Mustang Collision Oshkosh

[Gattman[_2_]]

http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c


OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
AirVenture.
The FAA says the accident with the two P-51 Mustangs happened at shortly
after 3pm, after the planes finished a performance at the Experimental
Aircraft Association's show.

Investigators with the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board are
investigating.

The last fatal crash at EAA Airventure happened last year on July 23. A
Washington state couple was killed when their single engine, home-built
plane crashed on approach at Whittman Regional Airport.

[Don Homuth[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:41:28 -0700, "Gattman"
> wrote:

>
>http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c
>
>
>OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
>confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
>AirVenture.
>The FAA says the accident with the two P-51 Mustangs happened at shortly
>after 3pm, after the planes finished a performance at the Experimental
>Aircraft Association's show.

Damned Shame, all the way around.

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c

Looks like "Dazzling Donna", owned by Bob Odegard, is the airplane in the
photo above:

http://www.drewsmithphoto.com/aviation/large-30.html
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/pages/44-74404.shtml

From a friend who witnessed it:

"Two planes (both P51s I believe) collided as they were coming in side by
side...
one went nose-in and the pilot was able to jump out... he was injured, but
reports are that he'll be ok.

The second plane flipped over and a fire started. The pilot didn't make it
out... the hope (obviously)
is that he was dead on impact before the fire started."

:<

-c

[B A R R Y]

That appears to be Dazzling Donna:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/images/T44-74502.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/p51listD4.shtml&h=67&w=100&sz=4&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=8QMcNSqgPgv6nM:&tbnh=55&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DP-51%2B474404%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26saf e%3Doff%26sa%3DG

[Peter R.]

On 7/27/2007 7:41:31 PM, "Gattman" wrote:

> OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
> confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
> AirVenture.

Damn. With no reports of incidents at the hectic beginning, I thought this
year was going to be a good one.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 7/27/2007 7:41:31 PM, "Gattman" wrote:

>
> OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
> confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
> AirVenture.

Someone posted this link to some pictures of one of the Mustangs (presumably
the non-fatal) in another aviation forum:

http://tinyurl.com/29gnpr

--
Peter

[Blueskies]

"Gattman" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Gattman" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c
>
> Looks like "Dazzling Donna", owned by Bob Odegard, is the airplane in the photo above:
>
> http://www.drewsmithphoto.com/aviation/large-30.html
> http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/pages/44-74404.shtml
>
> From a friend who witnessed it:
>
> "Two planes (both P51s I believe) collided as they were coming in side by side...
> one went nose-in and the pilot was able to jump out... he was injured, but reports are that he'll be ok.
>
> The second plane flipped over and a fire started. The pilot didn't make it out... the hope (obviously)
> is that he was dead on impact before the fire started."
>
> :<
>
> -c

The news story said it may be a father and son team...

Sad...

[dav1936531]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:59:31 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:


>That appears to be Dazzling Donna:
>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/images/T44-74502.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/p51listD4.shtml&h=67&w=100&sz=4&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=8QMcNSqgPgv6nM:&tbnh=55&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3DP-51%2B474404%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26saf e%3Doff%26sa%3DG

From the crash photos, it looks like the pilot of that craft was the
survivor of the two involved.
Dave

[[email protected]]

It might have been "Dazzlin Donna" at one time, but for the past two years
at least it's been called "Stang". And yes, it was Bob Odegaard's plane.
The other Mustang was the "homebuilt" P-51A, "Precious Metal". They were
landing in formation on Runway 36, Stang was in the lead. As Stang touched
down on his mains it appeared he began to slow down while the P-51A was
still airborne. I didn't see the actual collision, but talked to a number of
people who did and the stories were consistant. The P-51A overtook Stang,
and its prop tore off Stang's left stab and cut a slash in Stang's fuselage.
The impact knocked Stang's tail down, which then bounced back up and Stang
pitched over on its nose and slid off the side of the runway with its nose
on the ground.
Meanwhile, the P-51A pitched up, rolled over inverted and came down
nose-first, then slammed on its back. There was a flash of fire and from
where I was sitting way to the north about the middle of Runway 36 it
looked as though the fire went out, but people closer said it kept burning
until the firetrucks arrived.
I heard the crowd gasp and turned in time to see the P-51A pitching up and
rolling inverted to nose-down and Stang pitching over onto her nose and
sliding off the runway. Stang's pilot after a minute or so was able to get
out and slide down the nose of the Mustang. He ran towards the 51A, but
after getting pretty close, moved back away (the airplane was on fire as I
said, though I couldn't see that from where I was). Emergency vehicles
responded immediately, a couple of firetrucks and an ambulance. When the
ambulance didn't leave the scene we knew it was bad. I moved down closer
to the south end of Runway 36 to see what was happening. Finally a couple
of hours after the accident they lowered Stang's tail to the ground and
towed her off (to Basler Aviation I presume). Not long after they loaded a
body wrapped in silver blankets into the amulance and it left. Then a
little while later they flipped the P-51A over with a crane. As they
lifted the P-51A's tail up, something must have sparked, all of the rescue
workers suddenly ran away from the airplane, including the crane operator.
The firemen sprayed the plane down some more, and after awhile they
finally finished flipping the P-51A over onto its wheels. The whole top of
the fuselage was missing, but I don't know how much was from the crash and
how much from the rescue workers cutting away fuselage to free the pilot.
The engine was completely ripped away from the aircraft.
It was a very tragic day...
Scott Wilson

[Richard Brooks]

Gattman said the following on 28/07/07 00:41:
> http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c
>
>
> OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
> confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
> AirVenture.
> The FAA says the accident with the two P-51 Mustangs happened at shortly
> after 3pm, after the planes finished a performance at the Experimental
> Aircraft Association's show.
>
> Investigators with the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board are
> investigating.
>
> The last fatal crash at EAA Airventure happened last year on July 23. A
> Washington state couple was killed when their single engine, home-built
> plane crashed on approach at Whittman Regional Airport.

That fateful moment.

<http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/airshow.crash.ap/>



--
"Initiative is punishable."
Russian business saying.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> The news story said it may be a father and son team...
>
> Sad...

A father and son team flew in the demonstration. The son is the surviving
Mustang pilot, the father was flying a Corsair and was not involved in the
collision.

[Don Homuth[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:41:28 -0700, "Gattman"
> wrote:

>
>http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c
>
>
>OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
>confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
>AirVenture...

Update:

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=173179&section=news&freebie_check&CFID=45789848&CFTOKEN=23267733&jsessionid=88307f9307db116a5449

Wahpeton man killed after planes collide at air show
Kim Winnegge, The Forum
Published Saturday, July 28, 2007

A Wahpeton, N.D., man died Friday after performing in a Wisconsin air
show.

Gerald Beck, 58, died after the plane he was flying collided with one
flown by Casey Odegaard, 24, of Kindred.

