T-34 crash

[Big John]

Another T-34 crashed today here in Houston killing the IP and
student.Was from the company that has air combat and upset training.

Eye witness heard a report and saw a wing that had separated. They had
a similar accident (wing separation) just a year ago that killed the
owner of Company.

Not sure if this bird had the FAA wing mod or not.

My condolences to the families of the pilots.

Big John

[Dave S]

I hate to sound negative, but two fatal crashes in a year or so..
involving the same company.. and the same scenario (aircraft, mode of
operation). I will be surprised if Texas Air Aces resumes operations.

What I would be REALLY surprised to hear is if the SECOND fatal was a
result of 1) an unmodified (in accordance with the AD) bird or 2) being
operated outside of its envelope.

Condolences are clearly in order.. but so are some very probing questions.

Dave

Big John wrote:
> Another T-34 crashed today here in Houston killing the IP and
> student.Was from the company that has air combat and upset training.
>
> Eye witness heard a report and saw a wing that had separated. They had
> a similar accident (wing separation) just a year ago that killed the
> owner of Company.
>
> Not sure if this bird had the FAA wing mod or not.
>
> My condolences to the families of the pilots.
>
> Big John

[Michael]

The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael ) wrote:

> It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
> exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
> single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
> 18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Didn't this company also teach unusual attitude and spin recovery? I
was looking to take this type of course with a similar group, but now I
am beginning to have second thoughts.

--
Peter

[Michael]

>>Didn't this company also teach unusual attitude and spin recovery?

Sure. They will teach you anything you want - just as long as you pay
for plane and instructor. But you don't really need a T-34 fitted with
cameras for that.

>> I was looking to take this type of course with a similar group, but
now I
am beginning to have second thoughts.

Unusual attitude and spin recovery is a great idea, and I recommend it
highly. Just don't do it in airplanes that are routinely overstressed
by these weekend warrior antics, and it will be fine. I can think of
at least two places in Houston you can go for that kind of training,
and one of them has very well maintained planes and is taught by a
retired aerobatic competitor (in this case retired does NOT mean that
she no longer flies or instructs).

Given that you fly a Bonanza, the best thing for you would be to find
someone who does this sort of training in an aerobatic F-33. I
remember there used to be someone at IWS (West Houston) who did that,
but that's as much detail as I remember.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael ) wrote:

> Given that you fly a Bonanza, the best thing for you would be to find
> someone who does this sort of training in an aerobatic F-33.

I didn't know there was such an aircraft. I'll ask ABS whether they
have any good recommendations. Thanks.

--
Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
> consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.
>
> Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
> Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
> competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
> much.
>
> It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
> exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
> single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
> 18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.
>
> Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
fighter pilot wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled
well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and
had no problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
>> consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.
>>
>> Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
>> Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
>> competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
>> much.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
>> exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
>> single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
>> 18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I completely agree with this opinion.
>
> The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a problem
> after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these fighter pilot
> wannabe schools.
> The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
> nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled well
> is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and had no
> problems with it.
> The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
> pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business equation.
> Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these flights, you have
> a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a vested interest in
> seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his buck. This is NOT a
> good situation as the customer begins "experimenting" with ACM on another
> airplane in 3 dimensional space flying an airplane that is as slippery as
> an eel nose low. Invariably, these "customers" will end up going deep nose
> low on the right side of the envelope as they attempt to get that little
> "extra" needed for a tracking solution on the camera sight.
> The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
> fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
> low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
> known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT when
> you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the psychological
> high they take away from the experience.
> It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
> business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
> "customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
> how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
> The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning and
> in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
> slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
> pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
> equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this airplane.
> Just my opinion.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
> for email; take out the trash
>
>

Well said! They should be using something more like a Stearman for these
flights.

Mike
MU-2

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:03:45 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
>> consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.
>>
>> Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
>> Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
>> competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
>> much.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
>> exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
>> single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
>> 18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.
>>
>> Michael
>
>I completely agree with this opinion.
>
>The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
>problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
>fighter pilot wannabe schools.
>The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
>nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled
>well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and
>had no problems with it.
>The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
>pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
>equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
>flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
>vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
>buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
>"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
>flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
>these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
>the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
>tracking solution on the camera sight.
>The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
>fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
>low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
>known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
>when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
>psychological high they take away from the experience.
>It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
>business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
>"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
>how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
>The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
>and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
>slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
>pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
>equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
>airplane.
>Just my opinion.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>for email; take out the trash

They should use Stearmans. You could go straight down and pull/roll
as hard as you want! (tounge slightly pressing onto cheek....).

