# Warbird Abuse?



## GrauGeist (Jan 25, 2012)

I came across a photo and discussion at Facebook today, regarding a pilot who was stunt flying a P-51D. Facebook - Sierra Hotel Aeronautics








While I think Dale "Snort" Snodgrass (U.S. Navy, ret.) has exceptional skills as a pilot, I disagreed about a recent photo of him stunt flying a P-51D ridiculously close to the deck, clearing the port wing by only several feet.

My point is that warbirds (and thier pilots) are disappearing at an alarming rate, and if he wants to bust out a few wild stunts like that, do it in a modern aircraft (and certainly not where he'd be putting others at risk). I think there's too many random elements that can make an adrenalin filled buzz pass go horribly wrong, no matter how skilled a person is...

I'm just interested to see what other's thoughts are on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## model299 (Jan 25, 2012)

Is that photo legit??? 

I say that because of the proximity of the Mustang to that twin, and to the golf cart. I have a hard time believing any pilot, no matter how foolhardy, would be THAT foolhardy.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jan 25, 2012)

THAT IS LOW!!!!!!!!


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2012)

Apparently you don't know Dale Snodgrass very well.

Try Googling "Dale Snodgrass Low Pass" and see what comes up. He's been doing this for YEARS in everything from F-14 Tomcats down the side of an active Navy Carrier to MiG-17's to P-51's and F-86's, etc. Dale has not hit anything and has been doing this stuff for more than 25 years in high-performance airplanes.

When you're good, you're good, and Dale IS good. If the owner is OK with low passes, and the pilot is OK with low passes, and the FAA is OK with low passes, and the Airshow Air Boss is OK with low passes, why do you think it is abuse? Why not enjoy the airshow?

I surmise that if it were YOUR warbird, you'd not let Dale fly it in an airshow. Somebody else would bo doubt step up and fill in the blank spot so the rest of us could enjoy it. So enjoy! It ain't abuse, it's a great pilot doing his thing with an aircraft that was loaned to him for the purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Jan 25, 2012)

If that is a real shot, it's way too low for my comfort level. There is zero margin for error at that altitude, regardless of the aircraft. That being said, Snort is exceptional pilot. If anyone can pull off a maneuver like that, it is Snort. What is bothersome is that some other pilots of lesser skill who may try something like it, and hurt or kill someone doing it. Even great pilots can make mistakes and I have a memorial list of some. I am okay if they want to do something like that in a Pitts, or a Lancair or something like that, but i hate to see a P-51 flown like that. Do we know if that is a real WWII Mustang, or one of the "new" ones that have come out one of the fabrication shops?


----------



## model299 (Jan 26, 2012)

The perspective MUST be off in that picture, because he looks REALLY close to that red twin. Also that golf cart. 

I did what you suggested Greg. 

Wowzers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2012)

Greg, Jimmy Leeward was an outstanding pilot, but sadly couldn't save his P-51 when trouble struck and as you may know, was a VERY accomplished pilot.

There are WAY too many variables that can occur when piloting an aircraft and putting Excaliber (or any warbird) at risk, is foolhardy, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## A4K (Jan 26, 2012)

I can believe the shot, having seen a kiwi Tiger moth pilot pick a handkerchief off the ground with a small hook attached to the wingtip at an airshow display.

A Mustang being somewhat faster than a Tiger Moth however, he has absolutely NO safety margin, as Eric said. If the pilot comes a cropper for his own bravado, well, he knew the risks, but aircraft like Mustangs don't grow on trees.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jan 26, 2012)

Looks good to me, a nice slip down the ramp at low altitude in the middle of the envelope. The bottom line is that some guys are just better than others!
Chris...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 26, 2012)

Doesn't matter how good the pilot is, if the engine cuts they're screwed.

with all the recent air show accidents, I could see the FAA ruling acts like this out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jan 27, 2012)

Why would the engine quit?
Why would the airplane crash if the engine did quit?

Chris...


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2012)

Jimmy Leeward was flying a HEAVILY modified P-51. The modifications were his own and the decision to use ONE trim tab instead of two to stabilize the aircraft cost him his life as he apparently lost his only functional trim tab obviously in slow-motion film. The pullup was 10 - 13 g's and he passed out and was a rider as the Ghost went down. At least, that's the way the NTSB is looking at it, if we can believe the rumors. We'll know for sure when the NTSB report comes out. I loved Jimmy and The Galloping Ghost, but the crash was an ACCIDENT apparently caused by modification to the airframe combined with wake turbulence that exceeded the limits of the single trim tab attach points.

Dale is flying a stock P-51 with the stock TWO trim tabs and no cutting of wing, aileron, or tail. So each is absorbing HALF the load of Jimmy's trim tab. So, I don't see what you are trying to say. Dale ain't flying at Reno in a race ... he is making a low pass as only a very few pilots can do well. Dale is one of them who can.

What are you saying? That Dale is doing something dangerous? What is your proof? He is certified to do it by the US Navy, the FAA, the Warbirds Owners Association, the airsbhow air boss, and anyone else who matters. No hits on Dale's record for a LONG time, even on a golf cart.

All that equals no abuse ... just great flying ... sort of like Bob Hoover when the FAA idiot in Hillsboro, Oregon said that Bob had lost his "cognitive abilities." Four years later the President of the USA ordered the FAA to reinstate Bob's license when he flew airshows all over the world except in the USA in his usual impecable style for YEARS.

Better back off from Dale Snodgrass. You'll lose the fight. And we'll watch with appreciation when he does OUR airshow at Chino.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 27, 2012)

I wish I were in that golf cart!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2012)

Greg, I think you missed the point here...

I ALREADY stated that Snort is an VERY accomplished pilot. A point that you keep harping on. He's good, but he's not perfect in the respect that the weather is no respector of persons. He's experienced but cannot predict mechanical anomolies. Yes Jimmy's Stang was modified, but it failed and down he went. The world was suddenly without a great pilot and one less Mustang...

The point that I am making here, is that doing risky stunts in a priceless warbird, no matter how good the pilot is, is jeopardizing the dwindling numbers of warbirds. Would you feel comfortable if he was doing that stunt in the CAF's Zero? Or how about Glacier Girl? I sure as hell wouldn't.

It seems to me that these surviving warbirds should be guarded as national treasures, and while I am a proponent of keeping them flying and not stuffed away in a museum or hangar somewhere, operate them with moderation and out of harm's way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## A4K (Jan 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> Better back off from Dale Snodgrass. You'll lose the fight.


 

Greg, RELAX. You've totally missed the point.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 27, 2012)

Whats on the port side of pic


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 27, 2012)

Grau: I generally don't frown on this, but I would NOT want to see Glacier Girl doing this!!!


----------



## ccheese (Jan 27, 2012)

I don't know if the pic was Photoshopped or not (look at the plan's shadow) but to me it's much too risky. For both the pilot and plane, not to mention those on the ground.

What's that they say about "old, bold pilots" ?

Charles


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 27, 2012)

chris mcmillin said:


> Why would the engine quit?
> Why would the airplane crash if the engine did quit?
> 
> Chris...



Why does any engine quit during flight? In this case I would assume the loss of engine power that close to the ground + reaction = loss in altitude = crash.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 27, 2012)

Why? When an engine stops, aircraft don't come to a juddering halt, and fall out of the sky, they can normally fly on, at least for some distance, while the pilot looks for somewhere soft to put it down. 
A C.A.F. CF-104 pilot (who regularly flew at near-zero altitude) told me once that there were 20+ red lights, which meant an immediate bang-out, but he said that your first reaction was to pull back the stick and gain height, before checking to see what the light meant, and he'd had to do it. The 104 was known for, engine-less, having the flying qualities of a house brick, but he still had time to carry out the correct procedure, and live to talk about it.


----------



## jimh (Jan 27, 2012)

I will refrain from opinion but I will say he slid an F-86 in a couple years ago cause he forgot to put the gear down. As we pilots age our skills and reflexes slow down...there is nobody on the planet immune to that. Dale holds a zero altitude airshow ticket and has been "spoken to" before. Whether the image is photoshopped or not there are other similar photos out there. The only thing that will eventually stop Dale from doing this is the ground. 

jim

PS the speed at which he does his low passes would allow for quite a bit of time to make a runway if there is an engine issue. A couple years ago V Lenoch lost an engine on top of a loop in his P-51 and landed with no issues


----------



## davparlr (Jan 27, 2012)

I does not look like he is flying very fast. His left aileron appears to be deflected down and the rudder is deflected up. If so, he is cross controlling and nose looks high creating a large angle of attack, needed to maintain altitude at that angle of bank. He looks fast because a Mustang just looks fast. Still, bird strike, flinch, smoke.



jimh said:


> PS the speed at which he does his low passes would allow for quite a bit of time to make a runway if there is an engine issue. A couple years ago V Lenoch lost an engine on top of a loop in his P-51 and landed with no issues



I think I would rather lose an engine at the top of a loop rather than at the bottom, especially if I am doing a low altitude loop over a runway. At the top you have some maneuvering altitude, at the bottom you have speed but you are pretty well stuck going straight ahead.

I can think of a lot of expert pilots who are expertly dead.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 27, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Why? When an engine stops, aircraft don't come to a juddering halt, and fall out of the sky, they can normally fly on, at least for some distance, while the pilot looks for somewhere soft to put it down.



The keyword here is "normally" and I can post plenty of accidents where the "normal" did not occur. They might not happen as often, but the fact is they do. These planes are artifacts from 70 years ago and only a handfull are left from the 1,000s and 1,000's made. Why put them and other people's lives in needless danger because somebody wants to hotdog or grandstand? I gotta agree with Dave on this one.


----------



## jimh (Jan 27, 2012)

At the top of loop in Mustang you can be anywhere around 100 to 150mph depending on how hard you pull. At the bottom you are going to be at a minimum 200 and accelerating pretty quickly. Either case leaves you with both energy or altitude to make critical decisions. At the angle of bank in the subject photo he is hauling the mail...whether it is photoshopped or not. At or above 200...down low with that much pull even at cruise power will produce 200mph indicated. I AM NOT justifying this type of flying at all and it pains me to look at this photo, or any other photo of Snort "doing his thing"...one because I'd hate to see him become a statistic and two because it puts a black eye on warbird ops when something does happen, and three...what kind of example he is setting to pilots who might be alittle more proned to do something reckless at a much lower skill level. Ok...off my soapbox.

jim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## model299 (Jan 27, 2012)

I am not questioning the pilots abilities or skill at all. *If* the picture is legit, then I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I DO have to question his judgement.

Here's my take on this. If the pilot is doing this down the middle of a runway, and the aircraft's owner is OK with it, then he's putting nothing but himself and the plane "at risk." Knock yourself out. Good show.

So let's get past the "warbird at risk" part of it and talk about what I think the true issue should be.

If this picture is legitimate (And no one here has yet confirmed it is.) then, to me, it's a whole 'nother story. Down the middle of a ramp containing aircraft and people??? Seriously?? Now, he's not only risking himself and the Mustang, he's putting that other aircraft and the people in the golf cart at risk IMHO. So, *If* this pic IS legit, then yeah, I'm sorry, but I do have a real problem with what I see.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2012)

Yes, the photograph is 100% authentic and can be seen at Sierra Hotel Aeronautic's Facebook page which has a number of people commenting who were there at the time (including the owner of the aircraft tied down, bottom right of the photo)


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 27, 2012)

There are tons of P51's out there , if it was something rare like a Zero , P26 or something like that it would concern me a bunch more


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2012)

I'd feel confortable if Dale were dioing it in my Mustang. The one he is flying is private property, not a national treasure (not just my opinion, it's the law in the U.S.A.), and the owner is comfortable with the flying.

What you seem to want to do is to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. Thanks heavens we have different laws and regulations in the U.S.A. and Dale can fly that pass. He has an unlimited low altitude waiver, as does Sean Tucker, Steve Hinton, and quite a few other excellent pilots, maybe even some in this forum. At 180 knots, trimmed nose up, the pass is not dangerous. If he has a moment of inattention, the nose-up trim makes the Mustang climb, not descend. The only people I know of who fly low passes with nose-down trim are the Military jets teams. Everyone esle does the opposite, and for good reason.

Let's just say we disagree totally on this subject and let's hope that the regulations don't change to eliminate low passes at airshows or only people like me who get to see it at private airstrips will see it. The FAA has absolutely no interest in what happens at private airstrips, and the people who can afford these planes usually have one or have a friend who has one. I've see civilian and other warbirds doing a pass that low at about 10 private airstrips, sometimes at very high speed instead of a sedate 180 - 200 mph like Dale is doing.

