Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message ...
:
: ".Blueskies." wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Dave Stadt" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
: : news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
: : I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
: : airshow at all.
: :
: : And the money for the fuel they receive comes from the Warbirds division
: not
: : from the EAA as some believe.
: :
: :
:
: Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?
:
:
: Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.
:
:

Been there, same questions. If you know the answer show it...thanks!

The Warbirds division is still a part of the EAA.

Because the EAA refuses to release any financial information, you'll have a
tough time convincing me that the Warbirds division does not get funding
from the EAA parent organization.


"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:SuAzg.91

Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?


Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.

I would support the elimination of the non-jet powered warbirds. Being
one of the (apparently) rare non-career GA pilots under 30, I certainly
can't relate to them at all.

I am interested in the jet-powered warbirds. Show me the latest and
greatest in technology, but planes from the 50s and before... please.
I can appreciate history, but to be honest, am not interested in
warbirds (or any plane, really) from my grandfather's era.

Show me an F-22, a Lancair IV-P, or an SR22. THAT's what gets me
excited! However, everyone has different tastes and I can appreciate
that some do enjoy the antique planes for some reason... just not me.

--Dan


Jim Macklin wrote:
I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
airshow at all.



"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
| I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+
flight hours, I've
| never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999.
Oshkosh Tower:
| "BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe
put it on the
| numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right
downwind for
| runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
|
| (Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what
a warbird arrival
| is like."
|
| The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The
copilot screams,
| "Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see
two wings perhaps
| fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly
had a midair with a
| Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little
b@$+@rd to get
| out of our way."
|
| I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The
only reason that
| there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a
warbird and wanted to
| invite his cronies.
|
| Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets
gas money except
| the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from?
Your inflated
| entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid
idiots to aggrandize
| World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.
|
| So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has
more money than
| good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway
in front of his
| aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort
of payback for
| this sort of stupidity.
|
| Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
|
| Jim
|
|
|

"Dan" wrote in message
ups.com...
I would support the elimination of the non-jet powered warbirds. Being
one of the (apparently) rare non-career GA pilots under 30, I certainly
can't relate to them at all.

Meanwhile, I can't relate to Lancairs, Cirrus, etc.

If there are no warbirds, the airshow doesn't get my money but if I see a
B-17 or a Spitfire beyond the fence, I'm there. Fascinating how people's
preferences vary so much.

-c

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
airshow at all.

I don't go to airshows that don't feature warbirds.

-c

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:44:32 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
airshow at all.

When I go I go to see the high performance home builts and the war
bird. To me one is as important as the other when I go. Different
interests and I serously doubt I'll be building a warbird, but
still...

If you can't count rivets it ain't close.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

As an ex warbird pilot, I'd be the first one to admit that money and
horsepower don't necessarily mix, but I'd also tell you that some of the
finest pilots I've ever known were warbird pilots.
Aircraft accidents are no place to start generalizing about specific
communities. What happened out there today was a tragedy. ALL accidents are
tragedies. Hell, I lost five friends in ONE air racing accident in a
mid-air.
You have cowboys in all branches and phases of aviation, and Oshkosh can
bring out the best and the worst in everybody. The stress alone involving
aircraft movement at the show is tremendous. This means EVERYBODY involved
should be on their toes and doing their job at top form, be they pilots or
ground personnel.
As for the warbird pilots; I agree that the airplanes can be a real problem
in the wrong hands. So can any other airplane for that matter. Mid-airs are
something that absolutely has to be a prime consideration for everyone
attending Oshkosh, warbird or breezy!
My over riding concern about Oshkosh is that something is learned from all
this and corrective measures taken to keep things in line out there. It's a
great show, with wonderful equipment and some extremely talented people
taking part in it every year.
Finally, as an old air show and warbird pilot myself, I have to tell you
that in an environment like Oshkosh, the possibility of an accident
happening is leaps and bounds above the norm, and unless EVERYBODY out there
from the people running it, through the pilots attending it, all the way
down to the newest line boy are tuned in solidly to the flight safety issue,
what happened today will almost certainly happen again.
Let's hope it's a wake up call for EVERYBODY!!!!
Dudley Henriques


"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
"BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."

(Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird
arrival is like."

The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
"Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with
a Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to
get out of our way."

I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted
to invite his cronies.

Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets gas money except
the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from? Your inflated
entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid idiots to aggrandize
World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.

So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
this sort of stupidity.

Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

Jim

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's the
RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or the
Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at the
airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.

Ironically, if I were to have to call out the group of pilots who cause the
most trouble around here, it'd be the people flying experimentals, and
primarily homebuilts. Based on that, using your train of thought, I'd want
all experimentals banned from Oshkosh.

I'm thinking that probably wouldn't go over too well, though.

As far as the warbirds themselves, IMHO while there may indeed be a general
attitude problem among them, the real problem is attitude problems
generally. From the various descriptions I've read here alone of events at
Oshkosh, never mind elsewhere, it's clear that the real issue is that
failing to conform to procedures and fly safely is basically condoned.

Would it be a lot of work for the FAA to file actions against each and every
pilot who violates basic safety common sense (the FAA loves 91.13...they
could get to use it a lot at Oshkosh), FARs, and procedures outlined in the
NOTAM? Damn straight it would be. The first year. For that matter, they
need not go after everyone...just triage the offenders, and go after the
worst. Most important: make sure each and every certificate action is VERY
well publicized.

It might take a year or two for pilots to figure out that there just is no
room for screwing around, but I'm sure they would. Each year, there would
be fewer and fewer pilots who need reprimands, and on average the severity
of the incidents should reduce as well. Problems will never be eliminated,
but it sounds as though right now there's a LOT of low-hanging fruit that
needs to be harvested.

Are warbirds a problem? Well...perhaps. But it's not like anyone seems to
be taking the safety issues seriously generally. IMHO, it's a bit premature
to be banning specific classes of airplanes and pilots from Oshkosh, when
huge strides in safety could be made overall by focusing on the BAD pilots
first (and if the majority of the bad pilots are flying warbirds, well then
you help get rid of the warbirds without actually explicitly banning them
).

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's the
RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or the
Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at the
airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've
been watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month.
Nothing looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we
come back from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a
straight-in landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as
you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless
you consider formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side
to be inherently dangerous.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's
the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or
the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at
the airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've been
watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month. Nothing
looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we come back
from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a straight-in
landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as you announce
what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless you consider
formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side to be
inherently dangerous.

An approach flown from an initial overhead break has a practical side as
well. In the P51 for example, flying a regular pattern with reduced manifold
pressure can really foul up the plugs on you.
An overhead approach allows a tight in circular pattern that can be flown
with the power up in the range that keeps the plugs clean; allows for better
visibility, and allows for easier positioning without losing the runway
under the nose.
This doesn't mean that pilots flying high performance airplanes should
arbitrarily use these approaches without prior approval or radio contact to
clear first. It just means that in high performance airplanes, this type of
approach is requested for practical reasons by practical pilots who know
exactly what they are doing and have no wish to be showing off or violating
anyone's airspace.
Dudley Henriques
Ex P51 pilot........among others :-))