Mustang Collision Oshkosh

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

I believe I made it clear in an earlier post in this thread that close
in staggered section landings with co-speed touchdowns are fairly common
in nose wheel aircraft like the F15. It's only in tail wheel fighters
like the Mustang where close in section landings are an issue.
Dudley Henriques

Bush wrote:
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

Bush wrote:

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

I flew an F-15 yesterday. It's fun, although the g-forces really do wear
you out after awhile. I had a flameout, could not get my engines
restarted, and had to do a deadstick landing onto a 1500 ft grass strip
runway from 50 miles away. My seat was really wet after that maneuver.

Mxsmanic wrote:
[ Elided in the name of good taste. ]

Organization: Trolls, Inc.

You do realize that all you are accomplishing is to prove many of
mxsmanic's detractors are infantile and have thin skins?