So, if you think this is wrong, we are in complete disagreement, and I'll stop if you will. 

Last, if you don't like this pass, why go to airshows? Not trying to start or continue an argument, trying to understand the issue which, to date, I suppose I don't (I printed and framed the high-res version of the pic). All maneuvers are cleared with the Air Boss before and during practice; there are no unexpected maneuvers in a typical U.S. airshow ... everyone has seen the maneuvers several times, including the FAA and the warbird owner, well before the public airshow. The only exception to that at Chino was, coincidentally, me. We restored a WWII pulsejet from a US JB-2 Loon (very similar to a German V-1) and pushed my pickup down the runway with it ... without practice on the runway. Instead, we practiced on a taxiway. But at least we practiced, and the taxiway was just a straight and just as long. No surprises, as expected.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 28, 2012)

1) I still would like to be in the golf cart.
2) Or better yet, in the Mustang!
3) But I still don't want to see a more rare bird, Glacier Girl or the like doing this.
4) I generally agree with Greg, that airplane is private property.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jimh (Jan 28, 2012)

Learning from past mistakes?...is this warbird abuse, you bet, these aircraft deserve better fates. Ok..I promise I am done now.

jim

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFb8xtd4UM_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FizB1T35Nt0_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em0HsJ6vcaA_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XAeIyqThIo_


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 28, 2012)

Dam........


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 28, 2012)

I sometimes think that a lot of pilots watch others and think they can duplicate what they what witnessed, after sitting for about 10years in the tower it became clear to me . You'd have a fighter depart with a civvy 737 holding , the 737 would almost invariably take off hold it level for a bit build up speed and yank it back for a steeper then normal departure . It didn't matter whether it was a pa28 or a 130 following the fighter departure it was "oh yeah watch this " for the most part all the aircraft were operated within parameters but I'm quite sure the folks in the back were popeyed


----------



## davparlr (Jan 28, 2012)

jimh said:


> At the top of loop in Mustang you can be anywhere around 100 to 150mph depending on how hard you pull.


A few thousand feet over the end of the runway, low airspeed, no power, this almost sounds like an ideal initial point for a teardrop dead stick landing, something all light plane pilots should practice.



> At the bottom you are going to be at a minimum 200 and accelerating pretty quickly. Either case leaves you with both energy or altitude to make critical decisions.


200 mph and 500 ft over the end of the runway and the engine quits. This sounds like the situation of an engine failure on take off. What is the number one rule on engine failure on take off, *NEVER TRY TO TURN BACK TO THE RUNWAY!* Your options are limited. You could try to turn downwind and land normally or you could try to make a tear drop and land in the opposite direction, both are a dead mans choice, you most likely will not have the energy to do either. Your option is only to go straight ahead with maybe a make a bit of a maneuver. I'll take the engine failure at the top of a loop any time. I've been there with no airspeed, but that is a different story.


----------



## Btlmike (Apr 7, 2014)

Good evening, the picture is legit. His wing was actually that low. I was standing next to the building when I took that picture. I will post a couple of the other pics here. 







model299 said:


> The perspective MUST be off in that picture, because he looks REALLY close to that red twin. Also that golf cart.
> 
> I did what you suggested Greg.
> 
> Wowzers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2014)

Btlmike said:


> Good evening, the picture is legit. His wing was actually that low. I was standing next to the building when I took that picture. I will post a couple of the other pics here.
> 
> View attachment 258679



I think the editing makes the plane look slightly lower than it actually was. In any case arnt pilots supposed to be able to fly close to the ground in order to land. The airfield looks huge, a P51 can land on concrete or grass, if the engine fails land it on the wheels or the belly, or am I missing something. Being close to the ground doesnt make an engine fail, I would say he has a better chance of getting down in one piece there than over a forest city or stretch of water.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 8, 2014)

What a great shot. Welcome aboard Mike.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

Thanks for the video posts above. The F-86 crash was Steve Schneider ... the same Steve Schneider who started the new-build Me 262 effort that resulted in the Stormbirds units that fly today.

The other videos make a real statement about people who do airshow aerobatics without practice. The video that doesn't work anymore was of a Bell P-63 that crashed doing a loop. The Spifire was doing EXACTLY the same thing.

The engines are good for so much power, and both the pilots of the Spitfire and the P-63 were attempting low-altitude loops at very reduced power. That is they pulled up into a normal loop, but were flying at half or so power. They got the pull-up they wanted because both had approached the loop from a shallow dive, but didn't use the power required to give them altitude for the pull out.

There is a video of a P-38 crash in the UK where the pilot is doing a fast low pass, starts a roll, and hits the ground.

If you come to see the Chino airshow (first weekend of May, May 3 - 4) you will see a great airshow with safety first as the attitude. For warbirds, we don't allow rolls from other than a climbing attitude unless the aircraft has first completed a vertical half loop. That is, a downward roll from the top of a Cuban eight is allowed since there is sufficient altitude, but a flat roll in a low pass is not allowed. Birds start arriving on Thursday and we fly the practice show on Friday. If the air boss (usually Jim Dale) sees anything he doesn't like, he makes a change and they fly it again until he thinks it is safe. That happens before Saturday.

Most of the above accidents in the videos were caused by people who didn't practice the show in front of the air boss, did rolling or looping maneuvers at reduced power to "conserve" the engine, rolled from a level pass without a pull-up, and were flat out of practice at aerobatics. In Steve Schneider's case, I was not there, but have many friend who were. They said he flew the loop at greatly reduced power. Steve's Sabre had solid leading edges (no slats) and had no extra lift capacity left when he tried to pull up at the last second. In fact, at almost looks like it stalled at the last second as Steve pulled harder.

All these can be easily corrected by having the air boss ask in a pilot's meeting what power settings you will be using before practice. A wrong answer means you get some counsel. If it doesn't look like you are actually USING the adjusted power settings, you don't get to fly the weekend show. You also must acknowledge in the pilot's meeting that all rolling maneuvers below the hard deck altitude will be initiated from a climbing attitude, with at least a 15° climb before the roll starts. These "rules" are NOT for everyone, but apply to warbirds, specifically because warbords are NOT aerobatic planes. They are planes that CAN do aerobatics of the positive type and maybe some mild negative ones, but they are not intended as aerobatic aircraft.

So there IS a safe way to do it and we only wish everyone would take the safe route.

Here is a short video of Steve Hinton at the Hemet-Ryan airshow doing aerobatics in the P-38. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYNhWSt-GXU_

Notice there are no rolling maneuvers that are on a down line unless he just completed a half loop and is well above the hard deck. When he initiates a roll from a low pass, he has already pulled up to allow for a safe roll. When he loops notice he flies a considerable vertical up line before pulling back to get to the top of the loop, and he does it at enough power to ensure a safe altitude gain in the first half of the loop. 

Warbird aerobatics CAN be safe and still look very good. There is no need to push the envelope as there might be in something like the Paris airshow when millions of dollars of sales hang on the display. The warbirds doing airshows are already owned and there is not a large sales population of them hanging in the balance. 

Might was well do it safe and practice enough to do it right before the public sees the airshow in the first place. Good airshows MAKE it happen that way (at least the air bosses do) or you don't get to fly in them.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2014)

GregP said:


> There is a video of a P-38 crash in the UK where the pilot is doing a fast low pass, starts a roll, and hits the ground.
> 
> Most of the above accidents in the videos were caused by people who didn't practice the show in front of the air boss, did rolling or looping maneuvers at reduced power to "conserve" the engine, rolled from a level pass without a pull-up, and were flat out of practice at aerobatics. In Steve Schneider's case, I was not there, but have many friend who were. They said he flew the loop at greatly reduced power. Steve's Sabre had solid leading edges (no slats) and had no extra lift capacity left when he tried to pull up at the last second. In fact, at almost looks like it stalled at the last second as Steve pulled harder.
> 
> ...



Great info thanks, Ive seen both crashes on youtube and I agree. But as you are a pilot I imagine a top display pilot to be like an F1 driver knowing how far his plane is from the ground almost to the inch.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

The good ones who practice their airshow routines regularly are very in touch with their situational awareness. The people who don't practice aerobatics are the ones in danger. Usually the air bosses know which are which by the way they fly practice.

Recall the British airshow where the Douglas Skyraider pulled up and hit the Mustang, Big Beautiful Doll after a 3-plane low pass? That was a case of the Mustang pilot not performing his pull up like the Skyraider pilot did. Either the Sjyraider pilot was wrong in his expectations as briefed or the Mustang pilot didn't pull up and bank as the Skyraider pilot expected. Maybe both events occurred simultaneously.

I don't know the reality since I wasn't there and don't know where to look for British accident reports, but it LOOKS like nobody practiced this at all before the show ... it looks spontaneous simply because it was so sloppy in execution. If that is wrong, then something needs to be done immediately to make this a thing that can't happen again. When the accident happened, thank heaven the Mustang pilot was quick enough to get out and thank heaven the Skyraider pilot was good enough to get around and down on one piece. Once in a bad situation, the pilots responded in kind. Practicing this at least 5 times before the show would have ironed out any kinks in the event.

Much the same is usually apparent when there is a warbird accident. Not always since occasionally the aircraft or engine fails, but it is usually the pilot of the warbird or another one in close formation who is sloppy and does it wrong.

Here is the Kingcobra accident. He isn't even using enough power to climb vertically and complete a pull over to reach the top of a loop! Wonder what was going on? The P-63 wasn't developing enough power to fly level, much less climb and do aerobatics. Probably had another 850 HP or so on tap that could have made this maneuver a no brainer. He stalls at the top of the so-called "loop" and enters a power-on spin from which there is not enough altitude to recover. Tragic and VERY avoidable.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhbcxqKPXR4_

Believe me, the P-63 is a climbing fool at high power. Makes me really wonder if this had EVER been practiced at altitude. If so, he would have entered the spin, recovered, and stepped up his power level before trying that again after cleaning off the pilot's seat and washing his flight suit.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

Talk about good TV reporting, this is listed as a Spitfire accident! 

How many knowledgeable people can mistake a Swiss F+W C-3605, nicknamed Schlepp, for a Spitfire?

Yet these are the idiots who report to the public!


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


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

Here's a guy who has very obviously practiced his routine!

Lockeed-Martin C-130J at the Paris Air Show.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIVWxs9QmW4_

Can you say "professional?" Missed his airborne time by 3 seconds! Was supposed to be 3 minutes 15 seconds and went 3 minutes 18 seconds.

If this is abuse, can I ride along for the abuse?


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

For those of you who enjoyed the low pass by Dale Snodgrass in the Mustang above, here is Dale in 2005 in an F-86.


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

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

And here is the airshow where that pic was taken. You can see there is no photoshop and he really WAS that low. The announcer is an idiot who says that Packard manufactured more Merlins than Rolls Royce! They DID make some, but rolls royce made more by FAR.

Anyway, here is Dale's Mustang show from 2009. You can see the golf cart right about 1:19 or so.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn-zGl81BTI_

Nobody flies MUCH lower than Dale!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2014)

"There are OLD pilots and there are BOLD pilots..."


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

This one is both ...


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2014)

> There is a video of a P-38 crash in the UK where the pilot is doing a fast low pass, starts a roll, and hits the ground.




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4mCvUfpsk_

I was there and watched this happen. I had taken a new girlfriend to DX as she'd never been to an airshow before - hell of a way to impress. Very sad to see. 



> This one is both...



Even the good ones f*ck up occasionally, and many, like Hoof Proudfoot don't live to talk about it afterwards.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

Note the roll from a level pass without a pull up first. A real shame, so unnecessary. Tragic.

I hope it never happens again.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2014)

GregP said:


> And here is the airshow where that pic was taken. You can see there is no photoshop and he really WAS that low. The announcer is an idiot who says that Packard manufactured more Merlins than Rolls Royce! They DID make some, but rolls royce made more by FAR.
> 
> Anyway, here is Dale's Mustang show from 2009.\
> 
> ...



didnt see anything dangerous there at all, great skill but if his life depended on it i bet he could go lower.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

Well, here's one even Dale can't do ...

It's a jet powered outhouse!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCRGz00xjnU_

Fire the retro-commode rocket Mr. Chekov!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2014)




----------



## The Basket (Apr 9, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


>


love the jet toilet. When it goes all wrong he can empty his bowels without worry.

Love the silver P-51. Aint nothing wrong with a flying machine flying. Thats what its designed to do.


