When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

On 2011-09-17, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

When I read about those crashes and deaths, I always wonder, why can't
they organize the races or shows so that the planes fly not too close
to the crowds?

On 9/17/2011 5:42 PM, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a refurbished
WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War bird
exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died in the
crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.


Planes in that category are like "King Arthur's Original Battle Axe" -
the handle has been replaced three times and the head twice.

Can you really say that age contributed to the accident? At what age
must people not be allowed to do things?

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:00:21 -0500, Ignoramus30681
wrote:

On 2011-09-17, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

When I read about those crashes and deaths, I always wonder, why can't
they organize the races or shows so that the planes fly not too close
to the crowds?

It's human nature to want to be as close to the action as possible.
Have you ever been in the front row at the starting line of a drag
race when either top fuelers or funny cars were running? Remember
_feeling_ the sound (beneath your muffs and ear plugs) and breathing
the nitro exhaust?

I remember wading up to my waist in Mission Bay on an outside corner
where the thunderboats were racing. We got splashed by Miss Budweiser
who flew by us at 100mph not 50 feet away. Hayseuss Crisco, I
wouldn't do that foolish thing again (now that I'm sober) but it was a
very memorable experience.

The bottom line is the bottom line. If people aren't thrilled and
can't experience some of the risk, vendors sell fewer tickets. Fewer
tickets means lower prize awards. Lower prize money attracts fewer top
acts and the bottom falls out of the sport.

--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 9/18/2011 1:00 PM, Ignoramus30681 wrote:
On 2011-09-17, wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

When I read about those crashes and deaths, I always wonder, why can't
they organize the races or shows so that the planes fly not too close
to the crowds?


You can fly as high as you want.
But it's harder at higher altitude.

The pylons define the turn points and it's not like you pull up to the
pylon and turn left.

The course is almost 8 1/2 miles long. At 500 mph that takes just under
1 minute. I'm not sure what the turning radius would be at 4 Gs but it
would be a rather large arc! Pretty close to an oblong circle?

In order to even see the pylons you have to be down close to the ground.

Here is a map of the race course.
http://aafo.com/racing/news/99/images/UL99MAP-2.jpg

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:06:25 -0400, Tom Gardner mars@tacks wrote:

On 9/17/2011 5:42 PM, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a refurbished
WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War bird
exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died in the
crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.


Planes in that category are like "King Arthur's Original Battle Axe" -
the handle has been replaced three times and the head twice.

Can you really say that age contributed to the accident? At what age
must people not be allowed to do things?
If what is assumed to have happened actually happened, 80 or 18 would
not make a significant difference - and as for the plane - calling it
a 194X P51 is stretching it - as large parts of the plane will have
been replaced, modified, and rebuilt several times over during it's
racing carreer. It's a bit like a funny car. It might LOOK like a 1982
Camaro - - - - - - - -. Or even a Nascar stocker. It might LOOK like a
Toyota Camry ___ _ _ _ _.

In the case of the plane it's a LITTLE different - because at one
point it actually WAS a P51 Mustang.

Ignoramus30681 wrote:

On 2011-09-17, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

When I read about those crashes and deaths, I always wonder, why can't
they organize the races or shows so that the planes fly not too close
to the crowds?

If the planes didn't fly close, nobody would attend.

"Ignoramus30681" wrote

When I read about those crashes and deaths, I always wonder, why can't
they organize the races or shows so that the planes fly not too close
to the crowds?

I see car races all over the world with spectators sitting on the edge of
death. And sometimes it comes.

Steve

wrote

In the case of the plane it's a LITTLE different - because at one
point it actually WAS a P51 Mustang.

I think it's going to get real interesting legally. Obviously the pilot was
a man of means, and that spells lawsuit.

It tickles my curiosity about who has the responsibility to make the final
determination regarding the aircraft modifications. I'm sure it is the FAA.
But since this is such a rare bird, the "laws" and "regulations" about such
changes will be, I think, ........ vague. This one had some changes that
were noteworthy enough to become part of the "news" about the crash and
facts that were reported. Did I just infer facts and newspeople in the same
sentence? Sorry.

