Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

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.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:29:38 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete


Whatever....

Bela P. Havasreti

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done
at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as
safe
as straight-ins.

Pete


IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an overhead
break or an overhead approach. My best guess is that a couple of local "hot
doggers" are simply calling their activity an overhead aproach in an attempt
to give it a legitimate sounding name. Clearly, trading speed for altitude
and popping up into the pattern around mid-field is not an approved
maneuver, and is only slightly less insane than spinning down into the
pattern.

OTOH, an overhead approach (as normally described) has a lot of utility as
has been pointed out eslewhere in this thread.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an
overhead
break or an overhead approach.

It may well be that the term I used is more commonly reserved for something
else. The moment someone else made an indication that the maneuver I
referenced was different from what most people consider the maneuver of the
same name, I acknowledged that they were different and made clear which I
was talking about. I have tried in each and every post to continue to make
that distinction.

AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight
directly over the runway, as well as a form of a "breaking" turn (or even
"braking turn" if you like ), I don't have a better term than the
confusing one, and simply follow what I have heard used on the radio, when
I've had the opportunity to hear the radio calls of these folks.

I have at every step of the way tried to make as clear as possible what
maneuver I'm talking about and how it differs from the maneuver other people
appear to be talking about. I cannot help it if people insist on continuing
to be confused.

Pete

Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.

I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
"church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
"hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.

Jim

That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go WAY
back with some of these folks.
Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you join
the organization.

As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says you
have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF, even
with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could be
mistaken however. It's been a long time.
As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually believe
that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when in
the CAF?
Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly as
possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for you
to leave :-)
Dudley Henriques
ex- P51 Mustang
(Just an old friend of the CAF)

Is it really possible you could get my money back???

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.

I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
"church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
"hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.

Jim

That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go
WAY
back with some of these folks.
Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you
join
the organization.

As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says
you
have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF,
even
with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could
be
mistaken however. It's been a long time.
As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually
believe
that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when
in
the CAF?
Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly
as
possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for
you
to leave :-)
Dudley Henriques
ex- P51 Mustang
(Just an old friend of the CAF)

Is it really possible you could get my money back???

There was a time when I'm quite sure I carried enough weight arond the CAF
hangar to get that done. Today, probably not.
Tell you what. Why don't you simply copy your own post from this thread and
print it out; then take it with you to CAF and let them read it. Then ask
them if its possible for them to possibly refund your money. I think you
might just have a shot :-))
Dudley Henriques

Peter Duniho wrote:
AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight

Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden
underneath a lot of IFR stuff:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/...tml#Va821cROBE

In keeping with the international nature of these newsgroups, yes, this
applies to operations in the U.S., but the generic maneuver is universal.

Of course, when making variations on the maneuver (like low/fast
followed by a popup), courtesy and good airmanship towards other
aircraft, already established in a conventional traffic pattern, would
be considered. Common sense, I know.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
: Blueskies.,
:
: Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?
:
:
: Yep. As I said: a "proof of concept" in Cessna's own words.
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane...

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

What does everybody have against war brides?

What?

Never mind.

Don