Anyone have any photos of the damage?
According to a report on NPR Thursday morning, as the aircraft was
crossing a ridge approaching its drop point, the left wing did an
uncommanded downward roll and struck trees, resulting in damage to the
wing. The report stated that the aircraft would normally be several
hundred feet above the terrain, and no explaination as to why it was
flying lower than normal was given. Immediately following the contact,
power was added and the aircraft climbed and made flew to on to make the
emergency landing described below.

DC-10 tanker makes emergency landing at SÇLA (Tanker 910)
Victorville Daily Press ^ | 6/25/07 | TATIANA PROPHET

Posted on 06/26/2007 12:05:20 PM PDT by BurbankKarl

A DC-10 firetanker that was fighting the White Fire near Tehachapi hit
the treeline and recovered from severe turbulence, then made an
emergency landing at its home base of Southern California Logistics
Airport on Monday evening.

The wide-body jet, the first of its kind built to fight fires and the
only one in operation, performed two drops where it did an ³awesome job²
on the fire, which was 9,100 acres Monday night, said Sean Dakin, fire
information officer for state agency CAL FIRE.

With a 12,000-gallon capacity, it carries 10 times the amount of water
or fire retardant as a standard S2T firefighting prop plane and has
performed effectively on large-scale wildland fires, CAL FIRE officials
have said.

On Monday, after helping out the 800 firefighters on the ground, the
tanker started to have trouble near Bison Peak, south of Tehachapi, said
Janet Upton of CAL FIRE.

³It encountered severe turbulence, which caused the aircraft to descend
and strike several trees,² she said. ³The flight crew was able to apply
power and fly out of the turbulence, and they safely returned to their
base at Victorville.²

Fire officials were standing by after the plane landed safely at SCLA at
about 5:45 p.m.

There were no injuries to the crew or anyone on the ground, Upton said.
The incident is under investigation, she added, which will include a
complete structural examination of the aircraft.

A CAL FIRE team will be arriving today to look at the tanker, and the
plane will be grounded until the investigation is completed, she said.

Rick Hatton, a partner with the plane¹s co-developer, San Carlos-based
Cargo Conversions LLC, told the Daily Press earlier in the day about the
tanker¹s activities on the White Fire.

After the emergency landing, Hatton did not want to comment.

³I have no information at this time,² he said.

The terrain at the White Fire is highly difficult to access, Dakin said.

³It¹s a tough place to be, very steep,² he said.

About 50 structures were threatened, Dakin added, with some damaged but
no information yet available. A team will be going in today to assess
damage.

CAL FIRE recently hired the tanker exclusively for the next three years,
at about $5 million per year ‹ making the plane available for 122 days
from June to October.

It has not yet been certified by the U.S. Forest Service, so on Forest
Service lands, such as the site of the Angora Fire at Lake Tahoe, it is
not authorized to fight fires.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=509666

An old friend sent me a photo of a P-51 upside down next to the runway at
Camarillo Airport in California. I guess it happened within the last couple
of days or so.

Does anyone have an update on this?

Paul Anton
N1431A
KPLU

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:18:43 -0700, "Tri-Pacer" >
wrote:

>An old friend sent me a photo of a P-51 upside down next to the runway at
>Camarillo Airport in California. I guess it happened within the last couple
>of days or so.
>
>Does anyone have an update on this?
>
>Paul Anton
>N1431A
>KPLU

Via ANN:

New Pilot Lost InTakeoff And Landing Drills

ANN REALTIME UPDATE 07.16.07 1720 EDT: Officials have released the
name of the pilot of a P-51D Mustang who died in a Sunday morning
accident at Camarillo Airport.

John McKittrick, 42, was on his first solo flight in the airplane when
it crashed at 0815 PDT Sunday morning. It is unclear whether the
flight was McKittrick's first-ever solo.

Eyewitnesses tell ANN the accident occurred during the first landing
attempt, when the aircraft began porposing on landing, and the pilot
tried to stop the plane before running off the runway.

FAA spokesman Mike Fergus told the Fresno Bee the McKittrick's flight
instructor "told the tower that the student pilot was going to make
patterns" before the accident.

The accident occurred Sunday morning at 0820 local time.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 51TK Make/Model: P51 Description: P-51, F-51,
A-36 Mustang
Date: 07/15/2007 Time: 1505

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: CAMARILLO State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, CRASHED AND CAME TO REST INVERTED, THE ONE
PERSON ON
BOARD WAS FATALLY INJURED, CAMARILLO, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Training Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: VAN NUYS, CA (WP01) Entry date:
07/16/2007

Don

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:18:43 -0700, "Tri-Pacer" >
wrote in >:

>An old friend sent me a photo of a P-51 upside down next to the runway at
>Camarillo Airport in California. I guess it happened within the last couple
>of days or so.
>
>Does anyone have an update on this?

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6382818?source=rss

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/02_51TK.txt
************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 7/16/2007 Record 2 **
************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 51TK Make/Model: P51 Description: P-51, F-51,
A-36 Mustang
Date: 07/15/2007 Time: 1505

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing:
N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: CAMARILLO State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, CRASHED AND CAME TO REST INVERTED, THE ONE
PERSON ON
BOARD WAS FATALLY INJURED, CAMARILLO, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Training Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: VAN NUYS, CA (WP01) Entry date:
07/16/2007


http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/15/camarilloaircrash/
Man killed in air crash at Camarillo Airport
By Jenni Mintz (Contact)
Originally published 06:42 p.m., July 15, 2007
Updated 06:42 p.m., July 15, 2007

Pilot killed in Sunday crash identified
During his first solo flight, a 42-year-old Thousand Oaks resident was
killed Sunday morning after crashing a privately-owned, Mustang
Vintage P-51 WWII aircraft at the Camarillo Airport on the south end
of the runway.

A call was made to the dispatcher about 8:15 a.m., and about 30
emergency personnel responded, including airport operations, the
sheriff and coroner, said Mark Taillon, Ventura County Fire Department
captain. The man was pronounced dead at 8:35 a.m.

Witnesses say the man appeared to be practicing taking off and
landing, Taillon said. He took off from the runway headed west when
the plane crashed into fields adjacent to the runway, according to the
Ventura County Fire Department.

At the family's request, the victim's name will not be made public
until Monday, because he had extensive family in the area that should
be notified first. All that could be released about the man's identity
Sunday is that he's a local resident, Taillon said.

— Staff writer Lisa McKinnon contributed to this report.

> It is unclear whether the
> flight was McKittrick's first-ever solo.

If this pilot was really on his first solo flight EVER, I'm going to
get in line to sue the flight instructor. Anyone who would put one
of the last Mustangs at risk by training a student pilot in one
deserves to be shot, I don't care how rich the student is.

If, however, (as I suspect) the crash victim was already an
experienced pilot, it's merely another tragic accident. What a shame,
both for the family and for all of us who hope to be able to see (and
hear!) Mustangs forever.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:37:10 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in . com>:

>If this pilot was really on his first solo flight EVER,

JOHN MITCHELL MCKITTRICK
Address

Street XXXXX
County VENTURA Zip Code 91361-5082
Country USA

Medical
Medical Class: Third Medical Date: 4/2006

Certificates
1 of 1

DOI: 6/18/2005
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT

Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

First. Read Don's posting close. He was checking out in the '51 and
this was his first flight in it.

From the statement that he proporsed, I suggest he was trying to make
a wheel landing. Two of the sister Squadron in my Fighter Group made
wheel landings and they had a number of botched landings trying to
wheel it on. Several ended up going in inverted due to trying to go
around with full power and couldn't control the torque. If you tried
to 'stick' it on with forward pressure of stick you also ran into the
possibility of hitting the prop. Once you bounced it was take it
around or you would porpose.