Bela P. Havasreti

[Dudley Henriques]

The problem is the fantasy equation itself. Most of the "customers" who
are attracted to this venue carry a mental visualization of a low winged
monoplane in an enclosed cockpit scenario similar to that seen in the
war movies. The T34 unfortunately, more or less fits this visualization.
It's just unfortunate that the airplane allows so little error margin
when mishandled by the "customers". It's my opinion that these airplanes
could be flown safely by experienced aerobatic pilots AT THE CONTROLS!
But regardless of the experience in the back seat, if the equation
involves a business policy that predicates letting the ham handed guy up
front get beyond what verbal interaction from the back seat can correct
through that pair of ham hands up front within the airplane's error
margins, you have a formula for disaster!
These "instructors" are simply letting these guys go too far without
physical interaction trying to allow the maximum effect and feeling of
being pilot in command by the "customer" up front.
It's a BAD situation in the T34, and I fear more failures in the future
if someone doesn't wise the hell up to this situation.
Being able to fly extremely well is one thing, and most of the pilots
flying these flights as back seaters are VERY good pilots. But there's a
HUGE difference between being able to fly in an ACM environment by
yourself, and being able to stay ahead of an aircraft as slippery as the
34 using only verbal prompting with some ham handed Walter Mitty up
front living out his dream of glory!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Michael" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
>>> consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.
>>>
>>> Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at
>>> the
>>> Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
>>> competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't
>>> expect
>>> much.
>>>
>>> It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
>>> exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
>>> single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
>>> 18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> I completely agree with this opinion.
>>
>> The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
>> problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
>> fighter pilot wannabe schools.
>> The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem
>> is nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if
>> handled well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar
>> mod and had no problems with it.
>> The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well
>> qualified pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the
>> business equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on
>> these flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who
>> has a vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang
>> for his buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
>> "experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
>> flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low.
>> Invariably, these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the
>> right side of the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra"
>> needed for a tracking solution on the camera sight.
>> The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
>> fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a
>> nose low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a
>> fairly well known factor of this type of work that the "customers"
>> DON'T LIKE IT when you take the airplane away from them. It takes
>> away from the psychological high they take away from the experience.
>> It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
>> business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
>> "customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious
>> about how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
>> The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the
>> beginning and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the
>> airplane is so slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over
>> g in a rolling pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and
>> the business equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly
>> in this airplane.
>> Just my opinion.
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>> for email; take out the trash
>>
>>
>
> Well said! They should be using something more like a Stearman for
> these flights.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Bob Moore]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote
> The T34 unfortunately, more or less fits this visualization.

I have done some areobatic instructing in the YAK-52, a plane
that in my opinion is far more suitable for this kind of work
than the T-34 in which I learned to fly.
The YAK is slowed somewhat by the radial engine and the gear
resting outside the wing in the retracted position.
The YAK also came equiped with an inverted fuel system and a
7g wing.

Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob Moore

[Richard Russell]

On 9 Dec 2004 06:06:48 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
>consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.
>
>Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
>Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
>competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
>much.
>
>It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
>exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
>single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
>18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.
>
>Michael


Ironically, Air & Space Magazine (Jan '05) has an article on the T-34
wing spar failures and the several "fixes" that were developed by
private industry after the FAA and Raytheon failed to come up with a
cost effective solution. The story identified the problem of all
T-34s being lumped into one group when all of the failures were
concentrated in these hot-dog organizations. The FAA didn't want to
hear it.

The solutions that were described in the article all, to different
degrees, sounded like viable means of maintaining airworthiness. I
wonder if the accident airplane had any of these fixes installed. I
hope that this situation doesn't destroy the innovative work that was
done by many to "solve" the original problem. It appears as though
T-34s flown within a reasonable flight envelope is a safe plane. It
would be a shame to see them all grounded because a few people pushed
them beyond their limits.
Rich Russell

[Paul Hirose]

The T-34 article in the current Air & Space begins by recounting the
Sky Warriors Aerial Laser Combat fatal accident in April 1999. The
customer (60 year old retired airline pilot) and safety pilot (51 year
old former fighter pilot) were killed. An onboard video and audio
system recorded the safety pilot urging the customer to "Bury your
nose, bring it down," seconds before the right hand wing came off in a
descending turn.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00416&key=1

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Dec 2004 06:06:48 -0800, "Michael"
> > wrote:
>
>>The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
>>consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.
>>
>>Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
>>Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
>>competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
>>much.
>>
>>It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
>>exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
>>single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
>>18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.
>>
>>Michael
>
>
> Ironically, Air & Space Magazine (Jan '05) has an article on the T-34
> wing spar failures and the several "fixes" that were developed by
> private industry after the FAA and Raytheon failed to come up with a
> cost effective solution. The story identified the problem of all
> T-34s being lumped into one group when all of the failures were
> concentrated in these hot-dog organizations. The FAA didn't want to
> hear it.
>
> The solutions that were described in the article all, to different
> degrees, sounded like viable means of maintaining airworthiness. I
> wonder if the accident airplane had any of these fixes installed. I
> hope that this situation doesn't destroy the innovative work that was
> done by many to "solve" the original problem. It appears as though
> T-34s flown within a reasonable flight envelope is a safe plane. It
> would be a shame to see them all grounded because a few people pushed
> them beyond their limits.
> Rich Russell

According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's (and
the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether it
shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.

