea why that old story came to mind just now. He wasn't hurt, if anyone's wondering. Of course, it was a pretty shallow ditch.
Like more than you can imagine.
A Metlij just at cruise power, not even max, will drink 60-70 gallons per hour.
Avgas is $7/gal, and also not even high enough octane for a Merlin.
You’d be at $500/hr just in gas.
Still quite an achievement, but would be nice to see a more authentic engine option.
He built "The fastest single engine turbine plane in the world"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pUpJz6QbBk
It was "only" just over 1000hp.
It didn't end well (but at least nobody died):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swo_FHGkfCM
I'm 100% certain "full military power" aircraft are well outside the set of compromises general aviation pilots are prepared to accept. (And probably outside what the FAA would allow you to build and fly?) I wonder what the service 8intervals were on a 1490hp Mustang? (Did they even bother with "service intervals" on planes that probably didn't come home often enough to make it to the 2nd service?)
"For some airplanes, such as the P-51D, use of WEP [war emergency power] required that the engine be inspected for damage before returning to the air.[4] 5 hours' total use of WEP on the P-51D required a complete tear-down inspection of the engine.[4]"
Considerably more than a mere 1500hp, though, by at least some accounts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power
Closest thing it reminds me of on land is those Toyota MR-2 Ferrari 355 pseudo-replica cars. It's quite (a lot) slower than a P-51 but I think that's a smart choice. The performance is much more in line with the sort of thing your average GA pilot might be expected to handle. (I'm sure I remember reading or hearing about WW2 era pilots having enormous right thighs from stomping on the rudder to counteract p-factor, torque from those monster engines.)
But really, a Bugatti P-100 replica would be right up my alley:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/Aviations-...
--
There's some footage on Youtube too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB2Wr-aSk8o
Unfortunately, it seems like the pilot died in the first few test flights of it, according to the comments on the video. :(
Crash investigation report, which also has recommendations for future potential builders to avoid the problems this one had:
https://bugatti100p.aero/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Bugatti-...
Though being a 2-seater, this makes the silhouette slightly different from the later variant P-51 everyone is familiar with.
I know real P-51 are sometimes used for acrobatics and air shows, I suppose this replica is just for looks and cannot pull any real acrobatics, right?
That doesn’t seem like nothing, but I don’t know anything.
So it's more like cosplay rather than a replica.
It's a different plane that sort of looks like the real Mustang from the outside (and the silhouette is not really identical either).
Cool, I guess, but not a replica.