# B-17 landing



## sunny91 (Jun 15, 2008)

check the height of the tail..

Sunny


----------



## ccheese (Jun 15, 2008)

Wonder why he kept the tail up so high ?? Good Vid, Sunny...

Charles


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 15, 2008)

[Here I step up on my soapbox...again] These warbirds are priceless. It is already debatable as to whether they should be flown. But to do stunts wherein you are standing on the brakes for no other reason than entertain the pilots ego is asinine. Forget about ground loops, the risks of structural fatigue and of asymmetrical brake system/gear failure are such that those kinds of stunts are for fools, narcissists and solopsists.

[steps of his soapbox]


----------



## NCpilot79 (Jun 16, 2008)

I agree Matt308- not too bright in an old aircraft, for which there isn't an abundance of parts. One B-17 has already been taken off flight status due to a broken spine. If I were head of that foundation, that pilot wouldn't fly the Fortress again.


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2008)

I have been lucky enough to see the Sally B a number of times, but I have never seen her land like that. Maybe he didn't get a second chance.


----------



## fly boy (Jun 16, 2008)

cheese that took a while for the tail to go down at first i thought it was a touch and go but then i saw it slow down and wow


----------



## jimh (Feb 6, 2009)

there was nothing wrong with that landing...have any of you ever landed a large multiengine tailwheel airplane? 

jim


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Feb 6, 2009)

I'm not a pilot, but what are the chances of having a prop strike the ground while performing a landing like that? Seems to me the cost of new props, and possible engine damage would make you think twice before doing something like that?


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 6, 2009)

What type of software do you need to play this video? I have Windows Media and Quicktime, but neither will play the video?


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Feb 6, 2009)

Windows Media Player works for me.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 6, 2009)

Hmm, I'll see if I can figure out what's wrong.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 6, 2009)

jimh said:


> there was nothing wrong with that landing...have any of you ever landed a large multiengine tailwheel airplane?
> 
> jim



Nothing wrong with landing with the main gear first but then not dropping the tail for so long is just retarded and risks damaging the aircraft. Dropping the tail earlier preserves the aircraft and stops expensive repairs from being done to it because some numskull of pilot hit the props of the ground on landing. Remind me not to fly with you ever...

@Messy. Windows Media Player works fine.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 6, 2009)

It must be my computer, a message pops up from Windows MP saying windows does not support that type of file, and that either the file is damaged or corrupt. I'll mess with it a little more.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Feb 6, 2009)

Go out to the Microsoft Updates Wesite and get the latest MS Media Player software, make sure you reboot the system afterwards and and perform the MS Update utility again to make sure there are no further critical updates for the latest player you just installed.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 6, 2009)

i do not know if I can, evidently my copy of windows is not able to be validated.


----------



## jimh (Feb 6, 2009)

The tailwheel assembly is the achilles heal of the B-17. Wheel landings are preferred and then flying the tail to the ground. Tailwheel infrastructure parts are very very hard to come by and expensive to replace. The video shows a tail high landing..we call it "pinning" and is done with forward elevator...you will not get the props...nor do you need to ride the brakes. If you are using the brakes over 50mph indicated you don't have proper directional control or there is one heck of a crosswind...which is easily dealt with using aileron or the upwind engines. When you get a pilots license and a B-17 type rating let me know we will discuss it further.

Jim Harley


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

Bullshit. That pilot was hotdoggin' on a adequately long runway smartass. His stunt is common practice to impress neophytes with the perceived pilot's ego while flying a priceless piece of history. I've seen many of these same stunts where the braking moderation was misjudged and the tail dropped like the proverbial 5th story safe.

Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is not appreciated on this forum. Your first point was noted. Your last was insulting.


----------



## ccheese (Feb 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is not appreciated on this forum. Your first point was noted. Your last was insulting.



Hear....Hear !!

Charles


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

How many hours you have on a PB4Y, Mr. C? While not a tail dragger, I wonder if that might count in his collective insults to our forum members.


----------



## jimh (Feb 6, 2009)

His stunt is common practice to impress neophytes with the perceived pilot's ego while flying a priceless piece of history. I've seen many of these same stunts where the braking moderation was misjudged and the tail dropped like the proverbial 5th story safe.