----------



## Alex . (Apr 9, 2014)

Why do some commentators have to talk so much?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP, how much does a low pass like that depend on the air condition? When I see planes flying low in UK they seem to get buffeted about much more than Dales P51. Comin into land at my local airport even a 100 seater passenger jet seems to move around a good bit in the last few seconds. Is this discussed before the show, or my imagination.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 9, 2014)

any time you strap into the seat of an airplane you take a risk. most of us know pilots who werent even doing anything fancy...just flying normally and had incidents with some of them ending tragically. so when you start to push limits your degree of risk goes up exponentially. you can have all the experience in the world but $#!T happens. a sudden loss of power....heavy gust of wind at the wrong time...change in air density....burst coolant line...etc...and things go south...real south and real fast. sometimes a great pilot with tremendous skills can minimize the damage but there are times even they are helpless to change the outcome. i am not criticizing or saying they shouldnt do such things...i love them! the more the merrier. you just cant be too surprised when something bad happens but more over there needs to be safeguards make sure that the audience doesnt get caught in the fall out.

pbehn....air conditions will dictate a lot of what can and cant be done.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

The big planes and small planes that get buffeted about are going very slowly and are approaching their stall speed. Right around stall is where the controls are at their least effective. They stop working altogether when the plane stalls ... well not completely, but close. The only place you are going is forward and down, hopefully with level wings, if you stall it in coordinated flight and stay on the rudder and ailerons to keep it that way.

So, the planes that "move around" just over the runway are usually at 1.2 times stall speed or less, usually less just before touchdown.

The P-51D that Dale Snodgrass was flying was probably moving at about 200 knots or more and is not very susceptible to small gusts. It DOES move around, but not much since he is moving at what would be virtually cruise speed and is into and out of gusts before they move the aircraft much. If he were going slow and were landing, it would move around, too, right before touchdown, if wind and gusts were present.

At our airshow in Chino, it is usually warm and gusty since our event is in the first week of May in Southern California, USA. The performers all KNOW that and realize they will get kicked around by wind and gusts. Nobody flies down the runway at 2 feet. The lowest altitude we fly is somewhere around 50 feet, so there is considerable room for error. 

The faster you go, the less you move around. When Steve does a low pass in the F-86 at 400 knots, he isn't moving around much. When Hartley does a low pass in his Stearman with Margie on the wing at 90 knots, he moves around several feet at a time. Both fly accordingly.

When I was flying a lot in Cessna 172 / 182's, I knew exactly how much it would move around when landing. It comes with experience and there are no low-time airshow performers. All have a lot of hours behind the stick, all the ones flying aerobatics KNOW aerobatics, all have FAA waivers to fly in close proximity to the ground and the crowd if they are doing any aerobatics. The guys just flying the warbirds around don't have special waivers, but they have enough hours in the planes to fly them around in safe, non-aerobatic fashion and have been signed off in the planes. Nobody does aerobatics in our B-25, but they can land it on a spot and it goes exactly where they want it to go.

The FAA doesn't hand out credentials without a pretty thorough examination of the pilot's abilities. The people doing level passes are qualified to do them and the people doing warbird aerobatics are qualified to do aerobatics in warbirds. Sometimes mechanical woes get someone and sometimes a pilot makes a big error. There was an airshow recently where a wing walker on a Stearman was killed due to pilot error. The pilot was killed, too. He pulled before he had rolled out enough and pulled won into the grass. Though it happens, we all want the next error like that to be a long way off or never.

We take thing a step farther and require practice of the complete routine on Friday before the Saturday / Sunday shows. If anything looks "iffy" at all, adjustment s are requested by the air boss and it is flown again until there are NO issues. There is no possibility to "decline" the requested adjustments; you make them and fly it again or you don't fly in the show.

So yes, the planes landing move around a bit, but mostly when slowing for touchdown. They DO move around SOME in a flyby, but not nearly as much as when landing.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

Thanks Bobby and GreP great info and insight, flying into uk airports under overcast skies the plane seems to be all over the place, not just from gusts but moving a lot up and down even Jumbos into Heathrow and a long way from the runway, much more than landing in my workplaces which luckily are under sunny blue skies. I dont see why people make such a point of pointing out the speed of a high speed pass, planes such as a P51 were made to fly fast, probaably under better control at 300MPH as at 150MPH. If you clip the ground then it makes no difference.

What a guy does with his own property is his business, a great plane with a great pilot is a joy to watch, the only exception I make is with the BoB flight which is a national asset, I wish for my great grand kids to see them if possible but then I havnt seen them involved in any sort of wild aerobatics. I read that the Lancaster isnt even allowed to fly parallel to a motorway!!! In any case if the number of Spitfires flying keep increasing we may have more in 2039 as we did in 1939


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Properly flown, there is nothing dangerous about a loop or a roll. Improperly flown and straight and level can be dangerous.

I have not had the pleasure of seeing the BOB Memorial Flight in the air in person, but would love to d so at some point ... unless all they do are level flypasts. I have seen well over a thousand of those and while the engine sounds never get old, but it IS nice to see some crisp handling every once in awhile. even if it is a crisp bank into an overhead recovery. So if the BOB flight guys don't do basic aerobatics, then they aren't in practice and certainly shouldn't do them in Spitfires, Hurricanes until they are practiced up away from people and up higher than 2-mistake altitude plus spin recovery margin.

Question, why would a Lancaster be prohibited from flying parallel to a road? That makes no sense at all to me unless it is to help prevent traffic accidents by drivers who are gawking. If THAT is the case, it is the fault of the drivers, not the Lancaster.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> Properly flown, there is nothing dangerous about a loop or a roll. Improperly flown and straight and level can be dangerous.
> 
> I have not had the pleasure of seeing the BOB Memorial Flight in the air in person, but would love to d so at some point ... unless all they do are level flypasts. I have seen well over a thousand of those and while the engine sounds never get old, but it IS nice to see some crisp handling every once in awhile. even if it is a crisp bank into an overhead recovery. So if the BOB flight guys don't do basic aerobatics, then they aren't in practice and certainly shouldn't do them in Spitfires, Hurricanes until they are practiced up away from people and up higher than 2-mistake altitude plus spin recovery margin.
> 
> Question, why would a Lancaster be prohibited from flying parallel to a road? That makes no sense at all to me unless it is to help prevent traffic accidents by drivers who are gawking. If THAT is the case, it is the fault of the drivers, not the Lancaster.




The BoB flight put on a good display, not just an overhead pass, though they do a lot of them at ceremonies and memorial services. A spitfire doesnt have to do a loop, appearing out of the blue at speed and rolling our into the distance or just climbing up after a low pass into a blue sky is enough for many (like me) but I am not surrounded by them as routine.

You are on the button with that, the Lanc is such an icon in the UK people cannot take their eyes off it, who wants to fly a Lanc and witness motorway pile ups I dont even know if it has caused a pile up but on UK motorways it doesnt take much. More dangerous was the Vulcan, I couldnt take my eyes off that the one time I saw it while driving.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

OK, that makes a kind of sense. 

If warbirds are such an infrequent sight, then maybe such rules are indicated. They ARE hard not to watch if you love the piston warbirds like I do, but I refrain when driving. Maybe if I didn't see so many, I'd not refrain while driving ... a fast low pass with a nice pull-up IS nice to see, and very few planes can climb like a Spitfire!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

I saw the Vulcan flying up here when they were pracising low level ground hugging 

https://www.google.de/search?q=farn...gGcXDtQbewoDQAw&ved=0CFwQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=534


That was just surreal. Officially no lower than 200ft (yeh right) the noise was unbelievable and the shape straight out of star wars. Anyway thanks for all your info and insight I think its great to see the old planes doing roughly what they were designed for without the killing.

Just one thing, why would military pilots trim "nose down" it seems illogical. takes a seat and waits for an education.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

The aerobatic jet teams trim nose down because it is MUCH smoother to slack off or add onto back pressure than it is to pull and then push on the stick. So the reason is 100% that it is smoother and the formation looks better with much less moving around, especially up and down out of phase, in formation.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> The aerobatic jet teams trim nose down because it is MUCH smoother to slack off or add onto back pressure than it is to pull and then push on the stick. So the reason is 100% that it is smoother and the formation looks better with much less moving around, especially up and down out of phase, in formation.




Thanks, makes sense they are doing different manouvers in different aircraft at different heights.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

If you ever see formation flights that are NOT aerobatic teams, you'll see them moving up and down out of phase, not much, but it is VERY noticeable. The jet teams experimented around and found that nose down was the best solution. The teams vary as to how MUCH nose down trim to apply. If I am not mistaken, the technique was pioneered by the Blue Angels in the US Navy and the Sabre Dancers in the USAF and subsequently adopted by other jets teams.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> If you ever see formation flights that are NOT aerobatic teams, you'll see them moving up and odwn out of phase, not much, but it is VERY noticeable. The jet teams experimented around and found that nose down was the best solution. The teams vary as to how MUCH nose down trim to apply. If I am not mistaken, the technique was pioneered by the Blue Angels in the US Navy and the Sabre Dancers in the USAF and subsequently adopted by other jets teams.



was brought up watching the Red Arrows, saw them many times. On a TV when they are forming up there is a bit of "vertical* adjustment at the start then it all smooths out. By that they sort of move up and down a bit for a second or two and then fly as one with the guy they form up on, obviously adjusting the trim. Nnw I know what they are/were doing. My question was a misunderstanding on my side, I thought you meant a military Pilot in a P51 would trim nose down Now I understand ..Thanks for the info.

also with the red arrows in mind they have to keep out of the jet wash i think so that would be the same as the ground while in formation?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Particularly when they were flying Gnats. We have one of the former Red Arrow Gnats at Chino and it flies semi-regularly. Seems to have very good acceleration and good vertical capability. It is a very beat little plane and about the only thing it lacks is range.

The Red Arrows are definitely one of the better jet teams. Wish I could see them more often.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Particularly when they were flying Gnats. We have one of the former Red Arrow Gnats at Chino and it flies semi-regularly. Seems to have very good acceleration and good vertical capability. It is a very neat little plane and about the only thing it lacks is range.

The Red Arrows are definitely one of the better jet teams. Wish I could see them more often.

Here's a short of the late, great Ray Hanna ...


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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> Particularly when they were flying Gnats. We have one of the former Red Arrow Gnats at Chino and it flies semi-regularly. Seems to have very good acceleration and good vertical capability. It is a very beat little plane and about the only thing it lacks is range.
> 
> The Red Arrows are definitely one of the better jet teams. Wish I could see them more often.
> 
> ...





_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxf_9oliGg_

how I remember the Red Arrows strangely at the start it shows them in hawks but the rest is in Gnats, a plane that didnt need any range it did air displays.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Here's one you don't see very often. It's the Horsemen flying two different kinds of aircraft but all with the mighty R-2800 installed. The was NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhNJgPbnY84_

Since this is a WWII site, I thought I'd post some relevant aircraft being demonstrated.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

Great video, they are beast of the field. how easy or hard is it to syncronise speed, in a turn the outside plane must go a little faster and the inside a little slower? just pracice or is that difficult?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Since they have very similar engines, props, and drag characteristics, my bet is speed is not difficult to synchronize. When aerobatic teams first started flying, it was widely believed they could not DO the diamond formation. Once in the air, it proved to be not all that difficult with practice. I've seen the Horsemen perform with 2 P-51's, 3 P-51's, 3 Bearcats, 2 Bearcats and 1 Corsair, 2 P-51's and 1 P-38, and 3 F-86's. 

They look smooth and great in all of these mounts.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

I guess it becomes second nature, but they are controlling a 2000HP engine to withing +/- just a few HP. 


Thanks for all the info GregP


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

You are welcome. It didn't seem like all that much info but, then again, I tend to hear guys who fly WWII planes talking freely among themselves at the museum. I suppose some of it IS rather arcane information that doesn't usually float around.

FlyboyJ, Drgondog, and Biff are just a few guys who know. There are many more in here. 

Maybe I'm just the blabbermouth ... anyway, WWII aircraft are my passion. I only wish I had one to fly on a regular basis.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2014)

Since we are on the subject of warbirds, I thought you might want to see the pics I took of the P-38 California Cutie that Hoof Proudfoot was killed in at Flying Legends Duxford 1996. The pictures are pretty grainy because they are scanned from prints.







Parked in the flight line. You can see some of the aircraft in the background that the Lightning took out.