Isn't Nancy Grace going to have fun with this one?

Steve

In article , says...

When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

The plane had been an air racer for more than half a century, the pilot
not quite so long. I don't see where there's any "bad judgment" in
doing something you've done safely for decades.

Would you have felt better if it was a brand new FW-190 (they're back in
production you know) and a 25 year old pilot?

Every once in a while something busts on an airplane. If you're in the
wrong place when it happens you die. If someone else is in the wrong
place they die too.

In article ,
says...

wrote

In the case of the plane it's a LITTLE different - because at one
point it actually WAS a P51 Mustang.

I think it's going to get real interesting legally. Obviously the pilot was
a man of means, and that spells lawsuit.

It tickles my curiosity about who has the responsibility to make the final
determination regarding the aircraft modifications. I'm sure it is the FAA.
But since this is such a rare bird, the "laws" and "regulations" about such
changes will be, I think, ........ vague. This one had some changes that
were noteworthy enough to become part of the "news" about the crash and
facts that were reported. Did I just infer facts and newspeople in the same
sentence? Sorry.

As a general rule the FAA tells you what static tests and what flight
tests you have to perform and allows you to perform flight tests in a
specified area, going to and from the area from a specified airport by a
specified route that doesn't take you over any more population than can
be avoided. After you've done that, if nothing went wrong you get more
privilege.

In any case this appears to have been a control failure, which might
very well be unrelated to the modifications.

Speaking of planes: I took a joy ride today - what a hoot, as they used
to say. I have the picture to prove it:
http://home.comcast.net/~bobengelhardt/BettyJane.jpg

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
...
http://home.comcast.net/~bobengelhardt/BettyJane.jpg

Well, OK ... that is a stock picture and I'm not in it. But I did have
a ride in that very plane. Not only rode in it, but flew it, a little
bit (it's the only fully dual-control P-51 in the world).

The pilot would have given me all the aerobatics, but after a 4-point
roll and a little inverted, I started getting queasy. I really felt
cheated ... it would have been so cool to do more. If only they had
warned me to take some Dramamine, there's no telling what I would have
been up for.


Bob

On 9/18/2011 8:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:06:25 -0400, Tom Gardnermars@tacks wrote:

On 9/17/2011 5:42 PM, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a refurbished
WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War bird
exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died in the
crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.


Planes in that category are like "King Arthur's Original Battle Axe" -
the handle has been replaced three times and the head twice.

Can you really say that age contributed to the accident? At what age
must people not be allowed to do things?
If what is assumed to have happened actually happened, 80 or 18 would
not make a significant difference - and as for the plane - calling it
a 194X P51 is stretching it - as large parts of the plane will have
been replaced, modified, and rebuilt several times over during it's
racing carreer. It's a bit like a funny car. It might LOOK like a 1982
Camaro - - - - - - - -. Or even a Nascar stocker. It might LOOK like a
Toyota Camry ___ _ _ _ _.

In the case of the plane it's a LITTLE different - because at one
point it actually WAS a P51 Mustang.

While it is true that many parts likely have been replaced from the
original plane the airframe is still that of a production P-51. I
suspect that had the original designers of the plane had been around
they would have been horrified at his modifications.

As to his age, just bear in mind that 74 is not 24. Reflexes do
deteriate with age. If this had anything to do with this tradegy cannot
be known as a certainty but it could have been a factor

On Sep 18, 6:51*pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
...
http://home.comcast.net/~bobengelhardt/BettyJane.jpg

Well, OK ... that is a stock picture and I'm not in it. *But I did have
a ride in that very plane. *Not only rode in it, but flew it, a little
bit (it's the only fully dual-control P-51 in the world).

The pilot would have given me all the aerobatics, but after a 4-point
roll and a little inverted, I started getting queasy. *I really felt
cheated ... it would have been so cool to do more. *If only they had
warned me to take some Dramamine, there's no telling what I would have
been up for.