My Squadron always made three point landings and we had a lesser
landing accident rate then the other two Squadrons combined.

I made a few wheel landings and it took much more technique to get the
bird down in one piece.

I, of course, send condolences to the family and friends.

Big John
*******************************************

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:30:16 -0700, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:18:43 -0700, "Tri-Pacer" >
>wrote:
>
>>An old friend sent me a photo of a P-51 upside down next to the runway at
>>Camarillo Airport in California. I guess it happened within the last couple
>>of days or so.
>>
>>Does anyone have an update on this?
>>
>>Paul Anton
>>N1431A
>>KPLU
>
>Via ANN:
>
>New Pilot Lost InTakeoff And Landing Drills
>
>ANN REALTIME UPDATE 07.16.07 1720 EDT: Officials have released the
>name of the pilot of a P-51D Mustang who died in a Sunday morning
>accident at Camarillo Airport.
>
>John McKittrick, 42, was on his first solo flight in the airplane when
>it crashed at 0815 PDT Sunday morning. It is unclear whether the
>flight was McKittrick's first-ever solo.
>
>Eyewitnesses tell ANN the accident occurred during the first landing
>attempt, when the aircraft began porposing on landing, and the pilot
>tried to stop the plane before running off the runway.
>
>FAA spokesman Mike Fergus told the Fresno Bee the McKittrick's flight
>instructor "told the tower that the student pilot was going to make
>patterns" before the accident.
>
>The accident occurred Sunday morning at 0820 local time.
>
>IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 51TK Make/Model: P51 Description: P-51, F-51,
>A-36 Mustang
> Date: 07/15/2007 Time: 1505
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
>Missing: N
> Damage: Substantial
>
>LOCATION
> City: CAMARILLO State: CA Country: US
>
>DESCRIPTION
> AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, CRASHED AND CAME TO REST INVERTED, THE ONE
>PERSON ON
> BOARD WAS FATALLY INJURED, CAMARILLO, CA
>
>INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>Unk:
>
>WEATHER: NOT REPORTED
>
>OTHER DATA
> Activity: Training Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER
>
>
> FAA FSDO: VAN NUYS, CA (WP01) Entry date:
>07/16/2007
>
>Don

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> It is unclear whether the
>> flight was McKittrick's first-ever solo.
>
> If this pilot was really on his first solo flight EVER, I'm going to
> get in line to sue the flight instructor. Anyone who would put one
> of the last Mustangs at risk by training a student pilot in one
> deserves to be shot, I don't care how rich the student is.
>
> If, however, (as I suspect) the crash victim was already an
> experienced pilot, it's merely another tragic accident. What a shame,
> both for the family and for all of us who hope to be able to see (and
> hear!) Mustangs forever.

I'll bet it was first solo IN THE AIRCRAFT. There are two John Mckittricks
in the database one is a controller the other is a PP SEL,MEL and Inst.

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:18:43 -0700, "Tri-Pacer" >
> wrote:
>
>>An old friend sent me a photo of a P-51 upside down next to the runway at
>>Camarillo Airport in California. I guess it happened within the last
>>couple
>>of days or so.

That's not the one that's in One Six Right is it?

-c

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> DOI: 6/18/2005
> Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT

That's pushing it for a Mustang, isn't it? Licensed in 2005?

> Rating(s):
> PRIVATE PILOT
> AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
> AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
> INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:50:58 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> DOI: 6/18/2005
>> Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
>
>That's pushing it for a Mustang, isn't it? Licensed in 2005?
>
>> Rating(s):
>> PRIVATE PILOT
>> AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
>> AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
>> INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
>

Isn't the DOI referencing the latest privelege or rating issued? So
he could have been private for 20 years and just now picked up his
AMEL-IA.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>>Does anyone have an update on this?
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6382818?source=rss

"CAMARILLO - A pilot died this morning when he crashed his vintage P-51
Mustang into a field next to the Camarillo Airport, firefighters said."

Hey, all: If I ever die and the article about the crash includes the phrase
"his vintage P-51 Mustang", know that I have lived well.

-c
(Who cares if it's really -his- vintage Mustang? He's probably high-fiving
himself up there with Magee)

Gatt wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> DOI: 6/18/2005
>> Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
>
> That's pushing it for a Mustang, isn't it? Licensed in 2005?

Did the original P-51 pilots get two years of experience before flying
them? <G>

I would imagine the 2005 may be the last rating added.

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:50:58 -0700, "Gatt" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> DOI: 6/18/2005
>>> Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
>>
>> That's pushing it for a Mustang, isn't it? Licensed in 2005?
>>
>>> Rating(s):
>>> PRIVATE PILOT
>>> AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
>>> AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
>>> INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
>>
>
> Isn't the DOI referencing the latest privelege or rating issued? So
> he could have been private for 20 years and just now picked up his
> AMEL-IA.

Not only that if a pilot gets a new certificate for any reason, like just
wanting one of the plastic ones, the date will be reset.

Also keep in mind that the guys who flew these back in the 40's while
getting shot at usually had less than 2 years experience flying.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:07:43 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>Does anyone have an update on this?
>>
>> http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6382818?source=rss
>
>"CAMARILLO - A pilot died this morning when he crashed his vintage P-51
>Mustang into a field next to the Camarillo Airport, firefighters said."



P-51 OWNER KILLED IN FIRST NON-SUPERVISED FLIGHT
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195640)
John McKittrick, 42, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., was killed Sunday
morning as he practiced takeoffs and landings on his own for the
first time in his vintage P-51D Mustang. McKittrick, an
experienced pilot, had been flying with an instructor and landed
at Camarillo Airport. The instructor had just gotten out of the
aircraft and told tower controllers that McKittrick would be
soloing the airplane and would stay in the pattern, an FAA
spokesman told the Ventura County Star

(http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/16/man-killed-in-camarillo-plane-crash/).
According to the FAA

(http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/17/pilot-killed-in-crash-is-identified/),
the airplane bounced on landing, ran off the side of the runway
and flipped. The vintage Mustang broke apart in the accident, but
there was no post-crash fire.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195640

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> Also keep in mind that the guys who flew these back in the 40's while
> getting shot at usually had less than 2 years experience flying.

True. But most of that flying time was training in a phased and regimented
course on a full-time basis. In other words, they were -full time- 90 day
wonders.

A civilian pilot can get his complex, high performance and taildragger
ratings at his leisure and without as much persistence and currency as
somebody who had a full-time flight instruction every day for three months.
In addition, the 90-day wonders who flew Mustangs back in the day were the
ones who weren't washed out first. They couldn't just lay out a few
thousand dollars and buy themselves a checkout in a P-51. If they weren't
skilled and better-than-average pilots by the time they got near a Mustang,
they'd have never flown one.

-c

This from the newspaper article:

"Worldwide, there are only about 40 P-51s still flying, and they can
sell for more than $1.5 million, deBree said"

Forty still flying? I'd says it's about 5 times that number, perhaps
a bit more.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:24:28 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in . com>:

>This from the newspaper article:
>
>"Worldwide, there are only about 40 P-51s still flying, and they can
>sell for more than $1.5 million, deBree said"
>
>Forty still flying? I'd says it's about 5 times that number, perhaps
>a bit more.

Given:


http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/acftinqSQL.asp?striptxt=p51&mfrtxt=&modeltxt=p-51&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Registry
Make / Model Inquiry Results

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manufacturer Name Entered : None
Model Name Entered : P-51
Number of Records: 112 (Page 1 of 3)

What percentage of the registered P-51s do you figure are airworthy?