The men each were flying P-51 Mustangs, single-seat fighters used
during World War II, at the experimental air show in Osh Kosh, Wis.,
officials said.

[Big John]

My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.

Not enough data to second guess what happened but I have hundreds of
formation landings in the P-51.

The procedure was for leader of flight to land on the down wind side
of the runway. That way any prop wash would not blow across the runway
and into the #2 as he flared or touched down.

Also the #1 man landed as close to the edge of the R/W as he could
(wing over the R/W lights on narrow R/w's) and the #2 landed as far to
the other side of R/W as he could to give maximum clearance between
the wings if an overrun took place.

The #2 would use the radio and tell the #1 that he was down and had
his bird under control and was not overrunning the #1. If the #2 was
over running #1 then he told #1 and #1 put on power to give more
clearance.

In the three years I flew the bird I don't remember any overruns in
the FTRGP. This was on narrow WWII Japanese runways (75 Ft) to wide
R/W's (200 ft) we built.

Does anyone know if the birds pitched or flew a rectangular pattern?

Basic procedure is you have the air speed and touch down under control
and no overruns.

Comments on this Dudley?

Big John

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




On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:41:28 -0700, "Gattman"
> wrote:

>
>http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-461b-9885-fd0ca17e627c
>
>
>OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
>confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
>AirVenture.
>The FAA says the accident with the two P-51 Mustangs happened at shortly
>after 3pm, after the planes finished a performance at the Experimental
>Aircraft Association's show.
>
>Investigators with the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board are
>investigating.
>
>The last fatal crash at EAA Airventure happened last year on July 23. A
>Washington state couple was killed when their single engine, home-built
>plane crashed on approach at Whittman Regional Airport.
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Big John wrote:
> My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.
>
> Not enough data to second guess what happened but I have hundreds of
> formation landings in the P-51.
>
> The procedure was for leader of flight to land on the down wind side
> of the runway. That way any prop wash would not blow across the runway
> and into the #2 as he flared or touched down.
>
> Also the #1 man landed as close to the edge of the R/W as he could
> (wing over the R/W lights on narrow R/w's) and the #2 landed as far to
> the other side of R/W as he could to give maximum clearance between
> the wings if an overrun took place.
>
> The #2 would use the radio and tell the #1 that he was down and had
> his bird under control and was not overrunning the #1. If the #2 was
> over running #1 then he told #1 and #1 put on power to give more
> clearance.
>
> In the three years I flew the bird I don't remember any overruns in
> the FTRGP. This was on narrow WWII Japanese runways (75 Ft) to wide
> R/W's (200 ft) we built.
>
> Does anyone know if the birds pitched or flew a rectangular pattern?
>
> Basic procedure is you have the air speed and touch down under control
> and no overruns.
>
> Comments on this Dudley?
>
> Big John

Just saw the complete film of the crash.
Runway 36 at Oshkosh is 150 feet wide as I remember it. The 2 Mustangs
were dissimilar; a D flown by Odegard, and an A, flown by Beck. Beck was
the trailer to the left and behind the D through touchdown.
They were trying to execute a section landing. The D looked normal to me
on final airspeed wise. He touched down on the mains and was fairly tail
high in his roll out. His tailwheel hadn't settled in before he was hit.
Beck looked a bit hot to me. There definitely (obviously) was a closure
rate through the landing. It looked to me as though Beck was hot and
just a bit long through his landing....not much, but he had overtake.
Beck's right wingtip looked like it impacted the left horizontal
stabilizer on the D. There must have been a strong positive pitch moment
induced as they hit. The D pitched forward violently right through the
prop and onto the spinner where it dug in hard. I can't explain the
behavior of the A other than an involuntary pitch input on the stick by
Beck as he felt the impact. His right wintip must have been under the
D's stabilizer to cause the violent pitchup and over to inverted
suffered by the A. The A pitched up hard and to the right and went in
inverted behind the D. It looked like Beck must have been killed instantly.
These things happen so fast you can be looking right at them and even
with an experienced eye, not be seeing what actually happened.
I have no idea what the NTSB will find but from what I just saw on the
film , the section looked too tight for a section landing with Mustangs.
Being too tight over the fence with the trailer a bit hot and producing
a positive closure rate on the lead would be a bad situation flying 51's.
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> I have no idea what the NTSB will find but from what I just saw on the film , the section looked too tight for a
> section landing with Mustangs. Being too tight over the fence with the trailer a bit hot and producing a positive
> closure rate on the lead would be a bad situation flying 51's.
> Dudley Henriques
>

It seems like most of the 'formation' or section as you call them landings I saw had #2 touching down first then #1.
That way #2 could begin slowing as #1 touched down, then #2 could match #1 speed and both could then come to a safe
stop. #2 closing on #1 is bad indeed.

What is the specific meaning of a section landing? Is it simply 2 planes basically landing at the same time?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> I have no idea what the NTSB will find but from what I just saw on the film , the section looked too tight for a
>> section landing with Mustangs. Being too tight over the fence with the trailer a bit hot and producing a positive
>> closure rate on the lead would be a bad situation flying 51's.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> It seems like most of the 'formation' or section as you call them landings I saw had #2 touching down first then #1.
> That way #2 could begin slowing as #1 touched down, then #2 could match #1 speed and both could then come to a safe
> stop. #2 closing on #1 is bad indeed.
>
> What is the specific meaning of a section landing? Is it simply 2 planes basically landing at the same time?
>
>
>

2 planes are a section; 4 a flight.
Normally for jets, or as is the case for nose wheel airplanes generally,
you do a section landing with the wingman directly back but not stacked
down. You touchdown with lead and maintain position through the roll out.
For tail wheel airplanes this is a whole new ball game because of the
peripheral visibility cues and lack of visibility directly over the nose
through touchdown. This issue is especially present in Mustangs.
I have never advocated section landings in Mustangs for civilian pilots
for the above reasons.
It is interesting to note as well that Warbirds of America and the
Confederate Air Force do not encourage section landings in P51's for the
same reason.
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques"> wrote

> It is interesting to note as well that Warbirds of America and the
> Confederate Air Force do not encourage section landings in P51's for the
> same reason.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever recall 51's
doing formation landings at OSH. They usually land with at least 200 feet
between them.

I can't figure why they felt the need to formation land, this time.

Regardless, condolences. A sad way to go.
--
Jim in NC

[Big John]

Jim

In my 650 hours in the bird, I never saw formation landings. Sometimes
the birds got close together after touch down but the wing man never
got up into a formation position or passed the ship ahead.

As Dudley said and I agree, civilian pilots flying the '51 should not
attempt formation landings. Their life and the bird are too precious.
Confed Air Force also say the same thing per Dudley.

On the "A" model of second bird. Did someone put an allison engine in
it? Did it have a bird cage or bubble?