Taken about 15 - 20 minutes before the aircraft met its end. I was trying to get its unique shadow on the tarmac underneath it, but the weather was pretty grey that day.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Great pics Nuuumannn! Thanks for posting them!

I wish he'd have pulled up to 20° nose up before rolling, especially since he was going to do at least 2 rolls and the P-38 doesn't have much in the way of inverted push-up capability in the middle of the roll.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2014)

There was some speculation he might have blacked out at the controls sometime during the roll manoeuvres, but how can you substantiate that?


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Can't. Even if he hadn't blacked out, the P-38 does NOT push up when inverted very well. 

It's characteristic of the airframe ... and if he was flying aerobatics in it, he would KNOW that. I can only wonder what he was thinking when he initiated the roll.

If you Google Steve Hinton P-38 aerobatics, you won't see ANY roll at low level without a pull-up first. Sort of required unless you have a death wish.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Here's one you don't see every day!

[video]http://leavingterrafirma.com/aircraft/trimotor-aerobatics/[/video]

Aerobatics in a Ford Trimotor.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 10, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Great video, they are beast of the field. how easy or hard is it to syncronise speed, in a turn the outside plane must go a little faster and the inside a little slower? just pracice or is that difficult?



Pbehn,

That's an honest question. I remember thinking the same thing before I entered formation phase in T-37s. The answer is it's not difficult after a sortie or two. 

If you are in traffic next to a Ferrari and want to drive in "formation" you just adjust your inputs to the gas pedal to parallel it. Same goes if it's a Pinto instead. Your car doesn't know what's next to it, just knows to deliver speed based on your gas pedal inputs. Planes are the same, they don't know what they are flying next to. I have flown close formation (fingertip in mil speak) with F-111s, F-16, Mig-29s, other F-15s, and more I'm probably forgetting. 

What you do have to be cognizant of is not flying in a manner that exceeds the capability of your formation mate. An example would be leading a dissimilar aircraft back for a formation approach and flying slower than he can. We have the radio or hand signals to coordinate the speed in real life.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2014)

Thanks Biff, I was sort of thinking if you are changing the throttle all the time with one hand you have no hands free for anything?

I am in Germany there are no speed limits on the Autobahns "forming up" with a Ferrari here isnt a good idea, frequently leads to a wipe out at high speed, here they do race on the autobahns ...madness at times.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2014)

"forming up" with a car on the highway is much easier than forming up on another aircraft...especially one of a different type.

With a car, you're on a flat surface that eliminates several aspects: elevation, cross-wind/slipstream buffet (turbulence).

One the otherhand, at high-speeds on the highway, there is the risk of collision because of external conditions: animals crossing the roadway, oncoming traffic crossing over, debris on the roadway, etc. which you won't encounter in aircraft.

A Veyron can be easily paced by a Ferrari or a Hydndai or a VW bus, all depending on circumstances but dissimilar aircraft in formation presents special challenges, like in Heritage flights with a Spitfire, a P-40 and a modern combat jet for example. In like types (say like a formation of P-51Ds), they all have similar trim settings, throttle, pitch and so on, they can easily match the lead element and hold a nice formation.

But with a formation of different types, it takes different settings by each pilot to match the leader and bring the formation into order. Lots of work going on behind the scenes there!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Here's one you don't see every day!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Blue Yonder (Apr 10, 2014)

I had the privilege to see Glamorous Gal perform at the Geneseo Airshow several times in the years leading up to her landing accident...what spectacular flying with such a beautiful plane! 



GregP said:


> And here is the airshow where that pic was taken. You can see there is no photoshop and he really WAS that low. The announcer is an idiot who says that Packard manufactured more Merlins than Rolls Royce! They DID make some, but rolls royce made more by FAR.
> 
> Anyway, here is Dale's Mustang show from 2009. You can see the golf cart right about 1:19 or so.
> 
> ...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2014)

Blue yonder, I saw nothing dangerous in that, cool video and beautiful plane.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 10, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> "
> A Veyron can be easily paced by a Ferrari or a Hydndai or a VW bus, all depending on circumstances but dissimilar aircraft in formation presents special challenges, like in Heritage flights with a Spitfire, a P-40 and a modern combat jet for example. In like types (say like a formation of P-51Ds), they all have similar trim settings, throttle, pitch and so on, they can easily match the lead element and hold a nice formation.
> 
> But with a formation of different types, it takes different settings by each pilot to match the leader and bring the formation into order. Lots of work going on behind the scenes there!



I've only done a couple of formation sorties, but what I had (and still have) trouble with is slowing the aircraft down when descending. invariably one aircraft will be 'slippery' while the other isn't, and when descending, this makes it hard for the trail aircraft to keep up.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> I've only done a couple of formation sorties, but what I had (and still have) trouble with is slowing the aircraft down when descending. invariably one aircraft will be 'slippery' while the other isn't, and when descending, this makes it hard for the trail aircraft to keep up.



Thanks Guys Graugeaist and gumbyk, I can see what you are saying, most times I have seen hugely dissimilar aircraft doing a fly past (jets and prop jobs) they do precicely that, just fly past.

I was being a little flippant about formng up, I drive an Audi A5 and if I "form up" with a Ferrari or Porsche 911 they genuinely do start racing, Ive been passed by a 911 on a wet autobahn he was doing 160MPH minimum, frequently seen stuffed into the barrier later I might add.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2014)

> Can't. Even if he hadn't blacked out, the P-38 does NOT push up when inverted very well. It's characteristic of the airframe ... and if he was flying aerobatics in it, he would KNOW that. I can only wonder what he was thinking when he initiated the roll.



Interesting. Have just read the AAIB report on the accident here: Air Accidents Investigation: Lockheed 501731

The report states that the pilot had carried out a single roll during his display the day before, but not a double one. The conclusion is that the AAIB doesn't know what caused the accident: "It is known that the pilot was a very experienced display pilot and produced high quality, asthetically pleasing displays. There is no evidence to explain why the second part of the final manoeuvre in a less than optimum pitch attitude, which developed into a significant downward trajectory. The possibilty of a temporary restriction to the flying controls (especially the roll control) or some other form of distraction to the pilot, could not be dismissed."

The whole report is interesting reading.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 10, 2014)

he rolled...


> with a continuation past the wings level at the end of the second roll



This is the phrase that makes me think it wasn't intentional


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Hi Nuuumannn,

Thanks for posting that. I have never read the report before and don;t really know where to find British accident reports.

I can appreciate that he did ONE roll the day before and have no idea why he would elect to continue with rolls not practiced unless "something" was wrong ... physically or with the aircraft. Doesn't seem like a course of action that many airshow performers take on the spur of the moment.

I'll give it a thorough read.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Here's an interesting video if you have never watched unpowered slats work. This is Steve Hinton in our F-86F Sabre and there are plenty of views of the slats working, including right at the end when he lands at Thermal, California. The slats are free and ride in tracks with ball bearings and move only when the airflow pulls them out or pushed them in.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K54Ri_KQU4g_

If you haven't seen unpowered slats before, they come out when the airflow starts to separate and swirls backward toward the leading edge. The slot that opens up restores the airflow and keep it attached to the rest of the wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2014)

Greg, the British accident reports can be found on that site. the organisation is the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). Cool vids, by the way.



> This is the phrase that makes me think it wasn't intentional



Pilot error was most likely the cause, so why would he do it? Like you say, Aaron, unintentional. Could he have blacked out whilst in the middle of the first roll or before he was to level the wings? That's a theory I heard at the time.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 10, 2014)

Aileron rolls aren't high-g manoeuvres. Carried out properly (initiated with a nose pitch-up) there isn't even any negative g. Unless there was a pre-existing medical condition, I can't see any reason for him to have blacked out.

The other thing that raised an eyebrow was the amount of extra metal stuff he had in the cockpit. The first thing I was taught with aero's "Empty cockpit, and absolutely no non-deformable items" That means no metal pens, metal knee-boards, etc. I see that there were no witness marks on any recovered items, so this probably wasn't a cause, but if something came loose, who knows what happened...

Has anyone got any video of his earlier routines?


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 11, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Thanks Biff, I was sort of thinking if you are changing the throttle all the time with one hand you have no hands free for anything?
> 
> I am in Germany there are no speed limits on the Autobahns "forming up" with a Ferrari here isnt a good idea, frequently leads to a wipe out at high speed, here they do race on the autobahns ...madness at times.



Pbehn,

When you are flying formation you are moving the stick throttle (and in some aircraft) and rudder all the time. It's a constant correction process, and the more the lead is changing his parameters the more the wingman / wingmen are working. It becomes second nature after awhile. When flying instrument meterological conditions (in the weather), the flight lead doesn't go over 30 degrees of bank, nor do any rough or abrupt maneuvers. Radio changes under these conditions are fairly easy (as long as the lead is smooth), however under more difficult conditions the flight lead will call for a radio change and the wingman will "catch up" when able. Fighters have two radios and the inter-flight comm is maintained via the "second" radio.

The "contract" is pretty clearly set, and in all the aircraft I have flown formation with it remains similar. The flight lead never uses all his power on a formation takeoff, climb out, or cruise. He nevers uses idle in the descent or landing. If the flight leads aircraft is outperforming his wingmans, then the wingman will usually ask lead to, "give me one", if the situation requires it.

As for flying dissimilar formation the biggest caveat is for the lead aircraft not to maneuver outside the capability of any of his wingmen. As long as that doesn't happen you can fly pretty much any aircraft together. Case in point is I have seen a KC-10 "lead" 4 F-16's, 3 F-15's and one F-14. All in fingertip. 

Love the autobahn, and the bar is set a bit higher in your country on what is expected of drivers. And stupidity knows no limits.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Pbehn,
> 
> When you are flying formation you are moving the stick throttle (and in some aircraft) and rudder all the time. It's a constant correction process, and the more the lead is changing his parameters the more the wingman / wingmen are working. It becomes second nature after awhile. When flying instrument meterological conditions (in the weather), the flight lead doesn't go over 30 degrees of bank, nor do any rough or abrupt maneuvers. Radio changes under these conditions are fairly easy (as long as the lead is smooth), however under more difficult conditions the flight lead will call for a radio change and the wingman will "catch up" when able. Fighters have two radios and the inter-flight comm is maintained via the "second" radio.
> 
> ...



Thanks Biff that's clear obviously much more to it than you see from the outside looking in, they look like rich mens toys but are way to serious for that I think.

I have never flown but have raced motor cycles, in practice and qualifying its easy to lap at close to class record pace without having "a moment" even touching some times, but that is only with a guy you know and respect, nightmare scenario is coming up to lap a novice in the last lap of a race, he turns his head to see you are coming, then you have no idea what happens next, he sticks to a normal line or tries to let you past on the inside or the outside. It only happened once to me but jeeeez I wont forget it.
I am a Brit but live in Germany, in my opinion the Germans are the best trained drivers in Europe, problem is they are not quite as good as they think they are. You see guys in Ferraris Porsches and big BMWs Mercs and Audis of all types really going for it like they are Sebastian Vettel, except I know Mr Vettel would never pass a line of trucks at close to 200MPH ...its madness, they do it in the dark too.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 11, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I am a Brit but live in Germany, in my opinion the Germans are the best trained drivers in Europe, problem is they are not quite as good as they think they are. You see guys in Ferraris Porsches and big BMWs Mercs and Audis of all types really going for it like they are Sebastian Vettel, except I know Mr Vettel would never pass a line of trucks at close to 200MPH ...its madness, they do it in the dark too.



Pbehn,

Formation flying sounds similar to racing bikes, and will generally work out well as long as someone doesn't do anything unpredictable. 

As for passing a line of trucks at 200mph, Charles Darwin always speaks of those people in the past tense (they remove themselves from the gene pool)... 

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2014)

I have raced automobiles on racetracks and have rarely had any serious incidents. Drafting another car at speeds over 150 miles an hour at distances of less than a few feet is done almost without thought, but on an open road (highway, street, autobahn) with random motorists always leaves a massive element of chance.

It was a year ago that I was hit headon by another motorist who had suffered a diabetic blackout. There is always that random chance that something will go terribly wrong.

That's another reason why I enjoy flying. To the average person, flying seems scary but to me, it's far safer than driving to the grocery store...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I have raced automobiles on racetracks and have rarely had any serious incidents. Drafting another car at speeds over 150 miles an hour at distances of less than a few feet is done almost without thought, but on an open road (highway, street, autobahn) with random motorists always leaves a massive element of chance.
> 
> It was a year ago that I was hit headon by another motorist who had suffered a diabetic blackout. There is always that random chance that something will go terribly wrong.
> 
> That's another reason why I enjoy flying. To the average person, flying seems scary but to me, it's far safer than driving to the grocery store...



