Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JOACH1M on July 10, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
-
http://www.cambridgefirst.co.uk/news/crash_at_duxford_air_show_1_958563
-
Did you see it happen Joachim??
-
Did you see it happen Joachim??
No :( I was walking around then the crowd volume went way up, then announcer came over P.A
-
I am glad everybody is ok. Sorry to hear about the P-51 though.
-
manualy bailing out of a vintage warbird at 500ft would certainly be no easy task. Well done. :eek:
-
I am glad everybody is ok. Sorry to hear about the P-51 though.
+100.
-
100 ft. Just barely enough.... Good deal on getting it away from the crowd too!
I hope the P51 is OK.....they didn't comment on it. ARGH!
-
He abandoned it in the air. It isn't ok. I would be surprised, nay, shocked, if it was anything other than a total loss.
-
Yeah. I saw he bailed, but they said there was no explosion and that it settled in a field/trees. Plus he was low and slow. Maybe...just maybe that tough ol' bird is ok.
-
Yeah. I saw he bailed, but they said there was no explosion and that it settled in a field/trees. Plus he was low and slow. Maybe...just maybe that tough ol' bird is ok.
No that plane will not fly again IMO, saw the remains of it from them pulling it out.
-
No that plane will not fly again IMO, saw the remains of it from them pulling it out.
:cry
I still have hope...
-
:cry
I still have hope...
:lol I was their sorry to say,but another earbuds went down today :cry
-
:confused: :( :cry
-
Further prooves how tough the skyraider really was. Hope they rebuilt the 51 though, which they can if they wanted to.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qME7VefLxFw
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qME7VefLxFw
why! Why does the camera man always turn it off at the most crucial point! :cry :cry
-
ouch! And F22 beat me to it.
WHYYYYY?!?!?!?!?! *slaps cameraman*
-
Picture of the Spad landing with a very tense looking pilot.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1043/3duxfordcrash.jpg)
Also of the P51 pilot baling. Modern bale out rigs open very fast and very low. A friend had a mid air and baled out at about three hundred feet and survived. He did land in the sea though.
(http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/936/2duxfordcrash.jpg)
-
That pony is a goner :(
-
I saw the whole thing going down, the P51 had to be very low on fuel cause there was no explosion visible and no sound from it when it hit the ground behind the trees. That plane won't fly again
I will post a picture of the Mustang once I've uploaded them from the camera, luckly I took pics of all the planes before they started flying
-
Looked to me like the skyraider pilot lost sight of the mustang and pulled into him after the mustang broke out of the formation. The mustang broke out and then rolled out of his turn, and the skyraider turned and flew into the mustang. That's what it looked like to me.
-
Another Video:
http://gizmodo.com/5820005/p+51-mustang-collides-and-crashes-over-england
-
why! Why does the camera man always turn it off at the most crucial point! :cry :cry
because if someone is potentialy going to die he has better taste than to film it?
-
She will be sadly missed :salute
(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/950/p51bbd.jpg)
-
The Skyraider pilot has big balls of steel to stay in the pilots seat after the mid air collision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_A4xdGFXoE
-
The Skyraider pilot has big balls of steel to stay in the pilots seat after the mid air collision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_A4xdGFXoE
Seeing as I'm been in pilot school I couldn't imagine
-
not only did this happen, but a DR1 replica flippedon the same day. And then another DR1 replica crashed the day prior in New York.
It appears to have been the p-51's fault. His turn was very shallow.
-
I loved that plane.
Regardless, bolth pilots did very well at keeping those birds air worthy long enough to A: Get out and b: land without risking any other human lives, save them self's.
Sh17 happens.
-
may be a stupid question to ask, but was the the ORIGINAL big beautiful doll? or just a random p51 with its paintjob?
-
may be a stupid question to ask, but was the the ORIGINAL big beautiful doll? or just a random p51 with its paintjob?
Painted. The 78th FG was based at Duxford.
-
Painted. The 78th FG was based at Duxford.
so what became of the original big beautiful doll?
-
not only did this happen, but a DR1 replica flippedon the same day. And then another DR1 replica crashed the day prior in New York.
It appears to have been the p-51's fault. His turn was very shallow.
Deconfliction from other formations is the flight lead's job, and it looked to me like the P-51 floated the turn a bit to keep from cutting off the 4th member of the formation ahead of them. Deconfliction from other aircraft in the formation is the wingman's job, and the skyraider was the wingman in this situation.
Still, the breakout they were using is pretty non-standard and leads to a number of potential hazards. First, the flight lead has to climb to deconflict from the wingmen prior to turning. The wingmen then spend a certain amount of time looking everywhere EXCEPT where lead is going, and then have to turn to follow lead. That turn MUST NOT OCCUR unless lead (or the preceding wingman) is in sight.
It is possible that the skyraider pilot may have even been trying to rejoin on an aircraft from the preceding formation. In any case, lead's job is to navigate and clear for the formation as a whole, and the wingman's job is to be in position and not run into lead. If the P-51 decided to flip out and fly to Australia, #2's job is to be in position, end of story. Lead is causal in that sort of accident only if he either places his wingman in an impossible position, or continues to maneuver in an unpredictable manner and/or fail to direct altitude deconfliction when the wingman calls "blind". In this case, lead made his breakout, turned, and appeared to be maneuvering in a manner that was fairly predictable (following the previous formation). #2 made his breakout, and ran into lead. The possibility that lead was maneuvering to follow a preceding formation and the equally likely possibility that #2 was trying to rejoin on the wrong aircraft, does not change the fact that the wingman pretty obviously failed in his 2 primary responsibilities of being in position and not running into lead.
This stuff is formation 101, the bare basics that anyone flying formation in front of a crowd needs to know.
-
I wonder why the P51D pilot bailed out? It looked to be in a flyable condition to me.
http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
-
I wonder why the P51D pilot bailed out? It looked to be in a flyable condition to me.
http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
Because he had a really good reason to. You don't jump out of an airplane at 800' without one.
-
I wonder why the P51D pilot bailed out? It looked to be in a flyable condition to me.
http://www.flyingfilm.co.uk/
looks to me like he lost elevator control.
-
looks to me like he lost elevator control.
Do you think the elevator's control cable may have been cut in the collision? It didn't look like the P51D lost any major parts - It was flying staight and level until the pilot bailed.
-
the impact was hard enough to shear off the skyraider's wingtip, it could have dented the pony's tail enough to trap the cables or damage/dislodge the pulleys inside.
cant see the rudder moving but I assume that was working because he managed to instinctively straighten it up from a ?30o yaw, which also suggests he still had power. the pony must have been really floating at that point, he certainly spent a few seconds after releasing the canopy trying to recover it. it may be that he judged he just wasnt high enough to recover it safely.
the CAA accident report will certainly be interesting reading.
-
The Skyraider pilot has big balls of steel to stay in the pilots seat after the mid air collision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_A4xdGFXoE
He obviously had acceptable control of the aircraft and made the judgement call to land safely versus the risk of a stepping over the side. It also appears he hit the Mustang, possibly losing sight momentarily in his more aggressive pitch up while viewing the pony's thin profile from behind.
-
The rudder cables were cut for sure. The elevator cables are higher in the fuselage. They might or might not have been cut.
-
Do you think the elevator's control cable may have been cut in the collision? It didn't look like the P51D lost any major parts - It was flying staight and level until the pilot bailed.
He jettisoned the canopy immediately after the collision, before the plane stabilised. To me it looks like he might have just paniced and started bailout immediately despite having airworthy airplane. The mustang flew just fine untill the moment he obviously left off the controls.
Can't blame him though, saving the plane must have been the last thing on his to-do list when colliding at 800ft in a vintage bird.