Not a stunt...for chrissakes he landed the airplane with a perfectly acceptable technique. Nothing was misjudged. 

Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is not appreciated on this forum. Your first point was noted. Your last was insulting.

Far from condescending and holier than thou...I'm sick of armchair aviators with NO flight time and NO flying experience commenting on events or abilities for which they have no first hand experience. Insulting a pilots ability with nothing to back it up with but hot air is an insult to our community and goes way beyond a condescending statement. I have over 500 hours of B-17 time and have been flying it for close to 6 years. I can assure you that there are NO B-17 operators "hotdogging" or "showing off" for thier own personal satisfaction. 

Jim Harley


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

Which one Jimmy?


----------



## jimh (Feb 6, 2009)

I'll be the first to buy the first round...

Jim


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

Give me the N number or your internet meta data...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2009)

jimh said:


> The tailwheel assembly is the achilles heal of the B-17. Wheel landings are preferred and then flying the tail to the ground. Tailwheel infrastructure parts are very very hard to come by and expensive to replace. The video shows a tail high landing..we call it "pinning" and is done with forward elevator...you will not get the props...nor do you need to ride the brakes. If you are using the brakes over 50mph indicated you don't have proper directional control or there is one heck of a crosswind...which is easily dealt with using aileron or the upwind engines. When you get a pilots license and a B-17 type rating let me know we will discuss it further.
> 
> Jim Harley



Just a question - I fly tail draggers. If the tail wheel is the achilles heel of the aircraft, why pin the the aircraft in a wheels landing and allow the tail to just drop when their aircraft comes to an almost dead stop?


----------



## jimh (Feb 6, 2009)

Meta Data? ok The N number is NL93012...and I am one of the volunteer pilots...I also fly the B-25, and B-24. 

Jim

Just a question - I fly tail draggers. If the tail wheel is the achilles heel of the aircraft, why pin the the aircraft in a wheels landing and allow the tail to just drop when their aircraft comes to an almost dead stop?

I agree that was a bit rough...but not nearly as hard as a three point landing or holding firm back pressure (like you do 99% of all tailwheel airplanes). The landing in the video looked a bit fast...if you try to force the tail down you will go flying again. Ideally you fly the tailwheel on...with full forward pressure on the yoke it will come down gently and when it is ready. You can easily operate a B-17 out of 4000' without abusing the brakes and wheel it on. Let me put it this way...the way we operate ours is in the best interest of the longevity of the airframe. Keeping the tailwheel unloaded is our primary concern.


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 6, 2009)

Bucksnort101 said:


> I'm not a pilot, but what are the chances of having a prop strike the ground while performing a landing like that? Seems to me the cost of new props, and possible engine damage would make you think twice before doing something like that?



When you do a wheel landing (as opposed to a full stall or three point) in a taildragger, you put the stick or yoke full forward to keep the aircraft on the ground. The airflow over the horizontal stab will not allow a prop strike, unless you hit the brakes. You then let the tail fly its self down to the ground. This bleeds off airspeed. You can't put the tail down because if you pull back on the stick, the aircraft will fly back off the ground. That is how you land a taildragger on a short field, or if you were too fast on your approach.








My Townsend Thunderbird


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

Hmmm... sounds like common sense 82Pilot. You sure on a an adequately long runway you wouldn't unpin the wheel, ride the brakes to keep the airframe horizontal to the ground and at the last second time the tail drop to perfectly ease 'er to the ground? Perhaps that would be common practice for a 100ft long 50,000lb airplane that is historically priceless. Surely you must be mistaken.

wink wink


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Bullshit. That pilot was hotdoggin' on a adequately long runway smartass. His stunt is common practice to impress neophytes with the perceived pilot's ego while flying a priceless piece of history. I've seen many of these same stunts where the braking moderation was misjudged and the tail dropped like the proverbial 5th story safe.
> 
> Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is not appreciated on this forum. Your first point was noted. Your last was insulting.



