Mustang Collision Oshkosh

"Don Homuth" dhomuthoneatcomcast.net wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
wrote:


I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
error.

Formation Landings should be for show purposes -- like the Blue Angels
and Thunderbirds.

Which is, come to think of it, what this landing apparently was as
well.

Landing in trail is the safer way, if what you're concerned about is
airplanes and lives.

My thoughts exactly. Like I said I hated formation landings.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

Danny Deger wrote:
"Don Homuth" dhomuthoneatcomcast.net wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
wrote:


I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
error.

Formation Landings should be for show purposes -- like the Blue Angels
and Thunderbirds.

Which is, come to think of it, what this landing apparently was as
well.

Landing in trail is the safer way, if what you're concerned about is
airplanes and lives.

My thoughts exactly. Like I said I hated formation landings.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

With nose wheel airplanes, stacked laterally at co-speed through the
landing with no stack down for the trailer on final I never had a
problem with section landings. Of course there was always the ever
present potential for a tire blowout on the lead at touchdown.
(hopefully the tire away from me :-)
Never did section landings in prop fighters and never recommended them
either. Bad juju, especially in Mustangs. Much better to have at least
several thousand feet between touchdowns in these airplanes.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ...

With nose wheel airplanes, stacked laterally at co-speed through the landing with no stack down for the trailer on
final I never had a problem with section landings. Of course there was always the ever present potential for a tire
blowout on the lead at touchdown. (hopefully the tire away from me :-)
Never did section landings in prop fighters and never recommended them either. Bad juju, especially in Mustangs. Much
better to have at least several thousand feet between touchdowns in these airplanes.
Dudley Henriques


The latest pictures to crop up do seem to show that they were not planning a section landing...

Blueskies wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ...
With nose wheel airplanes, stacked laterally at co-speed through the landing with no stack down for the trailer on
final I never had a problem with section landings. Of course there was always the ever present potential for a tire
blowout on the lead at touchdown. (hopefully the tire away from me :-)
Never did section landings in prop fighters and never recommended them either. Bad juju, especially in Mustangs. Much
better to have at least several thousand feet between touchdowns in these airplanes.
Dudley Henriques


The latest pictures to crop up do seem to show that they were not planning a section landing...


I wouldn't go by the pictures. They tell a lot, but wouldn't indicate
that assumption to me at all.
The ATC or the tape from the com trailer will tell that story. My gut
tells me that Gerry Beck was WAY to good a stick to have been that close
in on the D unless he wanted to be that close in with the D on final,
but as with all speculation, I could be way off base.
I do know there would be no way in hell that I would have been that
close on final behind the D unless I had planned to be that close. There
is just way too much time through an approach like this one was to make
any spacing adjustments necessary to maintain nose to tail separation.
Again, my gut tells me that if Beck wanted to space wider longitudinally
he could have done that easily.
It's all a guessing game at this point, even for me. Having flown these
airplanes myself, I naturally have gut feelings about what Beck was
seeing at different points during his approach, but I can't be certain
what was planned and what wasn't.
I can say with some degree of certainty that I would be absolutely
amazed to find out that Gerry Beck allowed his airplane to close on the
D the way it did had he been planning a normally spaced approach and
landing. I just think he was too good to have allowed that to happen.
Something obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was
happening.
I learned a long time ago that what seems obvious initially in a crash
like this one sometimes turns out to be way off base.
Dudley Henriques

Something obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was
happening.

Yes. The second pilot screwed up royally. Of course we can wait a
year for the NTSB to come to that conclusion.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
Something obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was
happening.

Yes. The second pilot screwed up royally. Of course we can wait a
year for the NTSB to come to that conclusion.

Ron Lee


The fact that someone screwed up or didn't screw up isn't what takes all
the time to figure out in an aircraft accident. That part of it,
especially in an accident like this one, is usually solved fairly
quickly. To be quite frank, I'd be surprised to discover that the NTSB
didn't have the answer to this one as we speak.
What takes a bit of time is going into the P51 and warbird demonstration
communities and implementing the changes, education, and re-education
necessary to increase safety awareness generally.