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:57:47 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:53:00 -0700, "Gatt" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>>> Also keep in mind that the guys who flew these back in the 40's while
>>> getting shot at usually had less than 2 years experience flying.
>>
>>True. But most of that flying time was training in a phased and regimented
>>course on a full-time basis. In other words, they were -full time- 90 day
>>wonders.
>>
>>A civilian pilot can get his complex, high performance and taildragger
>>ratings at his leisure and without as much persistence and currency as
>>somebody who had a full-time flight instruction every day for three months.
>>In addition, the 90-day wonders who flew Mustangs back in the day were the
>>ones who weren't washed out first. They couldn't just lay out a few
>>thousand dollars and buy themselves a checkout in a P-51. If they weren't
>>skilled and better-than-average pilots by the time they got near a Mustang,
>>they'd have never flown one.
>
>And I've read (but cannot verify) that more WW2 fighters and pilots
>were lost in accidents than in combat. So even the full time
>non-wash-out 90 day wonders had their own bad days.

One a day in Tampa Bay!

Think of it this way. Currently the primary training is done
contract. They are expected to earn the PPL in 50 hours if I read
correctly.

"Richard Riley" wrote:

>
> And I've read (but cannot verify) that more WW2 fighters and pilots
> were lost in accidents than in combat.

A veteran of the battles of Midway and Guadalcanal told me the same thing,
and the difference in numbers wasn't small, either.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:31:48 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> > wrote:


> >>And I've read (but cannot verify) that more WW2 fighters and pilots
> >>were lost in accidents than in combat. So even the full time
> >>non-wash-out 90 day wonders had their own bad days.
> >
> >One a day in Tampa Bay!
> >
> >Think of it this way. Currently the primary training is done
> >contract. They are expected to earn the PPL in 50 hours if I read
> >correctly.

> IIRC the national average for ordinary, walk in off the streets ab
> initio civilian pilot gets his PPL in about 62 hrs. So 50 for an
> intelligent, motivated, young student who's doing nothing but is
> certainly possible.

It almost always takes less total hours to learn something if you
are in "class" 8 hours a day, every day as oppossed to 1 or 2 hours
once a week or so.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:04:59 GMT, wrote:

>
>It almost always takes less total hours to learn something if you
>are in "class" 8 hours a day, every day as oppossed to 1 or 2 hours
>once a week or so.

I flew twice a week and studied hard, with some multi-week weather and
vacation breaks. My check ride was my 47th and 48th total hours
towards my PPL, and I switched from Warriors to a Sundowner @ 20 hrs.
TT. I "taught" my CFI to fly the Sundowner after digesting the POH
and developing checklists and V-speed sheets.

I'm sure a PP-ASEL would go even faster for a young,
studious,"all-day" student.

Peter

I was one of those WWII guys that ended up in a P-51. First got about
10-12 back seat landings in a T-6. Then checked out in the P-40. Then
went to a 51 Squadron and got a briefing from an old head on engine
operation and takeoff and landing speeds and then flew the bird. Don't
remember many accidents on check out in 51. Certainly not like the
original B-26 (one a day in Tampa bay).

Big John
************************************************** ****


On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:23:44 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:50:58 -0700, "Gatt" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> DOI: 6/18/2005
>>>> Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
>>>
>>> That's pushing it for a Mustang, isn't it? Licensed in 2005?
>>>
>>>> Rating(s):
>>>> PRIVATE PILOT
>>>> AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
>>>> AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
>>>> INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
>>>
>>
>> Isn't the DOI referencing the latest privelege or rating issued? So
>> he could have been private for 20 years and just now picked up his
>> AMEL-IA.
>
>Not only that if a pilot gets a new certificate for any reason, like just
>wanting one of the plastic ones, the date will be reset.
>
>Also keep in mind that the guys who flew these back in the 40's while
>getting shot at usually had less than 2 years experience flying.
>

Here is an extract from the NTSB report on the P-51 accident.
************************************************** ***********

According to preliminary information provided by Camarillo Air Traffic
Control Tower personnel, the airplane, with the private pilot and a
flight instructor on board, flew into the airport and made a full stop
landing. The flight instructor exited the airplane after informing the
tower that the pilot would be performing his first solo flight in the
airplane. The airplane departed on runway 26, remained in the traffic
pattern and returned for a landing on runway 26. Two controllers
observed the airplane touch down and then become airborne again. At
that point, it appeared to them that the pilot initiated a go around,
and the airplane immediately rolled left and impacted the ground
beside the runway in an inverted position.

************************************************** **************

This describes a classic torque roll with high power, low airspeed and
not leading with enought right rudder to counter the torque

I saw several of these first hand dring my years flying the P-51. We
ended up teaching new checkouts to only use 30 or so inches on go
around (at least until they got some airspeed back up and had enough
rudder to hold the torque).

A bloody shame to lose both the pilot and aircraft.

Big John
*************************************************



On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:09:19 -0500, Big John >
wrote:

>Peter
>
>I was one of those WWII guys that ended up in a P-51. First got about
>10-12 back seat landings in a T-6. Then checked out in the P-40. Then
>went to a 51 Squadron and got a briefing from an old head on engine
>operation and takeoff and landing speeds and then flew the bird. Don't
>remember many accidents on check out in 51. Certainly not like the
>original B-26 (one a day in Tampa bay).
>
>Big John
>************************************************** ****
>
>
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:23:44 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
><wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:50:58 -0700, "Gatt" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> DOI: 6/18/2005
>>>>> Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
>>>>
>>>> That's pushing it for a Mustang, isn't it? Licensed in 2005?
>>>>
>>>>> Rating(s):
>>>>> PRIVATE PILOT
>>>>> AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
>>>>> AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
>>>>> INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't the DOI referencing the latest privelege or rating issued? So
>>> he could have been private for 20 years and just now picked up his
>>> AMEL-IA.
>>
>>Not only that if a pilot gets a new certificate for any reason, like just
>>wanting one of the plastic ones, the date will be reset.
>>
>>Also keep in mind that the guys who flew these back in the 40's while
>>getting shot at usually had less than 2 years experience flying.
>>

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:13:58 -0500, Big John >
wrote in >:

>
>This describes a classic torque roll with high power, low airspeed and
>not leading with enought right rudder to counter the torque
>
>I saw several of these first hand dring my years flying the P-51. We
>ended up teaching new checkouts to only use 30 or so inches on go
>around (at least until they got some airspeed back up and had enough
>rudder to hold the torque).
>
>A bloody shame to lose both the pilot and aircraft.

Thanks for the firsthand information.

So it would appear that either the throttle malfunctioned, the PIC
failed to follow his training, or his instructor failed to adequately
train his student. Have you any idea if the 30" MP limit officially
became part of the check-out syllabus (presuming one exists)?

Has the name of the CFI been disclosed yet? It's a damn tragic shame
regardless of the cause. At least the aircraft can probably be
rebuilt.

Updated story with photo here:
http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/16/man-killed-in-camarillo-plane-crash/

http://www.theacorn.com/news/2007/0719/front_page/004.html
McKittrick was senior vice president of capital markets for
Countrywide Home Loans and for the past two years had been an
assistant football coach for freshmen and sophomores at Oaks
Christian High School.

Hethcock said Michele McKittrick, a personal trainer, runs a
physical education program for middle school students and is also
the conditioning coach for a number of the high school's athletic
teams.

The McKittrick Fitness Center, the school's weight and exercise
room, is named after the family.


http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/17/pilot-killed-in-crash-is-identified/
McKittrick's wife, Michele, teaches physical fitness at the
school. He also has a son and a daughter who are students there.