You don't seem know anything about flying taildraggers. You shouldn't make such accusations.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 6, 2009)

It's quite a sight to watch those old birds fly on a video. But nothing beats being there in person.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2009)

jimh said:


> I agree that was a bit rough...but not nearly as hard as a three point landing or holding firm back pressure (like you do 99% of all tailwheel airplanes). The landing in the video looked a bit fast...if you try to force the tail down you will go flying again. Ideally you fly the tailwheel on...with full forward pressure on the yoke it will come down gently and when it is ready. You can easily operate a B-17 out of 4000' without abusing the brakes and wheel it on. Let me put it this way...the way we operate ours is in the best interest of the longevity of the airframe. Keeping the tailwheel unloaded is our primary concern.


I work at the Air Force Academy on the soaring program. My company owns the Super Cubs that are used for towing and I'll bring the tail down just as you say. When I get a chance to fly our cubs I'll do wheel landings because we always have some kind of cross or variable winds, let alone a lot of wind shear in the warmer months. Even though "its a cub" and built like a tank, I try to be as careful as I can as these planes are part of our bread and butter.

Now with my A&P hat on - I cringed when I saw that B-17's tail hit the ground.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> You don't seem know anything about flying taildraggers. You shouldn't make such accusations.



I was being sarcastic... I'm assuming that you agree with me that keeping a B-17 full horizontal by riding the brakes until the last second on an adequately long runway only to drop her tail smoothly is a stunt. Not SOP. Please tell me you don't agree with Mr. Jim.


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Hmmm... sounds like common sense 82Pilot. You sure on a an adequately long runway you wouldn't unpin the wheel, ride the brakes to keep the airframe horizontal to the ground and at the last second time the tail drop to perfectly ease 'er to the ground? Perhaps that would be common practice for a 100ft long 50,000lb airplane that is historically priceless. Surely you must be mistaken.
> 
> wink wink



You could. But you also have to consider the wind. If you put the tail down with a wind that is not right down the runway, you will most likely ground loop the aircraft. That will take off your pops, wing tip and at least one of the landing gear. During WWII the airfields mostly were very large fields that would allow for takeoff and landing directly into the wind. You get the same effect on an aircraft carrier. Not so on a paved or grass strip.
I suggest that those of you who still have doubts, read a book called "Stick and Rudder". It is an old book written by a German in the 1930's. It is still considered the bible of taildragger pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> I suggest that those of you who still have doubts, read a book called "Stick and Rudder". It is an old book written by a German in the 1930's. It is still considered the bible of taildragger pilots.


I have a copy in my bathroom and read it regularly (no kidding)


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 6, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> I was being sarcastic... I'm assuming that you agree with me that keeping a B-17 full horizontal by riding the brakes until the last second on an adequately long runway only to drop her tail smoothly is a stunt. Not SOP. Please tell me you don't agree with Mr. Jim.



If he were on the brakes he would have struck the props and nosed over.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)

With a 50,000lb aircraft? Nope. Stunt. Newton's Laws will be applied the same, but will operationally be much different from a 3,000lb taildragger and a 50,000lb taildragger. I've seen too many of these large planes stunt-flown for supposed crowd pleasure. The rotational momentum vector between these two classes of aircraft allow for such stunts while minimizing the safety risk. I just don't condone it.


----------



## jimh (Feb 6, 2009)

Here's a bad landing...

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnoHn0PGCM_

Also...the French B-17 that crashed during the filming of the "memphis belle" in 1988...loss of directional control on takeoff. The throttles were found open and no attempt to abort was made. Tragic.

jim


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 6, 2009)

that looked like one hell of a ride!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2009)

jimh said:


> Here's a bad landing...
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTnoHn0PGCM_




That's the same B-17 from the first clip!


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 6, 2009)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2009)

jimh said:


> Far from condescending and holier than thou...I'm sick of armchair aviators with NO flight time and NO flying experience commenting on events or abilities for which they have no first hand experience. Insulting a pilots ability with nothing to back it up with but hot air is an insult to our community and goes way beyond a condescending statement. I have over 500 hours of B-17 time and have been flying it for close to 6 years. I can assure you that there are NO B-17 operators "hotdogging" or "showing off" for thier own personal satisfaction.
> 
> Jim Harley



Hey *******!