I hope everyone realizes that we were not there and are making
comments from the little data available.

On the word section, Element is also used. I think Section came from
the Brits??????. Both are two planes. Four birds are a flight composed
of two elements. Leader and his wing man are #1 & #2. On the other
side matching #2 is #3 and on his wing is #4.

If the flight goes into echelon, then #3 moves out from close
formation with #1 and #2 moves under #1 over to the other side and
flight is then #1,#2,#3 & #4. This formation is normally used so that
each bird can break out behind the smaller numbered bird into the
landing pattern. #4 is tail end charlie :o)

This leads to another War Story. One time I was in a 48 ship echelon
of P-80's (A's & B's) and leader turned into the echelon to get lined
up for the pass over the field. I was about #20 and cut donut holes in
my drawers. What #48 did I don't know. The tail end got snapped like a
whip. They got back in some semblance of an echelon before the pass
over field I was told :o)

We then went and did some acrobatics. In the loops they were like a
cork screw with birds ahead coming down at the same time trailing
birds were going up starting their loop.

Later the leader doing some tight turns and ask #48 how he was doing
and #48 in a strained voice used to combat 'G's said "I'm doing OK Sir
" :o)

In my career in the AAC/USAF I made 3 ship formation take offs and
landings only during Basic training (on grass field) in the T-6 (we
were a experimental group that flew the T-6 in both Basic and
Advanced). After we proved the point they took the BT-13 out of basic
and every one flew the T-6.

In the formation landings you flew tight formation and could see the
ground behind the leader and you never knew when you were going to hit
the ground and then transition from flight to 'ground hog' :o( We also
shot hurdle stages in the T-6. Would drag it over the rope with the
little flags so you could see it and just before going over you
chopped the throttle. As the bird started to sink you put in full up
elevator and after making the hard Navy landing from 15 feet with
brakes locked you stopped in 100-150 feet. Tires just skidded on the
grass so you didn't nose over.

We didn't know better in those days to not do some of the things we
would not do today.

Dudley. Where did you see the full important part of the pattern
through the accident? Can you give me the URL?

Keep um flying.

Big John

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




On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:52:45 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Dudley Henriques"> wrote
>
>> It is interesting to note as well that Warbirds of America and the
>> Confederate Air Force do not encourage section landings in P51's for the
>> same reason.
>
>I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever recall 51's
>doing formation landings at OSH. They usually land with at least 200 feet
>between them.
>
>I can't figure why they felt the need to formation land, this time.
>
>Regardless, condolences. A sad way to go.

[Mxsmanic]

Big John > wrote:

> In my 650 hours in the bird, I never saw formation landings. Sometimes
> the birds got close together after touch down but the wing man never
> got up into a formation position or passed the ship ahead.

I have done hundreds of formation landings in P-51s. Those two at Oshkosh
must have been total losers to crash doing something so simple.

[Blueskies]

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> Jim
>
>
> On the "A" model of second bird. Did someone put an allison engine in
> it? Did it have a bird cage or bubble?
>
>
> Keep um flying.
>
> Big John
>


It had the three bladed prop so I assume Allison engine and the bird cage fastback fuselage...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Big John wrote:

> Dudley. Where did you see the full important part of the pattern
> through the accident? Can you give me the URL?

This link has a film clip of the crash picking them up on final through
impact.
DH


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=e0b8b45d-175d-47fe-a063-7ad4367b4d28&

[flypaper]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Big John > wrote:
>
>> In my 650 hours in the bird, I never saw formation landings.
>> Sometimes the birds got close together after touch down but the wing
>> man never got up into a formation position or passed the ship ahead.
>
> I have done hundreds of formation landings in P-51s. Those two at
> Oshkosh must have been total losers to crash doing something so
> simple.

Don't we have enough bull**** floating around here without a fake troll
trolling the troll????

[Big John]

mxsmanic

Probably should have used a better set of words.

Formation landings in the 51 is a high risk operation. It can be done
with two very experienced pilots with a good briefing on who does what
when and practice.

Did you land wings over lapped in tight formation or spread out where
an overrun would not hit the lead ship?

Did both ships make wheel landings or three point landings? Or lead
wheel and wing three point?

There is less margin for error in the tail wheel 51 than the nose
wheel birds. With the nose wheel you can tromp hard on the brakes to
prevent over running.

Have a nice day.

Big John





On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:09:18 +0200 (CEST), Mxsmanic
> wrote:

>Big John > wrote:
>
>> In my 650 hours in the bird, I never saw formation landings. Sometimes
>> the birds got close together after touch down but the wing man never
>> got up into a formation position or passed the ship ahead.
>
>I have done hundreds of formation landings in P-51s. Those two at Oshkosh
>must have been total losers to crash doing something so simple.

[Big John]

Blueskies

After asking the question I saw a later photo of accident where the
fuselage was clear and saw it was not a bubble.

Tnx

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


On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:50:02 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message ...
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On the "A" model of second bird. Did someone put an allison engine in
>> it? Did it have a bird cage or bubble?
>>
>>
>> Keep um flying.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>
>
>It had the three bladed prop so I assume Allison engine and the bird cage fastback fuselage...
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"flypaper" > wrote in news:273ri.106177$wG2.51389
@newsfe17.lga:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Big John > wrote:
>>
>>> In my 650 hours in the bird, I never saw formation landings.
>>> Sometimes the birds got close together after touch down but the wing
>>> man never got up into a formation position or passed the ship ahead.
>>
>> I have done hundreds of formation landings in P-51s. Those two at
>> Oshkosh must have been total losers to crash doing something so
>> simple.
>
> Don't we have enough bull**** floating around here without a fake troll
> trolling the troll????
>
>
>

Apparently not


Bertie

[Big John]

Dudleyt

Had been on the site and before and didn't this time either find a clp
of base, final of either or both A/C?

Can you point me a little closer? They may have taken it down and only
NZTSB has it now?

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

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:13:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>
>Big John wrote:
>
>> Dudley. Where did you see the full important part of the pattern
>> through the accident? Can you give me the URL?
>
>This link has a film clip of the crash picking them up on final through
>impact.
>DH
>
>
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=e0b8b45d-175d-47fe-a063-7ad4367b4d28&

[Big John]

Dudley

See what happens when you hurry. Both on internet and flying. Just
more dangerous flying :o(

Pardon the typos.

Had to hit a store before it closed on Sunday.

Big John
************************************************** **88

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:12 -0500, Big John >
wrote:

>Dudleyt
>
>Had been on the site before and didn't this time either find a clp
>of base and final of either or both A/C?
>
>Can you point me a little closer? They may have taken it down and only
>NTSB has it now?
>
>Big John
>**************************************************
>
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:13:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Big John wrote:
>>
>>> Dudley. Where did you see the full important part of the pattern
>>> through the accident? Can you give me the URL?
>>
>>This link has a film clip of the crash picking them up on final through
>>impact.
>>DH
>>
>>
>>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=e0b8b45d-175d-47fe-a063-7ad4367b4d28&

[Big John]

Mxsmanic

Where did you fly the 51? What AAC organization and theater?