-
he might have just paniced and started bailout immediately despite having airworthy airplane
...and you know that how?
As the pilot flying the aircraft, he is the only one who knows at the moment whether it's airworthy or not. At the low altitude, it's not panic, it is leaving an unflyable aircraft with a sense of urgency and survival. Just because the Pony flew in a stable manner doesn't mean it was controllable by the pilot.
-
The rudder cables were cut for sure. The elevator cables are higher in the fuselage. They might or might not have been cut.
and you are basing that on what?
from the latest video posted, if you pause it anywhere between 1:09 and 1:11 and look at it frame by frame, you can see that the wingtip of the A1 caught the P-51 just in front of the entire tail assembly (You can see the horizontal stablizer infront of the A1's wing)
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/1-2.png)
Also this pic, i believe you can see the dent that was put in the p-51's fuselage from the impact, but it does not look like its a hole, just a dent.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/2-1.png)
After watching this last video, i agree with the people who said the pilot bailed from a flyable plane. As soon as the yaw stopped from the collision, he had it nearly straight and level. It didnt start diving down until he bailed out. Like wise, i cant blame him though.
-
and you are basing that on what?
from the latest video posted, if you pause it anywhere between 1:09 and 1:11 and look at it frame by frame, you can see that the wingtip of the A1 caught the P-51 just in front of the entire tail assembly (You can see the horizontal stablizer infront of the A1's wing)
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/1-2.png)
Also this pic, i believe you can see the dent that was put in the p-51's fuselage from the impact, but it does not look like its a hole, just a dent.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/flightsimer/2-1.png)
After watching this last video, i agree with the people who said the pilot bailed from a flyable plane. As soon as the yaw stopped from the collision, he had it nearly straight and level. It didnt start diving down until he bailed out. Like wise, i cant blame him though.
Here, have a real picture.
(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/skbluestem/IMG_3204.jpg)
-
thanks, hadnt seen one that detailed.
BTW, From the moment of impact to the moment he left the controls was 10 seconds.
-
If you weren't flying the plane, haven't inspected the wreckage, and haven't interviewed the pilot, you have no idea if the plane was controllable or not. You also have no idea if the empennage was structurally sound enough to withstand any control input, assuming the controls were actually intact after the collision. It is entirely possible, even likely, that the controls could have been severed in the collision, and that the empennage was no longer structurally sound.
Even FAA and NTSB experts don't make assumptions strictly based on the information you people have available, and they know a lot more about the subject in question +than 99% of the people who frequent this BBS.
If your plane is hit in a collision, then you suddenly feel the controls go limp in one or more direction/function, and you're 500 feet or less off the ground, you bail out immediately, if at all possible, it's called common sense and self preservation.
-
good pic, pretty bad dent there.
I've always thought its a bit nuts having such dissimilar aircraft flying formation aerobatics, its like winging different rides in AH - 10x harder than winging with the same planes.
edit:
If you weren't flying the plane, haven't inspected the wreckage, and haven't interviewed the pilot, you have no idea if the plane was controllable or not. etc...
since no one died I think its ok to speculate on what happened just for fun :)
-
good pic, pretty bad dent there.
I've always thought its a bit nuts having such dissimilar aircraft flying formation aerobatics, its like winging different rides in AH - 10x harder than winging with the same planes.
edit:
since no one died I think its ok to speculate on what happened just for fun :)
First, they were not flying dissimilar formation aerobatics. They were doing a simple fighter pitch up to landing.
Second, with training, experience, and the will to do it, dissimilar formation flying is very staight forward out in the real world, and in AH. If you are finding it 10X harder in AH, then you probabably don't have the basics down.
-
you're probably right, I can barely keep my plane in the air :uhoh
-
Here, have a real picture.
(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/skbluestem/IMG_3204.jpg)
Looks like it was very possible the elevator control cables were severed.
-
you're probably right, I can barely keep my plane in the air :uhoh
:rofl
-
tell me this all u fools who think that the pilot could have controlled the plane.
if u felt a inpact in a AC with such force to rip half a wing off. what would u do?
my grandfather was a tail gunner of a B17 in WW2 a P51 hit the B17. he bailed out from a "air worthy AC" guess what happened to the B17 when it landed. BOOM! he was the only on to live...
if your hit in a aircraft at low alt u bail simple...
-
if your hit in a aircraft at low alt u bail simple...
What about all of the pilots who dont wear parachutes? http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/cf3jq5bicri25qbeuhrvut551/N07122011120000.pdf
-
I am going to say that the amount of speculation here as to the reason the 51 went into the ground is purely baseless and totally classless. Grow up guys, none of you have a right to make an educated comment as to why the 51 went in. At the least, Eagl has a right based on his vast military experience, but he was smart and reserved his comments on that portion.
The rest of you need to realize that cartoon airplane flying does not count as experience.
-
I am going to say that the amount of speculation here as to the reason the 51 went into the ground is purely baseless and totally classless. Grow up guys, none of you have a right to make an educated comment as to why the 51 went in. At the least, Eagl has a right based on his vast military experience, but he was smart and reserved his comments on that portion.
The rest of you need to realize that cartoon airplane flying does not count as experience.
Be cautious with generalizations......
-
I am going to say that the amount of speculation here as to the reason the 51 went into the ground is purely baseless and totally classless. Grow up guys, none of you have a right to make an educated comment as to why the 51 went in. At the least, Eagl has a right based on his vast military experience, but he was smart and reserved his comments on that portion.
The rest of you need to realize that cartoon airplane flying does not count as experience.
I'm sorry but we're free to speculate as much as we want. What is the pilot/plane combination now, his holy highness that is above criticism and speculation? Who are you to say we can't speculate how and why and if?
-
I'm sorry but we're free to speculate as much as we want. What is the pilot/plane combination now, his holy highness that is above criticism and speculation? Who are you to say we can't speculate how and why and if?
And what qualifications in life do you have to pass judgement down on a situation that you nether witnessed first-hand, or know the full situation of?
No one here has the right to judge that pilot unless they've been in the situation themselves.
Your all like those youtube people who go on videos and pass judgement down on others while sitting in there armchairs pigging down the durritos.
If youve never been in the situation yourself, you dont have the right to accurately criticize the pilot for his actions concerning an out-of-control aircraft that was just a part of a mid-air collision.
your merely an armchair general making hollow accusations.
-
You really are the least qualified of every member on this board as far as I'm aware.
You really aren't in any position to speak here.
You may think I'm 'being mean', but trust me, get lost before you get yourself hurt.
-
The pilot flying the P51 was interviewed on UK television he said his aircraft was crippled in pitch .
Hope that clears this up.
-
You really are the least qualified of every member on this board as far as I'm aware.
You really aren't in any position to speak here.
You may think I'm 'being mean', but trust me, get lost before you get yourself hurt.
notice how im NOT judging the pilot?
what experience do you have Eskimo?
you read a couple books on ACM's and then suddenly think your a veteran of aerodynamics and the performances of planes under various conditions, and as such have the right to tell OTHERS they are not in a position to speak about
a matter you YOURSELF have no position to speak about as well?
no eskimo, maybe YOU should get lost. because im not penguin who will let you push him around with petty words over the forums. so stop trying to ride my backside from post to post like you do his.
like i said in another post. back off. :aok
-
notice how im NOT judging the pilot?
what experience do you have Eskimo?
you read a couple books on ACM's and then suddenly think your a veteran of aerodynamics and the performances of planes under various conditions, and as such have the right to tell OTHERS they are not in a position to speak about
a matter you YOURSELF have no position to speak about as well?
no eskimo, maybe YOU should get lost. because im not penguin who will let you push him around with petty words over the forums. so stop trying to ride my backside from post to post like you do his.
like i said in another post. back off. :aok
I notice that you're judging someone who is judging someone for judging someone.
