Yak close call

[gatt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "gatt" > said:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw

Yikes.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Once we've got the bugs ironed out, we'll be running on flat bugs

[Kingfish]

gatt wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw

Two observations here:

1. He did better than that F-16 pilot that splatted his jet on the
ground
2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?

[Kyle Boatright]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw

Reminds me of a framed photo on the wall of the Lebanon, TN airport.

During an airshow, a fellow doing aerobatics in a black Mig-17 bottomed out
a loop and drug the tailpipe on the ground. The photo shows the Mig at a
very high alpha, with the tailpipe dragging.

Apparently, he was at the very bottom of the loop, because the airplane flew
away from the ground contact, dropped the gear, and landed.

I'm sure the pilot needed a garment change afterwards.

KB

[Leonard Ellis]

Wow, if that had been me, I'm not sure I would have been able to unstick
myself from the seat cushion at the end of that flight! The pucker factor
needle must have been on the peg.

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Kingfish wrote:
> gatt wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw
>
> Two observations here:
>
> 1. He did better than that F-16 pilot that splatted his jet on the
> ground

The difference wasn't pilot skill, it was how fast he was coming down.
Probably a math error, probably didn't correctly add field elevation to
his top altitude.

> 2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?

Probably couldn't get insurance.

[Newps]

Kingfish wrote:

> 2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?

Nothing. There wasn't a loss.

[gatt]

"Leonard Ellis" > wrote in message
. net...
> Wow, if that had been me, I'm not sure I would have been able to unstick
> myself from the seat cushion at the end of that flight! The pucker factor
> needle must have been on the peg.


Yeah. Well, there are links to a Spitfire video and a P-38 clip as well
there in which the outcome wasn't so good. Seemed a little morbid to post
them here, but they're pretty shocking.

-c

[Dave[_5_]]

Newps wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
>
> > 2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?
>
> Nothing. There wasn't a loss.

He was awful close to a prop strike - at the very least. Perhaps it was
intentional - note that he did a roll right after the near miss. I
don't think that anyone who had just had an unintentional near miss
could regain his composure so quickly.

[Newps]

Dave wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>Kingfish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?
>>
>>Nothing. There wasn't a loss.
>
>
> He was awful close to a prop strike - at the very least. Perhaps it was
> intentional - note that he did a roll right after the near miss. I
> don't think that anyone who had just had an unintentional near miss
> could regain his composure so quickly.
>

[Newps]

Dave wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>Kingfish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?
>>
>>Nothing. There wasn't a loss.
>
>
> He was awful close to a prop strike - at the very least.



He was awfully close to death but that's not relavant as far as
insurance is concerned.

[Morgans[_5_]]

"Dave" > wrote

> He was awful close to a prop strike - at the very least. Perhaps it was
> intentional - note that he did a roll right after the near miss. I
> don't think that anyone who had just had an unintentional near miss
> could regain his composure so quickly.

Although he was way too close, there is a possibility that he was not as
close as you think. I saw another performer that looked like he was way too
low, even below the runway.

Is it possible that there is a dip, and the runway is lower than the
surrounding ground?

Still, no loss, no claim, no foul.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
>
> > 2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?
>
> Nothing. There wasn't a loss.

All those sparks and no loss? Its at least a reskin for the belly if
not structural repair and a prop strike.

-Robert

[gatt]

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

> I don't think that anyone who had just had an unintentional near miss
> could regain his composure so quickly.

Does the canopy open partway in flight? Maybe he was draining the cockpit.
I'd have had the urge.

-c

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote
>
>> He was awful close to a prop strike - at the very least. Perhaps it was
>> intentional - note that he did a roll right after the near miss. I
>> don't think that anyone who had just had an unintentional near miss
>> could regain his composure so quickly.
>
> Although he was way too close, there is a possibility that he was not as
> close as you think. I saw another performer that looked like he was way
> too low, even below the runway.
>
> Is it possible that there is a dip, and the runway is lower than the
> surrounding ground?
>
> Still, no loss, no claim, no foul.
> --
> Jim in NC