The easy part can be the discovery that somebody made a mistake, or
"screwed up". The hard part is discovering WHY that someone made that
mistake or "screwed up", then finding a way to help prevent it from
happening again.
It's the WHY that takes the year; at least this has been my experience
dealing with aviation accidents, flight safety, and prevention.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

I can say with some degree of certainty that I would be absolutely amazed
to find out that Gerry Beck allowed his airplane to close on the D the
way it did had he been planning a normally spaced approach and landing. I
just think he was too good to have allowed that to happen. Something
obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was happening.

Question: If they were active military aircraft they would more likely have
same powerplants, same construction, same mechanics and maintenance policies
and all the things that would make them behave similarly at identical pitch
and power settings. Is this correct?

If so, is it possible that since the two aircraft were manufactured and
maintained separately, there could have been subtle performance variations
that made it more possible for the rear plane to overtake the other when the
approach configuration is the same? There's a pretty big difference
between a scratch-built A model and a D (that's already crashed once) is
there not?

-c

Gattman wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

I can say with some degree of certainty that I would be absolutely amazed
to find out that Gerry Beck allowed his airplane to close on the D the
way it did had he been planning a normally spaced approach and landing. I
just think he was too good to have allowed that to happen. Something
obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was happening.

Question: If they were active military aircraft they would more likely have
same powerplants, same construction, same mechanics and maintenance policies
and all the things that would make them behave similarly at identical pitch
and power settings. Is this correct?

Not exactly. The A has an Allison V1710 power plant and the D had a
Merlin V1650-7. This shouldn't have been a factor in this accident
anyway. The A, because of the canopy construction, in my opinion anyway,
would have a lower visual cue factor on approach than the D and this in
my opinion could have been a relative factor.

If so, is it possible that since the two aircraft were manufactured and
maintained separately, there could have been subtle performance variations
that made it more possible for the rear plane to overtake the other when the
approach configuration is the same? There's a pretty big difference
between a scratch-built A model and a D (that's already crashed once) is
there not?

-c



Not knowing exactly what was done to either airplane prior to the
accident I would not attempt to comment on this, but my gut feeling is
no. The factors you have stated would appear to me not to have been
relevant.

Let me add this addendum to this thread at this time please, if everyone
will bear with me and try to understand that what I'm about to say isn't
meant as a put down to anyone here.
There is a lot of idle speculation going on about this accident; much of
it by well meaning people in the General Aviation community who all
believe they have a clue, a cause, or an angle on what happened based on
this video tape or that bit of information about the P51 in general. I
myself, having some degree of experience in the Mustang have offered
some comment on the thread.
I am in contact with flight safety people in the P51 community as we
speak who are actively engaged as we speak in aiding the investigation.
Naturally the NTSB will have the final answers to the many questions
being tossed around by us here. May I respectfully suggest that because
this accident is so recent, and that as a result of this, there are
families and friends in the P51 community whose lives have been terribly
affected by this tragedy; that all of take a step back and let the NTSB
do it's job and let this thread go.
Please understand as I tried to say before, that I'm not blaming anyone.
I have posted on this subject with the rest of you.
Asking for this in the name of the P51 community at large, and thanking
those of you who understand and will attempt to comply.
Thanks gang.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

The A, because of the canopy construction, in my opinion anyway, would have
a lower visual cue factor on approach than the D and this in my opinion
could have been a relative factor.

Fascinating. Thanks, Dudley.

May I respectfully suggest that because this accident is so recent, and
that as a result of this, there are families and friends in the P51
community whose lives have been terribly affected by this tragedy;

Hopefully, on the off-chance that any of them lurk here or come across the
discussion, they know that the people who
discuss it here understand their loss and hope they are able to overcome the
tragedy.

At the risk of sounding callous, when my time comes, I hope it's doing
something huge like flying a P-51 instead of driving to work, crossing the
street or surfing the internet.

Asking for this in the name of the P51 community at large,

"The P51 community at large." As far as I'm concerned, if you even make it
IN to "the P51 community" you've won the game. Thanks again for your
comments.

-c

His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.

http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html




Dudley Henriques wrote:


Not knowing exactly what was done to either airplane prior to the
accident I would not attempt to comment on this, but my gut feeling is
no. The factors you have stated would appear to me not to have been
relevant.