Posted by fishnpilot on July 17, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest
removal)

you are speaking out of turn here, ecarson, with out knowing all
the facts. this pilot had the best instructor a p51 pilot could
have, it takes a special person to be able to even give
instruction in these difficult to fly and sensitive warbirds. he
has at least 30 yrs experience with p51's. he was being thoughtful
and considerate of the public (on the ground) as you mentioned as
well. Camarillo is relatively sparse and has lots of room for
training. furthermore, he (Mckittrick) was given orders to stay in
the pattern and do one circuit to a full stop. no leaving the
pattern. the student had over 37 hrs dual instruction (in this
plane!) at this point and had not shown any bad tendancies. the
problem is, you cannot always predict what a students response
with be to any mistake he may make. you can only hope they use
good common sense as well as their acquired skills to correct it.
sometimes it leads to an unfortunate event such as this, and
unless you know exactly what happened you should not be so quick
to criticise. i have had similar experiences with students in
specilized aircraft and thousands of dual given with a tally of
more 10,000hrs in odd types or non-conventional planes. this
instructor was actually being very cautious in this instance and
knows the plane and pilot well.

Apparently Howie Keefe is based in Camarillo:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Books/P-51_Keefe/P-51_Air_Racer.htm


Pilot photo here: http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005116115
McKittrick, 42, a bond trader, an experienced pilot in other
single- and twin-engine aircraft, had purchased the Mustang five
months ago with the intention of entering next year's Reno Air
Races in the high-speed, unlimited aircraft class, according to a
close Ketchum friend of 14 years and fellow P-51 owner-pilot, Bill
Rheinschild.

Rheinschild told the Mountain Express that based on accounts of
witnesses at Camarillo Airport north of Los Angeles, McKittrick
was flying the Mustang¾nicknamed "Lou IV"¾solo for the first time
since taking some 50 hours of dual instruction in the modified,
two-seat former Air Force fighter.

His unidentified instructor had cleared McKittrick for takeoffs
and landings and flying in the airport pattern.

"On landing," Rheinschild said, McKittrick "made a perfect
approach but ballooned (bounced) when his tail wheel touched down
too early."

He said McKittrick "added too much power" on the 1,850-horsepower
Rolls Royce Merlin engine to neutralize the porpoising, which
caused the aircraft to "torque roll." The high-speed aircraft
whipped over into an inverted attitude and immediately crashed,
killing McKittrick instantly. There was no fire.

"Whenever you get into a situation like that," Rheinschild
explained, "it's every aviator's reaction to give it power. But
you can't do it in this kind of airplane."

Rheinschild said McKittrick has owned a single-engine Beech
Bonanza, a twin-engine Beech KingAir C-90 and a World War II T-6
trainer, and had contracted for construction of a Hawker Sea Fury
with complete parts he'd bought.

McKittrick, whose fulltime residence is in Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
had about 1,500 hours of flying experience, Rheinschild said.
Rheinschild is president of a southern California home-building
corporation, but lives in the valley.

The P-51 (later the F-51) was the first U.S. fighter capable of
accompanying World War II heavy bomber raids deep into Europe to
ward off German fighters. The Mustang also was a superb ground
attack aircraft in support of ground troops. McKittrick's Mustang
had the telltale black-and-white wing stripes painted on aircraft
involved in the D-Day Normandy invasion.

He is survived by his wife, Michele, and two children.

A memorial service will be held at 10 a.m. Friday at the Calvary
Christian Church, Westlake, Calif., with a reception following at
Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no
way represent the views of Express Publishing Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laura Wells – Reno, Nevada 07/20/07 - 18:22Hi Bill. this is Laura
(formerly Buehn, now Wells, who had the Grumman Albatrosses in
Carson). I am so sorry about the loss of your friend John. I
helped on the ramp at Pylon Racing School this year, and spoke to
him several times. What a nice, polite man he was. He was so
thankful for any help at PRS. He spoke about how excited he was
about the prospect of racing next year. My thoughts are with all
his family and friends. Sincerely, Laura Wells


Pre-mishap photo and discussion here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51-crash-camarillo-pilot-killed-8807.html#post263019

Discussion:
http://ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=187405
This gentlemen was already a pilot, and had recently purchased this
plane. He had roughly 30 hrs of flight time in the P-51 aircraft with
an instructor, and the instructor was at the airport and witnessed the
accident...

http://ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=187452
Doing a search of the FAA database, there are only 5 registerd TF-51s
(two seat variants)and this one wasn't one of them. A check of the N
number of this plane revealed it registered as at F-51D, perhaps just
a registration inaccuracy.

John is correct. This accident has all the markings of a classic torque
out on the go-around. It should be noted that although it looks that
way, the official investigation report is inconclusive at this early
point in time and the accident has not yet been assigned a probable cause.
As for the 30 inches on go-around; no, this is not standard procedure
for the 51. Standard procedure for this airplane is to set the propeller
for 2700RPM on final. This allows up to 46" (METO)of MP for the
go-around if necessary.
This by no means should be misconstrued to indicate that what John said
was incorrect. If you have enough runway you could use 30 inches as was
the directive in John's outfit but this would have had to be by tech
order at Squadron, Group, or Wing level as it was not Dash-1 for the
Mustang.
Dudley Henriques


Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:13:58 -0500, Big John >
> wrote in >:
>
>> This describes a classic torque roll with high power, low airspeed and
>> not leading with enought right rudder to counter the torque
>>
>> I saw several of these first hand dring my years flying the P-51. We
>> ended up teaching new checkouts to only use 30 or so inches on go
>> around (at least until they got some airspeed back up and had enough
>> rudder to hold the torque).
>>
>> A bloody shame to lose both the pilot and aircraft.
>
> Thanks for the firsthand information.
>
> So it would appear that either the throttle malfunctioned, the PIC
> failed to follow his training, or his instructor failed to adequately
> train his student. Have you any idea if the 30" MP limit officially
> became part of the check-out syllabus (presuming one exists)?
>
> Has the name of the CFI been disclosed yet? It's a damn tragic shame
> regardless of the cause. At least the aircraft can probably be
> rebuilt.
>
> Updated story with photo here:
> http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/16/man-killed-in-camarillo-plane-crash/
>
> http://www.theacorn.com/news/2007/0719/front_page/004.html
> McKittrick was senior vice president of capital markets for
> Countrywide Home Loans and for the past two years had been an
> assistant football coach for freshmen and sophomores at Oaks
> Christian High School.
>
> Hethcock said Michele McKittrick, a personal trainer, runs a
> physical education program for middle school students and is also
> the conditioning coach for a number of the high school's athletic
> teams.
>
> The McKittrick Fitness Center, the school's weight and exercise
> room, is named after the family.
>
>
> http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/17/pilot-killed-in-crash-is-identified/
> McKittrick's wife, Michele, teaches physical fitness at the
> school. He also has a son and a daughter who are students there.
>
> Posted by fishnpilot on July 17, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest
> removal)
>
> you are speaking out of turn here, ecarson, with out knowing all
> the facts. this pilot had the best instructor a p51 pilot could
> have, it takes a special person to be able to even give
> instruction in these difficult to fly and sensitive warbirds. he
> has at least 30 yrs experience with p51's. he was being thoughtful
> and considerate of the public (on the ground) as you mentioned as
> well. Camarillo is relatively sparse and has lots of room for
> training. furthermore, he (Mckittrick) was given orders to stay in
> the pattern and do one circuit to a full stop. no leaving the
> pattern. the student had over 37 hrs dual instruction (in this
> plane!) at this point and had not shown any bad tendancies. the
> problem is, you cannot always predict what a students response
> with be to any mistake he may make. you can only hope they use
> good common sense as well as their acquired skills to correct it.
> sometimes it leads to an unfortunate event such as this, and
> unless you know exactly what happened you should not be so quick
> to criticise. i have had similar experiences with students in
> specilized aircraft and thousands of dual given with a tally of
> more 10,000hrs in odd types or non-conventional planes. this
> instructor was actually being very cautious in this instance and
> knows the plane and pilot well.
>
> Apparently Howie Keefe is based in Camarillo:
> http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Books/P-51_Keefe/P-51_Air_Racer.htm
>
>
> Pilot photo here: http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005116115
> McKittrick, 42, a bond trader, an experienced pilot in other
> single- and twin-engine aircraft, had purchased the Mustang five
> months ago with the intention of entering next year's Reno Air
> Races in the high-speed, unlimited aircraft class, according to a
> close Ketchum friend of 14 years and fellow P-51 owner-pilot, Bill
> Rheinschild.
>
> Rheinschild told the Mountain Express that based on accounts of
> witnesses at Camarillo Airport north of Los Angeles, McKittrick
> was flying the Mustang¾nicknamed "Lou IV"¾solo for the first time
> since taking some 50 hours of dual instruction in the modified,
> two-seat former Air Force fighter.
>
> His unidentified instructor had cleared McKittrick for takeoffs
> and landings and flying in the airport pattern.
>
> "On landing," Rheinschild said, McKittrick "made a perfect
> approach but ballooned (bounced) when his tail wheel touched down
> too early."
>
> He said McKittrick "added too much power" on the 1,850-horsepower
> Rolls Royce Merlin engine to neutralize the porpoising, which
> caused the aircraft to "torque roll." The high-speed aircraft
> whipped over into an inverted attitude and immediately crashed,
> killing McKittrick instantly. There was no fire.
>
> "Whenever you get into a situation like that," Rheinschild
> explained, "it's every aviator's reaction to give it power. But
> you can't do it in this kind of airplane."
>
> Rheinschild said McKittrick has owned a single-engine Beech
> Bonanza, a twin-engine Beech KingAir C-90 and a World War II T-6
> trainer, and had contracted for construction of a Hawker Sea Fury
> with complete parts he'd bought.
>
> McKittrick, whose fulltime residence is in Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
> had about 1,500 hours of flying experience, Rheinschild said.
> Rheinschild is president of a southern California home-building
> corporation, but lives in the valley.
>
> The P-51 (later the F-51) was the first U.S. fighter capable of
> accompanying World War II heavy bomber raids deep into Europe to
> ward off German fighters. The Mustang also was a superb ground
> attack aircraft in support of ground troops. McKittrick's Mustang
> had the telltale black-and-white wing stripes painted on aircraft
> involved in the D-Day Normandy invasion.
>
> He is survived by his wife, Michele, and two children.
>
> A memorial service will be held at 10 a.m. Friday at the Calvary
> Christian Church, Westlake, Calif., with a reception following at
> Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no
> way represent the views of Express Publishing Inc.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Laura Wells – Reno, Nevada 07/20/07 - 18:22Hi Bill. this is Laura
> (formerly Buehn, now Wells, who had the Grumman Albatrosses in
> Carson). I am so sorry about the loss of your friend John. I
> helped on the ramp at Pylon Racing School this year, and spoke to
> him several times. What a nice, polite man he was. He was so
> thankful for any help at PRS. He spoke about how excited he was
> about the prospect of racing next year. My thoughts are with all
> his family and friends. Sincerely, Laura Wells
>
>
> Pre-mishap photo and discussion here:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51-crash-camarillo-pilot-killed-8807.html#post263019
>
> Discussion:
> http://ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=187405
> This gentlemen was already a pilot, and had recently purchased this
> plane. He had roughly 30 hrs of flight time in the P-51 aircraft with
> an instructor, and the instructor was at the airport and witnessed the
> accident...
>
> http://ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=187452
> Doing a search of the FAA database, there are only 5 registerd TF-51s
> (two seat variants)and this one wasn't one of them. A check of the N
> number of this plane revealed it registered as at F-51D, perhaps just
> a registration inaccuracy.

Comment to a comment to a comment, etc.

Comment was made that bird touched down tail wheel first. I have never
seen a bird that made a 3 point or Navy landing porpoise or bounce. I
still believe that a wheel landing was attempted which if not done
correctly will cause a bounce off main gear and can lead to a porpoise
if pilot further attempts to land on that attempt. Many aircraft after
a bounce off of main wheels, pilot can add a LITTLE power and then
setup a new try at touch down, runway length permitting. However in
many (most) cases of this, it ends up in an accident with a 51 so go
around is the safest course.

The thirty inches I spoke about was a general term for very modest
power application (half power) on go around after a botched landing. I
told the people I checked out to use thirty inches OR SO and explained
why. Actually 20 inches would stabilize the bird and then let you
slowly add more power and accelerate to climb air speed. This was not
a tech order figure even though they cautioned about high power and
low airspeed and not enough rudder on go around. We told new pilots
to only put a medium amount of power to start the go around (bird
would fly OK on 20-30 inches and 3000 rpm) and after under control and
cleaned up, climb power could be added and you could climb out
normally.

Dudley talks about 2700 rpm and 45 inches MP. The birds I flew used
115/145 octane gas (no longer available to the normal war bird) and we
used 3000 rpm and 61 inches for all take offs. Pre landing check, we
put the prop full forward (low pitch position) and on go around the
rpm would go to 3000 rpm with throttle application.

The 45 inches Dudley talks about is based up the octane of fuel
available today and pulling less power is easier on engine and less
out of pocket expense for maintenance and overhaul for the owners.
Uncle Sam paid for my airplane so I flew it like they said :o)

Last one of these accidents I saw, the pilot (from a sister Sq who
made wheel landings) used to much power on go around and torque rolled
into sandy soil next to runway (did not burn). A group of us ran out
to aircraft and could see pilot trying to dig his way out so we got on
one wing and lifted the bird up to where the cockpit was above ground
(canopy had broken of course) and he fell out and walked away with
hardly a scratch. Some people are like that, lucky as hell.

Again, as Dudley said, the para I quoted from NTSB initial report is
not their final analysis of accident. Year from now and we will
probably get a final.

Again, a bloody shame.