Bob

Where did you do this??

Milton C.

On Sep 17, 5:42*pm, bobm46 wrote:
* * * * When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
* * * * Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
* * * * To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
* * * * I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

Initial investigation and a pretty clear photograph show that the
elevator trim tab separated from the elevator, which would have caused
a major loss of pitch control. The modifications to the wings would
have had nothing to do with that.

People sit close to the action at air races because, well, that's what
they want to do. It's part of the excitement. The slogan at Reno is,
"Fly low, fly fast, turn left."

Steve B wrote:
wrote

In the case of the plane it's a LITTLE different - because at one
point it actually WAS a P51 Mustang.

I think it's going to get real interesting legally. Obviously the pilot was
a man of means, and that spells lawsuit.

It tickles my curiosity about who has the responsibility to make the final
determination regarding the aircraft modifications. I'm sure it is the FAA.
But since this is such a rare bird, the "laws" and "regulations" about such
changes will be, I think, ........ vague. This one had some changes that
were noteworthy enough to become part of the "news" about the crash and
facts that were reported. Did I just infer facts and newspeople in the same
sentence? Sorry.

I've been thinking about that too. As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.

"Jim Stewart" wrote

I've been thinking about that too. As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.

Today, Monday, 1PM MST, I saw a new video of the crash from another angle
and much closer to the impact point. At the end of the broadcast, the
"news" announcer said the FAA would (paraphrasing, IIRC, and all that)
likely make changes regarding crowd placement at future races. From the
angle the video was taken, I would have considered where the plane impacted
to be a VERY dangerous position too close to the action, and would have
never sat there. I go to, and have gone to, hundreds of various sporting
events. I prefer to be back enough to have a better overall view, and for a
safety factor. IMHO, those people were much much too close. But there are
purely stupid people in the world who want to get next to the race track, or
close to a police gunfight or whatever. You can't fix stupid and they will
continue to do it.

Steve

Milton C. wrote:

Where did you do this??

Beverly, MA. Offered by the Collings Foundation "Wings of Freedom".
They travel the country with a B-17, a B-24, and the P-51. Their schedule:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

The P-51 ride was so expensive that I could only justify it as a "once
in a lifetime" experience. Kinda' in the "if you have to ask, you can't
afford it" category.

Bob

On 9/19/2011 1:59 PM, Jim Stewart wrote:
As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.
You do not understand the FAA regs.
You are quoting from a portion of Experimental Amateur-Built for when a
non-type-certificated engine, propeller, or engine/propeller combination
is installed.
After the initial flight testing, a testing period for later
modifications may be assigned a much shorter period of time, in the
Amateur-Built class. The flight test area is determined by the operator
and the overseeing FAA FSDO.

These modified planes for racing are operated under Experimental-Air
Racing, Group III. All flight and maintenance operations, including,
various flight testing regimes and areas, are defined and restricted by
the individual airplane's program letter which is tailored specifically
for the individual airplane by the operators and the overseeing FAA
Flight Safety District Offices. Any modification to the program must
have prior notification to the governing FSDO by fax, with concurrence
of the FSDO and any new FSDO involved.

In other words, the rules for Experimental-Air Racing are tailored to
each individual airplane's situation with direct FAA oversight and lots
of internal FAA policy making.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:38:44 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote

I've been thinking about that too. As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.

Today, Monday, 1PM MST, I saw a new video of the crash from another angle
and much closer to the impact point. At the end of the broadcast, the
"news" announcer said the FAA would (paraphrasing, IIRC, and all that)
likely make changes regarding crowd placement at future races. From the
angle the video was taken, I would have considered where the plane impacted
to be a VERY dangerous position too close to the action, and would have
never sat there. I go to, and have gone to, hundreds of various sporting
events. I prefer to be back enough to have a better overall view, and for a
safety factor. IMHO, those people were much much too close. But there are
purely stupid people in the world who want to get next to the race track, or
close to a police gunfight or whatever. You can't fix stupid and they will
continue to do it.