Or did you fly with a Guard unit (which one) after the war?

What power setting did lead hold on final so wing could stay in
formation?

Interested in your replies to these technical questions I have posed.

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



On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:09:18 +0200 (CEST), Mxsmanic
> wrote:

>Big John > wrote:
>
>> In my 650 hours in the bird, I never saw formation landings. Sometimes
>> the birds got close together after touch down but the wing man never
>> got up into a formation position or passed the ship ahead.
>
>I have done hundreds of formation landings in P-51s. Those two at Oshkosh
>must have been total losers to crash doing something so simple.

[Blueskies]

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> Dudleyt
>
> Had been on the site and before and didn't this time either find a clp
> of base, final of either or both A/C?
>
> Can you point me a little closer? They may have taken it down and only
> NZTSB has it now?
>
> Big John


Try this:

http://www.aero-tv.net/index.cfm?videoid=00b0d640-e714-4b79-b17b-6f3b0f149c4d

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On the "A" model of second bird. Did someone put an allison engine in
> > it? Did it have a bird cage or bubble?
> >
> >
> > Keep um flying.
> >
> > Big John
> >
>
>
> It had the three bladed prop so I assume Allison engine and the bird cage
> fastback fuselage...

It was a completely "scratch-built" P-51A, which has been featured in
Sport Aviation and several other publications. The A model (and the A-36
variant) had the Allison engine. The Merlin-engined B models and on had
the Merlin and a bigger radiator scoop.

[Big John]

Blueskies

Tnx for clip.

From what I could see, #1 was flat and made a wheel landing.

#2 was high and you could see the prop blades turning which meant he
was at idle or very close to it tryig to slow down and lose the excess
altitude.

From what I then saw, #2 overran #1 and at the last minute he tried to
go around and put power on and pulled the nose up. About that time his
right wing underan the left stablizer of #1 and that threw #2 into a
steep right bank with up elevator and high power.

From that point it was preordained and the crash resulted.

This may be wrong but is as I saw it in the clip.


On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:13:31 -0400, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message ...
>> Dudleyt
>>
>> Had been on the site and before and didn't this time either find a clp
>> of base, final of either or both A/C?
>>
>> Can you point me a little closer? They may have taken it down and only
>> NZTSB has it now?
>>
>> Big John
>
>
>Try this:
>
>http://www.aero-tv.net/index.cfm?videoid=00b0d640-e714-4b79-b17b-6f3b0f149c4d
>
>

[Blueskies]

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies
>
> Tnx for clip.
>
> From what I could see, #1 was flat and made a wheel landing.
>
> #2 was high and you could see the prop blades turning which meant he
> was at idle or very close to it tryig to slow down and lose the excess
> altitude.
>
> From what I then saw, #2 overran #1 and at the last minute he tried to
> go around and put power on and pulled the nose up. About that time his
> right wing underan the left stablizer of #1 and that threw #2 into a
> steep right bank with up elevator and high power.
>
> From that point it was preordained and the crash resulted.
>
> This may be wrong but is as I saw it in the clip.
>
>

#2 right wing under the left stab also explains #1 pitching down...

It is good to be able to examine this sort of accident with this level of detail...may save someone some day...

Dan D.

[Mxsmanic]

Big John > wrote:

> mxsmanic
>
> Probably should have used a better set of words.

You are correct. I should not have called them "losers", I should have
called them "idiots". Landing a P-51 in formation is extremely easy. They
should not have been even allowed to fly aircraft that rare if they
couldn't fly any better than that. I could have done that landing in my
sleep. In fact, I frequently *do*.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Big John > wrote:
>
> > mxsmanic
> >
> > Probably should have used a better set of words.
>
> You are correct. I should not have called them "losers", I should have
> called them "idiots". Landing a P-51 in formation is extremely easy. They
> should not have been even allowed to fly aircraft that rare if they
> couldn't fly any better than that. I could have done that landing in my
> sleep. In fact, I frequently *do*.

This from someone whose only "flight experience" is in a Microsoft
Flight Sim Mk I!

[flypaper]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Big John > wrote:
>>
>>> mxsmanic
>>>
>>> Probably should have used a better set of words.
>>
>> You are correct. I should not have called them "losers", I should
>> have called them "idiots". Landing a P-51 in formation is extremely
>> easy. They should not have been even allowed to fly aircraft that
>> rare if they couldn't fly any better than that. I could have done
>> that landing in my sleep. In fact, I frequently *do*.
>
> This from someone whose only "flight experience" is in a Microsoft
> Flight Sim Mk I!

Me thinks this is from an imposter - one Mx is bad enough.

Just like in several other posts you can tell the "real troll", from the
"fake troll", especially if sex is mentioned since Mx distains the the mere
thought of sex by his own admission.

[Big John]

Blueskies

If you look close at clip, you will see the main gear hit and then
bounced off runway. Immediately after the main gear hit the tail wheel
went rapidally down and hit the runway. The tail going down so fast is
further indication that the pilot put in up elevator to go around and
the power then pulled the nose to the high attitude that we all could
see.

I can see from clip that elevator was in an up position as nose
started up.

Then the overrun and the wing tip and elevator hitting lead to the
rest of the accident sequence.

If anyone can shoot me down have at it. I'm just looking at what I can
see and making my personal opinion from lots of accident investigation
experience with heavy iron.

Dudley

Come on in and give us your opinion now afer running the clip multiple
times.

I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
Guess he is one of the trolls active here :o( I'll put him on the
list.

Big John

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

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:05:02 -0400, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message ...
>> Blueskies
>>
>> Tnx for clip.
>>
>> From what I could see, #1 was flat and made a wheel landing.
>>
>> #2 was high and you could see the prop blades turning which meant he
>> was at idle or very close to it tryig to slow down and lose the excess
>> altitude.
>>
>> From what I then saw, #2 overran #1 and at the last minute he tried to
>> go around and put power on and pulled the nose up. About that time his
>> right wing underan the left stablizer of #1 and that threw #2 into a
>> steep right bank with up elevator and high power.
>>
>> From that point it was preordained and the crash resulted.
>>
>> This may be wrong but is as I saw it in the clip.
>>
>>
>
>#2 right wing under the left stab also explains #1 pitching down...
>
>It is good to be able to examine this sort of accident with this level of detail...may save someone some day...
>
>Dan D.
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Big John wrote:


> Dudley
>
> Come on in and give us your opinion now afer running the clip multiple
> times.
>
> I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
> Guess he is one of the trolls active here :o( I'll put him on the
> list.
>
> Big John