No, that was close Jim. In fact, you don't get closer than that and fly out
of it. In any low altitude vertical recovery, you only have X amount of
radial g to play against Y amount of remaining air under the airplane. At
the top gate apex, you need the exact airspeed through the gate that has
been predermined against the gate altitude AGL to produce the downline
within that available radial g. If you are slow inverted through the gate at
your apex, you can generate nose rate which puts you mushing through with a
vertical component you definitely don't want. If you are fast through the
gate, you get an extended arc on your downline pull that can easily kill you
at the bottom.
This guy looked slow through the apex pull which was real bad. He added to
the problem with a quarter roll on his downline to his exit heading. Going
through a vertical downline in a low altitude vertical recovery will nail
you every time. As he finished the quarter roll, he was running out of air
and radial g at the same time. Past a certain point, you enter mush as you
climb the angle of attack curve.
This guy was one lucky SOB! In the Yak, as in the Mustang, when you get it
THAT low during a pull, you have a forward ground visual cue that is far
enough ahead of the aircraft you can easily miss exactly how low you
actually are to the ground.
I'd be willing to bet two things on this one with a real good chance of
winning. First, that during the pull through his low apex he didn't actually
realize how low he was, and secondly, that had he been checking his
peripheral cues at the lower corners of the windshield through the low apex,
he would have soiled his drawers :-)
I'm glad he made it. You don't get many second chances in the low altitude
acro business!
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I'd be willing to bet two things on this one with a real good chance of
> winning. First, that during the pull through his low apex he didn't actually
> realize how low he was, and secondly, that had he been checking his
> peripheral cues at the lower corners of the windshield through the low apex,
> he would have soiled his drawers :-)
> I'm glad he made it. You don't get many second chances in the low altitude
> acro business!

He tied the world record for low altitude flight. Not many of us can
make that claim.

-Robert

[Dudley Henriques]

Twas a squeaker for sure!! :-))
DH


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> I'd be willing to bet two things on this one with a real good chance of
>> winning. First, that during the pull through his low apex he didn't
>> actually
>> realize how low he was, and secondly, that had he been checking his
>> peripheral cues at the lower corners of the windshield through the low
>> apex,
>> he would have soiled his drawers :-)
>> I'm glad he made it. You don't get many second chances in the low
>> altitude
>> acro business!
>
> He tied the world record for low altitude flight. Not many of us can
> make that claim.
>
> -Robert
>

[Ron Lee]

"gatt" > wrote:

>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw
>
>

Something about it looks fake to me. There seems to be an abnormal
dip in the flight path right behind an aircraft.

Ron Lee

[Jack Allison[_1_]]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Something about it looks fake to me. There seems to be an abnormal
> dip in the flight path right behind an aircraft.
>
> Ron Lee
Yeah, I'm not sold on this one either Ron.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Dudley Henriques]

If it's a fake, it's damn good work. I've seen it a dozen times. The
perspective is right; the time vs distance from the top apex to the exit is
right for the Yak being flown at airshow GW; the roll rate is perfect both
on the vertical recovery line and on the exit slow roll, and even the
Doppler effect is perfect accompanying what to my ear is a perfect sound for
the expected engine MP and prop RPM combination all through the clip. That
little "dip" near the ground wouldn't be all that out of place. The
elevators on that crate are very sensitive.
Could be.........but I for one will be mighty surprised if it is :-)) If
someone proves it a fake, I'll be the first in line to say it fooled the
living hell out of me :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Something about it looks fake to me. There seems to be an abnormal
>> dip in the flight path right behind an aircraft.
>>
>> Ron Lee
> Yeah, I'm not sold on this one either Ron.
>
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
>
> "To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
> a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
> - Rod Machado
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jack Allison[_1_]]

Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a fake.
I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're
fake. Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about.
Interesting observations though Dudley.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Dave Stadt]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> gatt wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PvcG4Vmyw
>
> Two observations here:
>
> 1. He did better than that F-16 pilot that splatted his jet on the
> ground
> 2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?

Agent could care less long as he pays his premiums.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
. ..
> Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a fake.
> I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're fake.
> Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about. Interesting
> observations though Dudley.

I'll ask around and see if I can get a handle on it.
DH

[Ron Lee]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a fake.
>> I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're fake.
>> Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about. Interesting
>> observations though Dudley.
>
>I'll ask around and see if I can get a handle on it.
>DH

If it is legit then there should be plenty of credible eyewitnesses.

