Mustang Collision Oshkosh

"Big John" wrote in message ...
Blueskies

Tnx for clip.

From what I could see, #1 was flat and made a wheel landing.

#2 was high and you could see the prop blades turning which meant he
was at idle or very close to it tryig to slow down and lose the excess
altitude.

From what I then saw, #2 overran #1 and at the last minute he tried to
go around and put power on and pulled the nose up. About that time his
right wing underan the left stablizer of #1 and that threw #2 into a
steep right bank with up elevator and high power.

From that point it was preordained and the crash resulted.

This may be wrong but is as I saw it in the clip.



#2 right wing under the left stab also explains #1 pitching down...

It is good to be able to examine this sort of accident with this level of detail...may save someone some day...

Dan D.

Blueskies

If you look close at clip, you will see the main gear hit and then
bounced off runway. Immediately after the main gear hit the tail wheel
went rapidally down and hit the runway. The tail going down so fast is
further indication that the pilot put in up elevator to go around and
the power then pulled the nose to the high attitude that we all could
see.

I can see from clip that elevator was in an up position as nose
started up.

Then the overrun and the wing tip and elevator hitting lead to the
rest of the accident sequence.

If anyone can shoot me down have at it. I'm just looking at what I can
see and making my personal opinion from lots of accident investigation
experience with heavy iron.

Dudley

Come on in and give us your opinion now afer running the clip multiple
times.

I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
Guess he is one of the trolls active here ( I'll put him on the
list.

Big John

*************************************************

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:05:02 -0400, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Big John" wrote in message ...
Blueskies

Tnx for clip.

From what I could see, #1 was flat and made a wheel landing.

#2 was high and you could see the prop blades turning which meant he
was at idle or very close to it tryig to slow down and lose the excess
altitude.

From what I then saw, #2 overran #1 and at the last minute he tried to
go around and put power on and pulled the nose up. About that time his
right wing underan the left stablizer of #1 and that threw #2 into a
steep right bank with up elevator and high power.

From that point it was preordained and the crash resulted.

This may be wrong but is as I saw it in the clip.



#2 right wing under the left stab also explains #1 pitching down...

It is good to be able to examine this sort of accident with this level of detail...may save someone some day...

Dan D.

Big John wrote:


Dudley

Come on in and give us your opinion now afer running the clip multiple
times.

I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
Guess he is one of the trolls active here ( I'll put him on the
list.

Big John

John;

I think I'm seeing basically the same thing as you are. I believe Beck
instinctively applied hard back pressure just before impact, catching
the stabilizer on the way up. The one thing that is a bit strange is the
violent roll to the right. Had he hit the throttle hard as he pulled
back, that roll should have been to the left. The only explanation I can
see that explains the direction of the roll is his right wingtip
catching the stabilizer as he pulled back on the stick. Doinf that hard
enough might very well have caused exactly what happened.
Just guessing here of course, but I think there's at least a good chance
that Beck might have misjudged the drag on a 51 touching down with 50
degrees of barn doors hanging off the trailing edge of the wings. I
would also be interested to know if Beck was landing with the same flap
setting as the D in front of him.
Judging from how close they were, Beck might have lost the D as it's
drag after touchdown started it back toward him under his nose, or at
least partially under his nose as he started to flare the A.. I honestly
believe this is what must have happened. The visual cues as I'm sure you
remember, are changing during the flare in a Mustang. You can see fairly
well over the nose on final but as you begin the flare transition, the
eye naturally goes to the lower corners of the windshield where you look
to keep the airplane aligned on the runway. Beck was landing on the left
side so his corner visuals were skewed from what he normally would be
looking for; equal parts of the runway showing on each side in the lower
corners of the windshield. What he would be getting flaring left side
would be the grass expanse with no direct reference line on his left
side and the runway showing wide on the right side with perhaps a piece
of Odegard's 51 showing in his immediate visual cues. As his nose came
up, the drag slowing the D and his own excess airspeed into the flare
would have ganged up on him. I believe we saw the results of all this.
I'm of course not certain, but from what I saw, this would be a
reasonable scenario were I giving a safety lecture on what I was seeing
on the film.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley

We're saying almost the same thing. Maybe the same just using slightly
different words.

As you say, I'm almost sure Bech lost sight of #1 as he had full wing
over lap with initial contact. If he could have seen #1 then he could
easily have slid out to left and probably cleard lead.

People keep talking about formation landing. There is no evidence of
that. #2 had normal but close spacing on #1 and after not controling
his airspeed closed to the impact point.

Probably need to put this to bed and wait for NTSB results.

Bottom line of course is it's a bloody shame. As the Brits would say.

Big John
**********************************************

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:27:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:



Big John wrote:


Dudley

Come on in and give us your opinion now afer running the clip multiple
times.

I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
Guess he is one of the trolls active here ( I'll put him on the
list.

