P-51D

David CL Francis wrote:

Perhaps the starting point should be to ask what are your objectives?
Why do people listen to opera? Why do they watch sport? Why do they read
novels? What are legitimate activities for human beings?

There's a very simple explanation to all of this.

Peter D. is a Vulcan.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
That last sentence above does not make sense to me. We did not build them
to be destroyed, we hoped they would not be, but correctly realised that
many would be destroyed.

It's hard to convey a complex idea in a short paragraph. Conversely, a long
paragraph is likely to go unread. What to do?

Anyway, if it clarifies things a bit, with respect to the numbers of fighter
planes made, they were manufactured with a clear understanding that a large
number of them would be destroyed. The whole point of war is to destroy
things and people. That is, that may not be the desired end, but that
certainly is the chosen means to that end.

It is obviously not important to you to preserve them but it is to many
people. So what? Both points of view are valid.

I agree. My problem is with people who criticize others who happen to not
share their belief. Statements like saying that a person is irresponsible
for flying a P-51 in an air race, for example. It's one thing for a person
to take the time and effort to ensure that a P-51 is preserved for posterity
as best they can. It's quite another for them to try to take away *another*
person's right to use *their* P-51 as they see fit.

[...]
That's life and the human condition. To me tolerance of other people
foibles is something good. But that is probably irrational as well.

Most of what defines humanity is, in my opinion, irrational. I find
behavior of "lesser" animals to be much more rational and predictable than
that of human beings. My point is that humans would do well to recognize
their own irrationality, and not pretend that they have some logical
justification for their biases, especially when they are attempting to
exercise those biases to restrict the freedoms of someone else.

Of all people who ought to understand this, it is pilots flying in the US.
It doesn't surprise me that many don't, of course. That's part and parcel
of the irrationality that defines us all. But that doesn't stop me from
observing and commenting on it.

Pete

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter D. is a Vulcan.

I wish. Life would be so much easier.

I started this thread in an aattempt to find out what caused the P-51
accident the 9th of July. So far no additional data except what was in
the NTSB report.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:58:14 -0500, Big John
wrote:

Any further info on this Heavy Iron accident?

Big John
````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````

NTSB

On July 9, 2005, at 1020 central daylight time, a North American
P-51D, N10607, collided with the terrain following a loss of engine
power on takeoff from runway 18 (3,773 feet by 60 feet, concrete) at
the Peterson Municipal Airport (K57), Tarkio, Missouri. The airline
transport rated pilot was seriously injured. The airplane was
substantially damaged. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91
personal flight was operating in visual meteorological conditions
without a flight plan. The flight was originating at the time of the
accident.

The pilot reported that he experienced a total loss of engine power on
takeoff. He stated he banked to the left to avoid the 30 foot dike off
the end of the runway. He stated that when he banked the airplane, the
left wing contacted the ground. The airplane then rocked to the right
and the right wing contacted the ground prior to the airplane coming
to rest.

Big John:
My sources have no information as to the cause of the accident. It was
an older engine, however the owner had a reputation for good care.
Vlado

Vlado

First thing I thought of was you when I heard about the accident.
Thank the Lord you weren't involved.

By 'old' do you mean years or hours? After WWII we changed engines
around 300 hours +/-. Some we changed under 100 hours and others a
little over 300. Can't remember any going to 400.

One problem we had was internal coolant seals leaking either from
drying out or ????

They gave each Squadron 5 attrition birds and we rotated them through
the fleet each month. This let us use short time pickling vs long term
pickle/unpickle. Setting for 30 days without flying, a lot of things
would go bad and take extra hours and parts to get flyable again.

What does the average private War Bird now fly a year? 25-50 hours?

Thinking about why engine quit at 50-100 feet:

Bad gas (Jet A)

Taking off on empty tank?

Is there a single point of failure that would take out both mags? I
forget how they are driven.

Looking at the pictures Jay sent me, to repair will probably take a
wing, engine, prop, horizontal stab and massive repair where radiators
were torn out destroying a large section of bottom of fuselage.

Lots of TLC and devotion to that airframe.

Tnx for info.

Fly safe.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````

On 20 Jul 2005 21:09:19 -0700, "vlado" wrote:

Big John:
My sources have no information as to the cause of the accident. It was
an older engine, however the owner had a reputation for good care.
Vlado

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter D. is a Vulcan.

I wish. Life would be so much easier.


Except every 7 years or so...when you have an unstoppable drive to swim
upstream and spawn. ;^)

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ken" wrote in message
...
Most parents would mourn the death of their young child. By your
logic, such mourning would be "irrational"

It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that
is, irrational) process.

I suspect not. I suspect it has strong evolutionary origins:

mourning..feeling badly about a dead offspring - tells parents that keeping
offspring alive is a Good Thing (tm).

I suspect it's entirely rational.



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Jose wrote:

It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that
is, irrational) process.

However, attepmting to prevent something which would cause one to mourn
is entirely rational.

Jose

Jose,

Exactly.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Except every 7 years or so...when you have an unstoppable drive to swim
upstream and spawn. ;^)

It would only happen every 7 years? Even better.