KB

[Ditch]

>The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
>pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
>equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
>flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
>vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
>buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
>"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
>flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
>these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
>the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
>tracking solution on the camera sight.
>The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
>fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
>low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
>known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
>when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
>psychological high they take away from the experience.
>It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
>business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
>"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
>how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
>The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
>and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
>slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
>pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
>equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
>airplane.
>Just my opinion.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>for email; take out the trash
>

I agree with this, having been there and done that in the instructor roll.
While working at Air Combat for my brief stint, we limited the G to around 4 to
help with the rolling G problem and my standards were to take the airplane if
it was going to go into that situation (it rarely does, if you know how to talk
the customer away from it). Walter Mitty be damned.
When I did it in the T-6 (about 2% of the flights I did in that airplane), it
was more of a typical student/instructor relationship with more of a realistic
briefing in the begining. I never had a problem with the rolling pullout
scenario in the T-6.




-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Spockstuto]

<snip>

Quit in disgust?

Another qualified experienced white male perhaps with a "new"
clueless politically correct Black "Guvment" female manager???

Hey it's the new FAA. No experienced white males allowed


>>>
>>>Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
>>>Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
>>>competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
>>>much.
>>>

[Hilton]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
> Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob,

I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Hilton

[Ditch]

>Bob,
>
>I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.
>

>Hilton
>

Even tho the they are not FAR 135 operators, the FAA still considers them a
commercial operation. We needed waivers to fly formation, etc... and the FAA
monitored (at least the 2 companies I was involved with) very closely.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Bob Moore]

"Hilton" wrote

> Bob Moore wrote:
>> Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
>> Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.
>
> Bob,
> I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate—

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.


Bob

[Dale]

In article >,
Bob Moore > wrote:


>
> Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
> Operating limitations.
>
> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
> certificate—
>
> (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
> issued; or
>
> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.


It is possible to fly passengers for hire, but it takes a waiver to do
so. The Collings Foundation B-24 is "experimental".

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Hilton]

Ditch wrote:
> >Bob,
> >
> >I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.
> >
>
> >Hilton
> >
>
> Even tho the they are not FAR 135 operators, the FAA still considers them
a
> commercial operation. We needed waivers to fly formation, etc... and the
FAA
> monitored (at least the 2 companies I was involved with) very closely.

Isn't it just a CFI instructing a student in 'unusual attitudes'? That's
not a commercial operation or a 'for hire' operation.

Hilton

[Hilton]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Hilton wrote
>
> > Bob Moore wrote:
> >> Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
> >> Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.
> >
> > Bob,
> > I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.
>
> Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
> Operating limitations.
>
> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
> certificate-
>
> (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
> issued; or
>
> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

Bob,

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Experimental certificate
aircraft cannot be used for hire. I'm suggesting that "instruction in
unusual attitudes" is neither a commercial operation, nor 'for hire'.

Hilton

[Bob Moore]

"Hilton" wrote

> I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Experimental certificate
> aircraft cannot be used for hire. I'm suggesting that "instruction in
> unusual attitudes" is neither a commercial operation, nor 'for hire'.

Of course not...if I do it for free, or if I do it in the student's
own experimental aircraft which was the case when I did the YAK-52
thing.

Bob Moore

[Ditch]

>Isn't it just a CFI instructing a student in 'unusual attitudes'?

Not all the pilots in these operations are CFI's. Some only have a commercial
pilot certificate....and it still doesn't matter as the FAA doesn't view that
way.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:14:12 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
>which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
>Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's (and
>the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether it
>shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
>substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.
>
>KB

AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
different from the fix the AD covered.

Corky Scott

[Richard Russell]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:26:53 -0500, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:14:12 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:
>
>>According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
>>which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
>>Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's (and
>>the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether it
>>shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
>>substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.
>>
>>KB
>
>AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
>that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
>different from the fix the AD covered.
>
>Corky Scott

That's not good news for T-34 owners.
Rich Russell

[Michael]

Richard Russell wrote:
> >AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
> >that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
> >different from the fix the AD covered.
>
> That's not good news for T-34 owners.

The only good news for T-34 owners would be if the FAA recognized the
real problem. The real problem has nothing to do with the airplane.

The T-34 is not a fighter. It is not designed to take the stresses of
ACM. It is designed to perform some limited aerobatics, and if flown
within those limitations it will never have a problem - or at least
none ever has been a problem.

The Baron spar modification makes the airplane a little stronger in a
crucial area - but it does not turn what is a limited-capability
aerobatic trainer into a fighter. It can't be done. Unfortunately,
given the way these planes are flown, nothing less will do.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but in this case there is no
alternative. Anyone who has ever observed these weekend warrior antics
and knows anything at all about aerobatic flight can easily see that
these planes are ROUTINELY flown outside the design envelope. It's the
responsibility of the safety pilot in the back to keep the plane within
the envelope, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in the first (US)
accident, there is actually a voice recording of the safety pilot
encouraging the pilot up front to be more agressive - seconds before
the wing came off.