I had a Japanese colleague who was terrified of flying, I helpfully explained (I thought) that it is only the last 2 centimeters that hurts. He wasnt impressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2014)

Great info Biff!

I've done formation flying in light GA aircraft (Cessna 150s, 172s and Cherokees) and in L29s and L39s. I found the jets more challenging as the ones we flew took a bit to spool up and if you let the jet get ahead of you you're doing a lot of catch up, sometimes over correcting and ending up all over the place. In GA aircraft, especially those with fixed landing gear we would line up on the mains and place the nose landing gear behind the mains so you couldn't see it and then close in, all this at about 90 knots. We would have a briefing prior to the flight and plan and egress on the call "knock it off" should something get out of whack. Never had any issues or dangerous situations arise, my former roommate and I used to do two ship formation take offs in Cessna 150s, lots of fun!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2014)

The biggest problem I had when trying formation with C-150's for the first time was the fact that the guy in the lead usually didn't allow for the second plane's reaction time and made his turns too quickly. After he turned in front of me twice I stopped getting anywhere close to him. Later, once I found someone who was a bit more practiced at formation flying, we had a good time with it.

It's nice when the leader tells you if he is climbing or descending so you can lean or richen the engine a bit every once in awhile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2014)

GregP said:


> The biggest problem I had when trying formation with C-150's for the first time was the fact that the guy in the lead usually didn't allow for the second plane's reaction time and made his turns too quickly. After he turned in front of me twice I stopped getting anywhere close to him. Later, once I found someone who was a bit more practiced at formation flying, we had a good time with it.
> 
> It's nice when the leader tells you if he is climbing or descending so you can lean or richen the engine a bit every once in awhile.



We would put the slowest plane (or the most experienced guy) flying lead, no more than 10 degree bank angles and all changes in heading more than 10 degrees announced.


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2014)

We settled on 10 - 15° of bank and announced all turns and altitude changes. Then we switched to C-172's and the cruise speed skyrocketed by 10 knots or so. I think it was Mach 0.17, if I recall correctly.

The guy at the flight service station laughed pretty hard when I filed for Mach 0.17 in a Cessna. We had a laugh for about a minute and I corrected my speed to 110 knots. He remembered me the next time I filed a flight plan and laughed again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 11, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info Biff!
> 
> I've done formation flying in light GA aircraft (Cessna 150s, 172s and Cherokees) and in L29s and L39s. I found the jets more challenging as the ones we flew took a bit to spool up and if you let the jet get ahead of you you're doing a lot of catch up, sometimes over correcting and ending up all over the place. In GA aircraft, especially those with fixed landing gear we would line up on the mains and place the nose landing gear behind the mains so you couldn't see it and then close in, all this at about 90 knots. We would have a briefing prior to the flight and plan and egress on the call "knock it off" should something get out of whack. Never had any issues or dangerous situations arise, my former roommate and I used to do two ship formation take offs in Cessna 150s, lots of fun!



FlyboyJ,

The L-29 / 39's sound A LOT like a Tweet (T-37). 1950's jet engine technology at it's finest, unhampered by progress. The astounding thing about that cast iron engine was it's ability to ingest birds with no ill effects.

In the OV-10 response was pretty good as long as you had a comparable plane to wingman (prop advantage). F-15's with F100-100 engines were pretty good, but when we got the F100-220 (FADEC equipped) it got even better.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2014)

Thanks for the education guys,.

Looking at this BoB memorial flight display I now understand the difference in prop speed

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq-o61h9HAE_


And seeing you gents discuss formation flying I just wonder what it was like for a wing man in WWII combat.
V

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Blue Yonder (Jun 3, 2014)

Was there supposed to be? 


pbehn said:


> Blue yonder, I saw nothing dangerous in that, cool video and beautiful plane.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2014)

Blue Yonder said:


> Was there supposed to be?


Nope ...experts are called experts because they are ....er...um...EXPERTS


----------



## Elmas (Jun 4, 2014)

At a Farnborough Air Show ( early '90) there were, as final show, a Spitfire and a Tornado pulling G's in formation.......
I can't describe with words my feelings.....


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2014)

Dave very well articulates what I also commented in the various FB posts on this subject. To Greg's comparison with Bob Hoover flying displays - Hoover NEVER did a stunt like Snodgrass. Hoover stayed above the airfield and away from the crowds and parked aircraft. 

I saw Hoover perform some extremely dangerous (to the ordinary medium skill pilot) when he was doing serious work for NAA/USAF during the early/mid 50's when the primary NAA birds were the F-86 and F-100 (like an 8 point precision roll along Eglin Main where the wing in the 12 and 6 O'clock position was no more than 50 feet off the concrete. If something happened to him or the aircraft, then he would be the only casualty.

I respect Snodgrass's ability - but not his judgment, nor do I trust completely a 70 year old airframe, many of which have been bent and repaired with unknown inspections in critical areas for fatigue stress and cracks. If he F--ks up I would prefer that his ass is the only one that is busted. In addition, the owner of the bird will more likely than not be facing litigation judgments far in excess of his net worth.

I am entirely in agreement with Dave and Evan on this matter and feel the FAA will sooner or later rapidly increase restrictions on warbird airshows even if that type flying is eliminated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2014)

I guess Dale is virtually alone out there doing low passes.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858_

Maybe not ... I'd post many more, but you can only post one video at a time.

Let's just say I like a well-flown low pass and let it go at that. It might have been better not to be so close to the golf cart ... that he didn't hit.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 11, 2014)

Out of interest, what is the minimum crowd line distance over in the States?

Low passes are great and all, but if people more than one row from the front can't see properly, what's the point?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2014)

GregP said:


> It might have been better not to be so close to the golf cart ... that he didn't hit.


And on the same token, I have driven for decades on highways, being seperated from oncoming traffic by a yellow line and a few feet.

Until that one time...

And there in lies my point. All the great smiles, pats on the back and awesome stories of "you should have seen the time when..." come to a sudden stop when something goes terribly wrong.

There is a long and sad list of pilots who are not with us anymore, who for one reason or another, didn't make that one last manouver that meant the difference between a great run and a tragic end.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2014)

We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I understand what you are saying and would not disagree too hard that Dale might should have been a bit higher. I would have been ... but it's great to see a real pro doing a great job, too.

I never got very close to people when doing RC airshows ...


----------



## YakFlyer (Jun 15, 2014)

Guys,

It is all about perceived danger. On the road, an act is either safe or dangerous, it is black and white. In the air, aviators need to judge a situation at that given moment, and act. One's perceived danger is taken in another's stride. In the airshow/competition circuit, I have seen dozens of what I would consider dangerous acts or 'moments of madness', not as extreme as this, but at the end of the day, each pilot has his own world. I have friends who go down to the aeroclub and fly a Cessna on a fair weather day, nothing any worse, once or twice a month. Capable pilots, safe, efficient, as far as taking the wife or a friend up for a local jaunt. However, there are countless techniques and concepts that I employ in my flying which leave a few of them speechless (and I am not talking about low flying or 'buzz n breaks' or ego stuff like that), just efficient ways of doing things, safely. However, , equally have friends who are far far more experienced than me, one has 38,000hrs, only 1/4 of which is airline time, who does things that I simply could not contemplate, ever. 

This doesn't make that particular pilot 'dangerous', although plenty of aeroclub pilots have labeled him this when I have been within ear shot (I keep my thoughts to myself at the airfield). It is all about perception. One of my colleagues in the aerobatic scene (twice the amount of aerobatic time and competition flying) as me, pulled some stunts a couple of years ago at a training camp I was hosting at a friend's private airfield. He does have an enormous ego, well known for it, unfortunately what he was doing was simply not appropriate and I pulled him up for it in a direct and strongly worded email without insulting him or using pathetic language. It got the point across. 

This chap with the Mustang, clearly is in a zone beyond most others, maybe some ego maybe not, I don't know him so I have no idea. Personally, I like to see these aircraft flown professionally and with margin, but still somehow, with a bit of wow factor - not hard to do with these sorts of aeroplanes! So my perception, is that he is definitely cutting things far too fine. That is just my opinion though. The concern I have, is that many have been killed cutting their margins too slim. There are never winners when there is an accident.

Yakflyer

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 15, 2014)

Hi gumbyk,

Not sure of the minimum safe distance but, at least in the U.S.A., we have a "do not cross" double yellow line on all airports that you are not supposed to cross unless you are in contact with the tower and have permission. If you do, you get a Federal runway incursion write up that isn't pleasant. In our airshow, the crowd is back about 50 - 75 feet from the "do not cross" line, mosrtly so we have room to taxi plane for the airshow.


Hi Yakflyer,

If there is anyone qualified to fly a warbird as he does, it's Dale Snodgrass. You might try looking at some videos of his airshow performances as well as some of his military flying. They're on the internet easily available. I'm not an apologist for Dale, I just like seeing him fly when I can. He can do anything he wants that both the air boss and warbird owner approve and it's fine with me. I don't have any say in his maneuvers whatsoever. I usually see them in videos well after the event has happened.

Here's a pic of Dale flying an F-14 down the side of a carrier:


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 15, 2014)

To an extent this is surely the effect of the telephoto lens; take an photograph of the F-14 from 1000m away then the crowd, which is say 900m, away looks almost as if its virtually the same distance. Nevertheless one of the Navy men in uniform seems to be protecting his ears, but then the other, seems to be using binoculars. The Bank angle looks well over 60 degrees maybe 70, so resolving a few vectors suggests they are pulling at least 2G more likely 3G. What I thought was dirty paint is I think vapor condensing in the low pressure region above the wing.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 15, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi gumbyk,
> 
> Not sure of the minimum safe distance but, at least in the U.S.A., we have a "do not cross" double yellow line on all airports that you are not supposed to cross unless you are in contact with the tower and have permission. If you do, you get a Federal runway incursion write up that isn't pleasant. In our airshow, the crowd is back about 50 - 75 feet from the "do not cross" line, mosrtly so we have room to taxi plane for the airshow.



Found it in an FAA AC. It's between 500 and 1500 ft, depending on the size and speed and manoeuvres of the aircraft. Given this, the only real risk is to the pilot and aircraft (as long as all manoeuvres are _away_ from the crowd line).

Here in NZ, we have a 100ft minimum altitude for all events (with a couple of exceptions), but our minimum distance to crowd is less (250 to 720 ft).

That low fly-past, and close to the crowd is dangerous, but at a suitable distance from the crowd, the risk to spectators is minimised. We have had a couple of pilots try to do this sort of thing, but at NZ distance from the crowd line. They weren't/aren't invited back.


----------



## GregP (Jun 16, 2014)

Still think it's a telephoto lens? The pic above is a different one but the pass is just as close.

It wasn't a telephoto lens at all. The distance from the carrier is rather well known to a lot of people. It was VERY close ... he was temporarily grounded for the pass immediately above because he didn't have permission for a close-in pass. He DID have permission for the first pic and it was a good one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> To an extent this is surely the effect of the telephoto lens.



I served 6 years in the USNR, there was one former F-14 maintainer in my work center who was there and saw it. Greg is quite correct in the outcome.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 16, 2014)

You can't talk about low passes (on a WW2 warbird site) without reminding me of 


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

this gem, can't blame the reporter for the, er, 'salty' language lol


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2014)

LMAO, I never get tired of seeing that one!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2014)

One of the few times one gets to see a reporter crap their drawers on film


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 16, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I served 6 years in the USNR, there was one former F-14 maintainer in my work center who was there and saw it. Greg is quite correct in the outcome.



I accept that. If it was a long distance shot from a telephoto lens then the spectators heads and that of the two Tomcat crew (allowing for the helmets) would have been about the same; however they are not the same, the spectator heads are much larger which means the camera was relatively close to the spectators. Telephoto lens's can create that illusion however, though I'm not a photo analyst.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> I accept that. If it was a long distance shot from a telephoto lens then the spectators heads and that of the two Tomcat crew (allowing for the helmets) would have been about the same; however they are not the same, the spectator heads are much larger which means the camera was relatively close to the spectators. Telephoto lens's can create that illusion however, though I'm not a photo analyst.


Regardless - I never did "the boat," I worked on P-3s but a lot of crazy sh!t goes on when deployed.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMtnFtB38I_


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Regardless - I never did "the boat," I worked on P-3s but a lot of crazy sh!t goes on when deployed.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMtnFtB38I_




FB what was the cause/ outcome of that, I had seen it before but it seems very strange.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2014)

pbehn said:


> FB what was the cause/ outcome of that, I had seen it before but it seems very strange.