John;

I think I'm seeing basically the same thing as you are. I believe Beck
instinctively applied hard back pressure just before impact, catching
the stabilizer on the way up. The one thing that is a bit strange is the
violent roll to the right. Had he hit the throttle hard as he pulled
back, that roll should have been to the left. The only explanation I can
see that explains the direction of the roll is his right wingtip
catching the stabilizer as he pulled back on the stick. Doinf that hard
enough might very well have caused exactly what happened.
Just guessing here of course, but I think there's at least a good chance
that Beck might have misjudged the drag on a 51 touching down with 50
degrees of barn doors hanging off the trailing edge of the wings. I
would also be interested to know if Beck was landing with the same flap
setting as the D in front of him.
Judging from how close they were, Beck might have lost the D as it's
drag after touchdown started it back toward him under his nose, or at
least partially under his nose as he started to flare the A.. I honestly
believe this is what must have happened. The visual cues as I'm sure you
remember, are changing during the flare in a Mustang. You can see fairly
well over the nose on final but as you begin the flare transition, the
eye naturally goes to the lower corners of the windshield where you look
to keep the airplane aligned on the runway. Beck was landing on the left
side so his corner visuals were skewed from what he normally would be
looking for; equal parts of the runway showing on each side in the lower
corners of the windshield. What he would be getting flaring left side
would be the grass expanse with no direct reference line on his left
side and the runway showing wide on the right side with perhaps a piece
of Odegard's 51 showing in his immediate visual cues. As his nose came
up, the drag slowing the D and his own excess airspeed into the flare
would have ganged up on him. I believe we saw the results of all this.
I'm of course not certain, but from what I saw, this would be a
reasonable scenario were I giving a safety lecture on what I was seeing
on the film.
Dudley Henriques

[Big John]

Dudley

We're saying almost the same thing. Maybe the same just using slightly
different words.

As you say, I'm almost sure Bech lost sight of #1 as he had full wing
over lap with initial contact. If he could have seen #1 then he could
easily have slid out to left and probably cleard lead.

People keep talking about formation landing. There is no evidence of
that. #2 had normal but close spacing on #1 and after not controling
his airspeed closed to the impact point.

Probably need to put this to bed and wait for NTSB results.

Bottom line of course is it's a bloody shame. As the Brits would say.

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

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:27:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>
>Big John wrote:
>
>
>> Dudley
>>
>> Come on in and give us your opinion now afer running the clip multiple
>> times.
>>
>> I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
>> Guess he is one of the trolls active here :o( I'll put him on the
>> list.
>>
>> Big John
>
>John;
>
>I think I'm seeing basically the same thing as you are. I believe Beck
>instinctively applied hard back pressure just before impact, catching
>the stabilizer on the way up. The one thing that is a bit strange is the
>violent roll to the right. Had he hit the throttle hard as he pulled
>back, that roll should have been to the left. The only explanation I can
>see that explains the direction of the roll is his right wingtip
>catching the stabilizer as he pulled back on the stick. Doinf that hard
>enough might very well have caused exactly what happened.
>Just guessing here of course, but I think there's at least a good chance
>that Beck might have misjudged the drag on a 51 touching down with 50
>degrees of barn doors hanging off the trailing edge of the wings. I
>would also be interested to know if Beck was landing with the same flap
>setting as the D in front of him.
>Judging from how close they were, Beck might have lost the D as it's
>drag after touchdown started it back toward him under his nose, or at
>least partially under his nose as he started to flare the A.. I honestly
>believe this is what must have happened. The visual cues as I'm sure you
>remember, are changing during the flare in a Mustang. You can see fairly
>well over the nose on final but as you begin the flare transition, the
>eye naturally goes to the lower corners of the windshield where you look
>to keep the airplane aligned on the runway. Beck was landing on the left
>side so his corner visuals were skewed from what he normally would be
>looking for; equal parts of the runway showing on each side in the lower
>corners of the windshield. What he would be getting flaring left side
>would be the grass expanse with no direct reference line on his left
>side and the runway showing wide on the right side with perhaps a piece
>of Odegard's 51 showing in his immediate visual cues. As his nose came
>up, the drag slowing the D and his own excess airspeed into the flare
>would have ganged up on him. I believe we saw the results of all this.
>I'm of course not certain, but from what I saw, this would be a
>reasonable scenario were I giving a safety lecture on what I was seeing
>on the film.
>Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Big John wrote:
> Dudley
>
> We're saying almost the same thing. Maybe the same just using slightly
> different words.
>
> As you say, I'm almost sure Bech lost sight of #1 as he had full wing
> over lap with initial contact. If he could have seen #1 then he could
> easily have slid out to left and probably cleard lead.
>
> People keep talking about formation landing. There is no evidence of
> that. #2 had normal but close spacing on #1 and after not controling
> his airspeed closed to the impact point.
>
> Probably need to put this to bed and wait for NTSB results.
>
> Bottom line of course is it's a bloody shame. As the Brits would say.
>
> Big John
> **********************************************

The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
active runway.

Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
> the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
> that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
> longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
> much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
> high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
> advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
> to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
> Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
> out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
> active runway.
>
> Dudley Henriques

...addendum;

I would only add to this that as far as I am aware, section landings as
the military has used them in the past, with 2 aircraft landing
staggered on each side of the runway with CLOSE IN SPACING, is NOT...and
I repeat...NOT a recommended procedure by any standard I know of in
present use by associations and organizations dealing with formation
flight safety with direct relationship to the P51 Mustang.
Dudley Henriques

[flypaper]

Big John wrote:
> I asked MX a series of technical questions and he let them slide.
> Guess he is one of the trolls active here :o( I'll put him on the
> list.
>


Mx is indeed THE troll here, but I think you were/are talking to an imposter
Mx who has been making many bogus trolls in the name of the troll on several
threads, and this one wants to indulge in bull**** games over the death of a
pilot! Original Mx is a sophmoric jerk, but the imposter is an insensitive
asshole. Who ever it is should have the fleas of a thousand camels infest
his crotch, followed up with fireants.

