Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Cy Galley" wrote in
news:P8rCg.126663$1i1.124285@attbi_s72:

Last year we had a Super CUB chop up the tail of an RV-4 so the
concept of paying attention and leaving enough space so that the
following plane doesn't overtake the plane waiting in line to leave is
NOT just a size or war bird problem... It is a pilot problem.

With all that said, I don't remember any other taxi way problems, but
an OF might!

Maybe they can cure my CRS at the same time.



Interesting, the NTSB report of this accident mentions a Lancair that
was behind this big warbird was originally directed by the ground vol's
to taxi in front of it, and refused cause he didnt want to be in front
of that big a** propeller. I would've probably done the same. There
was no mention in the report of the RV allegedly "cutting in front" of
the warbird as was mentioned on the RV mailing list. They even had a
film of the whole incedent, so surely that would have been mentioned.
The NTSB report reads very clearly that the warbird pilot just did not
know the RV was there. They thought they where following a high wing
100 yards in front of them. They apparently did not S turn very much at
all, as only 1 out of 3 witnesses on the NTSB report say they saw an S
turn at all, and the NTSB reports very shallow S turns, and only
occasionally upon review of the film.

Very tragic, and although no official fault has been given, it's my
prediction it will read something to the effect of faliure of the
warbird pilot to S turn deaply enough to verify the taxiway was clear.


--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Dudley

Let me hang this on your post.

The fighter pattern in WWII was flight in echelon and at a minimum of
cruise airspeed at 100 feet or less (high enough to give #4 ground
clearance).

At end of Runway, leader pitched up in a hard climbing turn and
throttle idle (to kill off airspeed) and rest of flight fanned out in
pitch up. After about 180 degrees of turn, speed of #1 would be down
where gear could be extended followed immediately by wing flaps. At
this time #1 was on a very short turning final. Rest of flight took
spacing after pitch up, put gear and flaps down as required to make
short pattern and flight landed close together right side, left side,
right side and left side.

Rational for this pattern I was told was that we often caught German
Fighters in big patterns or long straight in and shot them down
because the were slow and dirty (and many times short on fuel). To
prevent Germans from catching our fighters low and slow in pattern the
pitch up let us keep at least cruise airspeed (some Fight Leaders
pitched faster that cruise airspeed) until we pitched and made the
very quick pattern and got on ground.

After War's end there were some accidents associated with the pitch up
and it was changed to the overhead pattern.

In this pattern the flight in echelon flies down the runway at 1000 ft
and half way down the leader breaks hard enough with throttle back and
boards out to get down to gear down airspeed at or shortly after
rolling out on a downwind leg. Flaps are extended in the normal
position in rectangular pattern to let bird make a normal base leg and
turn to final at 300 feet or so.

Wing men each make their break at a number of seconds after leader
(varies with aircraft type) rolling out on a down wind with proper
spacing from bird ahead. Landings are again right side, left side,
right side and left side for safety.

On Dudley's comment about plugs. We used British Platinum plugs and
didn't have any plug problem going to idle on Merlin. We got 25-50
hours on these plugs with minimum fouling. Not sure these plugs were
available after War and those in supply channels used up???? If we ran
out of the British plugs and couldn't trade some booze to a Spit
outfit for plugs, we used American plugs which fouled up very easy and
were sometimes changed after every mission.

One technique we used was to run Merlin very lean on ground taxing out
prior to taking R/W for take off where we went to auto rich for
takeoff. This helped with any fouling. We also found that improper
ground adjustment by the mechanic, of the mixture control, caused plug
fouling.

On night takeoffs there was fire out of short stacks about half way
back to cockpit. After getting airborne and cutting back to climb
power the fire reduced to a little over a foot. After leveling off and
going to cruise power we manually leaned the mixture until there was
just a very light pale blue flame almost all in the short stacks. We
could then start working on getting our night vision and tuck it in
tight in night formation.

During War (WWII) there was no restriction I ever hear of about Idle
on Merlin in P-51. After War they put a restriction on idle rpm in
pattern to keep from warping valves.

Oh,those were the days with that sweet sound of a Merlin )


Big John


Dudley how is your health coming along? My Rotator Cuff surgery is
finally getting better and am getting full movement back in right arm.
I can almost hold my Martini in my right hand again )
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````



On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:17:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"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 :-))

"ET" wrote in message
...
"Cy Galley" wrote in
news:P8rCg.126663$1i1.124285@attbi_s72:

Last year we had a Super CUB chop up the tail of an RV-4 so the
concept of paying attention and leaving enough space so that the
following plane doesn't overtake the plane waiting in line to leave is
NOT just a size or war bird problem... It is a pilot problem.