Compressor failure - and I believe pilot and WSO ejected safely.


----------



## GregP (Jun 17, 2014)

I've seen a clip of this incident that was long enough to see the chutes ... but not recently.


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

Of course, this skirts the issue whether or not increasingly rare historical aircraft should be flown at all. Any flying machine that is over 70 years old is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot. Since I love to see warbirds in flight, I'd hate to see all of them grounded. But perhaps when flown at airshows, it would be best that this was limited to relatively low speed flybys and no aerobatics. By the way, by "historical aircaft" I mean warbirds that are restored to recreate their historical wartime appearance, not heavily modified Bearcats, Furys, and P-51s that race at Reno or perform at airshows. As far as I'm concerned racing and stunt pilots can do whatever they want with these aircraft (within the law, of course), since if the airplanes crash a truly historical airplane isn't lost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2014)

zoomar said:


> A*ny flying machine that is over 70 years old is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is* and how skilled or careful the pilot.


I have to disagree with that. I've been in the aviation business for 35 years, have an A&P and IA and have worked on warbirds. Longevity depends a lot on its operational history and how reliable some of the airframe specific accessories are.. I know of some aircraft that were not in a combat or training status when operated by the military, were well maintained and not heavily flown. We've done some NDI on various portions of these aircraft (T-33s, PBY, Jet Provost, Ryan SC to name a few) and found little or no flaws and in some cases were in better shape and better built than newly manufactured contemporaries. 


As long as any aircraft is maintained IAW its maintenance program and operated within the design limits, there is potential for the airframe having an infinite operational life (providing the manufacture didn't limit the life of the airframe). I rest my case with one aircraft in particular...







(Waiting for Greg to chime in...) 8)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 18, 2014)

I have to agree with Joe.
Although there is an element of risk of losing a warbird through accident, this is no higher, and probably a lot lower, than losing a 'modern' display aircraft which regularly participates in the air show 'circuit'. These risks are minimal, and although I'd hate to see a valuable, rare aircraft lost, I'd rather accept that minimal risk, and see it flying, than sitting leaking oil and slowly corroding on static display. There are, of course, some exceptions, where the type might be the only example left, and lack of spares and support may prevent it from flying, even if it was potentially airworthy. The RAFM Me410 and Ju87 are such examples, and I fully understand why they are on static display only.
But, the majority of airworthy warbirds today are not in that category and should, if possible, be maintained in an airworthy state, and flown whenever possible. Certainly those warbirds which fly regularly in the UK are in the hands of _very_ experienced pilots or aircrew, many of them serving or ex forces pilots, and are tended by highly-qualified, experienced and dedicated ground/servicing teams, operating within extremely stringent rules and guidelines, both official (CAA) and of their own making. In general terms, the aircraft are limited to the amount of flying hours permitted per year, and operate (on displays) well within acceptable parameters of performance, handling and weather conditions, to ensure the minimum of stress to both airframe and engine, 'stress' which is much, much lower than the aircraft type(s) were designed for. Added to this is the fact that most, if not all of these 'vintage' aircraft have been virtually re-built to standards and tolerances far higher than the original design specs. The BBMF Lancaster, for example, was not only totally stripped, examined and re-built as required recently ( a deep service it undergoes around every 8 years), but was re-sparred - the only Lancaster ever to have such work carried out - in order to ensure not only absolute safety and integrity, but to prolong its active life for at least another 50 years. 
There are many, many airliners in general service today that are, in aviation terms, old, and getting worn out and, when compared to the average family car would be regarded as totally 'past it', and I wouldn't even _consider_ getting on board. Compare these frequently used, passenger carrying aircraft to the average warbird, and I know which one I would rather fly in !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have to disagree with that. I've been in the aviation business for 35 years, have an A&P and IA and have worked on warbirds. Longevity depends a lot on its operational history and how reliable some of the airframe specific accessories are.. I know of some aircraft that were not in a combat or training status when operated by the military, were well maintained and not heavily flown. We've done some NDI on various portions of these aircraft (T-33s, PBY, Jet Provost, Ryan SC to name a few) and found little or no flaws and in some cases were in better shape and better built than newly manufactured contemporaries.
> 
> 
> As long as any aircraft is maintained IAW its maintenance program and operated within the design limits, there is potential for the airframe having an infinite operational life (providing the manufacture didn't limit the life of the airframe). I rest my case with one aircraft in particular...
> ...



I can accept that. I guess my real concern is the rarity of these planes. Even the best maintained and capablly flown aircraft can crash. People (pilots and maintence crew) can make mistakes. When a restored Bf 109 or Spitfire crashes a key artifact of aviation history is lost. The less they are flown probably the better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2014)

> Any flying machine that is over 70 years old is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot.



Actually _]Any flying machine *regardless of age* is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot._


And who decides what is "historic"? A plane that served it's military life in the 1477th training squadron in Dubuque Iowa and has been _repainted_ to look like a D-Day participant or plane that participated in numerous air races over several decades? 

Or one that won in 1949 and is still in existence today?






It may not be a "warbird" but these old racers are of historical significance.


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually _]Any flying machine *regardless of age* is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot._
> 
> 
> And who decides what is "historic"? A plane that served it's military life in the 1477th training squadron in Dubuque Iowa and has been _repainted_ to look like a D-Day participant or plane that participated in numerous air races over several decades?
> ...



Good points. Both examples you point out are historic aircraft. I guess the difference to me is whether or not they are being _restored with the intention of preserving history_. The racer was not preserved primarily because it is a historic artifact. It was restored and modified to perform in air races. A Corsair was chosen because it was available. It has been modified quite a bit from its original appearance, and Corsairs are still comparatively common as WW2 warbirds go. I appreciate unlimited air races and have absolutely no problem with aircraft like this being flown as aggressively as necessary to win the race. However if somebody entered a restored Fw190 or Ki-84 at Reno, I'd be horrified.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2014)

# 57 is no longer an active racer but flies now as an Historic artifact of the post war air races. It did not fly for 50 years. 

Or look at the number of GeeBee R replicas in aviation museums. perhaps more replicas built than original aircraft  

Not all aviation history is military history.


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> # 57 is no longer an active racer but flies now as an Historic artifact of the post war air races. It did not fly for 50 years.
> 
> Or look at the number of GeeBee R replicas in aviation museums. perhaps more replicas built than original aircraft
> 
> Not all aviation history is military history.



As someone who almost bought an unflyable An-2 to use as a static display in my yard (seriously)I agree. I certainly didn't intend to question the historical significance of commercial or civilian aviation.


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2014)

I decry every static plane I see. They are meant to fly and at least the metal ones can be maintained almost indefinitely.

The key is regular flight, regular inspection and attention to maintenance of airframe, engine, and propeller.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2014)

Until something like this happens: Pilot killed as rare 1920s plane crashes at airshow - Telegraph

One of the world's only DH53 Hummingbirds in the world. Gone, just like that. Not to mention the loss of the pilot and 600 people getting to see the aweful event.


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

GregP said:


> I decry every static plane I see. They are meant to fly and at least the metal ones can be maintained almost indefinitely.
> 
> The key is regular flight, regular inspection and attention to maintenance of airframe, engine, and propeller.



I'm sorry, but no matter how well maintained an aircraft is and how capable its flight and maintenance crew, accidents do happen. For one-of-a-kind historic planes, I shudder anytime I hear they are going to be regularly flown. There are just too many examples of irreplaceable rarities being lost for posterity in airshows or even in regular test flights.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 18, 2014)

zoomar said:


> I'm sorry, but no matter how well maintained an aircraft is and how capable its flight and maintenance crew, accidents do happen. For one-of-a-kind historic planes, I shudder anytime I hear they are going to be regularly flown. There are just too many examples of irreplaceable rarities being lost for posterity in airshows or even in regular test flights.



O.K. Real example here - DH Mosquito's - To fly them or not. Until the last couple of days, there was only one airworthy airframe in the world, but now there are two. At what point do you say, that there are enough examples available to suddenly be allowed to fly them.

If there were restrictions on flying these machines, most of the recovered and restored aircraft wouldn't have been dragged out of the jungles/lakes/swamps where they came to rest. The fact that these aircraft are flying is why we have so many in existence today.

Do you have any idea how many of these "lost" airframes were subsequently rebuilt and are now flying?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2014)

Fortunately, here in the U.S.A., the owner of the aircraft decides whether or not to fly it, provided it has an airworthiness certificate.

So, only one or not, I hope they fly. At the Planes of Fame, we have the only one of several aircraft, and they fly. We have the only Northrop N9MB, the only flying Boeing P-26 Peashooter, the only Seversky AT-12, and the only authentic Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero that flies with the original engine and propeller. There are several more "only" planes that don't fly, but will one day. We plan to fly the only flyable Bell YP-59A Airacomet sometime soon. That should be something to see, and it is my primary project there.

I'm glad Paul Allen's collection flies the only flying Il-2 and the only flying Fw real 190, which I got to see fly last Saturday.

So if the owners want to ground them, that's fine. Maybe the next owner will fly them. Sooner or later SOMEBODY will.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2014)

"I own it, I'll do what I want!!"

That sounds more like a child screaming in a sandbox than a rational owner of a piece of history. So fine, go and beat the eff out of it, burn it to the ground, crash it or do whatever.

I've recently come to the realization that I am wasting far too much of my time worrying about things that few others are concerned about.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 18, 2014)

You'll notice in Greg's post that he referenced "Only Flying" on most of the aircraft he listed. That's because there are many museums around the world whose policy is to NOT fly these aircraft. So many examples are being preserved 'risk-free'.

Here in NZ, MOTAT, who have an extensive collection of aircraft, and do not fly them cannot fund even bringing most of their aircraft up to a decent static standard, and because they refuse to work with anyone who wants to fly their aircraft, many are left sitting outside, slowly rotting away, where no-one will ever see them.

Which is preserving history?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2014)

Don't get me wrong, I love to see vintage machines in action. I was spoiled as a kid because I was around a good deal of "old school" hardware, but I don't like to see them put at risk.

It is also a shame to see them languishing behind the hangar or in a field somewhere, rotting away but the NASM is full of aircraft that are restored and won't ever fly again.

Preserve the machine for the love of history, whether it can fly or not, bring it out and let everyone see history up close and personal.

I would love to see the Do17, even though it cannot and will not ever fly again, just because it's the last of it's kind even if it resembles a reef at the moment. As a kid, I roamed through old aircraft carcasses that were old movie props, surplus lots and parts donors. Some were rare and some weren't, but nearly all have long since been scrapped out.

It's the same thing with automobiles: 30 years ago, I could find dozens of 1962 Chevy Novas in the wrecking yard, when I was hunting for parts. They were everywhere.

Now, there are only two "shoebox" Novas (1962 - 1967) in this area, I own one of them...

The bottom line, preserve and care for these machines...take them out and show them off if they are able. Otherwise, dust them off, shine them up and give people the opportunity to walk around and see history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2014)

GregP said:


> I decry every static plane I see. They are meant to fly and at least the metal ones can be maintained almost indefinitely.
> 
> The key is regular flight, regular inspection and attention to maintenance of airframe, engine, and propeller.



The only time a warbird should "sit on a stick" if it has something wrong that renders it indefinitely un airworthy (cracked spar, major corrosion, etc.) 



zoomar said:


> I'm sorry, but no matter how well maintained an aircraft is and how capable its flight and maintenance crew, accidents do happen. For one-of-a-kind historic planes, I shudder anytime I hear they are going to be regularly flown. There are just too many examples of irreplaceable rarities being lost for posterity in airshows or even in regular test flights.


You could be in great health and get hit by a truck crossing the street, same difference!! 

I shudder when I see a rare aircraft wasting away on a pole or rotting in a museum. I don't know if you fly or have any experience around aircraft besides as an airshow spectator, but I'd trust 99% of the warbird pilots out there on the airshow circuit more than I would trust the driver cruising next to me on the freeway. I'd put 99% of the warbird maintainers up against any line auto mechanic any day of the week as far as work quality and integrity. No doubt there have been warbird crashes, but examine the numbers in recent years and compare them to the hours flown and even throw in mechanical failures and I'd bet dollars to donuts the percentage is miniscule. I'd even stick my neck out to say that you're more likely to have a warbird destroyed in a hurricane or tornado than in a crash, providing its parked in hurricane or tornado alley! You could even argue that if some of these rare "penguins" were able to fly, they could have been able to be moved before some of the more nasty hurricanes and tornadoes that hit the US in recent years destroyed them.