You are not the only person here with flight experience. We have everything from private fliers to people with P-51 time to even an actual B-17 pilot who flew in the war.

Do you know what I get sick and tired of?

Assholes like yourself who think you are the only ones who fly.

Do not come into this forum with an attitude, do you understand! Most of us may not have experience flying B-17s or what not, but that does not give you the right to have an attitude to other members of the forum.

You can get your point across without being a fricken prick!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm going to throw a few things out there on all this....

First off I am not multi-engine tail wheel rated or rated to fly an aircraft with a gross weight over 12,000 pounds, but as a maintainer I have worked on a host of GA aircraft as well as large commercial aircraft (727s, DC-9 and even a DC-3) and I could tell you that I didn't like what I seen in either clip. By the admittance of Jim H, the B-17's tail is it's "achilles heel." With that, if I was an operator I would make damn sure I wasn't doing anything to remotely put any undue stress on that area, even if, according to Jim, keeping that tail up was SOP. To the pilot it might be totally "OK" but you try telling that to the maintainer who has to repair the aircraft when they find damage in the tail area during the next inspection, and I'm sure many of the maintainers working on that aircraft are volunteers.

Now taking this a step further - another clip emerges of the same aircraft being bounced pretty hard during a landing. To me it looks like the pilot flaired way too high. Is it the same crew?!?!?!? 

I see a trend and it disturbs me. 

It's bad enough to see a great and rare bird operated in this manner but what bothers me more is that if there is a mishap as a result of continued operation as we seen, it always puts the whole warbird community in an unfavorable spotlight.

BTW - I'm involved in the warbird community, mainly around L-29s and 39s. If I seen operators continue to do things like what was shown on those clips, I'd be making phone calls. One bad accident will hurt all of us and it will be really frustrating if the accident was avoidable.

As the spring and summer months are around the corner and the air show circuit is starting, I hope I don't see this aircraft on a CNN breaking news story...

My 2 cents - stay away from the stock market...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2009)

Ive seen many -17s land at airshows, displays, archived footage and once when I took a ride in one...

I have never seen one land with its tailwheel that high for that long, ever.... SOP my ass... Pilot hotdogging for the crowd...

Bullsh!t move with a priceless part of our history...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 9, 2009)

Have seen many B-17 landings over the years as well. Just last year at the MAAM WW II Weekend the B-17 "Yankee Lady" must have had 7 or 8 takeoffs and landings.

Not once did the pilot pull a tail high stunt like that.

That pilot was/is a jackass!

TO


----------



## backtothewind (Feb 9, 2009)

Yes same aircraft and same venue, Duxford I think.

Did look a strange landing, "showboating" I don't think so, he was well down the flight line.

So much experience on both sides of the argument .............. where did that come from ............ just a post by Sunny on a B17 coming in and rolling to a stop.

Some guys want to sit back a little and take a sip, seems like the Eagle might take off again with all that angst.

So much venom.

Take a look at the windsock on take off and look at it on the landing, it might have swung and is blowing up it's arse


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2009)

backtothewind said:


> Yes same aircraft and same venue, Duxford I think.
> 
> Did look a strange landing, "showboating" I don't think so, he was well down the flight line.
> 
> ...



Yes there is a lot of experience on this forum and all those with experience on this subject matter are more than welcomed to comment providing they could back up their expertise...

As far as "the eagle." He'll take care of those who he feels are being @sses on this forum and as a fellow moderator, I back him up 100%.

In the first clip at the 45/ 46 second mark is when the aircraft lands and you could see the windsock in the background blowing at about 5 knots right down the runway. IMO there is no reason why he should of kept that tail up that high and that far down the runway for as long ha he did - look at the way it hits the ground when he finally let's it down - Like putting a knife in "achilles heel."

In the second clip there is nothing showing to indicate a wind shift, wind shear or any other condition that should of caused that situation and it would take a hell of a change in the wind to contribute to something like that and it would of also been heard over the clip sound (wind blowing). In the 8 second mark of the second clip you could see the landing gear hit and compress, later on the pilot brings the plane down hard in a 3 point and you could see the tail take a nice “shot.” So much for that "achilles heel."