Steve

The crash was pretty much ON the runway, yet he started way out in the
race course. It was the luck of the draw where he hit. It could have
been on the far side of the course, it could have been away from the
runway, it could have been behind the crowds...frankly..it could have
been anywhere.

It didnt happen during takeoff or landing...the luck of the draw was
what happened. Ya takes your chances and you makes your bets.

Shrug

Gunner

"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

lid wrote:
On 9/19/2011 1:59 PM, Jim Stewart wrote:
As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.
You do not understand the FAA regs.
You are quoting from a portion of Experimental Amateur-Built for when a
non-type-certificated engine, propeller, or engine/propeller combination
is installed.
After the initial flight testing, a testing period for later
modifications may be assigned a much shorter period of time, in the
Amateur-Built class. The flight test area is determined by the operator
and the overseeing FAA FSDO.

These modified planes for racing are operated under Experimental-Air
Racing, Group III. All flight and maintenance operations, including,
various flight testing regimes and areas, are defined and restricted by
the individual airplane's program letter which is tailored specifically
for the individual airplane by the operators and the overseeing FAA
Flight Safety District Offices. Any modification to the program must
have prior notification to the governing FSDO by fax, with concurrence
of the FSDO and any new FSDO involved.

In other words, the rules for Experimental-Air Racing are tailored to
each individual airplane's situation with direct FAA oversight and lots
of internal FAA policy making.

Fair enough. Then tell me this, would major
airframe changes such as reducing the length
of the fuse and ailerons typically require testing
over an uninhabited area before flight near
the public?

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:46:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

Milton C. wrote:

Where did you do this??

Beverly, MA. Offered by the Collings Foundation "Wings of Freedom".
They travel the country with a B-17, a B-24, and the P-51. Their schedule:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

The P-51 ride was so expensive that I could only justify it as a "once
in a lifetime" experience. Kinda' in the "if you have to ask, you can't
afford it" category.

Bob


I saw them at Ft. Myers Paige Filed a couple of years back....and you
sure are correct about the "if you have to ask..." part. I could only
afford an autographed book!!

Seem to recall they even had a price on getting a walk/crawl-through
on the B-17 and B-24.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell,mOntario.

"Steve B" on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:38:44
-0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"Jim Stewart" wrote

I've been thinking about that too. As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.

Today, Monday, 1PM MST, I saw a new video of the crash from another angle
and much closer to the impact point. At the end of the broadcast, the
"news" announcer said the FAA would (paraphrasing, IIRC, and all that)
likely make changes regarding crowd placement at future races. From the
angle the video was taken, I would have considered where the plane impacted
to be a VERY dangerous position too close to the action, and would have
never sat there. I go to, and have gone to, hundreds of various sporting
events. I prefer to be back enough to have a better overall view, and for a
safety factor. IMHO, those people were much much too close. But there are
purely stupid people in the world who want to get next to the race track, or
close to a police gunfight or whatever. You can't fix stupid and they will
continue to do it.

Granted, all I have is the brief video clips, but it appears that
the pilot was trying to miss the grandstands.

In order to have completely safe viewing, nobody would be allowed
within miles of the track (be it cars or airplanes), and the race
shown on HD large TV screens.
Same goes for baseball games -those batted balls are hard and
traveling fast. People get hurt all the time.

And don't sit so close to the screen, you will ruin your eyes.

tschus
pyotr

Who 'se first response after there was a fatal accident at work was
"Well, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it."


--
pyotr filipivich
Gott hilfen und wir leben.
(God helping and we live ..)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:38:44 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Jim Stewart" wrote

I've been thinking about that too. As I understand
the FAA regs, an experimental aircraft, after major
mods, has to undergo 40 hours of flight testing over
an FAA-approved, unpopulated area to shake loose stuff
like this. I think there will be some interesting
questions raised.

