PDA

View Full Version : The flying of old/unique aircraft



XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:37 PM
It is very sad that over the last week two historical aircraft and their crews have been lost. However grounding all historical aircraft or placing unique or rare examples in museums should not be a kneejerk reaction to these two tragedies. For a start all of the people killed flying historic aircraft strove to keep aircraft like that in the sky, so it would do their memory no justice at all. The other reason to keep aircraft in their natrual element is quite simple, how many of you remember the Vulcan or the Lightning doing airshows? I know I do and the presence that they had in the sky was phenominal especially the Vulcan, the noise alone was fantastic. You just cannot appreciate aircraft like the B17, Lancaster, Spitfire, P38 or anything else if you cannot see it fly, ok they still look good, but the magic of thirty tons of metal hurtling through the sky is somthing else. As long as they are flown and maintained resposibly they must remain flying! How many modern military aircraft crash each year?

Sorry its a bit of a rant but its hoe I feel.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 06:37 PM
It is very sad that over the last week two historical aircraft and their crews have been lost. However grounding all historical aircraft or placing unique or rare examples in museums should not be a kneejerk reaction to these two tragedies. For a start all of the people killed flying historic aircraft strove to keep aircraft like that in the sky, so it would do their memory no justice at all. The other reason to keep aircraft in their natrual element is quite simple, how many of you remember the Vulcan or the Lightning doing airshows? I know I do and the presence that they had in the sky was phenominal especially the Vulcan, the noise alone was fantastic. You just cannot appreciate aircraft like the B17, Lancaster, Spitfire, P38 or anything else if you cannot see it fly, ok they still look good, but the magic of thirty tons of metal hurtling through the sky is somthing else. As long as they are flown and maintained resposibly they must remain flying! How many modern military aircraft crash each year?

Sorry its a bit of a rant but its hoe I feel.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 07:51 PM
Now, in meetings, it's become a trend to recreate dogfights with warbirds. In my opinion, it's not very clever. A WWII combat aircraft has been designed to start, to accomplish a specific mission and then to land, not to make aerobatics at low speeds during meetings! In a sense, the warbirds engaged as racers in Reno for instance fly more in their element than a Mustang for instance making low-speed evolutions during a meeting. By the way, a WWII warbird or even a combat jet can be as easy to fly in normal conditions than a Piper Cub, but they can become very fast dangerous beasts when something goes wrong (an engine failure at 150 meters in a climb and you're toast). So it's always more clever to keep either enough speed or altitude to keep a second chance in cas of trouble! When I remember the last flying P-38 or Mosquito in Europe for instance, I'm perfecty happy to see now a warbird pilot just making cautious passings at a reasonable height.

Cheers,

fluke39
07-15-2003, 08:18 PM
CHDT wrote:
- Now, in meetings, it's become a trend to recreate
- dogfights with warbirds. In my opinion, it's not
- very clever. A WWII combat aircraft has been
- designed to start, to accomplish a specific mission
- and then to land, not to make aerobatics at low
- speeds during meetings! In a sense, the warbirds
- engaged as racers in Reno for instance fly more in
- their element than a Mustang for instance making
- low-speed evolutions during a meeting. By the way, a
- WWII warbird or even a combat jet can be as easy to
- fly in normal conditions than a Piper Cub, but they
- can become very fast dangerous beasts when something
- goes wrong (an engine failure at 150 meters in a
- climb and you're toast). So it's always more clever
- to keep either enough speed or altitude to keep a
- second chance in cas of trouble! When I remember the
- last flying P-38 or Mosquito in Europe for instance,
- I'm perfecty happy to see now a warbird pilot just
- making cautious passings at a reasonable height.
-
- Cheers,


Couldn't agree more. WWI/II warbirds are antiques and should be treated as such. its also got to the point where it seems every airshow meeting has a crash (granted not always warbirds).

i too would be happy just to see these planes flying past in a stright line - if it meant it would be there for others to see , another time. - it's great to see a mock dogfight or planes being aerobatted a bit- but IMO this should really be reseverd for replica aircraft and not for aircraft that are amongst - if not the last of their kind. not only is it risking these treasured antiques but is risking the lives of those flying them.

edit (plese note i am not saying that these planes should not fly !)



<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>


Message Edited on 07/15/0309:49PM by fluke39

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 10:48 PM
I definatly agree about the flying of replica aircraft, the new built Me262 is currently flight testing, I even heard rumors of a group of people trying to build a Stirling to flyable standards! I also agree about the dogfighting, although careful thought and planning can lead to a visually enthralling display with minimal danger to the aircraft.