Ron Lee

[Dudley Henriques]

Not necessarily. There are several Yak demo pilots on the circuit and seeing
the paint on the clip isn't all that easy.
I have a friend who has an LOA for the Mig 21 who might recognize the clip
and be able to ID the airplane and driver...perhaps not. I sent him the clip
link tonight.
Looks real to me :-))
DH


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a fake.
>>> I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're
>>> fake.
>>> Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about. Interesting
>>> observations though Dudley.
>>
>>I'll ask around and see if I can get a handle on it.
>>DH
>
> If it is legit then there should be plenty of credible eyewitnesses.
>
> Ron Lee
>

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:54:30 -0800, Jack Allison
> wrote:

>Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a fake.
> I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're
>fake. Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about.
>Interesting observations though Dudley.

It's not a fake. Yes it was close. Yes, the pilot of that Yak
realizes that fact, and I've heard nothing to indicate that he hasn't
learned something as a result of that flight (I have no doubt he
considers himself very lucky and has learned from the incident).

Makes me want to bring up a comment made by an (forgotten to me
by now, sorry) airshow performer who opined there is no reason to
put an irreplaceable WW-II (or other) warbird at risk by performing
maneuvers that have you "pulling for your life" in order to complete
the manuever.... From an average airshow-goer's perspective,
what's the difference between a low-level pull-up to a split-ess with
a resulting half-cuban dive to the deck (such that, if everything goes
as planned) you live and airplane flies again, from a similar vertical
maneuver that is transformed to a positive G lateral pitch-out
recovery that doesn't have you "pulling for your life" to complete the
manuever. An example of the latter would be a high-G pitch-out with a
roll in excess of 90 degrees which has you recovering at something
less than a 90 degree down-line normal to the plane of the earth....
I've seen more than one high-time airshow warbird performer limit his
act to such maneuvers, and the thought that occurs to me is if the
picture/sight out the windscreen isn't what is expected, he now has
the option of (slightly) leveling the wings and pulling out of the
manuever instead of "pulling for his life" and hoping there is enough
airspace betwixt him and terra firma to stay out of the news /
newspapers....

Bela P. Havasreti

[Kingfish]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>
> Makes me want to bring up a comment made by an (forgotten to me
> by now, sorry) airshow performer who opined there is no reason to
> put an irreplaceable WW-II (or other) warbird at risk by performing
> maneuvers that have you "pulling for your life" in order to complete
> the manuever.... From an average airshow-goer's perspective,
> what's the difference between a low-level pull-up to a split-ess with
> a resulting half-cuban dive to the deck (such that, if everything goes
> as planned) you live and airplane flies again, from a similar vertical
> maneuver that is transformed to a positive G lateral pitch-out
> recovery that doesn't have you "pulling for your life" to complete the
> manuever. An example of the latter would be a high-G pitch-out with a
> roll in excess of 90 degrees which has you recovering at something
> less than a 90 degree down-line normal to the plane of the earth....
> I've seen more than one high-time airshow warbird performer limit his
> act to such maneuvers, and the thought that occurs to me is if the
> picture/sight out the windscreen isn't what is expected, he now has
> the option of (slightly) leveling the wings and pulling out of the
> manuever instead of "pulling for his life" and hoping there is enough
> airspace betwixt him and terra firma to stay out of the news /
> newspapers....
>

Hmmphh. Reminds me of a thread from a while back where Peter D jumped
ugly all over me for expressing my opinion that irreplacable warbirds
shouldn't be risked in air races. I thought (and still do) that it'd be
just as exciting for the crowd to see Mustangs, Corsairs, etc doing
simple aero stuff like low passes/steep turns that wouldn't put the
plane at risk unlike the low altitude, high-G yank & bank that happens
in air races. Because I couldn't cite air race/airshow safety
statistics ad nauseum, my position was indefensible (sayeth he)
I think the guys that have the priviledge to own those planes have a
responsibility to preserve them as they are irreplaceable pieces of
history, but then again it's a free country...

[Kingfish]

Newps wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
>
> > 2. Whaddya think would happen if is insurance agent saw that clip?
>
> Nothing. There wasn't a loss.

Okay, I forgot to indicate my sarcasm mode on here...

[Peter Dohm]

My experience has been that the guys who have driven or flown similar
equipment are usually right, especially if they have learned to operate the
equipment near its limits, and the guys who have only watched are usually
wrong. A lot of the problem, for those including me, who have not "been
there" is the low resulotion and sampling rate of the video clips--with the
result that prior knowledge and expertise are required to know whether a
reasonable progression would fit the few data points presented.