What is my experience? My mom married two men, both of whom are veterans, one of which is still serving.
One is vet navy, served on many ships operating on electrical systems.
The other is a UH-60 crewchief and MECHANIC. He has taught me more than wikipedia has taught YOU.
I rather enjoy riding your backside -- it snaps so easily over the slightest of words.
And for the love of god, go get banned again. PLEASE.
-
I notice that you're judging someone who is judging someone for judging someone.
What is my experience? My mom married two men, both of whom are veterans, one of which is still serving.
One is vet navy, served on many ships operating on electrical systems.
The other is a UH-60 crewchief and MECHANIC. He has taught me more than wikipedia has taught YOU.
I rather enjoy riding your backside -- it snaps so easily over the slightest of words.
And for the love of god, go get banned again. PLEASE.
And i notice your being a hypocrite.
in the MOH post, you were applauding a you tube comment about telling everyone who didn't know what that man had gone through to get said medal to stop trying to judge what he did.
and yet im basically doing the same thing in this thread, and your going to critisize my words? wow.
and no, that is not YOUR experience. that is the men who have learned it. You go only by what your told. chances are you've never flown an actual ww2 aircraft, let alone a p51,
When i visited Fort Knox back in 06', they let me use one of there Apache simulators. now, imagine that there was an Apache that had an accident tomorrow at an air show. If we go by the Philosophy Your trying to spew out, than that would mean because i was in an Apache simulator, i have enough qualifications to judge weather that Apache pilot did the wrong or right thing. Now ive never actually Flown an Apache, or seen how it performs under various conditions, but just because ive been in a simulator that's TOLD me what it could possibly do and not do, that's good enough qualifications for me to say whether that Apache pilot was good or bad.
One was a navy vet? great! i fail to see tho how someone who operates electrical systems on various ships would have the experiences and training to know the aerodynamics and the performance of Various aircraft, let alone World War 2 aircraft.
The other is a uh-60 crew chief? that's great too! love the black hawk look! but now an helicopter isent exactly a prop-driven airplane now is it? I don't think a UH-60 performs similar to a ww2 P51 mustang. Meaning i don't think his training to fly said uh-60 would qualify him to judge the situation. That would be the same like an Helicopter pilot trying to judge the performance of a jet pilot.
so like i said before, YOU have no position to speak as well Eskimo. my backside has not "snapped". im just not going to let your little forum words walk over me. if you wish to truly upset me, your going to have to do a better effort than the slop your throwing right now.
so ether shut up, or try harder. your choice. ;)
(p.s no insult is intended to the 2 veterans).
-
And what qualifications in life do you have to pass judgement down on a situation that you nether witnessed first-hand, or know the full situation of?
No one here has the right to judge that pilot unless they've been in the situation themselves.
Your all like those youtube people who go on videos and pass judgement down on others while sitting in there armchairs pigging down the durritos.
If youve never been in the situation yourself, you dont have the right to accurately criticize the pilot for his actions concerning an out-of-control aircraft that was just a part of a mid-air collision.
your merely an armchair general making hollow accusations.
I don't need qualifications to participate in a speculation of events. What are you now, UBB terrorist who dictates who can write and about what?
I have every imaginable right to express my opinnions on any given subject whether you like it or not. Your constitution dictates freedom of speech and I'm not breaking any UBB rules that I know of. So please, don't break the rules yourself either by being wannabe-moderator.
-
I'm pretty sure that the investigation will find both pilots at fault, and they might even find the air boss at fault for allowing the pitchout when spacing may have been a concern. But I would bet that the skyraider pilot will be found at least partially causal for failing to maintain sight of his flight lead and failing to maintain flight path deconfliction, and the flight lead will (again my guess) be found partially causal for failing to monitor his wingman, for failing to communicate an early roll-out (if that is what happened), and for failing to properly brief and execute a breakout maneuver that requires a wingman to temporarily lose sight of the flight lead and then break out without ensuring visual contact with the flight lead is regained.
A crossover breakout like that isn't exactly "standard". In the USAF, we *never* do that except for demo teams that do nothing but that sort of thing as their primary mission. Any multi-ship break is done either in order or reverse order, from an echelon formation rather than "finger four" or 3-ship vic. That way everyone maintains sight the entire time, and nobody has to cross over anyone else. They just peel off one at a time starting with lead or #4. We don't do it any other way because it's hazardous to do it any other way.
So there will be plenty of contributing and causal factors, and the investigators will get to choose which ones get highlighted and pinned on which people.
As for the question about why the stang driver bailed out, I doubt anyone will ask any questions other than "how did you determine it was not flyable?", and then simply document the answer while congratulating the pilot on his good judgement for bailing out before it was too late. The only people who might dig a bit deeper would be the insurance company, because they have a large cash settlement at stake. Everyone else is probably just going to consider it a good decision made in the middle of a time-critical emergency, and leave it at that.
I've seen the safety and accident board reports from numerous ejection incidents in the USAF and in every case that I can remember, when the ejection was intentional the boards concluded that the pilot(s) made a good judgement at the time, based on their training. That doesn't mean people outside the investigation didn't try to second-guess the pilot's actions, but the investigation boards almost always conclude that jettisoning the aircraft was a good decision (even if pilot error was the reason why they got into the situation in the first place).
My personal opinion - second-guessing a pilot's decision to eject is something a shoe clerk or bean counter does... That's about the harshest perjorative I can think of to describe people who do that. I lost a friend who rode one in instead of pulling the handle, had another friend who almost lost his career when his wing commander didn't believe him after he ejected from an uncontrollable aircraft, and everyone saw the video of that thunderbird pilot who barely ejected in time during a Mountain Home AFB airshow. In both cases where the pilot ejected, the bottom line is that the pilots went home that evening. Anyone doubting the validity of the decision should STFU and thank the pilots instead for not forcing them to have to attend a funeral, because in both cases the pilots would have died if they'd delayed ejecting.
-
As for the question about why the stang driver bailed out, I doubt anyone will ask any questions other than "how did you determine it was not flyable?", and then simply document the answer while congratulating the pilot on his good judgement for bailing out before it was too late. The only people who might dig a bit deeper would be the insurance company, because they have a large cash settlement at stake. Everyone else is probably just going to consider it a good decision made in the middle of a time-critical emergency, and leave it at that.
My guess is that the stang pilot didn't even know what happened when he began bailout, he just felt a jolt and the plane going out of control (due to the push from the skyraider but how could he know it wasn't from a catastrophic structural failure) and decided to bail. Nobody's going to hang in waiting at that altitude and without an ejection seat.
Any simulation pilot would have just calmly applied rudder, flaps whatever and try to helicopter down to save the plane. But this guy doesn't get respawns.
-
I don't need qualifications to participate in a speculation of events. What are you now, UBB terrorist who dictates who can write and about what?
I have every imaginable right to express my opinnions on any given subject whether you like it or not. Your constitution dictates freedom of speech and I'm not breaking any UBB rules that I know of. So please, don't break the rules yourself either by being wannabe-moderator.
"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have." - Thomas Hildern Fallout: New Vegas
-
The pilot flying the P51 was interviewed on UK television he said his aircraft was crippled in pitch .
Hope that clears this up.
thanks :aok
-
the bottom line is that the pilots went home that evening. Anyone doubting the validity of the decision should STFU and thank the pilots instead for not forcing them to have to attend a funeral, because in both cases the pilots would have died if they'd delayed ejecting.
This...
-
I have an opinion. I find it amazing no one lost their life. Accidents will happen. We can only hope to survive them as this pilot did.