[[email protected]]

Dudley and anyone else,
I was listening with my scanner and heard the P-51A call "Precious Metal,
one mile final", but no further radio calls. I glanced to the south and saw
the P-51A, but not the D, still a good ways out. I then focused on watching
the Sea Fury and Tigercat rolling out until I heard the crowd gasp at which
point I looked south and saw the P-51A pitch up and roll inverted and the
P-51D pitch over on its nose. From the video it seems to me that they
weren't necessarily landing as a section or in formation, that it's
possible that the P-51D cut into the pattern and Beck in the P-51A never
saw the P-51D until too late. The video begins showing the P-51A higher and
hotter and well behind the D, and it seems to me that right at the start of
the video there was pretty good separation between the two which the P-51A
closed quickly. Is it possible in your experience and knowing the
visibility over the nose of a Mustang that Beck in the P-51A didn't see the
P-51D, and never knew he was there until too late, and that Odegaard maybe
turned in front of him in the pattern? I'd love to see a video showing
them from further out in the approach, but I'm interested in your opinion.
Scott Wilson

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

I believe I made it clear in an earlier post in this thread that close
in staggered section landings with co-speed touchdowns are fairly common
in nose wheel aircraft like the F15. It's only in tail wheel fighters
like the Mustang where close in section landings are an issue.
Dudley Henriques

Bush wrote:
> We do this daily at FMH in F-15's.
>
> Have a great one!
>
> Bush
>
> "They'll let anyone fly 'em" John Travolta
>
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:47:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
>>> the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
>>> that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
>>> longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
>>> much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
>>> high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
>>> advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
>>> to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
>>> Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
>>> out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
>>> active runway.
>>>
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> ..addendum;
>>
>> I would only add to this that as far as I am aware, section landings as
>> the military has used them in the past, with 2 aircraft landing
>> staggered on each side of the runway with CLOSE IN SPACING, is NOT...and
>> I repeat...NOT a recommended procedure by any standard I know of in
>> present use by associations and organizations dealing with formation
>> flight safety with direct relationship to the P51 Mustang.
>> Dudley Henriques
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Dudley and anyone else,
> I was listening with my scanner and heard the P-51A call "Precious Metal,
> one mile final", but no further radio calls. I glanced to the south and saw
> the P-51A, but not the D, still a good ways out. I then focused on watching
> the Sea Fury and Tigercat rolling out until I heard the crowd gasp at which
> point I looked south and saw the P-51A pitch up and roll inverted and the
> P-51D pitch over on its nose. From the video it seems to me that they
> weren't necessarily landing as a section or in formation, that it's
> possible that the P-51D cut into the pattern and Beck in the P-51A never
> saw the P-51D until too late. The video begins showing the P-51A higher and
> hotter and well behind the D, and it seems to me that right at the start of
> the video there was pretty good separation between the two which the P-51A
> closed quickly. Is it possible in your experience and knowing the
> visibility over the nose of a Mustang that Beck in the P-51A didn't see the
> P-51D, and never knew he was there until too late, and that Odegaard maybe
> turned in front of him in the pattern? I'd love to see a video showing
> them from further out in the approach, but I'm interested in your opinion.
> Scott Wilson

This is of course a possibility that the investigation team will have
verified or discounted by now from the ATC interviews. If the D was an
incursion I'd have looked for something having been released to that
effect by now....but I could be wrong.
My gut feeling is that they were just too close and had overtake.
To answer your question about not seeing the D; the Mustang with flaps
down has fairly good runway visuals over the nose on final. I would
guess that Beck had the D visually until he flared.
Dudley Henriques

[Bush]

We do this daily at FMH in F-15's.

Have a great one!

Bush

"They'll let anyone fly 'em" John Travolta

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:47:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>
>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> The one thing you don't want to lose sight of with all this John is that
>> the recommendation considered standard for civilians flying Mustangs as
>> that advice would relate to a section landing gives MUCH more
>> longitudinal separation room required between the landing P51's....as
>> much as 3000 feet actually then was the case at Oshkosh. Even with a
>> high degree of experience, a civilian landing a P51 would be well
>> advised by any of the powers that be, not to mention myself, to adhere
>> to this long separation when landing 2 P51's out of a formation pattern.
>> Usually this would be done from a 360 overhead with spacing on the pitch
>> out to allow for this 3000 foot minimum longitudinal separation on the
>> active runway.
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>..addendum;
>
>I would only add to this that as far as I am aware, section landings as
>the military has used them in the past, with 2 aircraft landing
>staggered on each side of the runway with CLOSE IN SPACING, is NOT...and
>I repeat...NOT a recommended procedure by any standard I know of in
>present use by associations and organizations dealing with formation
>flight safety with direct relationship to the P51 Mustang.
>Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Bush > wrote:

> We do this daily at FMH in F-15's.

I flew an F-15 yesterday. It's fun, although the g-forces really do wear
you out after awhile. I had a flameout, could not get my engines
restarted, and had to do a deadstick landing onto a 1500 ft grass strip
runway from 50 miles away. My seat was really wet after that maneuver.

[Jim Logajan]

Big John > wrote:
> Mxsmanic
>
> Where did you fly the 51? What AAC organization and theater?

The real mxsmanic didn't make that post. Check the headers and you see:

Organization: Trolls, Inc.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:26:56 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

> The real mxsmanic didn't make that post. Check the headers and you see:
>
> Organization: Trolls, Inc.

So, Anthony now believes in truth in advertising? <snicker>

Trolls trolling for trolls?

I'm glad I killfiled him soon after he showed up in this group...

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
[ Elided in the name of good taste. ]

Organization: Trolls, Inc.

You do realize that all you are accomplishing is to prove many of
mxsmanic's detractors are infantile and have thin skins?

[Danny Deger]

On Jul 27, 6:41 pm, "Gattman" > wrote:
> http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-46...
>
> OSHKOSH (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration says one pilot is
> confirmed dead today after two planes collided while landing at EAA's
> AirVenture.
> The FAA says the accident with the two P-51 Mustangs happened at shortly
> after 3pm, after the planes finished a performance at the Experimental
> Aircraft Association's show.
>
> Investigators with the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board are
> investigating.
>
> The last fatal crash at EAA Airventure happened last year on July 23. A
> Washington state couple was killed when their single engine, home-built
> plane crashed on approach at Whittman Regional Airport.

I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
error.

Danny Deger

[Don Homuth[_2_]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
> wrote:


>I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
>formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
>error.

Formation Landings should be for show purposes -- like the Blue Angels
and Thunderbirds.

Which is, come to think of it, what this landing apparently was as
well.

Landing in trail is the safer way, if what you're concerned about is
airplanes and lives.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
> wrote:

> I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
> formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
> error.

I've done them in my Grumman AA5A along with a buddy who also flies a
Grumman AA1C... Of course our definition of a "formation landing" has
quite a bit more separation than ya'll probably did... <grin> We just
tended to use it to expedite coming into a Class-B airport (i.e.
"flight of 2") and the lead aircraft just lands long and on the left
side of the runway while the trailing aircraft shoots for the numbers
and stays on the right side of the runway... Of course, with the size
of the runway in question, we could be side by side and our wings
wouldn't be touching nor even overhanging the grass... A bit more
relaxed definition of "formation landing", I guess...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
> wrote:

> I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
> formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
> error.

An Air Force pilot admitting the possibility of an error... Wow,
that's a first...

--
GO NAVY !!!

