Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
I've also seem this done on a VFR flight at a towered airport

I don't doubt that at all. I've seen similar approaches used in a variety
of places. But the "official definition", such as it is, concerns only a
specific IFR situation.

I never said that the procedure itself was IFR-only, and in fact I would not
be surprised if it occurs primarily during VFR flights. But the fact
remains that there are a variety of pilots out there flying a variety of
similar, but not identical versions of "overhead" maneuvers, using the term
"overhead" to describe them. Some comply with the "official" definition
described in the IFR procedure you referenced (other than not being part of
an IFR procedure, not during an IFR flight, not at a towered airport, and
not with a designated overhead maneuver pattern), some do not.

Pete

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Indeed. I find the interpretation, quoted in your reply, of my comments to
be bizarre, considering that this whole subthread started as my response
pointing out that these "stupid pilot tricks" are NOT limited to warbirds,
and that warbirds should NOT be singled out as the sole offenders.

For someone to come along and think that I was saying that this is a
warbird-only problem is entirely backwards, and shows a complete lack of
understanding of any of my comments.

Pete

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:08:07 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:


I'm not sure it's all that much better. Is there a standard for where
you let down to pick up the 45 entry? Which way you turn? And I
swear, the last time I flew into South County, when I made my turn to
get on the 45, about a mile out, there was a plane on downwind out
there. I'd heard him on the radio, but I didn't expect him that far
out.

Don

I was taught the midfield crosswind for use at uncontrolled airports
as a means to determine the windsock position and runway indicator.
We crossed over at 500 ft. above pattern, could have been 1000 ft. and
reduced power as we crossed the runway we descended for 1 minute then
entered a 270 degree turn in whatever direction put us on the proper
downwind.

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,
if not decades. What we also see is that a certified product from
Cessna in either category is years away.


Cessna's VLJ, Mustang, comes to mind. We think we'll do this - a few years
later, there it is.

The giggle I had at OSH was Cessna reps stating their good looking new
Cessna LSA would do 120 knots.

Hearing that, I'm calling it ...."The Cessna Killer."


Montblack

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers
ASK
me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)

All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non
sequitur.
(that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and
plug
fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on
separate
pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side
seems
to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right
into
somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm
sure,
knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it
HAS
happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
pilot with an once of brains.
So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what
the
poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are
routinely
flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the
rule;
not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a
while,
as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his
typing
War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe
me
gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with
warbirds
:-))
Dudley


I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Peter



I think the gist of the negative posters comment was directed to pilots in
general who make unauthorized overheads. Not quite sure how the warbird
community got involved; probably because of the other comment in this thread
being negative about people who fly warbirds.
In all fairness, the thread creep is so bad in this thread that it would
behoove everybody to read it from the beginning before getting upset with
anyone else :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
I've also seem this done on a VFR flight at a towered airport

I don't doubt that at all. I've seen similar approaches used in a variety
of places. But the "official definition", such as it is, concerns only a
specific IFR situation.

I never said that the procedure itself was IFR-only, and in fact I would
not
be surprised if it occurs primarily during VFR flights. But the fact
remains that there are a variety of pilots out there flying a variety of
similar, but not identical versions of "overhead" maneuvers, using the
term
"overhead" to describe them. Some comply with the "official" definition
described in the IFR procedure you referenced (other than not being part
of
an IFR procedure, not during an IFR flight, not at a towered airport, and
not with a designated overhead maneuver pattern), some do not.

Pete


Pete,

I presumed that you were saying that the local "hot doggers" were describing
their maneuver as an overhead approach. My criticism applied to their
missuse of the term, not yours. I presume the same applies to the other
poster who gave the link to the IFR procedure.

Peter

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like
to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

THANKS, JIM!

-c

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and the
"Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA party is
Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I started
building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to market much
less a completed S-LSA.

Or one might say that Vans has surveyed the LSA specs and market and is
carefully developing the RV-12 instead of rushing to market.

I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

- John Ousterhout -

"John Ousterhout" wrote in
message news:bG9Cg.883926$084.394004@attbi_s22...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and
the "Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA
party is Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I
started building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to
market much less a completed S-LSA.

Or one might say that Vans has surveyed the LSA specs and market and is
carefully developing the RV-12 instead of rushing to market.

I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.


I have little doubt you are right Van's knows how to create a great kit and
if they had had the RV-12 anywhere close to market when I started building I
might well have been building it instead of the 601XL I'm building now. My
statement was that Van's is coming to the party late not that their aircraft
would be in any way inferior.

My bet is the reason they didn't have an LSA type kit before they did is
that they were too busy with the RV-10. Which given their market was
probably a good idea.

John Ousterhout wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

In what way will the RV-12 be superior to the Zenith Zodiac? On what basis
is the RV-12 going to overtake market share from a very similar plane that
is already flying as well as from a host of other available LSA models
already flying?