-
and you are basing that on what?
From no visible damage above the main fuselage structural member. All control cables are above this.
-
"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have." - Thomas Hildern Fallout: New Vegas
You really do try to live up to your name Tyrannis. You're not only ignorant but obnoxious and rude.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.
-
You really do try to live up to your name Tyrannis. You're not only ignorant but obnoxious and rude.
how am i ignorant? i was merely saying us who have never flown an ww2 aircraft, or been in this pilot's situation, don't have the right to judge whether the pilot made the right decision to bail out instead of attempting to save the aircraft.
Thats including myself. As the quote i posted states, too many people have opinions of things they know nothing about.
-
how am i ignorant? i was merely saying us who have never flown an ww2 aircraft, or been in this pilot's situation, don't have the right to judge whether the pilot made the right decision to bail out instead of attempting to save the aircraft.
Thats including myself. As the quote i posted states, too many people have opinions of things they know nothing about.
Yeah just like you. Point out the exact wording I used to judge the pilot. Thank you and have a nice day.
-
From no visible damage above the main fuselage structural member. All control cables are above this.
ya, when i wrote that i hadn?t seen a good picture of the actual damage, which as soon as i saw it, i knew why you said that.
Actually tyrannis, i have flown a WWII aircraft and work on Korean/Vietnam era aircraft now, and i know a lot of people in the AH community that have or currently are as well flying war birds in general.
Everyone complaining about people making speculations needs to get over themselves. No one was hurt. Nobody has attacked the pilot for bailing, but have simply said their OPINION is that he MIGHT have bailed from a flyable plane. Most even said they might have done the same. Nobody said that he didn?t try to fly it, but just said that based on the videos, it appears that he could have flown it. It?s not like any statements have been made by the pilot on what exactly happened and people are still saying, "Oh he could have still flown that"...
If i was him, I honestly believe that if i had stabilized the plane like he had done for the amount of time he did it in, then i would try to fly the plane as long as i could. If i feel i can land it, then i would try to. If i couldn?t, then i would ditch it.
-
You're basing that on nearly no real actual experience.
I'd challenge you to get out if an airplane as low as he did under ideal conditions wearing a Softie much less 5 seconds after you were focused in your upcoming landing. It's a chunk of metal that's not worth a life and that's the end of it. Killing yourself to save a machine is foolish. Thinking you'll just ditch and that's the end of it is foolish. Rob did right by not dying over a stupid chunk of soon to be destroyed aluminum.
-
Cool, you flew in an Apache sim.
In doing so, you learned nothing of the mechanical systems involved inside of a real
chopper. I've visited mystepfather, AT WORK. He did not play video games. He showed me
what this part does, the chain reaction that happens when you lose this cable, et cetra et cetra.
And yes, the UH-60 is a prop driven aircraft. Smooth one there.
Regarding electronics, not applicable in a warbird, perhaps I will admit. However, it is still another IQ point you
obviously lack.
MOH post -- completely irrelevant, why bother bringing it up?
You're simply another one of those idiots shaking your head and spitting at the recipient as far as I care.
You never earned a Medal of Honor, and you've never earned my respect. You are simply a fool.
Your clueless accusations will lead you nowhere.
Also worth noting, I have never once voiced an assumption on this incident involving the P-51 and A-1.
I have merely pointed out, and had you prove, that you are LEAST qualified of ALL here to make any
sort of hypotheses.
-
Gents , go to WIX ,here's a link to this very subject:- http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41703&start=135
Page ten has a nice picture showing the inside of a P51 control cables and all, also one of the pages will tell you that the pilot said he had no pitch control , i believe the term used was crippled in pitch .
-
Cool, you flew in an Apache sim.
In doing so, you learned nothing of the mechanical systems involved inside of a real
chopper. I've visited mystepfather, AT WORK. He did not play video games. He showed me
what this part does, the chain reaction that happens when you lose this cable, et cetra et cetra.
That was the point i was trying to make.
The sim pointed out to me what the Apache was capable of, its systems, etc. but That was just the simulator. i had never flown or experienced a real Apache.
now, replace simulator with "step-father" and the same thing applies to you. you have seen them work, but youve never really YOURSELF done the work. only watched & observed.
its like saying if you watch someone fly an airplane, your suddenly qualified to fly that airplane.
And Which one?
If its the ex-navy vet, thats cool, but im sure there is a big difference between the electrical systems of say, an aircraft carrier. and a ww2 p51 mustang.
and if its the UH-60, thats still a big difference between an airplane and an helicopter. so everything you just said in that quote has just become invalid.
And yes, the UH-60 is a prop driven aircraft. Smooth one there.
i would of figured the differences between a UH-60 and an P51 Mustang would of been obvious, even to someone of such a small intellect as yourself. but if it isent, i'll point it out for you if you like.
but i guess i should of said airPLANE instead of airCRAFT.
Regarding electronics, not applicable in a warbird, perhaps I will admit. However, it is still another IQ point you
obviously lack.
lol. im sorry for not knowing the complex electrical circuits of various navy vessels? im 18. no offence to your stepfather or w.e, but i have much more important things at my age to study than learning about a field i'll most likely never pursue.
MOH post -- completely irrelevant, why bother bringing it up?
You're simply another one of those idiots shaking your head and spitting at the recipient as far as I care.
You never earned a Medal of Honor, and you've never earned my respect. You are simply a fool.
I brought it up to show how you were being hypocritical.
You praised a user who was telling others to back off from insulting the MOH recipient on youtube because they wouldnt do the same thing if they were in his shoes.
i basically say the same thing here. (dont judge the pilot unless youve been in his situation) and you suddenly decide to pounce on me for it.
and no, im not insulting the MOH recipient at all, what made you think this? now your making more hollow accusations towards me. can you not think up anything better?
You yourself have never earned a Medal of Honor ether, so why you mention this, i have no idea.
your respect is something i nether desire, or need. your no one of importance to this forum board, or my life in general. therefore i could care less if what i say makes you angry, simple answer is: get over it :aok
Your clueless accusations will lead you nowhere.
Youve made more clueless accusations on this topic than i have joelina.
Also worth noting, I have never once voiced an assumption on this incident involving the P-51 and A-1.
I have merely pointed out, and had you prove, that you are LEAST qualified of ALL here to make any
sort of hypotheses.
1. i never said you did.
2.i never said i was qualified, hence why im not saying "will the pilot could/should of done this/that instead"
3.from the whacked out philosophies you've been throwing at me, i'd say your the least qualified. not me buddy.
Now joey, I'd actually like to NOT derail this topic into a pointless fight with a forum clown such as yourself. so if you really wish to continue this argument, then lets do it in PC. So everyone doesnt have to go through the pain of reading our pointless little pursefight.
or you can just be quiet and get over it. your choice cupcake :aok
-
just as well I'm not a mod on this forum, this topic would only have about 10 posts left in it. :rolleyes:
way too much (http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll47/smiley84_girl/squeakslap.gif)
-
You are pathetic, even more so for continuing this.
I'm done. Way to destroy yet ANOTHER thread, Tyrannis.
It is time for you, to grow, the F!, up.
-
I'm sure the pinch in the vicinity of the control cables locked the stick where it was on pitch axis.
I'll bet the next thing he tried was the trim wheel and, finding it stuck also, exited the plane quickly.
I'm still not sure why he slackened his pressure on the elevator to near nothing before the collision.
-
You are pathetic, even more so for continuing this.
I'm done. Way to destroy yet ANOTHER thread, Tyrannis.
It is time for you, to grow, the F!, up.
My original comment was on-topic.
Your the one that derailed it by attacking me personally.
maybe its time for YOU to grow up and get rid of your narcissistic attitude. :rolleyes:
-
what if both of you just let it be?
