Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

wrote:
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

Do you realistically think they will all be destroyed by flying them?
What about the ones already locked up in museums? Do they count?

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)

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

The accident will be in my nightmares for many years...... .... It was
a rough year for EAA.

Thanks for all you do, Dave -- us long-term OSH attendees really do
appreciate your efforts.

Can you clue us in as to what happened in this bizarre accident? Did
the Avenger pilot simply not see the RV, and trundle right over
(through?) it?

That seems hard to believe, but I suppose in all the "tune the
radios/find the chart/what's that altitude?" craziness, it could
happen. Damned shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Blueskies.,

Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?


Yep. As I said: a "proof of concept" in Cessna's own words.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Canal builder wrote:
wrote:


Totalitarian states do not permit experimental aviation.

Not true. The German Nazi regime of the 1930s loved experimental aviation
(and experimental rocketry), they even gave financial support. A lot of the
amateur designers and pilots then went on to play a big part in the Second
World War. The contemporary British government tried everything it could to
stop amateurs getting into the air.

As a result, surviving the Battle of Britain (1940) was as much a matter of
luck as judgment. Later on we had to put up with bombs mysteriously falling
out of the sky (the V2 long range rocket). If the war in Europe had gone on
much longer the first man in space would have been a German piloting a
two-stage missile to New York.

BTW this difference in attitude between British and German governments
continues to this day. This explains why German radio hams are putting
together a Mars lander, and we can't fly a suitably-equipped Lancair in IFR.

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.

"John" wrote in message
s.com...

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.


All governments vary in what they permit and when, and they change over time
and circumstances. Unless you wish this forum to become another venue for
discussing politics I suggest you take this elsewhere.

Dave wrote:
"John" wrote in message
s.com...

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.


All governments vary in what they permit and when, and they change over time
and circumstances. Unless you wish this forum to become another venue for
discussing politics I suggest you take this elsewhere.

Sorry Dave, you are entirely right. THE last thing I intended to do
was bring politics into this discussion group. There is a reason I
don't fly when I am tired, perhaps I should expand to prohibition to
posting :)

My apologies to the group

John

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:21:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make tâ„¢e runway
if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

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 think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins. Others
may tend to disagree (like me for instance). That's just the way the
world works sometimes.... 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

"John" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sorry Dave, you are entirely right. THE last thing I intended to do
was bring politics into this discussion group. There is a reason I
don't fly when I am tired, perhaps I should expand to prohibition to
posting :)

My apologies to the group


No need for apologies to me at least John, I've made the same error more
time than I can count.