"They Gave All Their Tommorrows So That We Can Have Our Todays"

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:14 PM
Done sensibly everything should be ok although I do think the height for some manouvers should be increased

I would prefer not to have slow level passes like the BBMF if possible

Something that should be looked very closely at is the amount of flying hours an aircraft does after an overhaul or rebuild be displaying and the number of hours the pilot has had in that aircraft in the last year before taking it to a display

<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Please Visit my website: http://clik.to/everton</font>
http://members.lycos.co.uk/pigsmightfly/bluekipper.gif
<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Nil Satis Nisi Optimum</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:34 PM
"the number of hours the pilot has had in that aircraft in the last year before taking it to a display"


That's a very clever remark.

Just an example, a Venom warbird pilot uses to fly his aircraft 25-20 hours each year, including transfer flights.

In the "fifties", it was not rare for a Swiss professionnal military pilot to have about 200 hours each year on his Venom in a combat envirronment.

In some Eastern countries, it's common for a standard fighter pilot to fly only one hour in the month because of low budget. Are they feeling safe? Not at all.

And you, would you prefer to fly as a passenger in a tricky aircraft (again the Venom as an example, because of its wing profile, the stall and the spin is really nasty and a bad experience, even for an experienced pilot) with a very experienced pilot, but only with a few hours each year on the aircraft type, or with an average pilot, but who flies this aircraft every day as his job?

Cheers,




Message Edited on 07/15/0310:51PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 06:53 PM
It's a toughie but the pilot of the Firefly only converted to type during the last year, bearing in mind that it also had to do it's 5 hours of flight checks after its major overhaul

Similar thing occured with the Kingcobra last year
Thse are all extremely qualified pilots but you need plenty of hours on type imo

I don't want to speculate too much, but it is a nagging thought at the back of my mind

<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Please Visit my website: http://clik.to/everton</font>
http://members.lycos.co.uk/pigsmightfly/bluekipper.gif
<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Nil Satis Nisi Optimum</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 07:46 PM
One of my favorite things at airshows is when the aerial display birds (prop-driven for the most part) wind up and do repeated dives/wingovers. This is very basic and provides for the element of speed and sound. It lets you see the birds on action so to speak and keeps the hazards to attendees and pilots alike to a minimum.

Heck, I'd be happy with that.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/Yak3M.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 10:48 PM
Unfortunately a few aircraft have been lost when doing wingovers
The Mossie lost one engine during a wingover and now the Firefly

I think they should raise the altitude that some of these manouvers are carried out at to give some chance of recovery when things go wrong
We'll have to wait for the accident report but I expect there may be some changes

<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Please Visit my website: http://clik.to/everton</font>
http://members.lycos.co.uk/pigsmightfly/bluekipper.gif
<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Nil Satis Nisi Optimum</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:14 AM
Everton1878 wrote:
- Unfortunately a few aircraft have been lost when
- doing wingovers
- The Mossie lost one engine during a wingover and now
- the Firefly
-



the report on that mossie crash is interesting reading

one merlin died under negative G in the wing over causing an asymetric thrust problem and a spiral dive

then when the pilot almost had it under control teh egine restarted itself still on full throttle and through the plane into the ground.

the report is VERY condemning of the maintenance on the Mossie .... it states the early negative G problems with Merlins were SOLVED with some simple carby mods and regular maintenance .. but the merlin is so rarely used these days that apparently people have "forgotten" about the fixes needed to stop it occuring and forgotten about the regular maintenance checks required to avoid the problem

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 11:05 PM
WTE_Galway wrote:

- the report on that mossie crash is interesting
- reading
-
- one merlin died under negative G in the wing over
- causing an asymetric thrust problem and a spiral
- dive
-
- then when the pilot almost had it under control teh
- egine restarted itself still on full throttle and
- through the plane into the ground.
-
- the report is VERY condemning of the maintenance on
- the Mossie .... it states the early negative G
- problems with Merlins were SOLVED with some simple
- carby mods and regular maintenance .. but the merlin
- is so rarely used these days that apparently people
- have "forgotten" about the fixes needed to stop it
- occuring and forgotten about the regular maintenance
- checks required to avoid the problem
-
That's BAE systems for you
They also forgot that the Nimrods aren't all identical, thankfully that didn't lead to a tragic loss of life though

<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Please Visit my website: http://clik.to/everton</font>
http://members.lycos.co.uk/pigsmightfly/bluekipper.gif
<font face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF" size="5">Nil Satis Nisi Optimum</font>