Big John

************************************************** ******


On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:21:36 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>John is correct. This accident has all the markings of a classic torque
>out on the go-around. It should be noted that although it looks that
>way, the official investigation report is inconclusive at this early
>point in time and the accident has not yet been assigned a probable cause.
>As for the 30 inches on go-around; no, this is not standard procedure
>for the 51. Standard procedure for this airplane is to set the propeller
>for 2700RPM on final. This allows up to 46" (METO)of MP for the
>go-around if necessary.
>This by no means should be misconstrued to indicate that what John said
>was incorrect. If you have enough runway you could use 30 inches as was
>the directive in John's outfit but this would have had to be by tech
>order at Squadron, Group, or Wing level as it was not Dash-1 for the
>Mustang.
>Dudley Henriques
>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:13:58 -0500, Big John >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> This describes a classic torque roll with high power, low airspeed and
>>> not leading with enought right rudder to counter the torque
>>>
>>> I saw several of these first hand dring my years flying the P-51. We
>>> ended up teaching new checkouts to only use 30 or so inches on go
>>> around (at least until they got some airspeed back up and had enough
>>> rudder to hold the torque).
>>>
>>> A bloody shame to lose both the pilot and aircraft.
>>
>> Thanks for the firsthand information.
>>
>> So it would appear that either the throttle malfunctioned, the PIC
>> failed to follow his training, or his instructor failed to adequately
>> train his student. Have you any idea if the 30" MP limit officially
>> became part of the check-out syllabus (presuming one exists)?
>>
>> Has the name of the CFI been disclosed yet? It's a damn tragic shame
>> regardless of the cause. At least the aircraft can probably be
>> rebuilt.
>>
>> Updated story with photo here:
>> http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/16/man-killed-in-camarillo-plane-crash/
>>
>> http://www.theacorn.com/news/2007/0719/front_page/004.html
>> McKittrick was senior vice president of capital markets for
>> Countrywide Home Loans and for the past two years had been an
>> assistant football coach for freshmen and sophomores at Oaks
>> Christian High School.
>>
>> Hethcock said Michele McKittrick, a personal trainer, runs a
>> physical education program for middle school students and is also
>> the conditioning coach for a number of the high school's athletic
>> teams.
>>
>> The McKittrick Fitness Center, the school's weight and exercise
>> room, is named after the family.
>>
>>
>> http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/17/pilot-killed-in-crash-is-identified/
>> McKittrick's wife, Michele, teaches physical fitness at the
>> school. He also has a son and a daughter who are students there.
>>
>> Posted by fishnpilot on July 17, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest
>> removal)
>>
>> you are speaking out of turn here, ecarson, with out knowing all
>> the facts. this pilot had the best instructor a p51 pilot could
>> have, it takes a special person to be able to even give
>> instruction in these difficult to fly and sensitive warbirds. he
>> has at least 30 yrs experience with p51's. he was being thoughtful
>> and considerate of the public (on the ground) as you mentioned as
>> well. Camarillo is relatively sparse and has lots of room for
>> training. furthermore, he (Mckittrick) was given orders to stay in
>> the pattern and do one circuit to a full stop. no leaving the
>> pattern. the student had over 37 hrs dual instruction (in this
>> plane!) at this point and had not shown any bad tendancies. the
>> problem is, you cannot always predict what a students response
>> with be to any mistake he may make. you can only hope they use
>> good common sense as well as their acquired skills to correct it.
>> sometimes it leads to an unfortunate event such as this, and
>> unless you know exactly what happened you should not be so quick
>> to criticise. i have had similar experiences with students in
>> specilized aircraft and thousands of dual given with a tally of
>> more 10,000hrs in odd types or non-conventional planes. this
>> instructor was actually being very cautious in this instance and
>> knows the plane and pilot well.
>>
>> Apparently Howie Keefe is based in Camarillo:
>> http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Books/P-51_Keefe/P-51_Air_Racer.htm
>>
>>
>> Pilot photo here: http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005116115
>> McKittrick, 42, a bond trader, an experienced pilot in other
>> single- and twin-engine aircraft, had purchased the Mustang five
>> months ago with the intention of entering next year's Reno Air
>> Races in the high-speed, unlimited aircraft class, according to a
>> close Ketchum friend of 14 years and fellow P-51 owner-pilot, Bill
>> Rheinschild.
>>
>> Rheinschild told the Mountain Express that based on accounts of
>> witnesses at Camarillo Airport north of Los Angeles, McKittrick
>> was flying the Mustang¾nicknamed "Lou IV"¾solo for the first time
>> since taking some 50 hours of dual instruction in the modified,
>> two-seat former Air Force fighter.
>>
>> His unidentified instructor had cleared McKittrick for takeoffs
>> and landings and flying in the airport pattern.
>>
>> "On landing," Rheinschild said, McKittrick "made a perfect
>> approach but ballooned (bounced) when his tail wheel touched down
>> too early."
>>
>> He said McKittrick "added too much power" on the 1,850-horsepower
>> Rolls Royce Merlin engine to neutralize the porpoising, which
>> caused the aircraft to "torque roll." The high-speed aircraft
>> whipped over into an inverted attitude and immediately crashed,
>> killing McKittrick instantly. There was no fire.
>>
>> "Whenever you get into a situation like that," Rheinschild
>> explained, "it's every aviator's reaction to give it power. But
>> you can't do it in this kind of airplane."
>>
>> Rheinschild said McKittrick has owned a single-engine Beech
>> Bonanza, a twin-engine Beech KingAir C-90 and a World War II T-6
>> trainer, and had contracted for construction of a Hawker Sea Fury
>> with complete parts he'd bought.
>>
>> McKittrick, whose fulltime residence is in Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
>> had about 1,500 hours of flying experience, Rheinschild said.
>> Rheinschild is president of a southern California home-building
>> corporation, but lives in the valley.
>>
>> The P-51 (later the F-51) was the first U.S. fighter capable of
>> accompanying World War II heavy bomber raids deep into Europe to
>> ward off German fighters. The Mustang also was a superb ground
>> attack aircraft in support of ground troops. McKittrick's Mustang
>> had the telltale black-and-white wing stripes painted on aircraft
>> involved in the D-Day Normandy invasion.
>>
>> He is survived by his wife, Michele, and two children.
>>
>> A memorial service will be held at 10 a.m. Friday at the Calvary
>> Christian Church, Westlake, Calif., with a reception following at
>> Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no
>> way represent the views of Express Publishing Inc.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Laura Wells – Reno, Nevada 07/20/07 - 18:22Hi Bill. this is Laura
>> (formerly Buehn, now Wells, who had the Grumman Albatrosses in
>> Carson). I am so sorry about the loss of your friend John. I
>> helped on the ramp at Pylon Racing School this year, and spoke to
>> him several times. What a nice, polite man he was. He was so
>> thankful for any help at PRS. He spoke about how excited he was
>> about the prospect of racing next year. My thoughts are with all
>> his family and friends. Sincerely, Laura Wells
>>
>>
>> Pre-mishap photo and discussion here:
>> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51-crash-camarillo-pilot-killed-8807.html#post263019
>>
>> Discussion:
>> http://ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=187405
>> This gentlemen was already a pilot, and had recently purchased this
>> plane. He had roughly 30 hrs of flight time in the P-51 aircraft with
>> an instructor, and the instructor was at the airport and witnessed the
>> accident...
>>
>> http://ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=187452
>> Doing a search of the FAA database, there are only 5 registerd TF-51s
>> (two seat variants)and this one wasn't one of them. A check of the N
>> number of this plane revealed it registered as at F-51D, perhaps just
>> a registration inaccuracy.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:31:46 -0500, Big John >
wrote in >:

>Last one of these accidents I saw, the pilot (from a sister Sq who
>made wheel landings) used to much power on go around and torque rolled
>into sandy soil next to runway (did not burn).

Thank you for the firsthand information.

What puzzles me is why, when the PIC finds that he is unable to
control the torque, he doesn't reduce the power? Or is the power
application so swift that there isn't time to react to the torque
roll?

Commercial pilots are taught to apply power smoothly (slowly), it
would seem that there would be time to do that in this sort of
situation. Am I wrong?

Big John wrote:

> Dudley talks about 2700 rpm and 45 inches MP. The birds I flew used
> 115/145 octane gas (no longer available to the normal war bird) and we
> used 3000 rpm and 61 inches for all take offs. Pre landing check, we
> put the prop full forward (low pitch position) and on go around the
> rpm would go to 3000 rpm with throttle application.
>
> The 45 inches Dudley talks about is based up the octane of fuel
> available today and pulling less power is easier on engine and less
> out of pocket expense for maintenance and overhaul for the owners.
> Uncle Sam paid for my airplane so I flew it like they said :o)
>

Actually John, the gas difference only applies to maximum power;
dropping max to 55 inches. METO isn't affected. With the "good gas"
normal take off for the 51 is as you guys flew it; 61" and 3000RPM. I
flew it that way as well when the high octane fuel was available.

Normal Dash-1 for the airplane even with the 55 inch power restriction
is still to run the prop up to 2700 on final and then use 46"
recommended for a go-around if needed.