Today, Monday, 1PM MST, I saw a new video of the crash from another angle
and much closer to the impact point. At the end of the broadcast, the
"news" announcer said the FAA would (paraphrasing, IIRC, and all that)
likely make changes regarding crowd placement at future races. From the
angle the video was taken, I would have considered where the plane impacted
to be a VERY dangerous position too close to the action, and would have
never sat there. I go to, and have gone to, hundreds of various sporting
events. I prefer to be back enough to have a better overall view, and for a
safety factor. IMHO, those people were much much too close. But there are
purely stupid people in the world who want to get next to the race track, or
close to a police gunfight or whatever. You can't fix stupid and they will
continue to do it.

Steve

The safest place for the spectators would have been Heathrow, but
then, how many tickets would have been sold.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On 9/19/2011 7:20 PM, Jim Stewart wrote:
Fair enough. Then tell me this, would major
airframe changes such as reducing the length
of the fuse and ailerons typically require testing
over an uninhabited area before flight near
the public?

Yes, to flight testing after major airframe changes, the amount of time
or location, we will not know until we are privy to all the details in
the program letter.
No, to flight testing over an uninhabited area.
Numerous references in Experimental-Exhibition/Racing, including
multiple flight test phases, the text:
During all operations, this aircraft may not be operated over densely populated
areas or in congested airways. All operations must be conducted in a manner and in areas that, in
the event of a bailout, ejection (unless otherwise authorized by AFS-800), or in-flight structural
failure, persons or property on the surface or other aircraft in flight are not endangered.
"Densely populated" and "Congested" are constantly reoccurring words in
multiple sections and sub-paragraphs.
Another defining phrase in the General Experimental Flight Test section
when defining flight corridors to and from the airport and the flight
test area:
Note: An acceptable approach/departure corridor exists when the corridor
provides reasonable opportunity(s) to execute an off-airport emergency
landing that will not jeopardize other persons or property.
It also states, if, those conditions cannot be met the aircraft must be
moved to the flight test area by other means than flight the densely
populated areas. [ie. by truck,(my interpretation)]

After flight testing, the governing FSDO office could also disallow any
requests for flights or flight areas the FSDO is not comfortable with
when requests for program letter changes are made.

The section on Experimental-Exhibition/Racing certification was
re-written effective about 18 months ago to tighten up the rules and I
suspect we will see another re-write in the very near future.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:05:04 +0100, bobm46 wrote:

On 9/18/2011 8:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:06:25 -0400, Tom Gardnermars@tacks wrote:

On 9/17/2011 5:42 PM, bobm46 wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a refurbished
WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War bird
exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died in the
crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.


Planes in that category are like "King Arthur's Original Battle Axe" -
the handle has been replaced three times and the head twice.

Can you really say that age contributed to the accident? At what age
must people not be allowed to do things?
If what is assumed to have happened actually happened, 80 or 18 would
not make a significant difference - and as for the plane - calling it
a 194X P51 is stretching it - as large parts of the plane will have
been replaced, modified, and rebuilt several times over during it's
racing carreer. It's a bit like a funny car. It might LOOK like a 1982
Camaro - - - - - - - -. Or even a Nascar stocker. It might LOOK like a
Toyota Camry ___ _ _ _ _.

In the case of the plane it's a LITTLE different - because at one
point it actually WAS a P51 Mustang.

While it is true that many parts likely have been replaced from the
original plane the airframe is still that of a production P-51. I
suspect that had the original designers of the plane had been around
they would have been horrified at his modifications.

As to his age, just bear in mind that 74 is not 24. Reflexes do
deteriate with age. If this had anything to do with this tradegy cannot
be known as a certainty but it could have been a factor
You are only as old as you feel, this is why I only recognize a
birthday every other year, thus I am a year younger than junior son
who had a heart event ten days before he turned 35. I have
osteoporosis treated with Actonel once a month and 1500mg calcium
daily, B12 deficiency getting 600mg daily, high cholesterol treated
with 20 mg Lipitor daily, and ED treated as required by SWMBO.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:46:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

Milton C. wrote:

Where did you do this??

Beverly, MA. Offered by the Collings Foundation "Wings of Freedom".
They travel the country with a B-17, a B-24, and the P-51. Their
schedule:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

The P-51 ride was so expensive that I could only justify it as a "once
in a lifetime" experience. Kinda' in the "if you have to ask, you can't
afford it" category.