Airplanes are meant to fly and its up to the owner operator to mitigate the final risk.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 18, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only time a warbird should "sit on a stick" if it has something wrong that renders it indefinitely un airworthy (cracked spar, major corrosion, etc.)



Even then, some of these birds are repairable. In fact, there is a move to restore those aircraft that were put on poles because they were 'unrepairable', and replace them with fibreglass models.

Barring being burnt out, is almost impossible to completely write off these warbirds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 18, 2014)

There is a place for both static examples in museums and active flying examples and we are fortunate to have both, certainly now in the case of the Mosquito. Like you said, Dave, if the aircraft are flown safely and responsibly by their respective owners, then the risk factor goes down considerably. I watched the Mossie KA114 during its flying display at Ardmore in 2012 and the pilots flying it got very low and very fast, but at no time was the aircraft or the punters watching in any danger at all. The aircraft was never flown dangerously and was displayed in a way that its lines and performance - and noise could be appreciated by those on the ground. This is the key to good display flying. It's not just about throwing the machine around and showing off, it's about presenting the aeroplane in its best light for the people watching below; slow fly-bys, fast passes for maximum noise and effect, steep turns, that sort of thing.

As for the argument of rare and historic types being flown, there are very few active warbirds that frequently fly round the world where they are the only ones in existence. Yes, there are only two flying Mosquitoes, but KA114 is a reproduction, and there are a number of original Mossies surviving on the ground. One case worth adding here is that the owners of the prototype Mosquito, one of the most historically significant surviving WW2 aircraft, are restoring it to flying condition - which is certainly adding an element of risk to it that never previously existed. My point is that there are very few exceptionally rare types that are regularly flown that don't have surviving examples in museums anywhere.

As for museums like MoTaT Aaron, it isn't unique in its previous neglect of its aircraft - thankfully they are doing what they can to change that at present, but cost of maintaining and housing a collection of aeroplanes will always be a problem for museums and places like Duxford and the USAF Museum, NASM at the Mall and at Dulles have plenty of hangar space to house their collections. As long as it is recognised that the rarest machines are kept under cover and are looked after, but again, not all museums have the funding to do this as well as what they should be. We'll never see the RAF Museum's Me 410 or NASM's Do 335 in the air, but we are fortunate to have examples of these remarkable aeroplanes surviving, so, like I said, both preservation types have their place.

It's also worth adding that the majority of flying warbirds these days are almost complete reconstructions, rather than restorations, so the argument of originality is a little skewed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2014)

Hi GrauGeist,

That's EXACTLY what "ownership" means, I'll do what I want with it. Anything else isn't ownership. It isn't childish or irresponsible or in anybody's face. It's a VERY simple statement ... if I own it and I want to fly it, I will. If not, then I won't fly it. Nobody else has any say in what happens to it or what I decide to do with it.

It's what makes the U.S.A. the U.S.A. ... we're free to do whatever we want with our property as long as it doesn't impact other people's rights ... and in the case of an aircraft, nobody else HAS any rights except to declare it airworthy or non-airworthy (purview of the FAA). Once airworthy, you can either insure it or you can't. If you can't look elsewhere until you can.

But if I own a plane, then not GrauGeist nor anyone else has any say whatsoever in what I do with it ... just as I have no say whatsoever in what you do with your aircraft. I hope you fly it and enjoy it. But if you want to make it static, by all means do so in good health. If you want to turn it into a coffee table, go for it. If you want to cut it up and sell the pieces on eBay, go for it.

Pieces of History need to be acquired by people interested in preserving them as such and nobody much has any issue with that. Just don't try to tell me my airplane can't be flown because it's too valuable to be flown. 

If it's mine, I'll decide what it's worth and whether or not it flies without outside help.

This may sound a bit "in your face," but it isn't meant to be. It's how things work in the U.S.A. .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2014)

And with that attitude, I am done with this thread...


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 18, 2014)

GregP said:


> It's how things work in the U.S.A. .



Please, remember that this is an international forum, and discussions are (for me, at least) from an international perspective.



> As for museums like MoTaT Aaron, it isn't unique in its previous neglect of its aircraft - thankfully they are doing what they can to change that at present, but cost of maintaining and housing a collection of aeroplanes will always be a problem for museums and places like Duxford and the USAF Museum



That was my point, generally, people don't stump up their own money for static aircraft, they want to fly it, so it is these people owning and flying these warbirds that are financing the preservation of warbirds aircraft. Without having the ability to fly them, most would still be languishing if jungles and swamps where they fell.


----------



## GregP (Jun 19, 2014)

Hi Graugeist,

That's fine. I won't try to tell anyone in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else how they should do things. Europeans have their own laws and they seem to work just fine there. No issues here. The converse is true, too. Ours laws work fine here. If Graugeist can make someone in Bulgaria not fly a plane because it is too valuable, I won't kick about it or try to convince him or them otherwise. He's acting as his culture thinks he should act ... no issue here.

Likewise, if I am acting in a normal fashion here, then that's the way it goes here. I am not in any way trying to change his viewpoint. I just don't want him trying to make me conform to norms somewhere else.

The museums in Europe are amazing. Nice things there and well displayed for the most part. If they don't want to fly old planes, it's fine. Perhaps I made the mistake of thinking the way I did because Graugeist has a US flag *in his sig* and should know how it works here ... my assumption, possibly incorrect. If not, then by all means ground the old planes in Bulgaria if that's what's done there. No worries here. 

Somehow, I cannot equate flying a 70-year old aircraft as abuse or even unusual in the least. 

The argument will always fail to convince me, but I promise not to try to convince anyone outside the U.S.A. to adopt my viewpoint for aircraft in their country's airspace. Every country has the right to exercise control over their own airspace as THEY see fit, without regard to how anyone else does it. Of course, they might also find that if they don't conform to AT LEAST decent airworthiness standards, then other counties might refuse permission for their planes to enter. Other than that, it's whatever they want.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 19, 2014)

I think we are getting a little carried away, guys, don't you think?

The difference between warbird flying and static displays basically boils down to finance and like I said, both are relevant for different reasons. Anyone in the aviation industry, be it as a private pilot, aircraft engineer or military fighter pilot will tell us there is an element of risk that exists around aircraft. The key is to minimise that risk through carefully thought out procedure. Airshow display flying is no exception and yep, some dude who owns his own P-51 might be able to fly like a maniac and survive, but is it necessary when the element of risk, both to himself and his audience increases exponentially? Probably not. Professional i.e. military and civilian display pilots would never behave like the guy in the orginal clip whilst on the job - as clever a pilot he might be, purely because that kind of flying simply isn't necessary to present the aeroplane in a convincing and entertaining manner, especially if the likelyhood of an incident resulting in harm to either the pilot or a bystander is higher than necessary.



> That was my point, generally, people don't stump up their own money for static aircraft, they want to fly it, so it is these people owning and flying these warbirds that are financing the preservation of warbirds aircraft. Without having the ability to fly them, most would still be languishing if jungles and swamps where they fell.



Well, yes and no. Warbirds are certainly one element of preserving the past, although the term 'preservation' is used loosely to describe warbird restorations, since the majority of warbirds are reconstructed almost from scratch and are not the same machine that got hauled out of the jungle or swamp, nevertheless, there is an element of truth in what you say, Aaron. Museums, national ones at least simply don't fly their machines because of cost and provenance and the desire to keep things as authentic and original as possible, which is not possible with warbirds, but to say that the public don't fund aircraft recovery for static display is not true, really. 

There are many examples of private individuals recovering static museum aircraft from remote locations, i.e., the RAF Museum's Il-2 Sturmovik (currently undergoing rebuild in an undisclosed location), Airco DH.9s and Hawker biplanes from India being rebuilt for the Imperial War Museum - a DH.9 is now on display at Duxford and let's not forget Charles Darby from a little closer to home who went into the Pacific and recovered a number of wrecks from the jungles and had them shipped to New Zealand and Australia, some of which have undergone static restoration - the RAF Museum's Beaufort, some to airworthy condition. This is just to name a few.

I'm not against warbirds flying. Like I said, as long as the risks are minimised, why should they not be flown? In saying that, however any airshow display director worth their salt would put the kybosh on any clown who flew his or her aircraft in an unnecessarily life threatening manner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 19, 2014)

No nuumann, I don't.

I don't have any issues flying an airworthy older aircraft and he does. Simple and not worth a fight, but I stated my position as well as saying that I'm not trying to change the way other countries operate their airspace. That's about as mild as you can get and still disagree. Though we DO disagree, I'm not kicking Graugeist. He is a solid contributor and a knowledgeable one ... we just disagree on this point. Nothing to get upset about as far as I can see. We've disagreed before and gotten through it fine.

In actuality, I don't own a warbird so it makes no difference in the real world. The museum where I volunteer DOES operate warbirds and likely won't stop ... and I have nothing whatsoever to say about it one way or the other as far as management goes. I'm not on the museum management staff.

But I would hate to see widespread grounding of old aircraft that remain airworthy and will fight to keep them flying. I got a ride in a Beech Staggerwing a few weeks back that would be grounded if age were the determining factor. It was fast and fun and safe ... and I'd hate to see it grounded when it checks out fine and flies fine. In fact, this particular Staggerwing had new wood wings built for it about 10 years ago, though the fuselage is original except for replacement stringers over the years as required.

So, as you can see, arbitrarily grounding a plane because of age regardless of airworthiness has ramifications far beyond warbirds. and I am staunchly supportive of the airworthiness standards the FAA has set up. If it passes, it can fly ... at least here in the U.S.A. If other countries determine they don't want it that way, then I suppose we can't fly the old plane into that country. That's not intended to "set anyone off," just a statement of opinion which I'm sure we all have.

In the end. none of us are likely to have a great effect on the issue unless we are high up in the aviation regulatory entity for a country.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> I*'m not against warbirds flying. Like I said, as long as the risks are minimised, why should they not be flown? In saying that, however any airshow display director worth their salt would put the kybosh on any clown who flew his or her aircraft in an unnecessarily life threatening manner*.



That sums it up right there!!!!


----------



## GregP (Jun 19, 2014)

Amen. Last thing we need is another airshow crash. If I were the air boss, minimum altitude would be 50 feet AGL even for an unlimited low altitude waiver holder except maybe for the jet car race act. In that case, closer is better and the direction of flight is down the runway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 19, 2014)

Our minimums here are 100ft for passes, and 500ft for aerobatics. There is one pilot in the country who holds a lower limit for aeros.

We have had from time to time pilots who push the limits, and repeated infringements have led to them not being invited back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 19, 2014)

500 feet for aerobatics? Interesting.


----------



## Deleted member 63714 (Jun 19, 2014)

Looks like a beautiful plane... I would've been nail-biting if I had seen that...

Hopefully there will be enough pilots with caution. Keeping those planes around as long as possible is my hope.


----------



## GregP (Jun 20, 2014)

He WAS a bit low and close, wasn't he? 

But, if you see the video, it looks not quite so extreme in real time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2014)

In the US FAR 91.303 dictates normal aerobatic requirements;

91.303 Aerobatic flight. 
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement; 
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons; 
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport; 
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway; 
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or 
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles. 
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

Here's what the Feds use with regards to airshows and granting waivers;

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/airshow/waiver/media/common_spec_provisions.pdf

10. Civilian flying performers who do not hold a FAA Form 8710-7 or Canada's TCA form 26-0307, Statement of Acrobatic Competency with a Level 1 altitude authorization may conduct non-aerobatic fly-bys:
a. No closer than the 500 feet show line.
b. Ingress/egress shall be no closer than 500 feet laterally to the ends of the primary spectator area.
c. No lower than 100 feet AGL when operating a jet or turbojet airplane within 1,000 feet of a designated spectator area unless the pilot is in possession of a current Surface Level 1 Statement of Aerobatic Competency for that airplane. (Ref 3-147.J)

There's more about minimum altitudes and how close you're allowed to spectators.


----------



## GregP (Jun 20, 2014)

Thanks, Joe.

The only people really flying low at most of our shows are the main aerobatic act in something like a Pitts, Zlinn, or Extra and maybe the Hawker Sea Fury of the Sanders family doing a show with smoke canisters. That show usually has one pass at 50 feet going rather slowly accentuating the wake turbulence and smoke rings the Sea Fury creates. The rest of the passes and acts are usually at 100 feet or above for most passes except maybe for a fast, straight low pass down the runway with a 30° bank to show the planform of the aircraft. The pic at the start of this thread was not at a Planes of Fame airshow. We have a long history of good, safe airshows.