-
Wow, this thread is entertaining, I'm surprised how many in this community are sooo vastly unexperienced with real world physics.
So all that aircraft-grade aluminum that existed before being concaved violently went where?.... obviously it couldn't of gotten shoved up into the half of the tail that didn't get obliterated and as a result done god knows what to any vital systems or control lines physicaly occupying that already very limited area of space....
Even if he had full or partial control still of all control surfaces, if that tail didn't get bent out of shape at least 5-degrees then the entire impact wasn't anywhere close enough to destroy a quarter of a _Skyraider's_ wing (research what those wing's purposes were designed for, the pony was lucky enough to be in one piece).
Have most of you even witnessed or seen a single major car wreck, ever?
-
Here, some quick wiki lookups. I relatively suck at physic formulas and math, but even I can tell looking at these numbers the pony's pilot (and skyraider's pilot) was pretty lucky at the end of the day:
P-51D Mustang
Data from Erection and Maintenance Manual for P-51D and P-51K.[69] The Great Book of Fighters,[70] and Quest for Performance[71]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
Height: 13 ft 4? in (4.08 m:tail wheel on ground, vertical propeller blade.)
Wing area: 235 ft? (21.83 m?)
Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg)
Powerplant: 1 ? Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm;[72] 1,720 hp (1,282 kW) at WEP
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163
Drag area: 3.80 ft? (0.35 m?)
Aspect ratio: 5.83
Performance
Maximum speed: 437 mph (703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Cruise speed: 362 mph (580 km/h)
Stall speed: 100 mph (160 km/h)
Range: 1,650 mi (2,755 km) with external tanks
Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,800 m)
Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s)
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft? (192 kg/m?)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6
Recommended Mach limit 0.8
Armament
6? 0.50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns with 1,880 total rounds (400 rounds for each on the inner pair, and 270 rounds for each of the outer two pair)
2? hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
6 or 10? T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets (P-51D-25, P-51K-10 on)[nb 7]
Specifications (A-1H Skyraider)
Data from McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 [28]
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0? in (15.25 m)
Height: 15 ft 8? in (4.78 m)
Wing area: 400.3 ft? (37.19 m?)
Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg) ( :confused: )
Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)
Powerplant: 1 ? Wright R-3350-26WA radial engine, 2,700 hp (2,000 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 322 mph (280 kn, 518 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
Cruise speed: 198 mph (172 kn, 319 km/h)
Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km)
Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,685 m)
Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 45 lb/ft? (220 kg/m?) ( :eek: )
Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 4 ? 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon
Other: Up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance on 15 external hardpoints including bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, or gun pods ( :O )
-
From no visible damage above the main fuselage structural member. All control cables are above this.
You sir, are full of it.
(http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss82/the330th/7-13-20111-38-40PM-1.jpg)
At its lowest point, it is no more than 6-inches off the shelf that sits directly ontop of the rear radiator duct... you know, the infamous radiator scoop that protrudes off the thing's belly. And you can clearly see all the control cables are no more higher off the bottom of the fuesalage than the ones marked in the photo as the elevator cables.... ALL control cables are clearly within the lower half of the fuesalage....
-
This IS an entertaining thread, but having had a minor moment of late with an airplane. I can confirm training and experience kicks in and indeed overrides adrenalin and fear. So if Mr Davis bailed, it's because he very rapidly realised there was no other option. He didn't panic and bail out of a perfectly good aircraft. There was a bang, he got flung about and then he found no pitch control and he left the aircraft behind. Perhaps if he was a kid flying a government airplane in 1944 the argument might hold but he was intimate with that aircraft.
If you think otherwise then you don't fly enough. Sorry if that sounds patronising but there you are.
This is his stiff upper lip assessment of the moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLQsJS7zQOM&feature=player_embedded
-
I'm pretty sure that the investigation will find both pilots at fault, and they might even find the air boss at fault for allowing the pitchout when spacing may have been a concern. But I would bet that the skyraider pilot will be found at least partially causal for failing to maintain sight of his flight lead and failing to maintain flight path deconfliction, and the flight lead will (again my guess) be found partially causal for failing to monitor his wingman, for failing to communicate an early roll-out (if that is what happened), and for failing to properly brief and execute a breakout maneuver that requires a wingman to temporarily lose sight of the flight lead and then break out without ensuring visual contact with the flight lead is regained.
A crossover breakout like that isn't exactly "standard". In the USAF, we *never* do that except for demo teams that do nothing but that sort of thing as their primary mission. Any multi-ship break is done either in order or reverse order, from an echelon formation rather than "finger four" or 3-ship vic. That way everyone maintains sight the entire time, and nobody has to cross over anyone else. They just peel off one at a time starting with lead or #4. We don't do it any other way because it's hazardous to do it any other way.
So there will be plenty of contributing and causal factors, and the investigators will get to choose which ones get highlighted and pinned on which people.
As for the question about why the stang driver bailed out, I doubt anyone will ask any questions other than "how did you determine it was not flyable?", and then simply document the answer while congratulating the pilot on his good judgement for bailing out before it was too late. The only people who might dig a bit deeper would be the insurance company, because they have a large cash settlement at stake. Everyone else is probably just going to consider it a good decision made in the middle of a time-critical emergency, and leave it at that.
I've seen the safety and accident board reports from numerous ejection incidents in the USAF and in every case that I can remember, when the ejection was intentional the boards concluded that the pilot(s) made a good judgement at the time, based on their training. That doesn't mean people outside the investigation didn't try to second-guess the pilot's actions, but the investigation boards almost always conclude that jettisoning the aircraft was a good decision (even if pilot error was the reason why they got into the situation in the first place).
My personal opinion - second-guessing a pilot's decision to eject is something a shoe clerk or bean counter does... That's about the harshest perjorative I can think of to describe people who do that. I lost a friend who rode one in instead of pulling the handle, had another friend who almost lost his career when his wing commander didn't believe him after he ejected from an uncontrollable aircraft, and everyone saw the video of that thunderbird pilot who barely ejected in time during a Mountain Home AFB airshow. In both cases where the pilot ejected, the bottom line is that the pilots went home that evening. Anyone doubting the validity of the decision should STFU and thank the pilots instead for not forcing them to have to attend a funeral, because in both cases the pilots would have died if they'd delayed ejecting.
[/thread]
-
You sir, are full of it.
[At its lowest point, it is no more than 6-inches off the shelf that sits directly ontop of the rear radiator duct... you know, the infamous radiator scoop that protrudes off the thing's belly. And you can clearly see all the control cables are no more higher off the bottom of the fuesalage than the ones marked in the photo as the elevator cables.... ALL control cables are clearly within the lower half of the fuesalage....
Who is full of it?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Scan0048-1.jpg)
What your pic shows is the rudder cables. (I was in error as it is the rudder trim cables that rise)
Now go sit on the porcelain throne and have a good dump of fecal matter.
-
(First post here, been a lurker on the forums for a good while now before making an account.)
Eying that image, it looks like all the cables do end up at the floor of the fuselage.
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9232/rudderandelevatorlinkag.jpg)
Red is me guessing about where the damage would be based on images.
I don't see the point about arguing where the cables are and if they were damaged or not. The pilot said he lost control of the elevators according to earlier posts in the thread.
-
Most likely the bulkhead got crushed which pinched the cables.
-
A pilot's life is always worth more than the plane.
That's all I have.
-
A pilot's life is always worth more than the plane.
That's all I have.
Classy Mr. Fink :salute
-
Classy Mr. Fink :salute
Ditto! :aok. The bottom line......