Bottom line, whoever was flying that aircraft flared it too high, was coming in too fast and did not have the yoke far enough back - "a slight rise on the threshold" as the submitter of the video stated in the title isn't going to launch a landing B-17 100' or more back into the air, and even if it hit a "slight rise on the threshold" the pilot should of been well aware of it prior to landing, especially if flying a rare aircraft.

Sorry but after seeing the first clip and then having another clip show up seeing that aircraft being bounced 100 feet in the air upon a normal landing, there seems to be some fundamental problems with the operation of that aircraft. Sorry Wind, but I've been in this business 31 years and I know when I see and accident waiting to happen. If anything maybe someone who operates, maintains or owns that aircraft might want to consider what some this forum’s “observers” feel about it's operation - in the end it might save the aircraft as well as a few lives.

*UPDATE*
I showed both clips to a few of the folks where I work at - some of them have several THOUSAND hours in tail draggers and at least one has a large multi engine tailwheel type rating for a DC-3. All of them agreed that in the first clip the pilot purposely kept the tail of the aircraft up way too long. In the second clip - well one guy put it like this "if its the same guy flying, he should be shot."


----------



## ccheese (Feb 9, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> Have seen many B-17 landings over the years as well. Just last year at the MAAM WW II Weekend the B-17 "Yankee Lady" must have had 7 or 8 takeoffs and landings.
> 
> Not once did the pilot pull a tail high stunt like that.
> 
> ...



I was there, along with TO njaco, and Yankee Lady never once made 
an abnormal landing. I agree... the pilot was "flat-hatting".... a Navy
term for hot-dogging...

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2009)

backtothewind said:


> Some guys want to sit back a little and take a sip, seems like the Eagle might take off again with all that angst.
> 
> So much venom.



Angst? Venom? 

I don't think so. I just don't like people who act like assholes...

Is that a problem?


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Fine by me! That's what makes this forum enjoyable! Trouble makers are quickly shown the door proverbial door!


----------



## backtothewind (Feb 9, 2009)

Adler

I assume the ?? after the words reflects a puzzlement on your part

Angst .............. It is used in English to describe an intense feeling of strife.

Venom ............. something resembling or suggesting poison in its effect; spite; malice.

This is a forum ................... that's all, opinions are allowed. Sometimes people may say or state something questionable. Constructive comments are always welcome, but to dive in in suck a bombastic fashion is just a little over the top.

Recognising an 4sshole is certainly an art.

I'm new here and don't recognise any hierarchy in those that post, but clearly Eagle you have spent a lot of time on here, and as someone with a senior status I presume, I would have expected a more tolerant and civil attitude, than simply flaming a guy who's opinion you disagree with.

Sunny once again thanks for an interesting post, the video shows a cross wind at take off and on the landing at 00.47 sec it looks to me to shift direction downwind quite a bit. Not trying to make excuses, but possibly looking for reasons. As for the second clip, Duxford has a notorious hump which it appears the pilot caught on the way, still managed to put the plane down gently in the end.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2009)

backtothewind said:


> Adler
> 
> I assume the ?? after the words reflects a puzzlement on your part
> 
> ...



Yes I know, English is my first language thank you. 

I happen to be an American...



backtothewind said:


> This is a forum ................... that's all, opinions are allowed. Sometimes people may say or state something questionable. Constructive comments are always welcome,



Making a questionable statement does not mean one has to act like an *******.



backtothewind said:


> but to dive in in suck a bombastic fashion is just a little over the top.



If it is not your style, you may form a new forum someplace else and run it as you please.

We have many members of this forum and we all come from different walks of life. We have experience in the aviation world ranging from novice to high experience. We bring different opinions to the table. We all get along as well, because we do not talk down to each other or act as ******* to each other. To come into a forum and tell people that they are armchair pilots who have no clue what they are talking about that, that is what set me off, that is why I called him an *******.

Those that do act so, are treated in kind and usually do not last long.



backtothewind said:


> Recognising an 4sshole is certainly an art.



Why thank you...



backtothewind said:


> I'm new here and don't recognise any hierarchy in those that post, but clearly Eagle you have spent a lot of time on here, and as someone with a senior status I presume, I would have expected a more tolerant and civil attitude, than simply flaming a guy who's opinion you disagree with.