Most of the complaints we get are about the noise! It baffles me that people will attend and airshow and expect the planes to be quiet when the show is 95% WWII piston-powered aircraft and they KNOW that to start with. A P-51 is a lot of things but it isn't as quiet as a Cessna 172. You can expect your baby sleeping in a stroller to wake up at some point in the show.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2014)

If a guy owns a plane then surely he decides what is done with it in UK USA or anywhere else that is flying or not flying. No one has the right to kill spectators with stupid or dangerous manouvers. There are too many classic aircraft being wiped out even on Youtube too allow any more idiotic manouvers. The BoB memorial flight is owned by British citizens I want them to continue flying...I dont need to see a spit or hurricane doing a loop 10 ft off the ground to appreciate it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 22, 2014)

there was a reason during the war that after 300 hours the plane was labled WW ( war weary ). it was taken out of combat for fear that the structure had been compromised by the stress and strain of excessive G-forces and violent maneuvers. there is a lot of things you can do to check the airframe for integrity. you can strip it back to its original off the assembly line configuration and weigh it to see how badly corrosion has eroded the body....you can do eddy current testing for cracks and and fissures.....but not a 100% for certain test to check ( that i know of ) for certain types of metal fatigue. every part of a plane has a metric that drives its replacement/rebuild...number of hours, number of cycles ( landings and take offs ), calender days, etc.. they monitor the number of hours the engine has run but they do not monitor the number of times the airframe has exceeded a certain speed or pulled a certain number of Gs. i love to see the old birds fly and wrung out....but i also want to see it done as safely as possible. if the guy wants to take HIS plane out over the desert and roll, spin, loop, hot dog it to his hearts content then have at it. as he will be the only one who will suffer from a FU or accident. but if he is around a crowd i want to know that plane is 100%...especially if i am standing at the rope watching. so to that end i would say that unless that bird was completely rebuilt within the last couple hundred hours there should be a cap on the maneuvers, speed, alt, and Gs it is permitted to display at public events. and going with the WW notion....every so many hours those maneuvers get more restrictive unless certian components are completely replaced. at a certain point if accidents happen and spectators are injured or killed the FAA will make a ruling and ground these ac.....they have tried already and there is a movement that will keep pushing for it. if the owners and operators do not act wisely and police themselves....the government will....and THAT you do not want to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 22, 2014)

Even with everything that they are put through at airshows, these aircraft are nowhere near the limits, or what they were put through during the war. Standards of maintenance are much higher now days as well. Retiring of airframes during the war was erring on the cautious side, as generally aircraft didn't have a realistic life of that much, and engineers didn't have the time/tools to disassemble the airframe to look at it. 

We also have 70 years more experience of operating these aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> there is a lot of things you can do to check the airframe for integrity. you can strip it back to its original off the assembly line configuration and weigh it to see how badly corrosion has eroded the body....you can do eddy current testing for cracks



None destructive testing has moved on since WW2 with huge strides. Eddy current, Dye penetrant ultrasonic (Lamb Rayleigh and other surface angle and compression wave techniques), but the basis of what you say is true. Warbirds were never designed to perform for 70 years just a few hundred hours.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2014)

Folks, understand that a good majority of the warbirds flying ARE NOT original and may contain upwards of 90% new structure. There are some airframes rebuilt almost from the ground up. Again research some of the folks bringing these warbirds back to life.

Westpac Restoration - News Resources

In many cases before these aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, many of the repairs and modifications are first approved by a "Designated Engineering Representative" or DER was will approve the repair and in many cases come up with recommended aircraft life requirements should the original manufacturer not have that requirement specified. This comment about an airframe that was "only designed for 300 hours of service" is sometimes a mute point with todays warbirds. 

As far as operating them during flying events and airshows - I posted the earlier requirement. During airshows flying displays are carefully monitored and there's hell to pay should a pilot performing during an airshow violates the "airspace waiver" that is required to do an airshow. Keep in mind that was an air race and a little different than your normal airshow. 

As far as a pilot doing something to endanger the crowd - explore how flying displays are set up. There is thought given to protect the crowds from any possible mishaps. This came about after the Ramstein airshow crash in West Germany, 1988. The crash that occurred at Stead during the air races a few years back was the perfect storm, 10 seconds in either direction and spectators would have been out of harms way. 

Research guys, there's a lot of comments being made here without knowing all the facts about warbird maintenance, operations and regulations....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 22, 2014)

I'll second what Flyboy has just said.

We try to keep airshows high on 'perceived risk' and low on 'actual risk'.

And as I said before, pilots who deliberately break the limits set, have a very short airshow career, even without having an accident.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2014)

Fair comment FB to me perhaps the greatest loss of the type I am talking about was the mosquito F For Freddy which was lost in a display even before the war was truely over. Such a machine should have been preserved for posterity and others maintained to do displays. Some machines are 99.9% reconstructions starting with a name/engine plate, to me its sad if they are lost but not a historical loss, many were already listed as losses. Genuine BoB or other theatre veterans should be treated with kid gloves, a multi millionaire can build a spit hurricane mustang or corsaire from the many non flying non historic examples and then knock themselves out....with due safety to the public.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 22, 2014)

There are a couple of aircraft here in New Zealand that are historically significant. There are no restricions on flying them, but I have heard that there are restrictions on the sale of the aircraft. i.e. they must remain in New Zealand.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2014)

Fair comment FB to me perhaps the greatest loss of the type I am talking about was the mosquito F For Freddy which was lost in a display even before the war was truely over. Such a machine should have been preserved for posterity and others maintained to do displays. Some machines are 99.9% reconstructions starting with a name/engine plate, to me its sad if they are lost but not a historical loss, many were already listed as losses. Genuine BoB or other theatre veterans should be treated with kid gloves, a multi millionaire can build a spit hurricane mustang or corsaire from the many non flying non historic examples and then knock themselves out....with due safety to the public.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Fair comment FB to me perhaps the greatest loss of the type I am talking about was the mosquito F For Freddy which was lost in a display even before the war was truely over. Such a machine should have been preserved for posterity and others maintained to do displays. Some machines are 99.9% reconstructions starting with a name/engine plate, to me its sad if they are lost but not a historical loss, many were already listed as losses. Genuine BoB or other theatre veterans should be treated with kid gloves, a multi millionaire can build a spit hurricane mustang or corsaire from the many non flying non historic examples and then knock themselves out....with due safety to the public.



I could agree with some of this - case in point; There's an F-4 on display at the US Air Force Academy. It is outside rotting away and was even vandalized by Naval Academy mid-shipmen prior to a football game (They painted it blue and from what I understand has never been returned to its original colors). The aircraft was flown by Steve Ritchie when he downed his 5th MiG-21 during Vietnam. How many "aces" aircraft are still out there? The only other one I could think of is the Bf-109 "white 14."


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 22, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> there was a reason during the war that after 300 hours the plane was labled WW ( war weary ).



Is that 300 hours flying total, or 300 hours on combat sorties?

Would like to read more on this if you can recommend a reference, especially for RAF aircraft. 

Thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2014)

mhuxt said:


> Is that 300 hours flying total, or 300 hours on combat sorties?
> 
> Would like to read more on this if you can recommend a reference, especially for RAF aircraft.
> 
> Thanks



300 hours flying. I think that was more of a consideration of all operating risks. I believe that number came from a paper out of Wright Patterson, AFAIK I've never seen anything with regards to British designed aircraft.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 22, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could agree with some of this - case in point; There's an F-4 on display at the US Air Force Academy. It is outside rotting away and was even vandalized by Naval Academy mid-shipmen prior to a football game (They painted it blue and from what I understand has never been returned to its original colors). The aircraft was flown by Steve Ritchie when he downed his 5th MiG-21 during Vietnam. How many "aces" aircraft are still out there? The only other one I could think of is the Bf-109 "white 14."



What was more criminal? Maintaining and flying it, or leaving it to rot?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> What was more criminal? Maintaining and flying it, or leaving it to rot?



Yep! I actually wrote to the USAF about this, they blew me off...


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 22, 2014)

Thanks. I'm trying to figure out the length of time individual Mosquitos flew in action. The only squadron I've looked at in detail so far is 23 Sqn in the Mediterranean. Upward limit in their case seems to be driven by re-issue of aircraft, from F.II Specials, to F.IIs, to FB.VI Series Is, to FB.VI Series IIs. Will have to get into the European sorties of mid-44 onwards I suppose. Highest number of combat hours I've found is 170-odd so far. I know for a fact though that many of the 8 Group Bombers will have done much more than that - several of the LR-series B.IXs did around the 200 sortie mark. I suppose I may have to go back to the original aircraft movement cards, I believe they record hours flown when returned to maintenance, unit changed etc.

Edit - Highest is 188 combat hours so far - I'm up to the end of Jan. '44 and that aircraft is still going. It ultimately survived the war, though I'd still like to have a look at its card.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 23, 2014)

i have never seen an official document ordering an aircraft taken out of service after 300 hours....just comments in various articles and books that stated that.


----------



## GregP (Jun 26, 2014)

From what some of the guys said over the years at the Planes of Fame, it was dependent more on the aircraft condition.

So, if you are flying from a forward airfield (farmer's field) and if several planes are running in front of you while you wait ti take off, then the dust you ingest would VERY prematurely wear out the engine. It can be replaced, but if the planes is beaten up from forward airfield operation and combat damage, then there are only so many "repairs" that can be done before a major overhaul of the airframe is called for. That might and probably WOULD be possible, but new ones were coming off the line instead to be used AS REPLACEMENTS for worn-out aircraft.

According to guys who were there, it was more or less "on-condition" and also when your unit changed aircraft to a new mount.

The 300 hours is the expected time without combat damage in front-line areas with harsh conditions. The B-17's were figured at 40 - 80 combat hours. Flak was NOT inaccurate, especially at 185 mph moving in a straight line. The P-51's flying around today aren't being shot at and they don't have 300 aircraft running in front of them on a dusty dirt airstrip.

Believe me, they didn't discard a good aircraft just on time. It had to be pretty worn by events to be scrapped.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 26, 2014)

Yeah, my guess would be that after 300 hours, the amount of work that they were prepared to put into keeping it airborne would reduce. But now, there is almost an unlimited amount of work that people are willing to put in to keeping these aircraft serviceable.


----------



## GregP (Jun 26, 2014)

True, and the supply is dwindling.

When warbirds were cheap and easily available, most of the planes running at Reno were acquired and modified for racing. I seriously doubt anyone has cut up a good airframe in more than 25 years or even longer. But is you are assembling one from parts of multiple planes, then it isn't such a crime if some mods are done.

Steve Hinton's group is restoring an F-86 at Fighter Rebuilders now. It started life as a Canadair Sabre Mk 6, but it is being modified with slats on the leading edges (not a crime in any pilot's book), the "baggage compartment" is being modified for better storage, and some items that are not needed will be unused and given to the new owner for disposition as he sees fit. From the outside, the only thing that could be noticed are the slats. Nobody not an expert at Sabres would ever notice. But when they complete the wing, I doubt it will be able to expend standard ordnance.

For really detailed restoration, Paul Allen's collection is second to none! The P-40 even has modern wiring with period-correct insulation on the outside of it, complete with stock wire numbers and colors! His Il-2 is stock except for a left-turning Allison V-1710 in place of the Mikulin and a Curtiss Electric prop in place of the Russian prop. The rest is bone stock, but really much nicer than stock. Real Il-2's were not well-finished. Paul's IS.

Carl Scholl at Chino (Aerotrader) is doing a restoration of a B-26 Invader complete with working gunner position (the gunner can select the upper or lower turret and operate either one)!

So a really good restoration depends almost entirely on the goal of the restoration. If the goal is 100% combat stock configuration that is quite different from a clean, well-done bird that can be flown, but without many of the military items such as armor plate, guns, operating wing ordnance racks, etc. Some guys even want the period-correct radios, though it's hard to imagine why. I've seen a 2-seat Hawker Hunter with glass panel and larger engine up in Idaho ... it's awe-inspiring, but far from stock.

If you have something like a Grumman S2F, it probably isn't even legal to restore it as flown in service because it could jam a city with the aerial antennas!

So ... to be really accurate, the term "restoration" must be defined with regard to the project you are speaking about specifically.


----------