Therefore, I will presume that Dudley is correct.

Peter
(Just my $0.02)




"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Not necessarily. There are several Yak demo pilots on the circuit and
seeing
> the paint on the clip isn't all that easy.
> I have a friend who has an LOA for the Mig 21 who might recognize the clip
> and be able to ID the airplane and driver...perhaps not. I sent him the
clip
> link tonight.
> Looks real to me :-))
> DH
>
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a
fake.
> >>> I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're
> >>> fake.
> >>> Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about. Interesting
> >>> observations though Dudley.
> >>
> >>I'll ask around and see if I can get a handle on it.
> >>DH
> >
> > If it is legit then there should be plenty of credible eyewitnesses.
> >
> > Ron Lee
> >
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:54:30 -0800, Jack Allison
> > wrote:
>
> >Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a fake.
> > I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're
> >fake. Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about.
> >Interesting observations though Dudley.
>
> It's not a fake. Yes it was close. Yes, the pilot of that Yak
> realizes that fact, and I've heard nothing to indicate that he hasn't
> learned something as a result of that flight (I have no doubt he
> considers himself very lucky and has learned from the incident).
>
> Makes me want to bring up a comment made by an (forgotten to me
> by now, sorry) airshow performer who opined there is no reason to
> put an irreplaceable WW-II (or other) warbird at risk by performing
> maneuvers that have you "pulling for your life" in order to complete
> the manuever.... From an average airshow-goer's perspective,
> what's the difference between a low-level pull-up to a split-ess with
> a resulting half-cuban dive to the deck (such that, if everything goes
> as planned) you live and airplane flies again, from a similar vertical
> maneuver that is transformed to a positive G lateral pitch-out
> recovery that doesn't have you "pulling for your life" to complete the
> manuever. An example of the latter would be a high-G pitch-out with a
> roll in excess of 90 degrees which has you recovering at something
> less than a 90 degree down-line normal to the plane of the earth....
> I've seen more than one high-time airshow warbird performer limit his
> act to such maneuvers, and the thought that occurs to me is if the
> picture/sight out the windscreen isn't what is expected, he now has
> the option of (slightly) leveling the wings and pulling out of the
> manuever instead of "pulling for his life" and hoping there is enough
> airspace betwixt him and terra firma to stay out of the news /
> newspapers....
>
> Bela P. Havasreti
>

I suppose that the issue of the average airshow-goer's perspective depends
upon how much the average airshow-goer really knows, or cares, about either
the aircraft or the pilots. I have my suspicions about both, but it is up
to the owners and pilots. They are the ones who will sustain any losses.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
> >
> > Makes me want to bring up a comment made by an (forgotten to me
> > by now, sorry) airshow performer who opined there is no reason to
> > put an irreplaceable WW-II (or other) warbird at risk by performing
> > maneuvers that have you "pulling for your life" in order to complete
> > the manuever.... From an average airshow-goer's perspective,
> > what's the difference between a low-level pull-up to a split-ess with
> > a resulting half-cuban dive to the deck (such that, if everything goes
> > as planned) you live and airplane flies again, from a similar vertical
> > maneuver that is transformed to a positive G lateral pitch-out
> > recovery that doesn't have you "pulling for your life" to complete the
> > manuever. An example of the latter would be a high-G pitch-out with a
> > roll in excess of 90 degrees which has you recovering at something
> > less than a 90 degree down-line normal to the plane of the earth....
> > I've seen more than one high-time airshow warbird performer limit his
> > act to such maneuvers, and the thought that occurs to me is if the
> > picture/sight out the windscreen isn't what is expected, he now has
> > the option of (slightly) leveling the wings and pulling out of the
> > manuever instead of "pulling for his life" and hoping there is enough
> > airspace betwixt him and terra firma to stay out of the news /
> > newspapers....
> >
>
> Hmmphh. Reminds me of a thread from a while back where Peter D jumped
> ugly all over me for expressing my opinion that irreplacable warbirds
> shouldn't be risked in air races. I thought (and still do) that it'd be
> just as exciting for the crowd to see Mustangs, Corsairs, etc doing
> simple aero stuff like low passes/steep turns that wouldn't put the
> plane at risk unlike the low altitude, high-G yank & bank that happens
> in air races. Because I couldn't cite air race/airshow safety
> statistics ad nauseum, my position was indefensible (sayeth he)
> I think the guys that have the priviledge to own those planes have a
> responsibility to preserve them as they are irreplaceable pieces of
> history, but then again it's a free country...
>
Harrummph. There is more that one Peter D. I, for one, find myself of both
sides on many of these issues; and the more I learn, the less I'm sure...