[Peter Dohm]

"flypaper" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> >> Big John > wrote:
> >>
> >>> mxsmanic
> >>>
> >>> Probably should have used a better set of words.
> >>
> >> You are correct. I should not have called them "losers", I should
> >> have called them "idiots". Landing a P-51 in formation is extremely
> >> easy. They should not have been even allowed to fly aircraft that
> >> rare if they couldn't fly any better than that. I could have done
> >> that landing in my sleep. In fact, I frequently *do*.
> >
> > This from someone whose only "flight experience" is in a Microsoft
> > Flight Sim Mk I!
>
> Me thinks this is from an imposter - one Mx is bad enough.
>
> Just like in several other posts you can tell the "real troll", from the
> "fake troll", especially if sex is mentioned since Mx distains the the
mere
> thought of sex by his own admission.
>
>
You are correct, that one one of several by the imposter of the troll.

The truth can also be found in the message headers, which are admittedly
tedious to display in Outlook Express--although there may be an easier way
which I have not yet learned.

Peter

[Tater]

On Jul 27, 6:41 pm, "Gattman" > wrote:
> http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0d5fd653-6d41-46...
>
I was at the ultralight barn looking over my new student sport pilot
liscence at about 3pm waiting for the big warbird show that day.

I didnt get to see the very first part of the crash, nor have i looked
for any videos or pictures(yet, on dialup) but i'll give some
firsthand comments.

my view was partly obscurred by some of the ultralight tents, but i
either heard a bang, or saw a flash of color out of the corner of my
eye, and saw the first p51 come into view already in the nosedown
orientation. I saw only part of the green one, but did get a view of
the "fireball" some news agencies mention. those guys must race as
light as they can, because the flareup from when the tank broke off
lasted less than a 1/5th of a second.

really wasnt much to see. plane went up, flipped over, and smacked
into the ground, on impact the tank flared and the engine fell off,
other plane was already nosedown and skidded for a while. about a
minute afterward the pilot opened the cockpit and ran, I assume to
lend assistance. cars raced in, then big trucks, which then blocked
the view from the airshow audience. airshow announced a complete shut
down, but after about two hours they started up a couple of the
acts(not the big warbird one.) at the end they detoanted alll the pyro
as they could not let it sit.

from what i could see, the green p51 got it's wingtip under the tail
of the other, tried to pull up, and all went snafu. I do remember
there being some squirelly ground winds, as i was keeping an eye out
for weather, had a bad rainstorm previous days and was still drying
out one sleeping bag.

[Danny Deger]

On Jul 30, 4:47 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-
gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
>
> > wrote:
> > I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
> > formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
> > error.
>
> An Air Force pilot admitting the possibility of an error... Wow,
> that's a first...
>
> --
> GO NAVY !!!

Do you know why the space shuttle throttles back to 3 Gs on ascent?

So Navy fighter pilots can fly the shuttle.

Go Air Force.

Danny Deger
Lots of good flying stories in my free book at www.dannydeger.net

[Danny Deger]

"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
>>formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
>>error.
>
> Formation Landings should be for show purposes -- like the Blue Angels
> and Thunderbirds.
>
> Which is, come to think of it, what this landing apparently was as
> well.
>
> Landing in trail is the safer way, if what you're concerned about is
> airplanes and lives.

My thoughts exactly. Like I said I hated formation landings.

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Danny Deger wrote:
> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:26:34 -0700, Danny Deger
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I was a fighter pilot for the Air Force for several years and hated
>>> formation landings more than anything else I ever did. No room for
>>> error.
>>
>> Formation Landings should be for show purposes -- like the Blue Angels
>> and Thunderbirds.
>>
>> Which is, come to think of it, what this landing apparently was as
>> well.
>>
>> Landing in trail is the safer way, if what you're concerned about is
>> airplanes and lives.
>
> My thoughts exactly. Like I said I hated formation landings.
>
> Danny Deger
> www.dannydeger.net

With nose wheel airplanes, stacked laterally at co-speed through the
landing with no stack down for the trailer on final I never had a
problem with section landings. Of course there was always the ever
present potential for a tire blowout on the lead at touchdown.
(hopefully the tire away from me :-)
Never did section landings in prop fighters and never recommended them
either. Bad juju, especially in Mustangs. Much better to have at least
several thousand feet between touchdowns in these airplanes.
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

"flypaper" > wrote:

> Mx is indeed THE troll here, but I think you were/are talking to an
> imposter Mx who has been making many bogus trolls in the name of the
> troll on several threads, and this one wants to indulge in bull****
> games over the death of a pilot! Original Mx is a sophmoric jerk, but
> the imposter is an insensitive asshole. Who ever it is should have
> the fleas of a thousand camels infest his crotch, followed up with
> fireants.

How dare you call a rated P-51 pilot, AME, pharmacologist, astronaut, and
breast feeding expert a troll. If you don't like my posts, killfile me. I
dare you!

[Big John]

Mx

Thank you. After this reply your gone. Please do me the same and put
me in your killfile.

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

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:37:42 +0200 (CEST), Mxsmanic
> wrote:

>"flypaper" > wrote:
>
>> Mx is indeed THE troll here, but I think you were/are talking to an
>> imposter Mx who has been making many bogus trolls in the name of the
>> troll on several threads, and this one wants to indulge in bull****
>> games over the death of a pilot! Original Mx is a sophmoric jerk, but
>> the imposter is an insensitive asshole. Who ever it is should have
>> the fleas of a thousand camels infest his crotch, followed up with
>> fireants.
>
>How dare you call a rated P-51 pilot, AME, pharmacologist, astronaut, and
>breast feeding expert a troll. If you don't like my posts, killfile me. I
>dare you!

[Peter Dohm]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Mx
>
> Thank you. After this reply your gone. Please do me the same and put
> me in your killfile.
>
> Big John

Your solution is probably the best use of time and effort. However, this is
still the same "troll of the troll" and imposter--he simply corrected the
"organization" line in his header.

Peter

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>
> With nose wheel airplanes, stacked laterally at co-speed through the landing with no stack down for the trailer on
> final I never had a problem with section landings. Of course there was always the ever present potential for a tire
> blowout on the lead at touchdown. (hopefully the tire away from me :-)
> Never did section landings in prop fighters and never recommended them either. Bad juju, especially in Mustangs. Much
> better to have at least several thousand feet between touchdowns in these airplanes.
> Dudley Henriques


