Mustang Collision Oshkosh

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

Immediately after I posted asking for patience and restraint on the P51
thread, I received an email from a good friend who is a P51 owner and
active in the flight safety section of the P51 community.
He sent me the information I will be posting here under a separate
header concerning the NTSB preliminary report on the accident.
He asked that I post the information for all to read.
Hopefully it will answer some of the questions.
Dudley Henriques

Gattman wrote:
"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.

"Newps" wrote in message . ..
His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.

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



All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur built...

On Aug 3, 4:52?pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
"Newps" wrote in messagenews:gO2dnR1x4JsTPS_bnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@bresn an.com...
His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.

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

All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur built...

The A model Mustang was a homebuilt aircraft, there were a few mustang
bits, but the majority was built by Gary Beck, and was registared as a
amateur built aircraft. The Ultimate homebuilt.

" wrote in message oups.com...
On Aug 3, 4:52?pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
"Newps" wrote in messagenews:gO2dnR1x4JsTPS_bnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@bresn an.com...
His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.

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

All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur built...

The A model Mustang was a homebuilt aircraft, there were a few mustang
bits, but the majority was built by Gary Beck, and was registared as a
amateur built aircraft. The Ultimate homebuilt.



Yes. ???

The A model Mustang was a homebuilt aircraft, there were a few mustang
bits, but the majority was built by Gary Beck, and was registared as a
amateur built aircraft. The Ultimate homebuilt.

Yes. ???

I don't understand your "yes" in this response.

What was it that you were saying, for us slow to catch on?
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.

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



All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur
built...

Not all of them, some are "Limited" category.

"Dale" wrote

Not all of them, some are "Limited" category.

I have forgotten what the limited category gets you. Is that for racing?
--
Jim in NC