Peter

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:55:21 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>My experience has been that the guys who have driven or flown similar
>equipment are usually right, especially if they have learned to operate the
>equipment near its limits, and the guys who have only watched are usually
>wrong. A lot of the problem, for those including me, who have not "been
>there" is the low resulotion and sampling rate of the video clips--with the
>result that prior knowledge and expertise are required to know whether a
>reasonable progression would fit the few data points presented.
>
>Therefore, I will presume that Dudley is correct.
>
>Peter
>(Just my $0.02)
>
>
>
>
>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>> Not necessarily. There are several Yak demo pilots on the circuit and
>seeing
>> the paint on the clip isn't all that easy.
>> I have a friend who has an LOA for the Mig 21 who might recognize the clip
>> and be able to ID the airplane and driver...perhaps not. I sent him the
>clip
>> link tonight.
>> Looks real to me :-))
>> DH
>>
>>
>> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> Yeah, it's hard to tell...and we may never know if it's real or a
>fake.
>> >>> I've seen enough faked pictures that I tend to first suspect they're
>> >>> fake.
>> >>> Movies though...this is the first one I've wondered about. Interesting
>> >>> observations though Dudley.
>> >>
>> >>I'll ask around and see if I can get a handle on it.
>> >>DH
>> >
>> > If it is legit then there should be plenty of credible eyewitnesses.
>> >
>> > Ron Lee
>> >
>>
>>
>

This was discussed on warbirdinformationexchange.org. The clip is
real and the identity of the aircraft & pilot are known.

Bela P. Havasreti

[Morgans[_5_]]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote

> This was discussed on warbirdinformationexchange.org. The clip is
> real and the identity of the aircraft & pilot are known.

What did the pilot have to say, after he realized how close he had come?
That would be interesting.
--
Jim in NC

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote
>
>> This was discussed on warbirdinformationexchange.org. The clip is
>> real and the identity of the aircraft & pilot are known.
>
> What did the pilot have to say, after he realized how close he had come?
> That would be interesting.


"Holy ****!"



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
> Harrummph. There is more that one Peter D. I, for one, find myself of
> both
> sides on many of these issues; and the more I learn, the less I'm sure...

I'm positive he's referring to me. He's got quite a grudge apparently, and
based on mostly false recollection I'm sure. For example, the accusation he
makes here about something I supposedly wrote about him is completely false.

I suppose I ought to be flattered that he finds it so compelling to obsess
over my supposed wrongs, but really I think he ought to just get over it.
Whatever "it" is, it can't possibly be worth the time he apparently spends
thinking about it, even if it were true. Of course, the fact that it's not
makes it even less worthwhile use of his time.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> What did the pilot have to say, after he realized how close he had come?
> That would be interesting.


"Um, ...Airshow Field"
"Yak"
"Runway 36"
"Departing to the North"
"Airshow Field"


Montblack :-)

[Kingfish]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> I'm positive he's referring to me.

You would be correct, sir :)

> He's got quite a grudge apparently, and based on mostly false recollection I'm sure.

No, no grudge at all. And your assumptions of false recollection are a
bit knee-jerk here IMO, but amusing in their smugness

> For example, the accusation he makes here about something I supposedly wrote about him is completely false. I suppose I ought to be flattered that he finds it so compelling to obsess over my supposed wrongs, but really I think he ought to just get over it.

What accusation Pete? Anything you "supposedly" wrote is in the Google
archives if I cared to dig it up (I don't) Don't flatter yourself here,
I'm not obsessing - it was more of a stream-of-consciousness thing
triggered by Bela's post

> Whatever "it" is, it can't possibly be worth the time he apparently spends thinking about it, even if it were true.

See above.

[Peter Duniho]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> What accusation Pete? Anything you "supposedly" wrote is in the Google
> archives if I cared to dig it up (I don't)

What a surprise. The person making the accusation doesn't feel like finding
the proof for the accusation.