Bob


I saw them at Ft. Myers Paige Filed a couple of years back....and you
sure are correct about the "if you have to ask..." part. I could only
afford an autographed book!!

Seem to recall they even had a price on getting a walk/crawl-through
on the B-17 and B-24.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell,mOntario.

My Dad was a flight engineer on a B24M in the Asian Theater. I would have
been up for a tour, screw the price.

Steve

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:46:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

Milton C. wrote:

Where did you do this??

Beverly, MA. Offered by the Collings Foundation "Wings of Freedom".
They travel the country with a B-17, a B-24, and the P-51. Their schedule:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

The P-51 ride was so expensive that I could only justify it as a "once
in a lifetime" experience. Kinda' in the "if you have to ask, you can't
afford it" category.

Bob

Someone told me that a P-51 burns 90 gallons of gasoline an hour
during takeoff but only 60 gallons per hour while cruising. Not a
cheap ride.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:32:03 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:46:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

Milton C. wrote:

Where did you do this??

Beverly, MA. Offered by the Collings Foundation "Wings of Freedom".
They travel the country with a B-17, a B-24, and the P-51. Their schedule:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

The P-51 ride was so expensive that I could only justify it as a "once
in a lifetime" experience. Kinda' in the "if you have to ask, you can't
afford it" category.

Bob


I saw them at Ft. Myers Paige Filed a couple of years back....and you
sure are correct about the "if you have to ask..." part. I could only
afford an autographed book!!

Seem to recall they even had a price on getting a walk/crawl-through
on the B-17 and B-24.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell,mOntario.


Maybe that's why I'm so poor,all that airplane experience as a kid.

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech & Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.
Check out the 3rd picture down, that's a new one me. The backwards
bent prop would be cool on a wall. Been to a bunch of crash sites also
and use to play on abandoned bases. I like the B-29, truly amazing for
the technology, like 20' (seems like) to the bottom of the wing.

http://www.planepictures.net/netsear...d%2 0Lodestar


SW

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

Milton C. wrote:

Where did you do this??

Beverly, MA. Offered by the Collings Foundation "Wings of Freedom".
They travel the country with a B-17, a B-24, and the P-51. Their schedule:
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_schedule-wof.htm

The P-51 ride was so expensive that I could only justify it as a "once
in a lifetime" experience. Kinda' in the "if you have to ask, you can't
afford it" category.


No kidding. But the cost per hour of flight has to be covered by the
customers and those old planes aren't fuel efficient. I've seen some of
their planes on display at the Ocala airport.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Richard wrote:

On 9/18/2011 1:00 PM, Ignoramus30681 wrote:
On 2011-09-17, wrote:
When I first heard about the crash I thought the plane was a
refurbished WW II standard P-51 and that it was being flown in a War
bird exhibition. I felt bad for the pilot, and for the people who died
in the crowd and for the loss of an historic aircraft.
Today (Sunday 09-18-11) I read an article in the paper about what
happened. It seems that the P-51 had been highly modified for greater
speed in an air race. One of the mod's was to remove 5 feet off of each
wing tip and to modify the edge of the remaining wing. Couple this with
the age of the pilot and the speed and g-forces involved and the chances
of a crash increase greatly.
To me it seems to have been bad judgment to make these mod's to an
aircraft of this vintage and history, and extremely bad judgment on the
part of the pilot to fly in the race.
I Still feel bad for the deaths and injuries to all those involved, but
also feel that it should have been avoided.

When I read about those crashes and deaths, I always wonder, why can't
they organize the races or shows so that the planes fly not too close
to the crowds?

You can fly as high as you want.
But it's harder at higher altitude.

The pylons define the turn points and it's not like you pull up to the
pylon and turn left.

The course is almost 8 1/2 miles long. At 500 mph that takes just under
1 minute. I'm not sure what the turning radius would be at 4 Gs but it
would be a rather large arc! Pretty close to an oblong circle?