-
To illustrate the fact that the damage may have been more than skin deep. I would like you to look at a photograph of a mini-van that I hit a deer with. While the sheet metal damage is limited to the front quarter of the vehicle... The force of the collision jammed the passenger door shut.
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5480/deerz.jpg)
-
Yep, the mustang didn't shed anything. It was all pushed in. Looking at the schematic, the dent itself may not have reached the elevator cables but that doesn't mean it didn't push other parts into them.
Kudos to the pilot for making the right decision and executing it quickly and effectively. :salute
...and none for those who second-guessed that decision. :rolleyes:
-
A pilot's life is always worth more than the plane.
That's all I have.
That's all you need to have...
-
Of course one could go into the discussion on how a poorly planned, poorly executed unnecessary risky manouver caused the destruction of yet another vintage bird...
-
Of course one could go into the discussion on how a poorly planned, poorly executed unnecessary risky manouver caused the destruction of yet another vintage bird...
Or we could just let this dead horse lay, regret the loss of the aircraft, but ultimately celebrate the fact that the pilot lived, and turn our attention to something else...
My $.02
-
Who is full of it?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Scan0048-1.jpg)
What your pic shows is the rudder cables. (I was in error as it is the rudder trim cables that rise)
Now go sit on the porcelain throne and have a good dump of fecal matter.
Better to speak up and remove all doubt, eigh?
Per YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! With your own smart arse, show me in that diagram, in assoiciation with the published pictures of the damage, your main strut that hides ALL (_100%_) control cables!!!!
LOOK AT YOURSELF!!! Your changing THE FACT of where the damage occured with where you WISH it had occured to support YOUR BLINDING DISEASE OF THE MOUTH!
You're the one that opened it without ANY evidence or supporting facts, stop making a mountain out of a mole hill and making youself even look more foolish kid.
The fact you even believe this pilot had the choice to completely control the plane to a safe landing rather than ditch it also shows you dont have the intelligence beyond that of a 12-yo in this day... and THAT is SAD!
-
a picture I took about 5 hours before the ill fated accident. R.I.P Big Beautiful :salute
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/Bruv119/dux2011/DSC04530Large.jpg)
-
garbage removed
Frothing at the mouth, so sad.
-
To me, it's the Skyraider's responsability not to run into his leader, said leader can do whatever he wishes (to an extend), he's responsible for his flight.
Our saying in the FAF was "If your leader runs into the ground and you didn't ... you did something wrong :uhoh ... and we lost 4 mirages that impacted the ground all next to each other.
My most uneasy feeling was flying in a cloud in a 5 ship V formation. I was #2, and the lead decided to climb us thru a cloud in a montainous area. We protested on the radio but he still elected to fly us in. #5 broke away before the cloud. Upon entering the cloud #3 bones out, the lead starts waiving back and forth, and we lose 4. Now I'm sticking to a leader that is trying to get us killed, while 2 AWOL monkeys are"somewhere" in the same cloud. We eventually poped thru the top a few minutes later and all reformed. Formation flying is not hard, but it can be dangerous real quick when you don't follow the 101s.
In my formation flying days we didn't do v formations breaks, we went on a right a left echelon. Our "lost sight" procedure was to dive and turn away from what we were doing. I'm pretty sure the P51 pilot recognized right away how responsive his plane was, and kudos for bailing out so quickly. The Skyraider got caught in that roll and recovered, then landed. Maybe he couldn't bail out or he had bals of steels.
Who cares, I'm glad nobody died :rock
-
Hate to interrupt the argument, I just noticed no one had answered this question, so I will.
so what became of the original big beautiful doll?
The original Big Beautiful Doll, Col John D. Lander's famous Mustang, is still very much intact, it is hanging from the ceiling of the Imperial War museum in London.
(http://www.granburydepot.org/z/biog/LandersJohnD.jpg)
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs41/i/2009/035/8/6/big_beautiful_doll_P51_iwm_by_Sceptre63.jpg)
You may now return to pointless bickering. :bolt:
-
Ok, reading on another forum input from a pilot who flew at Duxford regulary, apparently the procedure for a run in an break at Duxford is not the normal pull up and hard left turn which would sequence the formation for a downwind. But due to noise considerations related to a village in the pattern, the briefing suggested a 90 degree turn. Apparently the P51 pilot followed that procedure and the Spad pilot didn't. The suggestion is that he wasn't at the pilot briefing where this procedure was discussed. It's notable that he wasn't based at the field and indeed after the break he was supposed to return to his home field without landing at Duxford.
Having said that my viewing of the videos leads me to believe that the P51 pilot stopped turning earlier than neccessary. But so what do I know, I'm only a skydive pilot and a low timer at that. I'll leave the real judgement to the experts.
-
Hate to interrupt the argument, I just noticed no one had answered this question, so I will.
The original Big Beautiful Doll, Col John D. Lander's famous Mustang, is still very much intact, it is hanging from the ceiling of the Imperial War museum in London.
(http://www.granburydepot.org/z/biog/LandersJohnD.jpg)
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs41/i/2009/035/8/6/big_beautiful_doll_P51_iwm_by_Sceptre63.jpg)
You may now return to pointless bickering. :bolt:
Ty saggs :salute
-
Hate to interrupt the argument, I just noticed no one had answered this question, so I will.
The original Big Beautiful Doll, Col John D. Lander's famous Mustang, is still very much intact, it is hanging from the ceiling of the Imperial War museum in London.
(http://www.granburydepot.org/z/biog/LandersJohnD.jpg)
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs41/i/2009/035/8/6/big_beautiful_doll_P51_iwm_by_Sceptre63.jpg)
You may now return to pointless bickering. :bolt:
To quote indiana jones, IT BELONG'S IN A MUSEUM! :D
-
Hate to interrupt the argument, I just noticed no one had answered this question, so I will.
The original Big Beautiful Doll, Col John D. Lander's famous Mustang, is still very much intact, it is hanging from the ceiling of the Imperial War museum in London.
(http://www.granburydepot.org/z/biog/LandersJohnD.jpg)
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs41/i/2009/035/8/6/big_beautiful_doll_P51_iwm_by_Sceptre63.jpg)
That is not correct. The Imperial War Museum's Mustang was not the original Big Beautiful Doll. It is simply painted to look like it.
From their website:
The P-51 on display is a replica painted as an aircraft of the Duxford-based 78th Fighter Group. Numerous airworthy P-51s are based at Duxford and regularly take to the air over the historic airfield.
-
That is not correct. The Imperial War Museum's Mustang was not the original Big Beautiful Doll. It is simply painted to look like it.
From their website:
Take one look at the prop and it will tell ya it's not the original. There is another flying 51D out there painted as BBD as well. Actual combat vet surviving Mustangs are few and far between.
How goes it Bodhi? :)
-
I am doing alright. Things are a bit slow these days. Hot and freaking muggy as all hell where I am living.... not fun working in the hangar like that.
-
I am doing alright. Things are a bit slow these days. Hot and freaking muggy as all hell where I am living.... not fun working in the hangar like that.
I did a couple years in Louisiana. I didn't know what humidity was until then :)
Haven't complained about Minnesota summer heat ever since!
-
That is not correct. The Imperial War Museum's Mustang was not the original Big Beautiful Doll. It is simply painted to look like it.
From their website:
I sit corrected...
(hangs head in shame) :(
-
Take one look at the prop and it will tell ya it's not the original. There is another flying 51D out there painted as BBD as well. Actual combat vet surviving Mustangs are few and far between.
How goes it Bodhi? :)
what made me question it when i first saw the pic was the canopy. Is it just me or does that not look like a double bubble?
-
what made me question it when i first saw the pic was the canopy. Is it just me or does that not look like a double bubble?