Unfortunately, the FAA insists on treating the weekend warrior
operators and the private owners the same. All T-34's are now grounded
because of the antics of a few who should have (and probably did) know
better.

Michael

[Kyle Boatright]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:14:12 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> > wrote:
>
>>According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
>>which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
>>Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's
>>(and
>>the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether
>>it
>>shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
>>substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.
>>
>>KB
>
> AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
> that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
> different from the fix the AD covered.
>
> Corky Scott

Which probably proves my point that if you go fast enough and pull hard
enough on the control stick, something will break. I don't have T-34 spec's
in front of me, but my guess is that the aerobatic g limit is something like
6, with an ultimate (failure) limit of 9 g's. In a rolling maneuver, each
of these figures is reduced by 1/3 or so, so in rolling flight, the wing's
designed failure point is roughly 6 g's... Exceed that, and you're likely
to have a very bad day.

The same concept applies to a C-172 or an Ercoupe, although the G limits
vary...

KB

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:

> I hate to speak ill of the dead, but in this case there is no
> alternative. Anyone who has ever observed these weekend warrior
antics
> and knows anything at all about aerobatic flight can easily see that
> these planes are ROUTINELY flown outside the design envelope.

Have you ever flown with Rick Gillenwaters? I have.

Rick was an outstanding pilot and the consumate professional in the
cockpit. He was certainly NOT a "weekend warrior", but rather a
retired Air Force IP. Rick was the example of what all pilots should
aspire to be; you are a typical usenet buffoon typing about that of
which you seem to know *NOTHING*.
Goodbye Rick....

Dave Russell
8KCAB / N2S-3

[Dave Hyde]

Michael wrote:

> The T-34 is not a fighter. It is not designed to take the stresses of
> ACM.

How many g's are required for the "gentlemen's" ACM routinely flown
by these outfits?

> In fact, in the first (US) accident, there is actually a voice
> recording of the safety pilot encouraging the pilot up front to
> be more agressive - seconds before the wing came off.

Saying and doing are two different animals. Since you seem
to give some import to this comment, how many g's did the
'student' apply as a result of the comment - asymmetric
or symmetric?

Dave 'RAC IA' Hyde

[Richard Russell]

On 13 Dec 2004 14:08:10 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>Richard Russell wrote:
>> >AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
>> >that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
>> >different from the fix the AD covered.
>>
>> That's not good news for T-34 owners.
>
>The only good news for T-34 owners would be if the FAA recognized the
>real problem. The real problem has nothing to do with the airplane.
>
>The T-34 is not a fighter. It is not designed to take the stresses of
>ACM. It is designed to perform some limited aerobatics, and if flown
>within those limitations it will never have a problem - or at least
>none ever has been a problem.
>
>The Baron spar modification makes the airplane a little stronger in a
>crucial area - but it does not turn what is a limited-capability
>aerobatic trainer into a fighter. It can't be done. Unfortunately,
>given the way these planes are flown, nothing less will do.
>
>I hate to speak ill of the dead, but in this case there is no
>alternative. Anyone who has ever observed these weekend warrior antics
>and knows anything at all about aerobatic flight can easily see that
>these planes are ROUTINELY flown outside the design envelope. It's the
>responsibility of the safety pilot in the back to keep the plane within
>the envelope, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in the first (US)
>accident, there is actually a voice recording of the safety pilot
>encouraging the pilot up front to be more agressive - seconds before
>the wing came off.
>
>Unfortunately, the FAA insists on treating the weekend warrior
>operators and the private owners the same. All T-34's are now grounded
>because of the antics of a few who should have (and probably did) know
>better.
>
>Michael

I agree. The Air & Space article acknowledged the efforts that many
made to separate "normal" flying from the combat simulation programs.
The FAA was not receptive to that argument. I don't know any of the
victims of these events but I have to wonder how, in light of the
history of these wing departures in high stress situations, they could
continue to expose themselves and their clients to this unacceptable
(to me) risk. I understand that my observations are not based upon
scientific data but it seems clear that the planes are not up to the
task.
Rich Russell

[Michael]

Dave Hyde wrote:
> How many g's are required for the "gentlemen's" ACM routinely flown
> by these outfits?

In the T-34 accident last year, a video recording showed the aircraft
on the INSIDE of the turn (the one that didn't lose a wing) pulling 5
gees - in a turn. I have no idea what is required - but 5 gees with a
rolling component is excessive.

> Saying and doing are two different animals. Since you seem
> to give some import to this comment, how many g's did the
> 'student' apply as a result of the comment - asymmetric
> or symmetric?

Enough to pull the wing off.

Dance around this all you want - these weekend warrior operations
account for a minority of the flight time of T-34's, but they account
for 100% of the lost wings. It's not the airplane - it's the
operation.