In order to even see the pylons you have to be down close to the ground.

Here is a map of the race course.
http://aafo.com/racing/news/99/images/UL99MAP-2.jpg


Here are a couple photos I took of his Leeward Air Group, flying at
our Veteran's Park:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/materre...7617628185878/


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.

My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.

My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.


I want a plane so bad I was thinking of making one. Was wondering how
to find a book that teaches/shows how to build wooden doped fiberglass
stitched planes. Got lots of wood around here. Was also thinking of
ways to split and dry wood for that purpose. Also ... which kinds of
woods are suitable and their characteristics, cedar maybe. Oak? Beech
trees are hard to find. Huge's spruce...sappy evergreens?

I have the patience and tedious stuff down. I've watched alot of it,
but was in a way blocked from knowing cause and effect type of stuff
cause they where afraid I'd take their jobs away from them. Like I
wouldn't show them any respect, as they say now a punk.

Maybe back to a J-3 with a VW engine. I was saving for one back when.
Use to read all the PA's and such in the trade a planes. Was up to 5
cars, but needed more to sell and get the $6,000 that they went for
back then, but needed to be recovered or something. Then my life went
to ****. I really like the dropping into nowhere as if back in the
days of that movie dances with wolfs. Can't afford the plans at the
moment.


SW

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:01:43 -0500, Sunworshipper SW@GWNTUNDRA
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.

My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.


I want a plane so bad I was thinking of making one. Was wondering how
to find a book that teaches/shows how to build wooden doped fiberglass
stitched planes. Got lots of wood around here. Was also thinking of
ways to split and dry wood for that purpose. Also ... which kinds of
woods are suitable and their characteristics, cedar maybe. Oak? Beech
trees are hard to find. Huge's spruce...sappy evergreens?

I have the patience and tedious stuff down. I've watched alot of it,
but was in a way blocked from knowing cause and effect type of stuff
cause they where afraid I'd take their jobs away from them. Like I
wouldn't show them any respect, as they say now a punk.

Maybe back to a J-3 with a VW engine. I was saving for one back when.
Use to read all the PA's and such in the trade a planes. Was up to 5
cars, but needed more to sell and get the $6,000 that they went for
back then, but needed to be recovered or something. Then my life went
to ****. I really like the dropping into nowhere as if back in the
days of that movie dances with wolfs. Can't afford the plans at the
moment.


SW

Remember this one?

http://www.evansair.com/

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.

My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.

What happened to it?


"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.
My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.

What happened to it?


"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lockh...d0a2bcfd44f2d3

Exterior in '98
--
Steve W.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:29:54 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.
My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.

What happened to it?


"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lockh...d0a2bcfd44f2d3

Exterior in '98

That doesnt look very bad. Looks like it was painted with house
paint..but.....

Gunner

"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)

Steve B wrote:

My Dad was a flight engineer on a B24M in the Asian Theater. I would have
been up for a tour, screw the price.

The walk-through isn't expensive - $6 for both bombers. A flight in it
is another story.

The B-24 has an adopted identity from a European theater plane. But the
actual plane flew in the Pacific. So_maybe_ it is the actual plane your
father flew in. It's _possible_.

Bob

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700, Jim
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

I've stripped the beautiful interiors that they put into DC-3's and
Beech& Lockheed -18's like you'd see in a Shirley Temple show.

My airplane is hangered not 50 feet from NC6166,
Cary Grant's Lodestar. Sadly, it's not much to
look at anymore.

What happened to it?

I don't rightly know. It was bought by my
neighbor across the apron. He flew it for
a time and it's rumored to have had a gear-up
landing due to a hydraulic failure.

It was repaired then someone from Australia
bought it and came over to ferry it home.
He pulled it out, spewed a few gallons of
avgas and oil on the apron, gave up and
pushed it back in it's corner, where it still
sits.

There's also a derelict DC3 at the airport
north of Lodi. You can see it from highway
99 coming to Sacramento. I heard it used to
be a jump plane for the skydiving operation.