Big John

John;

I think I'm seeing basically the same thing as you are. I believe Beck
instinctively applied hard back pressure just before impact, catching
the stabilizer on the way up. The one thing that is a bit strange is the
violent roll to the right. Had he hit the throttle hard as he pulled
back, that roll should have been to the left. The only explanation I can
see that explains the direction of the roll is his right wingtip
catching the stabilizer as he pulled back on the stick. Doinf that hard
enough might very well have caused exactly what happened.
Just guessing here of course, but I think there's at least a good chance
that Beck might have misjudged the drag on a 51 touching down with 50
degrees of barn doors hanging off the trailing edge of the wings. I
would also be interested to know if Beck was landing with the same flap
setting as the D in front of him.
Judging from how close they were, Beck might have lost the D as it's
drag after touchdown started it back toward him under his nose, or at
least partially under his nose as he started to flare the A.. I honestly
believe this is what must have happened. The visual cues as I'm sure you
remember, are changing during the flare in a Mustang. You can see fairly
well over the nose on final but as you begin the flare transition, the
eye naturally goes to the lower corners of the windshield where you look
to keep the airplane aligned on the runway. Beck was landing on the left
side so his corner visuals were skewed from what he normally would be
looking for; equal parts of the runway showing on each side in the lower
corners of the windshield. What he would be getting flaring left side
would be the grass expanse with no direct reference line on his left
side and the runway showing wide on the right side with perhaps a piece
of Odegard's 51 showing in his immediate visual cues. As his nose came
up, the drag slowing the D and his own excess airspeed into the flare
would have ganged up on him. I believe we saw the results of all this.
I'm of course not certain, but from what I saw, this would be a
reasonable scenario were I giving a safety lecture on what I was seeing
on the film.
Dudley Henriques

Big John wrote:
Dudley

We're saying almost the same thing. Maybe the same just using slightly
different words.

As you say, I'm almost sure Bech lost sight of #1 as he had full wing
over lap with initial contact. If he could have seen #1 then he could
easily have slid out to left and probably cleard lead.

People keep talking about formation landing. There is no evidence of
that. #2 had normal but close spacing on #1 and after not controling
his airspeed closed to the impact point.

Probably need to put this to bed and wait for NTSB results.

Bottom line of course is it's a bloody shame. As the Brits would say.

Big John
**********************************************

The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
active runway.

Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:

The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
active runway.

Dudley Henriques

...addendum;

I would only add to this that as far as I am aware, section landings as
the military has used them in the past, with 2 aircraft landing
staggered on each side of the runway with CLOSE IN SPACING, is NOT...and
I repeat...NOT a recommended procedure by any standard I know of in
present use by associations and organizations dealing with formation
flight safety with direct relationship to the P51 Mustang.
Dudley Henriques

We do this daily at FMH in F-15's.

Have a great one!

Bush

"They'll let anyone fly 'em" John Travolta

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:47:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:



Dudley Henriques wrote:

The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
active runway.

Dudley Henriques

..addendum;

I would only add to this that as far as I am aware, section landings as
the military has used them in the past, with 2 aircraft landing
staggered on each side of the runway with CLOSE IN SPACING, is NOT...and
I repeat...NOT a recommended procedure by any standard I know of in
present use by associations and organizations dealing with formation
flight safety with direct relationship to the P51 Mustang.
Dudley Henriques

Big John wrote:
I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
Guess he is one of the trolls active here ( I'll put him on the
list.



Mx is indeed THE troll here, but I think you were/are talking to an imposter
Mx who has been making many bogus trolls in the name of the troll on several
threads, and this one wants to indulge in bull**** games over the death of a
pilot! Original Mx is a sophmoric jerk, but the imposter is an insensitive
asshole. Who ever it is should have the fleas of a thousand camels infest
his crotch, followed up with fireants.

"flypaper" wrote:

Mx is indeed THE troll here, but I think you were/are talking to an
imposter Mx who has been making many bogus trolls in the name of the
troll on several threads, and this one wants to indulge in bull****
games over the death of a pilot! Original Mx is a sophmoric jerk, but
the imposter is an insensitive asshole. Who ever it is should have
the fleas of a thousand camels infest his crotch, followed up with
fireants.

How dare you call a rated P-51 pilot, AME, pharmacologist, astronaut, and
breast feeding expert a troll. If you don't like my posts, killfile me. I
dare you!

Mx

Thank you. After this reply your gone. Please do me the same and put
me in your killfile.

Big John
************************************************** *******

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:37:42 +0200 (CEST), Mxsmanic
wrote:

"flypaper" wrote:

Mx is indeed THE troll here, but I think you were/are talking to an
imposter Mx who has been making many bogus trolls in the name of the
troll on several threads, and this one wants to indulge in bull****
games over the death of a pilot! Original Mx is a sophmoric jerk, but
the imposter is an insensitive asshole. Who ever it is should have
the fleas of a thousand camels infest his crotch, followed up with
fireants.

How dare you call a rated P-51 pilot, AME, pharmacologist, astronaut, and
breast feeding expert a troll. If you don't like my posts, killfile me. I
dare you!