Michael

[Michael]

>The Air & Space article acknowledged the efforts that many
>made to separate "normal" flying from the combat simulation programs.
>The FAA was not receptive to that argument.

The FAA is, unfortunately, pretty top-heavy with retired military -
especially in the airworthiness portions of it. The operators of these
weekend warrior operations are also mostly retired military. Because
of this, the FAA is reluctant to take action against the weekend
warrior operations, and instread blames the plane.

The second crash (first at Texas Air Aces) was a particularly egregious
example of this. It was well known (based on maintenance records) that
the plane did not have the AD complied with, and while at first some
claimed aerobatics were not being done, the video from the other plane
put paid to that - the plane was being overstressed. Despite this, the
entire fleet was hit with additional (and unnecessary) AD compliance
burdens while Texas Air Aces continued to operate.

This was followed by an investigation at the Houston FSDO, alleging
that Texas Air Aces was operating improperly and that the Houston FSDO
knew about it. Some people were fired or reassigned over this, but in
the end it was just another FAA investigation, followed by business as
usual. I caused the one person at the FSDO who actually knew something
about aerobatics to quit in disgust.

If the FAA were to separate out the T-34's being used for ACM as a
separate group (the one responsible for all the accidents) this would
be tantamount to shutting down the weekend warrior operations that use
it. The pool of T-34 owners might be big enough (or not) to support
the development costs of a 'fix' but the much-smaller pool of weekend
warrior operations certainly isn't big enough. Also, since everyone
knows this sort of damage is cumulative (especially with Aluminum
spars) their planes would be pretty much worthless. That would be a
big enough hit to bankrupt most of them.

Because my home field is also home to the acknowledged T-34 expert
mechanic in the area (he also owns his own T-34), I've met quite a few
T-34 owners and know a couple of them fairly well. Their planes all
had their spars inspected after the first accident, and everyone knows
there's nothing wrong with them. Let's just say these weekend warrior
operations are not exactly popular in the T-34 community.

Michael

[Dave Hyde]

Michael wrote

> In the T-34 accident last year, a video recording showed the aircraft
> on the INSIDE of the turn (the one that didn't lose a wing) pulling 5
> gees - in a turn.

So how many g's was the mishap airplane pulling?
The only correct answer you can give is "I don't know."

> > ...how many g's did the
> > 'student' apply as a result of the comment - asymmetric
> > or symmetric?
>
> Enough to pull the wing off.

That's apparent - now was it below or above the limit?

> Dance around this all you want...

No dancing here - I'm pointing out, with your help, that
you have little in the way of facts or experience, but
plenty of supposition and disdain for several parties
involved.

> It's not the airplane - it's the operation.

Simply writing "ACM" on a flight card in the airplane
does not cause the wings to fall off. Was the stress
at failure above or below design limits? Until you can
answer that question factually and support it quantitatively
everything else is just throwing stones.

Dave 'innuendo' Hyde

[Michael]

Dave Hyde wrote:
> > In the T-34 accident last year, a video recording showed the
aircraft
> > on the INSIDE of the turn (the one that didn't lose a wing) pulling
5
> > gees - in a turn.
>
> So how many g's was the mishap airplane pulling?
> The only correct answer you can give is "I don't know."

Bzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

Since the accident aircraft was keeping up, and was on the outside of
the turn, the correct answer is more than five. That's simple physics.
And since it was in a turn, there had to be a rolling component
involved as well at some point.

Keep dancing.

Michael

[Dudley Henriques]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Since the accident aircraft was keeping up, and was on the outside of
> the turn, the correct answer is more than five. That's simple
> physics.

If you're saying that the aircraft "keeping up" on the outside of the
turn was at a higher g than the 5g's being pulled by the aircraft in
front and inside of him , you are mistaken.
Actually if the trailing aircraft was "keeping up" he would be at co
speed in the turn, and at co speed, the g would be the same on both
aircraft and the trailer would be the defender after 180 degrees of this
somewhat bad situation for the guy in back. This is why the attacking
aircraft can't be at the same g as the bandit and be "keeping up". The
trailer MUST have closure rate and a Ps advantage on the defender to
acheive an attack curve. This can be in a pursuit curve, usually a lag
curve at lower g with a higher attack velocity, or it can be obtained by
the use of cutoff or arcing inside the plane of turn of the defender. In
other words, the guy behind can't "keep up" by having a higher g. He
can't even keep up pulling the same g as the defender since this puts
them both in the same turn radius. The attacker must maintain a higher
attack velocity than the defender which means that in order to effect
closure and reduce angle off, he has to pull a lower g than the
defender.
Assuming both aircraft have the same Vc (corner velocity) which they do
as T34's , the only possible situation that would put the trailer at a
higher g then the defender as you have stated , would be if he was
pulling lead which would put him in a lead pursuit curve and inside the
plane of turn of the defender at a higher g....therefore no longer
"keeping up" so to speak.
Also, the attacker HAS to have a higher airspeed in the attack curve to
acheive nose/tail separation and angle off, which means, if he doesn't
pull higher g than the defender, HE MUST OVERSHOOT if he's in the plane
of turn of the defender. So if he's back there at all, he ain't at co
speed at the same g, and he has to be pulling a LOWER g, not a higher g
than the aircraft with which he's engaged.