Guess what? That's called a false accusation. No proof, no justification.
Put up or shut up.

I guarantee you can't find anything in Google Groups posted by me that
qualifies as "jumped ugly all over me for expressing my opinion that
irreplacable warbirds shouldn't be risked in air races". The reason that
you "don't care to" find such a post is because you know it doesn't exist.

Pete

[Kingfish]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> What a surprise. The person making the accusation doesn't feel like finding
> the proof for the accusation.
>
> Guess what? That's called a false accusation. No proof, no justification.
> Put up or shut up.
>
> I guarantee you can't find anything in Google Groups posted by me that
> qualifies as "jumped ugly all over me for expressing my opinion that
> irreplacable warbirds shouldn't be risked in air races". The reason that
> you "don't care to" find such a post is because you know it doesn't exist.
>
> Pete

Here it is, sunshine.. Reference the "P-51D" thread from July 2005.

I opined:

> As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
> NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
> irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
> total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
> the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane.

You replied:

>>What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
>>these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
>>preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the first
>>place.

> I'd like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
> air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.

>>Oh. So it turns out, you're not actually against the destruction of these
>>warbirds after all. You would just rather see them destroyed for your
>>pleasure at airshows, rather than for someone else's pleasure at air races.

This thread quickly degenerated into a commentary on species survival,
and the irrationality of people placing value on inanimate objects,
religious faith, and questionable "historical importance".

Although I was just expressing my opinion, you called me out for not
providing statistics comparing relative safety between air racing and
airshows. I couldn't provide any (still can't) but my assertion was
based on a reasonable assumption that aircraft racing around pylons at
400+ mph @ 100' AGL are at greater risk of loss than aircraft that fly
a (relatively) tame airshow routine. Regardless of my inability to cite
stats, any reasonable person familiar with this subject would probably
agree to the greater risk in racing, although you will no doubt argue
this ad infinitum.

I reiterate: I think the folks lucky enough to own these planes have an
obligation to preserve them. If they want to risk their aircraft by
racing that's their right. I just think it's a shame to see
irreplaceable historic aircraft being risked for a thrill ride. That's
all. It may well be more of an emotional connection which you called
irrational (so be it). My decision to learn to fly wasn't based on any
need, it was purely for emotional reasons (fun? challenge? being part
of a select group?) Why did you learn to fly?

[Peter Duniho]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Here it is, sunshine.. Reference the "P-51D" thread from July 2005.
> [snip]

If you think that qualifies as "jumped ugly all over me", you should
probably rethink your participation on Usenet. You must wind up in tears
when someone actually is mean to you.

Nothing in any of the posts I wrote, and certainly nothing in the quotes you
provided here, could rationally be construed as any sort of personal attack
or "jumping ugly". As far as "degenerated" goes, I suppose that's in the
eye of the beholder. IMHO, the thread took a perfectly fine and natural
course, without any degeneration at all.

And as far as "calling you out" for not posting statistics, when you make a
claim that asserts statistics, it behooves you to actually HAVE those
statistics to back your claim up. Much like actually having proof that
someone "jumped ugly all over" you when you make that claim.

Of course, it turns out you have proof for neither. No wonder you're being
so defensive. But that's not my fault. I'm simply pointing out the huge
chasm between what you say is true and what actually is.

Pete

[Kingfish]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> If you think that qualifies as "jumped ugly all over me", you should
> probably rethink your participation on Usenet. You must wind up in tears
> when someone actually is mean to you.

You're funny. I'm a bit more resilient than that. Really.

> And as far as "calling you out" for not posting statistics, when you make a
> claim that asserts statistics, it behooves you to actually HAVE those
> statistics to back your claim up. Much like actually having proof that
> someone "jumped ugly all over" you when you make that claim.

IIRC it was you who brought up the issue of statistics, not me.
Honestly I could care less if some faceless person on Usenet doesn't
agree with me, although it's probably not evident considering the
length I've already gone to to refute this. It's that
stream-of-consciousness thing again.

> Of course, it turns out you have proof for neither. No wonder you're being
> so defensive. But that's not my fault. I'm simply pointing out the huge
> chasm between what you say is true and what actually is.

I didn't think I had to quote the entire thread from last July to make
my point. You are free to disagree with my opinion just don't be
obnoxious in doing so, as it only belittles you.