It's the Dallas style flat 'clear view' canopy. Not sure if that's the exact name but it was flattened at the Dallas plant to try and do away with distortion looking through the more rounded canopy. But it's also got the uncuffed Hamilton Standard prop. The real deal didn't, and I don't know that I've ever seen an uncuffed 51D prop on a WW2 bird. The 51K had the Aeroproducts blade that was uncuffed but not the Hamilton Standard on the D models. The IWM bird was RCAF at one point if I remember right.
And if we're going to be technical the original "Big Beautiful Doll" was the one John Landers had when he was CO of the 38th FS, 55th FG. He then took it with him to the 357th when he was CO. His more well known 78th FG "Big Beautiful Doll" was the replacement for the first BBD he had pictured below with the 55th FS in August 44:)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BBD.jpg)
-
Was suddenly and inexplicably reminded of this screenshot -- had to look it up on the AH website to find it!
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/ahss/p51-over-city.jpg)
-
Was suddenly and inexplicably reminded of this screenshot -- had to look it up on the AH website to find it!
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/ahss/p51-over-city.jpg)
This was actually my background for a while lol
-
(First post here, been a lurker on the forums for a good while now before making an account.)
Eying that image, it looks like all the cables do end up at the floor of the fuselage.
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9232/rudderandelevatorlinkag.jpg)
Red is me guessing about where the damage would be based on images.
I don't see the point about arguing where the cables are and if they were damaged or not. The pilot said he lost control of the elevators according to earlier posts in the thread.
If this is the same "gustav" from WW2aircraft forums, he is a great source of information.
-
I am not the same person, sorry. Just someone who likes the 109G and has been lurking for a while waiting to get into a better financial state and off satellite internet to be able to sign up for AH.
but on topic on the thread: I know I didn't say this with my first post, But I am glad no one was hurt in the collision.
-
Welcome to the boards.
-
Frothing at the mouth, so sad.
Stick and stones won't change the fact you're a conceited narcissistic compulsive liar.
That makes three times I've directly responded to the content of your posts for the twice you've just beaten around the bush after being called out and gone for personaly attacking me. How many more times you want to make yourself look like a fool?
-
Stick and stones won't change the fact you're a conceited narcissistic compulsive liar.
That makes three times I've directly responded to the content of your posts for the twice you've just beaten around the bush after being called out and gone for personaly attacking me. How many more times you want to make yourself look like a fool?
Personal attack? :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Beaten around the bush. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Looking like a fool. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
The report of the crash between the P-51 and Skyraider has been released.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/P-51D%20Mustang%20D-FBBD%20and%20%20Douglas%20AD-4N%20Skyraider%20F-AZDP%2002-12.pdf
Of note for the P-51:
Despite the damage it was possible to confirm that the rudder and elevator operating cables had remained attached to their surfaces.
-
The report of the crash between the P-51 and Skyraider has been released.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/P-51D%20Mustang%20D-FBBD%20and%20%20Douglas%20AD-4N%20Skyraider%20F-AZDP%2002-12.pdf
Of note for the P-51:
Despite the damage it was possible to confirm that the rudder and elevator operating cables had remained attached to their surfaces.
Wow, thanks for posting this! :aok
-
Control continuity does not mean they were not impeded, bound or the feel changed in such a way that your RFN (Right F&@!ing Now) decision to stay in or get out at 400' is going to include a thorough test to see what's what.
He made the right decision and walked away as testament to such.
-
Control continuity does not mean they were not impeded, bound or the feel changed in such a way that your RFN (Right F&@!ing Now) decision to stay in or get out at 400' is going to include a thorough test to see what's what.
He made the right decision and walked away as testament to such.
And it appears to me the aft fuselage is tweaked with the tail bent down slightly. Just aft of the star/bar insignia might be a tear/crack in the skin. The tail being bent down would explain the "unusual aft stick position". I would have gotten out.
-
Only one went down - according to some people, real world collision model must be faulty. :)
-
yes thats right blame the Frenchman! :D
-
The mustang pilot is lucky to not have had the stick shove back full deflection when the cables were pinched at the bulkhead.
He would not have gotten out.
-
Only one went down - according to some people, real world collision model must be faulty. :)
:rofl :aok
-
Looked to me like the skyraider pilot lost sight of the mustang and pulled into him after the mustang broke out of the formation. The mustang broke out and then rolled out of his turn, and the skyraider turned and flew into the mustang. That's what it looked like to me.
Now that it's not "speculation", here's my opinion based on the crash video and accident report.
I find it amazing that the skyraider pilot though it was "normal" to lose sight of the lead aircraft during the pitchout. The second aircraft to pitch out should have become the navigation lead aircraft in order to be able to maintain sight, while the third to pitch would transition his sight from the first aircraft to the second one when the first one pitched out, then follow the second one when it was his turn to go.
That way nobody would lose sight at any point. Terribly poor pre-flight planning, poor flight leadership, poor execution of wingman responsibilities, poor briefing, and the evaluator that checked out the skyraider pilot for the formation demo ought to get a spot evaluation of his own, focusing on formation procedures and lead/wing responsibilities including planning, briefing, in-flight, and post-flight debrief. There is no excuse for this collision. The skyraider's own statements show that he had no business being in that formation, and the mustang driver should have been very concerned about having him on his wing. Losing sight routinely during a pitchout of this sort is stupidly poor planning and execution, and it could have easily been planned, briefed, and flown in such a way as to allow the skyraider pilot to maintain visual through the entire maneuver. Stupid.
My last bit of opinion is that had the plane felt more flyable, a reasonable thing for the mustang driver to do would be to climb up a few thousand feet and do a controllability check. This is standard USAF procedure whenever structural damage is known or suspected. From a high enough altitude to lose control and still safely bail out, the plane is gradually slowed and configured for landing, until the plane either becomes very difficult to control or a reasonable landing speed is reached. If the slowest speed and configuration is unacceptable for landing, then the plane is flown to a bailout area and the pilot bails out. If the plane is controllable at a reasonable landing speed and the landing gear can be lowered properly, then the pilot returns to the nearest suitable runway (preferrably a long/wide one) and lands in front of a large crowd of emergency response personnel.
We had a midair between 2 T-37s about 9 years ago, here at Sheppard AFB. One of the T-37s lost a wing and that crew safely ejected. The other one had its nose section shoved up badly enough to make lowering the landing gear a very bad idea, so after a controllability check done above 10,000 ft and with a chase ship watching things from a safe position, they returned for a belly landing on our biggest runway.
The difference of course is that military fighters and bombers have ejection seats. Controllability checks in non-ejection seat aircraft are a bit more hairy, doubly so if the crew does not have parachutes. But the procedure still applies... Climb to a safe altitude, and then see if you can get the plane configured and slowed down enough to land before it becomes unflyable. In the case of this midair between the mustang and skyraider, obviously the stang driver didn't think the plane would fly long enough to give it a try so he quite reasonably bailed out. He hit the tail on the way out due to the plane pitching down when he released the controls, which is one of the big hazards of hopping out of planes like that. It's easy to second guess his bailout technique since the WWII standard for such a situation seems to be (based on historical accounts I've read) to climb up, slow down, jettison the canopy, roll inverted, release seat belt and fall free. But that assumes that the plane is flyable enough to do all that.
-
As a side note, I found that I could get quite a bit of pitch control in the T-37 just from the trim tab, with the control stick held frozen in place. Nose down trim deflects the trim tab UP, which is the same as moving a very small elevator up. Nose up trim runs the trim tab DOWN. So if the elevator control cables are completely stuck, you can get a small amount of pitch authority just from running the trim tab. This is very useful to know in the event that the controls ice up so badly that they can't be moved... If the trim tab is not yet frozen in place then the plane can be maneuvered by careful trim inputs until the plane is out of the icing condition.