>
> Keep dancing.

Why so nasty to this poster? He's only asking a question. Hell, if
you're going to be nasty, at least give him the right answer :-)

> Michael

yeah, I know; The ACM expert! :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

[Dave Hyde]

Michael oglegroups.com...

> Since the accident aircraft was keeping up, and was on the outside of
> the turn, the correct answer is more than five. That's simple physics.
> And since it was in a turn, there had to be a rolling component
> involved as well at some point.

How accurate was the accelerometer? What was the load at the
time of failure,. As before, you don't know. You also don't
know if it was above or below the spec stress. The repetetive
theme of the thread is "you don't know". Neither do I, but I
don't claim to, nor do I attribute blame.

Dave 'popup' Hyde

[Dave Hyde]

Dudley Henriques wrote...

> Why so nasty to this poster? He's only asking a question. Hell, if
> you're going to be nasty, at least give him the right answer :-)

Michael and I have discussed accident investigation techniques
and results both here and face-to-face. Let's just say we're
at opposite ends of the opinion yardstick. And I didn't take
it as particularly nasty.

Dave 'opinion poll' Hyde

[pickle]

Big John wrote:

> Another T-34 crashed today here in Houston killing the IP and
> student.Was from the company that has air combat and upset training.
>
> Eye witness heard a report and saw a wing that had separated. They had
> a similar accident (wing separation) just a year ago that killed the
> owner of Company.
>
> Not sure if this bird had the FAA wing mod or not.
>
> My condolences to the families of the pilots.
>
> Big John

I TOLD them not to use real ammo.

[Big John]

Dudley

Long time no talk. Health not good.

You explaination in your post is confusing and in many cases wrong.

To hit a target you have to put the pipper on the aim point which
remains the same as long as the target maintains the same airspeed.
So you aim at the same point when you are 90 degrees or 10 degrees
off. Sight picture looks diffeent but aim point remains the same. Duck
hunters will understand this.

If you fall into trail (say 1000 feet behind target) and put the
pipper on the target you will miss. If you close until all you see in
the wind screen is target then you can point and shoot and kill. Many
of the high scoring Aces flew into that postion to get kills. Others
of course got most of their kills in a pursuit curve (higher angle
off).

If you are flying the same diameter circle as the target and not
closing then you will be pulling the same "g's" as the target. From
that positon to get a kill you have to decrease the diameter of circle
you are flying to get on the pipper on aim point and that makes you
pull more 'G's" than the target.

If you got a 'fur ball' going, then the vaying speed and aim point
causes the 'G' loading to vary through out the fight.

All that being said, I don't remember the latest accident being in a
combat simulation? Just upset training which should be get wings level
right sideup and then recover from dive. No rolling 'G's' in this.

Fly safe and very Merry Xmas to you and yours,

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~``


On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:52:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> Since the accident aircraft was keeping up, and was on the outside of
>> the turn, the correct answer is more than five. That's simple
>> physics.
>
>If you're saying that the aircraft "keeping up" on the outside of the
>turn was at a higher g than the 5g's being pulled by the aircraft in
>front and inside of him , you are mistaken.
>Actually if the trailing aircraft was "keeping up" he would be at co
>speed in the turn, and at co speed, the g would be the same on both
>aircraft and the trailer would be the defender after 180 degrees of this
>somewhat bad situation for the guy in back. This is why the attacking
>aircraft can't be at the same g as the bandit and be "keeping up". The
>trailer MUST have closure rate and a Ps advantage on the defender to
>acheive an attack curve. This can be in a pursuit curve, usually a lag
>curve at lower g with a higher attack velocity, or it can be obtained by
>the use of cutoff or arcing inside the plane of turn of the defender. In
>other words, the guy behind can't "keep up" by having a higher g. He
>can't even keep up pulling the same g as the defender since this puts
>them both in the same turn radius. The attacker must maintain a higher
>attack velocity than the defender which means that in order to effect
>closure and reduce angle off, he has to pull a lower g than the
>defender.
>Assuming both aircraft have the same Vc (corner velocity) which they do
>as T34's , the only possible situation that would put the trailer at a
>higher g then the defender as you have stated , would be if he was
>pulling lead which would put him in a lead pursuit curve and inside the
>plane of turn of the defender at a higher g....therefore no longer
>"keeping up" so to speak.
>Also, the attacker HAS to have a higher airspeed in the attack curve to
>acheive nose/tail separation and angle off, which means, if he doesn't
>pull higher g than the defender, HE MUST OVERSHOOT if he's in the plane
>of turn of the defender. So if he's back there at all, he ain't at co
>speed at the same g, and he has to be pulling a LOWER g, not a higher g
>than the aircraft with which he's engaged.
>
>>
>> Keep dancing.
>
>Why so nasty to this poster? He's only asking a question. Hell, if
>you're going to be nasty, at least give him the right answer :-)
>
>> Michael
>
>yeah, I know; The ACM expert! :-)
>
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>for email; take out the trash
>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> Long time no talk. Health not good.
>
> You explaination in your post is confusing and in many cases wrong.