1. I did not agree or disagree with his post. I merely stated he does not have to come in here and be an ******* to other members of this forum.

2. Please read what I wrote above about starting a new forum and you can run it as you please.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2009)

backtothewind said:


> the video shows a cross wind at take off and on the landing at 00.47 sec it looks to me to shift direction downwind quite a bit. Not trying to make excuses, but possibly looking for reasons. As for the second clip, Duxford has a notorious hump which it appears the pilot caught on the way, still managed to put the plane down gently in the end.


A wind shift as seen on the clip (5 to 10 knots max) is not going to induce a "drop off" or wind shear on an aircraft that is probably landing with a gross weight of over 50,000 pounds. As far as the hump - if it is well known it should be so stated on the airport directory or a NOTAM should be issued for it and it should be avoided, especially when landing a B-17.

And in the end, that clip may look the plane was "gently" brought down - it wasn't, and I'll base that on my personal experience flying tail wheel aircraft, my spine hurts everytime I watch that clip. The first responder to all this stated that 3 pointers should be avoided, so there you go.

"Flared to high, landed too fast, didn't get the yoke far enough back." I give him credit for not inducing a second bouce or inducing PIO.

And I repeat - I hope I don't see that plane on a "CNN Breaking News Report."


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2009)

> I assume the ?? after the words reflects a puzzlement on your part
> 
> Angst .............. It is used in English to describe an intense feeling of strife.
> 
> Venom ............. something resembling or suggesting poison in its effect; spite; malice.


And the next time u wanna flap ur mouth vagina off to a Senior Moderator in such a condensending way, I'll ban ur disrepectful ass......

Is THAT clear enough for u backofmyass???


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 9, 2009)

backtothewind said:


> I assume the ?? after the words reflects a puzzlement on your part
> 
> Angst ... It is used in English to describe an intense feeling of strife.
> 
> ...


and how do you think posts like this help?

Providing a thesaurus service to a person for a pretty inaccurate description of him? You have your own measure of venom and you've blended it with the lowest form of wit - sarcasm.

From what I gather of the thread, it was jimH who was flattening opinion, 'I fly them, I know, so why don't you all just shut up' - opinions are allowed? Yes they are; sometimes people may say or state something questionable? Yes they do; jimH doesn't seem to have grasped that.

Bombastic? Well, like us, I think he just likes the forum the way it is thanks...

Sorry, but recognising an 4sshole doesn't make you one; Hitler was an 4sshole, does that make me one?

There isn't any hierarchy, you're right and there is a tolerant and civil attitude; where in 'tolerant and civil attitude' will I find calling people a 'bunch of armchair pilots' to be tolerant and civil? What was 'constructive' about the comment?

Not flamed over a difference of opinion, more a difference of attitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> and how do you think posts like this help?
> 
> Providing a thesaurus service to a person for a pretty inaccurate description of him? You have your own measure of venom and you've blended it with the lowest form of wit - sarcasm.
> 
> ...



Well said, thank you.


----------



## backtothewind (Feb 9, 2009)

Woho if this was a fishing forum I reckon I just landed a full net.

Strange thing is I like this forum, the amount of knowledge and wisdom here is quite amazing why I should want to start my own I have no idea. 

Thanks for recognising the sarcasm ............ it was intended.

By the way Colin "Sorry, but recognising an 4sshole doesn't make you one; Hitler was an 4sshole, does that make me one" .... your quote, certainly not mine.

Well thanks for all your comments, I understand where you guys are coming from, may not agree with the pros you use to express it, but that's with me.


LesofPrimus ...............Quote: "And the next time u wanna flap ur mouth vagina off to a Senior Moderator in such a condensending way, I'll ban ur disrepectful ass......

Is THAT clear enough for u backofmyass???"

Tasty ...... Uhmm....I think that proves my point about the the way some of you express yourselves especially to newcomers. You really should let yourself down like that.

FlyBoy thanks for the comments, in all this haranguing its good to read some clarity.

Oh and Les (guess that might be your name), if you want to ban me that's up to you, think it would just vindicate my previous statements.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2009)

OK, Im banning ur ass....