I also read about a small cargo carrier who grossly oversped and then over-G'd his plane after blacking out due to dumping cockpit pressurization before putting on his oxygen mask. He ripped off most of the elevator and ailerons, and landed using just a tiny piece of the elevator and trim tabs that hadn't ripped off.
For you private pilots out there, give it a try... Firmly hold the stick/yoke and rudders in the exact same position while making small trim inputs. The plane will move in the opposite direction of the trim input. Right aileron trim should give a left rolling motion, nose up trim should make the plane pitch down a bit, etc. For "fun", see how much you can change the trimmed speed away from a normal cruise speed, using trim alone while holding the controls against the pressure. Do it slowly though, to avoid large control forces, and do it at a high enough altitude that you can have some altitude deviations. And don't try this while going fast... The hinges and linkages for the trim tabs are probably not designed for full deflection into the wind at high speed with a stationary control surface for lengthy periods of time. They shouldn't rip off but be careful not to exceed operating limits. We all know what happens to a mustang when the elevator trim tab gets ripped off after being forced beyond design limits...
-
The plane will move in the opposite direction of the trim input
For pitch this depends on the stab/elevator/trim system. On a Cessna 182 (early model), 180 or 185 the stab is trimmed with a jackscrew at the leading edge so up in up and down is down.
Good suggestion to try flying with a locked yoke. I had done some practice along those lines before getting a jammed elevator in a 206. Having "been there already" it took some of the stress out until I got things worked out.
-
I believe the bulkhead that was pinched had both the trim cables and the normal control cables passing through it.
-
Some interesting comments eagl, on the point of using the trim. I must practice that in case one of my skydivers wraps his chute on my tail. On the particular aircraft I fly the trim moves the whole stabiliser.
On the accident itself, clearly a lot of people will have learned or re-learned hard lessons.
This interests me: Safety Recommendation 2011-083
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority considers, where a parachute is worn as safety equipment, whether the provision of an automatic means of operating the parachute would provide a safety benefit.
Obviously this comment relates to the fact of the pilot hitting the tail on the way past. Potentially he may have been sufficiently incapacitated that he was unable to open his chute. Of course parachutes routinely had AADs (Automatic Activation Devices) these days. But I can see a serious flaw in fitting one to pilot safety chutes. AADs are designed to open the parachute if it detects a high rate descent below a certain altitude.
But that can also happen inside the aircraft. When returning with jumpers either the AADs are switched off or the rate of descent is moderated. It happened to me once, I'm not a skydiver but was in the back wearing a student rig as is the legal requirement when travelling in a jump plane. The jumpers got out and I closed the door, fortunately. The boss was flying. He's also an experienced skydiver but he forgot I was wearing a student rig and dived towards the ground as usual. Bang, my paracute opened. All very amusing and expensively embarrassing for the boss. But if the door had been open the potential for disaster was obvious.
If an AAD is fitted to a pilot's chute, there has to be some way of disabling it for normal manoeuvres yet ensuring it works when the pilot bails out but not so soon that it opens before the pilot is clear of the aircraft. Not impossible of course. But another layer of complication. Maybe not practical.
-
(http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/3/38/Coon2Hindsight06.png)
It's good to see this guy has great influence in this board.
I'd have bailed too. If I'm flying along doing my own thing and then BANG! my whole A/C is shaken and I'm right above the ground all I'd be thinking is "F*** this I'm out!" Captain Hindsight can come along later and tell me what I could've done to save my plane, maybe that will make everything better.
-
(http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/3/38/Coon2Hindsight06.png)
It's good to see this guy has great influence in this board.
I'd have bailed too. If I'm flying along doing my own thing and then BANG! my whole A/C is shaken and I'm right above the ground all I'd be thinking is "F*** this I'm out!" Captain Hindsight can come along later and tell me what I could've done to save my plane, maybe that will make everything better.
After the investigation is over, there is great value to acknowledging the investigation results, and then running through what-if hypothetical scenarios. It a pilot thing, certainly it's a fighter pilot thing, and it's enhanced by the presence of an open bar and a small group of colleagues/friends.
It might go like this...
Scenario goes exactly as it occurred, but what if... What if the mustang appeared to be willing to climb after the impact. Would there have been any opportunity to do a controllability check? Let's talk about that. How high would be "safe"? Would the potential for landing the plane outweigh the possibility that even if the plane seemed flyable, it might simply come apart at any moment? There were a couple dozen similar aircraft with pilots with thousands of hours of experience. Would the presence of a chase ship have led to more, or less, effort into trying to land? What about a belly landing, if the hydraulics were gone and the plane could be slowed to a reasonable touchdown speed? The stang appears to naturally pitch up at very high speeds so would it become too nose-heavy to fly at low speed, or vice versa? Would any chase pilot have the experience to know the answer, or know, from looking at the external damage, know what was going on inside the plane with the control linkages?
So it might go like that. It's not second guessing the pilot... The investigation already did that and we can form our opinion about both the ramifications of the FACTS from the investigation, as well as quibble about the conclusions drawn from those facts. For example, my opinion is that the skyraider pilot royally screwed the pooch and since in his own statements he said he thought it was normal and OK to go blind during the pitchout, he never should have been in the formation to begin with. Further, I question both the evaluator pilot who certified the skyraider pilot for the flyby just before the event, and the investigator's failure to place blame on the pre-flight planning/briefing that led to a scenario where both mishap pilots lost sight of each other yet were still required to maneuver in relation to each other. So those are my own conclusions. No second-guessing the actions of the pilots after the mishap occurred, not in the slightest bit.
But in my experience, this mishap was both preventable and forseeable, and I think that both the skyraider's failure to maintain sight and the mustang pilot's failure to properly plan and brief the maneuver should both be considered causal.
Further, I think there is value to what-if the scenario without saying the word "should", to brainstorm about alternative actions both before and after the mishap. If I was the flight lead and that type of formation pitchout was pre-determined by someone else, how would I have planned and briefed it better? If I was the skyraider pilot, what techniques could I have used to keep sight? If I was the mustang driver and the situation had any number of minor variations that didn't lead to an immediate bailout decision, what actions would be reasonable to take in order to see if the plane could be safely recovered?
Those things are worth talking about, because they might either prevent future mishaps or aid in handling other mishaps in the future. But second-guessing the actions after the mishap had occurred, saying that one or both pilots "should" have done something different? You won't hear that sort of nonsense from me. I'm glad they lived and from that perspective they both did everything perfectly right after the collision.
-
And as many (most?) other pilots know, any pilot could have been in either plane at several points in their flying careers. Back as a young Lt I personally over-G'd the snot out of an F-15E to avoid a collision that would have been my fault, I had at least 2 other near-midairs that weren't really my "fault" yet would have come down to a failure to clear my flight path (the catch-all cause whenever someone runs into something in flight), and in the training business I've taken the controls from a student pilot at the very last instant before collision became unavoidable, leading to abrupt maneuvers being required to avoid a collision. Any one of those times, if my judgement had been wrong, could have been a midair. So I'm not saying that these pilots are any different from any other pilot. But I sure as heck do want to learn from their mistakes to decrease the chance that next time it's me riding the chute down.
-
I was being dismissive of looking back and considering how different COA's could have changed the outcome. I know how important hindsight is because it allows everyone to learn from a few people's mistakes. Anybody in the military knows about the videos that play out in slow-motion things going wrong and later describe what could've been done differently to avoid those incidents again. Some of the previous responses in this thread struck a nerve though.
-
how many p51s are left in flying condition? at least 2 have been lost this year alone :(.
-
I believe there are more P51s in show and flyable condition than there were 30 years ago.