A lot of 51 pilots did as you say and ran the prop all the way up to
3000 and used full power for a go-around but this an option and not
called for in the Dash 1.
With 100 LL gas, the Mustang is restricted to 55 inches and take offs
are done using this power setting with the prop all the way up. METO is
still 46 inches and 2700RPM and is still the recommended setting for a
go around.
Go arounds in the Mustang are fairly standard stuff if handled correctly
after proper training in how to perform them properly.
For training purposes you might want to be stepping up the power through
a go-around transition but sometimes when power is needed on a bounce
recovery you can't step the power. The "secret" to remaining in one
piece in the 51 is to be SMOOTH on the throttle with adequate rudder and
indeed some aileron as needed to control torque. Also on a bounce in a
51, you NEVER let it arc on you so that you end up apexed low and slow
at high AOA. THAT will get you killed!
Normal bounce procedure for the 51 for me anyway (of course I didn't
bounce it in all that much :-) is to neutralize the bounce by flattening
out any tendency to arc upward while maintaining directional control and
play the airspeed vs as little power as necessary to recover the bounce
tail low but on the mains again at the right touchdown speed. If this
can't be done due to the prevailing conditions of the bounce, smooth
power application, right rudder and right aileron should be used
together and extremely smoothly to fly the airplane out of the bounce
and into a go-around transition. I've done these many times in the
Mustang without incident and have always taught that power wasn't what
killed you on a go-around in the 51, but the WAY you used that power.

The right rudder trim setting on the Mustang at 6 degrees right for
takeoff is more to have the airplane trimmed after the initial power
reduction to METO in the climb rather than to help with torque on the
takeoff roll.
The bottom line on all this is that every 51 driver flies the airplane
just a bit differently then the next guy. My recommendation to pilots
moving into the 51 was to fly the airplane by the book and fly it smoothly.
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:31:46 -0500, Big John >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Last one of these accidents I saw, the pilot (from a sister Sq who
>> made wheel landings) used to much power on go around and torque rolled
>> into sandy soil next to runway (did not burn).
>
> Thank you for the firsthand information.
>
> What puzzles me is why, when the PIC finds that he is unable to
> control the torque, he doesn't reduce the power? Or is the power
> application so swift that there isn't time to react to the torque
> roll?
>
> Commercial pilots are taught to apply power smoothly (slowly), it
> would seem that there would be time to do that in this sort of
> situation. Am I wrong?
>
No, you're right, and that is exactly how it should be done; quickly but
extremely smoothly, with adequate rudder and aileron applied together.
As for what's "puzzling you"; in these airplanes you don't get the
luxury of finding out you can't control the torque on a go-around. By
that time it's way too late, and reducing the power may not be an option
due to the flight configuration and/or circumstances.
You get one shot in these airplanes to do it right; just one. The way to
control torque in the Mustang is to know exactly the conditions that
will cause the issue and take the proper steps to prevent it from
happening.
Dudley Henriques

Larry

The Merlin could be throttle bursted (Idle to full throttle as fast as
you could move it) and you would have full power, 3000 rpm and 61
inche3s in 1 to 1 1/2 seconds. Only engine I ever flew with that kind
of response to throttle movement.

So a pilot who slammed the throttle full open was presented with the
torque in that short period of time and unless you had some airspeed
or full rudder in, you were a goner. At cruise you could burst
throttle and you had plenty of rudder to hold the torque. You still
flew the engine smoothly however as no reason to burst throttle.

I saw one instance where a sister Sq was making a heavy weight take
off mission. 6 five inch HVAR's (high velocity arial rockets), two 110
gallon drop tanks (we also used 75 gallon tanks on some missions) and
full ammo for the 6 guns.

My tent was near the end of the R/W and several of us were out
watching the other Sq take off. This one pilot (not the sharpest both
before and after) lined up and ran up to probably 40 inches (guess on
my part from engine sound) and started roll and we could hear him go
to full throttle. He rolled about 25 feet and we saw the elevator go
full down and the tail lifted off the ground. As soon as it lifted and
the tail wheel left the runway the bird made a abrupt 90 degree left
(with torque) turn and ran off runway into a 5 foot ditch. We didn't
have time to blink as it happened.

We never lifted the tail until we had 30-40 mph so we could control
the torque with tail wheel. If you lifted tail a little bit early then
you had to be prepared to put a lot of rudder (even full if required)
in to hold the bird straight down runway.

As Dudley has said, you need/needed to know the airplane and fly it
within its limits or it could kill you.

As you can probably tell, I loved the bird back then and drool when I
hear a Merlin today as brings back many memories. :o)

Big John
******************************************


On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:31:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:31:46 -0500, Big John >
>wrote in >:
>
>>Last one of these accidents I saw, the pilot (from a sister Sq who
>>made wheel landings) used to much power on go around and torque rolled
>>into sandy soil next to runway (did not burn).
>
>Thank you for the firsthand information.
>
>What puzzles me is why, when the PIC finds that he is unable to
>control the torque, he doesn't reduce the power? Or is the power
>application so swift that there isn't time to react to the torque
>roll?
>
>Commercial pilots are taught to apply power smoothly (slowly), it
>would seem that there would be time to do that in this sort of
>situation. Am I wrong?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:17:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>
>> What puzzles me is why, when the PIC finds that he is unable to
>> control the torque, he doesn't reduce the power? Or is the power
>> application so swift that there isn't time to react to the torque
>> roll?
>>
>> Commercial pilots are taught to apply power smoothly (slowly), it
>> would seem that there would be time to do that in this sort of
>> situation. Am I wrong?
>>
>No, you're right, and that is exactly how it should be done; quickly but
>extremely smoothly, with adequate rudder and aileron applied together.
>As for what's "puzzling you"; in these airplanes you don't get the
>luxury of finding out you can't control the torque on a go-around. By
>that time it's way too late, and reducing the power may not be an option
>due to the flight configuration and/or circumstances.

You mean, if you see that the rudder is against the stop, and you're
starting to roll further to the right, you can't reduce the power to
counter the torque induced roll? What would happen? You'd at least
land/crash on the mains instead of the canopy, wouldn't you?

>You get one shot in these airplanes to do it right; just one.

To do it right, perhaps. But if you're out of control, you still have
some options other than letting the torque flip you over, don't you?
Or is there too much inertia with that big prop to expect a throttle
reduction to reduce torque fast enough to prevent it from rolling you
inverted?

>The way to control torque in the Mustang is to know exactly the conditions
>that will cause the issue and take the proper steps to prevent it from
>happening.
>Dudley Henriques

Okay. But once the PIC realizes that s/he's going to "scratch the
paint," the PIC's mind set should be to minimize the potential injury.
Wouldn't cartwheeling be preferable to landing on your head?

What is approach speed for a P-51 anyway?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:17:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>> What puzzles me is why, when the PIC finds that he is unable to
>>> control the torque, he doesn't reduce the power? Or is the power
>>> application so swift that there isn't time to react to the torque
>>> roll?
>>>
>>> Commercial pilots are taught to apply power smoothly (slowly), it
>>> would seem that there would be time to do that in this sort of
>>> situation. Am I wrong?
>>>
>> No, you're right, and that is exactly how it should be done; quickly but
>> extremely smoothly, with adequate rudder and aileron applied together.
>> As for what's "puzzling you"; in these airplanes you don't get the
>> luxury of finding out you can't control the torque on a go-around. By
>> that time it's way too late, and reducing the power may not be an option
>> due to the flight configuration and/or circumstances.
>
> You mean, if you see that the rudder is against the stop, and you're
> starting to roll further to the right, you can't reduce the power to
> counter the torque induced roll? What would happen? You'd at least
> land/crash on the mains instead of the canopy, wouldn't you?
>
>> You get one shot in these airplanes to do it right; just one.
>
> To do it right, perhaps. But if you're out of control, you still have
> some options other than letting the torque flip you over, don't you?
> Or is there too much inertia with that big prop to expect a throttle
> reduction to reduce torque fast enough to prevent it from rolling you
> inverted?
>
>> The way to control torque in the Mustang is to know exactly the conditions
>> that will cause the issue and take the proper steps to prevent it from
>> happening.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Okay. But once the PIC realizes that s/he's going to "scratch the
> paint," the PIC's mind set should be to minimize the potential injury.
> Wouldn't cartwheeling be preferable to landing on your head?
>
> What is approach speed for a P-51 anyway?
>