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 9, 2009)

backtothewind
This really is a great group of guys. I have learned a TON on this forum, and visit it daily. In general, as long as members give respect, they will get respect. Weather you agree, JimH's comments were a little overboard for his first posts, and time on this forum, and long time members will not take flack from a newbi. Sometimes members will get into a disagreement, or feathers may get a little ruffled, but I never recall one time when the issue could not be worked out. Newbies will need to get there feet wet and earn some respect, before anyone will take guff, I still consider myself a newbie. This forum is full of very passionate people who believe in preserving past and present history. The moderators are a good group of guys, and do a excellent job of policing this site, and they do need to be strict as there are many different types, with varying views all across the spectrum, and fights do and will erupt at a moments notice. Stick around and you will come to appreciate those and other differences that make this site so much more enjoyable.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Ok, nevermind.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 10, 2009)

Man. All this over a good video. Now that is a shame.


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 11, 2009)

I agree Matt. I was just trying to diffuse the conversation a little. I guess if things could get this heated over a video, maybe it is for the best that they guy got banned before he was involved in a serious, heated discussion.


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 16, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey *******!
> 
> You are not the only person here with flight experience. We have everything from private fliers to people with P-51 time to even an actual B-17 pilot who flew in the war.
> 
> ...




Keine Notwendigkeit zu unhöflich. Alles, was ich geschrieben habe, wurde Tatsache. Es tut mir leid, ich habe mehr Erfahrung und Wissen, als Sie tun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> Keine Notwendigkeit zu unhöflich. Alles, was ich geschrieben habe, wurde Tatsache. Es tut mir leid, ich habe mehr Erfahrung und Wissen, als Sie tun.



1. My post was not directed at you! Go back and read my post and you will see that it was directed to the person that I quoted!

2. Speak English with me. I am an American!

3. I never claimed to be the most experienced person on this forum, so get off the high horse!

4. I was not being unpolite! I was addressing someone who came onto this forum with an attitude, which we do not take kindly to.

5. Stay out of conversations that do not pertain to you. My post was obviously not directed at you to begin with!

6. If you are unsure if something is directed at you or not, PM the person and ask first! It can save a lot of Embarrassment.


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Feb 16, 2009)

Sorry, I thought it was directed at me. I also thought you were German since you have a German flag instead of a US flag next to your avatar.
As for being on a high horse, I was just stating my opinion based on my experience. I have a very direct style of writing. It shouldn't be taken as anything else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> Sorry, I thought it was directed at me. I also thought you were German since you have a German flag instead of a US flag next to your avatar.
> As for being on a high horse, I was just stating my opinion based on my experience. I have a very direct style of writing. It shouldn't be taken as anything else.



No worries, I am not a hard person to get along with.

I am an American but my mother and wife are both German. I served over here in the US Army and currently live as a civilian here working for the US Army until my wife is finished with her college and then we are moving to Alaska (hopefully this year...).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 16, 2009)

Well, it looks like the bullets and hand grenades have stopped, so Im going to come out of cover to make my statement. 

I think the majority here thinks the pilot was hot dogging on the tail high landing. The knowledge on this forum is incredible so I believe that is the truth. The bounce landing hopefully was a lesson learned for that pilot, one that he won't repeat....if he is still flying that plane.

These warbirds are surely something to be cherished, and cared for. However, I don't want to cast a no "showing off" blanket on them all. I want to see the Mustang scream by, hear the Merlin magic and then climb and roll into the clouds. And you can replace "Mustang" with Messerschmitt or Corsair or Spitfire. I want to see these aircraft perform. That is what they do better than anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

A chance meeting that had me resurrecting this thread.

I ran into the former manager of the March ARB Aero Club the other day. "Fred" ran the aero club for a number of years and has boo-koo hours in all types for aircraft including several hundred hours in Dave Talachet's B-17. I told him about this clip and thread and he said there is no reason to keep the the tail up on a B-17 and discussed the weakness of the tail and vertical stabilizer main spar that was a weak point of the aircraft.

My 2 cents of the day - buy high tech stock.....


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2009)

No suprises there!


----------