I think you're reading it wrong John. Read it again. We're saying
basically the same thing. See my inserts.


>
> To hit a target you have to put the pipper on the aim point which
> remains the same as long as the target maintains the same airspeed.
> So you aim at the same point when you are 90 degrees or 10 degrees
> off. Sight picture looks diffeent but aim point remains the same. Duck
> hunters will understand this.

Basically, what you are describing here is a tracking solution.
Regardless of how you acheive positioning, as you slide the pipper up on
the target, the sight is compensating for gravity drop in the vertical
plane, velocity jump, which moves with the plane of symmerty of the
aircraft, and in the case of a gun solution, trajectory shift as well.
Pulling lead on a turning target requires a higher g and tighter radius
than the target. The factors that determine your ability to pull this
lead are dictated by your corner velocity vs the g already being pulled
in the turn by the advesary. Generally, you are in plane with a hot
pipper only as long as you can pull lead on the target. If the pipper
slides off the target, you're in overshoot.

> If you fall into trail (say 1000 feet behind target) and put the
> pipper on the target you will miss.

This is true. You must pull lead to obtain a tracking solution. You
can't do this in trail.....or "keeping up" as the man said :-)



If you close until all you see in
> the wind screen is target then you can point and shoot and kill. Many
> of the high scoring Aces flew into that postion to get kills.

This is true enough, but don't forget the differential attack velocity.
You can't go trail without matching g, and if you match g, you're
immediately matching turn at co speed. The aces who flew into the six
and fired, like Hartmann, did this while passing through in
overshoot..in other words, a snap shot, but at low angle off. You can't
sit in the saddle with matching g in a turning fight and fire. You'll
miss! If the target straightens out of the turn, you can saddle up and
nail him. A hard turning target is a whole different ballgame for a
saddle six shot like you're describing. Instead of just filling the
windshield between the frame supports like Hartmann did, you get a close
in snap shot as you pass through the six position, which can be very
effective. The Israiles did magnificent snap shooting during the six day
war, and re-wrote the book for the F4 in ACM.


Others
> of course got most of their kills in a pursuit curve (higher angle
> off).

Using manual ranging, this type of kill was quite common.

> If you are flying the same diameter circle as the target and not
> closing then you will be pulling the same "g's" as the target.

You can't fly the same radius circle as the opponent...at any time
during the pass.


From
> that positon to get a kill you have to decrease the diameter of circle
> you are flying to get on the pipper on aim point and that makes you
> pull more 'G's" than the target.

Absolutely. This is pulling lead as I said before.
>
> If you got a 'fur ball' going, then the vaying speed and aim point
> causes the 'G' loading to vary through out the fight.

Correct. Generally, a "furball" will result in a decay in airspeed,
altitude, and Ps. It usually will put you in negative Ps if prolonged
against a hard turning opponent. Again, it's highly dependant on who's
flying what and where the fight is taking place in each aircraft's
envelope.
>
> All that being said, I don't remember the latest accident being in a
> combat simulation? Just upset training which should be get wings level
> right sideup and then recover from dive. No rolling 'G's' in this.

Actually, this is a perfect setup for a rolling pullout. Also, I believe
the major issue with the T34 has involved the fantasy flights and not
upset training.
>
> Fly safe and very Merry Xmas to you and yours,

Also to you and yours.

Bottom line John.
From reading your post, I can't see where we are differing in what each
of us is saying at all :-)