No. First of all, the term "full rudder" as relates to a go-around needs
some amplification for you if you are talking P51's. (Actually all
airplanes but especially the Mustang)
What corrects torque is aileron NOT rudder as many pilots believe. You
can sit on the ramp in a Mustang and power will compress the left main
gear strut. If you try this at over 40 inches standing still in a 51, it
will jump the chocks..it has THAT much power! Torque correction is in
ROLL, not in yaw, and this requires right aileron.
Anytime the propeller disc is slanted to the relative wind (you are
moving)you have P Factor. Anytime the propeller disc is transitioning in
pitch you have gyroscopic precession. With power applied you have spiral
slipstream on the vertical tail surfaces.
ALL of these left turning forces are active on the 11'3" Hamilton
Standard propeller mounted on the nose of a P51.
If you bounce this airplane, you had too much forward stick in hand
through the touchdown and the tail was probably too high. In the 51,
this is a classic bounce scenario, usually won't happen unless you're
landing hot.
When an airplane like a 51 bounces on touchdown, you have to be quick
and you have to be SMOOTH on both the controls and the throttle. Ham
fist either or both and it can spoil your day.
You recover from the bounce exactly as I described in my prior post or
you take it around exactly as I described it in the same prior post.
You NEVER allow a Mustang to bounce through an unassisted decelleration
letting it go high on you in the bounce.
As for torque. In applying power during a bounce correction, you have to
consider torque by holding in enough right aileron to correct it; P
Factor in any condidion other than stable level flight where both sides
of the blade arc are at equal aoa, and most certainly gyroscopic
precession 90 degrees to any deflection of the propeller disc while in
pitch transit. As power is applied, you will also be dealing with
spiraling slipstream. You correct with perfectly blended right aileron
for the torque, right rudder for the GP, PF, and SS. It goes without
saying that with all this going on, you don't EVER....and I mean EVER
allow a P51 to bounce through a bad touchdown to the point where full
application of these controls can't handle the situation. If you find
yourself in this condition, you are about to crash and power reduction
at that point would most likely not prevent that crash and would most
likely simply alter the angle at which the Mustang impacts the ground.
To answer your question specifically; cutting the power would certainly
aid in stopping the forces acting on the airplane, but that scenario
would most certainly be coming way too late based on the fact that the
need to do it would have already put the airplane beyond recovery
parameters considering ALL factors.

You asked about approach speed for the Mustang;
At the GW I flew the airplane most of the time, I used 150 for a normal
pattern, turning base to final dropping it to 120; then over the fence
at about 115 decelerating on down into the flare.
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:33:21 -0500, Big John >
wrote in >:

>Larry
>
>The Merlin could be throttle bursted (Idle to full throttle as fast as
>you could move it) and you would have full power, 3000 rpm and 61
>inche3s in 1 to 1 1/2 seconds. Only engine I ever flew with that kind
>of response to throttle movement.

I would characterize that as a very significant latency in power
response to throttle control input. But your next paragraph seems to
suggest that to be the reverse.

>So a pilot who slammed the throttle full open was presented with the
>torque in that short period of time and unless you had some airspeed
>or full rudder in, you were a goner.

I understand. But I presume the CFI taught not to do a burst-throttle
at low airspeed.

I'm still interested in the command latency you mentioned above. Did
the throttle have a similar latency throughout its travel, such that
the pilot was always anticipating the delay, or did the throttle
latency only occur, or was most pronounced, near the closed position?

As a result of the throttle latency, I can envision a situation where
the pilot is in a bit of a panic over his increasing descent rate
after reaching the apex of his arc immediately after the bounced
landing attempt. He smoothly applies throttle, but nothing happens.
About the time his initial throttle application begins to become
effective, he is facing a very hard second bounce, so in the vain
attempt to arrest his descent immediately, he applies more throttle as
he increases AOA, thus slowing the aircraft to the point that control
authority is insufficient to overcome the enormous torque that has
been erroneously commanded.

Is that scenario plausible?

>At cruise you could burst throttle and you had plenty of rudder to hold
>the torque. You still flew the engine smoothly however as no reason to
>burst throttle.

I see.

>I saw one instance where a sister Sq was making a heavy weight take
>off mission. 6 five inch HVAR's (high velocity arial rockets), two 110
>gallon drop tanks (we also used 75 gallon tanks on some missions) and
>full ammo for the 6 guns.
>
>My tent was near the end of the R/W and several of us were out
>watching the other Sq take off. This one pilot (not the sharpest both
>before and after) lined up and ran up to probably 40 inches (guess on
>my part from engine sound) and started roll and we could hear him go
>to full throttle. He rolled about 25 feet and we saw the elevator go
>full down and the tail lifted off the ground. As soon as it lifted and
>the tail wheel left the runway the bird made a abrupt 90 degree left
>(with torque) turn and ran off runway into a 5 foot ditch. We didn't
>have time to blink as it happened.

Wow!

>We never lifted the tail until we had 30-40 mph so we could control
>the torque with tail wheel. If you lifted tail a little bit early then
>you had to be prepared to put a lot of rudder (even full if required)
>in to hold the bird straight down runway.

So there were at least a couple of measures instituted to overcome the
P-51's tendency to torque roll uncontrollably.

30" max MP on the go around.

40 mph before lifting the tail on departure.

>As Dudley has said, you need/needed to know the airplane and fly it
>within its limits or it could kill you.

I suppose there are other gotchas than the immense torque.

>As you can probably tell, I loved the bird back then and drool when I
>hear a Merlin today as brings back many memories. :o)
>
>Big John

Well, you should write them up, so that they aren't forever lost. I'm
sure there would be interest in such a memoir.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:51:12 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>Compared to what?

I am rewarded with an immediate increase in power when advancing the
throttle of an IO-360 or O-540; there is no significant delay between
opening the throttle and an increase in power.

But perhaps I was misinterpreting what was said. Of course there is
some delay before a burst-throttle and the engine reaching full power
due to the necessity of accelerating the mass of the moving parts
involved.

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:33:21 -0500, Big John >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Larry
>>
>> The Merlin could be throttle bursted (Idle to full throttle as fast
>> as you could move it) and you would have full power, 3000 rpm and 61
>> inche3s in 1 to 1 1/2 seconds. Only engine I ever flew with that kind
>> of response to throttle movement.
>
> I would characterize that as a very significant latency in power
> response to throttle control input.
>
Compared to what? I can't think of any engine that responds more quickly
than that.

Neil
(not a P-51 pilot, but my father was...)

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> But perhaps I was misinterpreting what was said. Of course there is
> some delay before a burst-throttle and the engine reaching full power
> due to the necessity of accelerating the mass of the moving parts
> involved.

I think he's saying that any delay is even shorter in the Merlin, but
even more than that, the power differential in that Merlin between
cruise or whatever and "burst throttle" is magnitudes more than in your
360 or 540. These two things together are maybe what get you into
trouble if you are not careful and power is not increased smoothly.
I have a flight manual for the P-51 that I got when I flew Crazy Horse.
On take-offs and go-arounds it also says to advance the power "smoothly."

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:51:12 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Compared to what?
>
> I am rewarded with an immediate increase in power when advancing the
> throttle of an IO-360 or O-540; there is no significant delay between
> opening the throttle and an increase in power.
>
The original statement was the the Merlin would go from idle to _full
power_ in 1 to 1-1/2 seconds. I seriously doubt that your IO-360 or O-540
will do better, especially considering what the "full power" of a P-51 is.
;-)

> But perhaps I was misinterpreting what was said. Of course there is
> some delay before a burst-throttle and the engine reaching full power
> due to the necessity of accelerating the mass of the moving parts
> involved.
>
Absolutely.

Neil