With all that said, I don't remember any other taxi way problems, but
an OF might!

Maybe they can cure my CRS at the same time.



Interesting, the NTSB report of this accident mentions a Lancair that
was behind this big warbird was originally directed by the ground vol's
to taxi in front of it, and refused cause he didnt want to be in front
of that big a** propeller. I would've probably done the same. There
was no mention in the report of the RV allegedly "cutting in front" of
the warbird as was mentioned on the RV mailing list. They even had a
film of the whole incedent, so surely that would have been mentioned.
The NTSB report reads very clearly that the warbird pilot just did not
know the RV was there. They thought they where following a high wing
100 yards in front of them. They apparently did not S turn very much at
all, as only 1 out of 3 witnesses on the NTSB report say they saw an S
turn at all, and the NTSB reports very shallow S turns, and only
occasionally upon review of the film.

Very tragic, and although no official fault has been given, it's my
prediction it will read something to the effect of faliure of the
warbird pilot to S turn deaply enough to verify the taxiway was clear.


--
-- ET :-)

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power to
straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you. Not making
excuses, just attempting to understand what the pilot of the TBM was up
against, especially if he had the mindset that the high wing that exited
into the grass was the airplane he was sequenced behind and he needed to
close up on the preceeding aircraft. It's still his responsibility to clear
the area in front of his aircraft but I can see how easily he fell into this
trap.

"Big John" wrote in message
...

Snip

John,

I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
posting these pearls ad infinitum...

Great little gems of history.

Thanks,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"dougdrivr" wrote

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power
to
straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you. Not
making
excuses, just attempting to understand what the pilot of the TBM was up
against, especially if he had the mindset that the high wing that exited
into the grass was the airplane he was sequenced behind and he needed to
close up on the preceeding aircraft. It's still his responsibility to
clear
the area in front of his aircraft but I can see how easily he fell into
this
trap.

I'll say again; I never saw the taxiway width being a problem for any other
warbird, while I was working there. 35 feet is plenty wide for a good
S-turn.
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:08:45 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:

"dougdrivr" wrote

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power
to straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you....
[Snip]

I'll say again; I never saw the taxiway width being a problem for any other
warbird, while I was working there. 35 feet is plenty wide for a good
S-turn.

Yes, but: Most of the other warbirds you saw have tailwheel steering. Without
it, directional control is pretty indirect, and S-turning isn't just a matter of
a casual push on a pedal. Couple that with the realization that every S-turn
wears a brake pad, and that pads for TBMs are probably neither common nor cheap.
Heck, they're $200 a pair just for my Fly Baby....

Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a good
view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from the
centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that much
quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels don't
leave the pavement.

Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear the
taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Ron Wanttaja

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:sJzCg.16475$RD.16309@fed1read08...
I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
posting these pearls ad infinitum...

Great little gems of history.

I can't even say that I always appreciate his posts (I'm sure that's
okay...he probably rarely appreciates mine ), but I have to agree here,
that one *was* a real gem, as you put it.

Thanks for sharing John.

Pete

Since it is obvious to the most casual observer, a plane such as a TBM
has such poor forward visibility and such a tough time with ground
manuevering, wouldn't it have been easier to have a guy on a scooter
escort it as a second set of remotely mounted eyes?

Scott


Ron Wanttaja wrote:


Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a good
view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from the
centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that much
quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels don't
leave the pavement.

Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear the
taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote

Yes, but: Most of the other warbirds you saw have tailwheel steering.
Without
it, directional control is pretty indirect, and S-turning isn't just a
matter of
a casual push on a pedal. Couple that with the realization that every
S-turn
wears a brake pad, and that pads for TBMs are probably neither common nor
cheap.
Heck, they're $200 a pair just for my Fly Baby...

Ron, you know better than that. Every type of warbird at OSH has taxied
past me. They all managed. Plus, the cost of brakes is part of being at
OSH. If you can not taxi safely cause it costs too much, stay home.

Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a
good
view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from
the
centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that
much
quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels
don't
leave the pavement.

There are no taxiway lights on that particular taxiway. It is not a
normally used taxiway.

Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear
the
taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Problems that can be overcome, since everyone else managed.
--
Jim in NC

Jay

Lived in Chandler until got housing on base.

4 years as a Jet Instructor at Willie.

Was very sorry to see them close the field and keep Luke.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````


On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:44:58 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .

Snip

John,

I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
posting these pearls ad infinitum...

Great little gems of history.

Thanks,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