Dudley


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~``
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:52:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>> Since the accident aircraft was keeping up, and was on the outside
>>> of
>>> the turn, the correct answer is more than five. That's simple
>>> physics.
>>
>>If you're saying that the aircraft "keeping up" on the outside of the
>>turn was at a higher g than the 5g's being pulled by the aircraft in
>>front and inside of him , you are mistaken.
>>Actually if the trailing aircraft was "keeping up" he would be at co
>>speed in the turn, and at co speed, the g would be the same on both
>>aircraft and the trailer would be the defender after 180 degrees of
>>this
>>somewhat bad situation for the guy in back. This is why the attacking
>>aircraft can't be at the same g as the bandit and be "keeping up". The
>>trailer MUST have closure rate and a Ps advantage on the defender to
>>acheive an attack curve. This can be in a pursuit curve, usually a lag
>>curve at lower g with a higher attack velocity, or it can be obtained
>>by
>>the use of cutoff or arcing inside the plane of turn of the defender.
>>In
>>other words, the guy behind can't "keep up" by having a higher g. He
>>can't even keep up pulling the same g as the defender since this puts
>>them both in the same turn radius. The attacker must maintain a higher
>>attack velocity than the defender which means that in order to effect
>>closure and reduce angle off, he has to pull a lower g than the
>>defender.
>>Assuming both aircraft have the same Vc (corner velocity) which they
>>do
>>as T34's , the only possible situation that would put the trailer at a
>>higher g then the defender as you have stated , would be if he was
>>pulling lead which would put him in a lead pursuit curve and inside
>>the
>>plane of turn of the defender at a higher g....therefore no longer
>>"keeping up" so to speak.
>>Also, the attacker HAS to have a higher airspeed in the attack curve
>>to
>>acheive nose/tail separation and angle off, which means, if he doesn't
>>pull higher g than the defender, HE MUST OVERSHOOT if he's in the
>>plane
>>of turn of the defender. So if he's back there at all, he ain't at co
>>speed at the same g, and he has to be pulling a LOWER g, not a higher
>>g
>>than the aircraft with which he's engaged.
>>
>>>
>>> Keep dancing.
>>
>>Why so nasty to this poster? He's only asking a question. Hell, if
>>you're going to be nasty, at least give him the right answer :-)
>>
>>> Michael
>>
>>yeah, I know; The ACM expert! :-)
>>
>>Dudley Henriques
>>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>>for email; take out the trash
>>
>>
>>
>

[Dave Hyde]

Dudley Henriques wrote a bunch of stuff about lead, lag,
and tracking.

That's al well and good, but in your case as with Michael's,
we don't really know what the mishap airplane was actually
doing - all that's been given here is a qualitative 'keeping
up.' Michael has extrapolated that to the extreme steady-state
welded-wing example and you have added the semi-steady-
state example of tracking techniques. You and I both know that
real-life 'keeping up', particularly in an ACM-type environment,
is never steady-state, and all the generalizations fall apart in
the specific, particularly when a limit case is experienced.
So...was the failure stress (STRESS, not normal acceleration)
over the spec value on the mishap airplane? The people shooting
down the investigation results should be prepared to answer this...
quantitatively.

Dave 'rhetorical' Hyde

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote a bunch of stuff about lead, lag,
> and tracking.
>
> That's al well and good, but in your case as with Michael's,
> we don't really know what the mishap airplane was actually
> doing - all that's been given here is a qualitative 'keeping
> up.' Michael has extrapolated that to the extreme steady-state
> welded-wing example and you have added the semi-steady-
> state example of tracking techniques. You and I both know that
> real-life 'keeping up', particularly in an ACM-type environment,
> is never steady-state, and all the generalizations fall apart in
> the specific, particularly when a limit case is experienced.
> So...was the failure stress (STRESS, not normal acceleration)
> over the spec value on the mishap airplane? The people shooting
> down the investigation results should be prepared to answer this...
> quantitatively.
>
> Dave 'rhetorical' Hyde
>

If you want this type of result, you will have to wait until the NTSB
releases the investigation reports. Until then, you'll have to make do
with general discussion like the rest of us. I just happen to be in a
link with other pilots who are aware of the failures and have educated
opinions about what's causing them. None of us claim to have direct
answers to these questions. Actually, we are as puzzled as you are as to
why these accidents are happening and exactly what is causing them.
Any opinion I post on issues like the T34 situation is simply based on
my experience flying the airplane and any knowledge I might have
concerning how it should be flown....nothing more....nothing less.
I have no idea what Michael's interest is and don't care.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

[Dave Hyde]

Dudley Henriques wrote

> If you want this type of result, you will have to wait until the NTSB
> releases the investigation reports.

My questions are rhetorical, Dudley.

Dave 'BTDT' Hyde

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>
>> If you want this type of result, you will have to wait until the NTSB
>> releases the investigation reports.
>
> My questions are rhetorical, Dudley.
>
> Dave 'BTDT' Hyde
>

I have no way of knowing what the context of your remarks are. I only
know what I'm reading in a post.
Personally, I'm sorry I posted on this issue and will try and extricate
myself from it and leave it to others to do with as they wish.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

[Journeyman]

In article >, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Personally, I'm sorry I posted on this issue and will try and extricate
> myself from it and leave it to others to do with as they wish.

I haven't added my $0.02 on this thread because I've no relevent expertise to add
(not that that has ever stopped anyone on usenet). Prior to this, I've had no
awareness of the ACM industry beyond a vague "oh, that looks cool, I'd like to try
that some day".

While the specifics of the accident will wait for the complete investigation, the
discussion of the generalities has been interesting and enlightening.


Morris (FWIW)

[Wade]

Spockstuto wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Quit in disgust?
>
> Another qualified experienced white male perhaps with a "new"
> clueless politically correct Black "Guvment" female manager???
>
> Hey it's the new FAA. No experienced white males allowed

I haven't plonked a loathsome moron in quite some time.

*plonk*

Boy, that felt _good_!