The latest pictures to crop up do seem to show that they were not planning a section landing...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>> With nose wheel airplanes, stacked laterally at co-speed through the landing with no stack down for the trailer on
>> final I never had a problem with section landings. Of course there was always the ever present potential for a tire
>> blowout on the lead at touchdown. (hopefully the tire away from me :-)
>> Never did section landings in prop fighters and never recommended them either. Bad juju, especially in Mustangs. Much
>> better to have at least several thousand feet between touchdowns in these airplanes.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> The latest pictures to crop up do seem to show that they were not planning a section landing...
>
>
I wouldn't go by the pictures. They tell a lot, but wouldn't indicate
that assumption to me at all.
The ATC or the tape from the com trailer will tell that story. My gut
tells me that Gerry Beck was WAY to good a stick to have been that close
in on the D unless he wanted to be that close in with the D on final,
but as with all speculation, I could be way off base.
I do know there would be no way in hell that I would have been that
close on final behind the D unless I had planned to be that close. There
is just way too much time through an approach like this one was to make
any spacing adjustments necessary to maintain nose to tail separation.
Again, my gut tells me that if Beck wanted to space wider longitudinally
he could have done that easily.
It's all a guessing game at this point, even for me. Having flown these
airplanes myself, I naturally have gut feelings about what Beck was
seeing at different points during his approach, but I can't be certain
what was planned and what wasn't.
I can say with some degree of certainty that I would be absolutely
amazed to find out that Gerry Beck allowed his airplane to close on the
D the way it did had he been planning a normally spaced approach and
landing. I just think he was too good to have allowed that to happen.
Something obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was
happening.
I learned a long time ago that what seems obvious initially in a crash
like this one sometimes turns out to be way off base.
Dudley Henriques

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>Something obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was
>happening.

Yes. The second pilot screwed up royally. Of course we can wait a
year for the NTSB to come to that conclusion.

Ron Lee

[Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)]

I was down there too near taxiway P5. I was taking pictures of the race,
but it appears I don't know how to work the shutter speed priority of
the camera. I got a lot of white .jpg files in between real photos and
video clips.

It looked to me like there was no evasive maneuvering before the impact.
As I saw them coming in, I was thinking they were close, but there must
be enough left-to-right spacing. I was wrong. I still can't figure out
why they were oriented with the front plane landing first. I think Jerry
may have lost sight of the front plane. When the plane flipped over it
hit quite hard, so it looked bad right from the beginning.

Paul

Tater wrote:
> I was at the ultralight barn looking over my new student sport pilot
> liscence at about 3pm waiting for the big warbird show that day.
>
> I didnt get to see the very first part of the crash, nor have i looked
> for any videos or pictures(yet, on dialup) but i'll give some
> firsthand comments.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
>> Something obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was
>> happening.
>
> Yes. The second pilot screwed up royally. Of course we can wait a
> year for the NTSB to come to that conclusion.
>
> Ron Lee
>

The fact that someone screwed up or didn't screw up isn't what takes all
the time to figure out in an aircraft accident. That part of it,
especially in an accident like this one, is usually solved fairly
quickly. To be quite frank, I'd be surprised to discover that the NTSB
didn't have the answer to this one as we speak.
What takes a bit of time is going into the P51 and warbird demonstration
communities and implementing the changes, education, and re-education
necessary to increase safety awareness generally.

The easy part can be the discovery that somebody made a mistake, or
"screwed up". The hard part is discovering WHY that someone made that
mistake or "screwed up", then finding a way to help prevent it from
happening again.
It's the WHY that takes the year; at least this has been my experience
dealing with aviation accidents, flight safety, and prevention.
Dudley Henriques

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> I can say with some degree of certainty that I would be absolutely amazed
> to find out that Gerry Beck allowed his airplane to close on >the D the
> way it did had he been planning a normally spaced approach and landing. I
> just think he was too good to have allowed that to >happen. Something
> obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was happening.

Question: If they were active military aircraft they would more likely have
same powerplants, same construction, same mechanics and maintenance policies
and all the things that would make them behave similarly at identical pitch
and power settings. Is this correct?

If so, is it possible that since the two aircraft were manufactured and
maintained separately, there could have been subtle performance variations
that made it more possible for the rear plane to overtake the other when the
approach configuration is the same? There's a pretty big difference
between a scratch-built A model and a D (that's already crashed once) is
there not?

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gattman wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I can say with some degree of certainty that I would be absolutely amazed
>> to find out that Gerry Beck allowed his airplane to close on >the D the
>> way it did had he been planning a normally spaced approach and landing. I
>> just think he was too good to have allowed that to >happen. Something
>> obviously went terribly wrong with whatever it was that was happening.
>
> Question: If they were active military aircraft they would more likely have
> same powerplants, same construction, same mechanics and maintenance policies
> and all the things that would make them behave similarly at identical pitch
> and power settings. Is this correct?

Not exactly. The A has an Allison V1710 power plant and the D had a
Merlin V1650-7. This shouldn't have been a factor in this accident
anyway. The A, because of the canopy construction, in my opinion anyway,
would have a lower visual cue factor on approach than the D and this in
my opinion could have been a relative factor.
>
> If so, is it possible that since the two aircraft were manufactured and
> maintained separately, there could have been subtle performance variations
> that made it more possible for the rear plane to overtake the other when the
> approach configuration is the same? There's a pretty big difference
> between a scratch-built A model and a D (that's already crashed once) is
> there not?
>
> -c
>
>

Not knowing exactly what was done to either airplane prior to the
accident I would not attempt to comment on this, but my gut feeling is
no. The factors you have stated would appear to me not to have been
relevant.

Let me add this addendum to this thread at this time please, if everyone
will bear with me and try to understand that what I'm about to say isn't
meant as a put down to anyone here.
There is a lot of idle speculation going on about this accident; much of
it by well meaning people in the General Aviation community who all
believe they have a clue, a cause, or an angle on what happened based on
this video tape or that bit of information about the P51 in general. I
myself, having some degree of experience in the Mustang have offered
some comment on the thread.
I am in contact with flight safety people in the P51 community as we
speak who are actively engaged as we speak in aiding the investigation.
Naturally the NTSB will have the final answers to the many questions
being tossed around by us here. May I respectfully suggest that because
this accident is so recent, and that as a result of this, there are
families and friends in the P51 community whose lives have been terribly
affected by this tragedy; that all of take a step back and let the NTSB
do it's job and let this thread go.
Please understand as I tried to say before, that I'm not blaming anyone.
I have posted on this subject with the rest of you.
Asking for this in the name of the P51 community at large, and thanking
those of you who understand and will attempt to comply.
Thanks gang.
Dudley Henriques

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

>The A, because of the canopy construction, in my opinion anyway, would have
>a lower visual cue factor on approach than the D and this in my opinion
>could have been a relative factor.

Fascinating. Thanks, Dudley.

>May I respectfully suggest that because this accident is so recent, and
>that as a result of this, there are families and friends in the P51
>community whose lives have been terribly affected by this tragedy;

Hopefully, on the off-chance that any of them lurk here or come across the
discussion, they know that the people who
discuss it here understand their loss and hope they are able to overcome the
tragedy.

At the risk of sounding callous, when my time comes, I hope it's doing
something huge like flying a P-51 instead of driving to work, crossing the
street or surfing the internet.

> Asking for this in the name of the P51 community at large,

"The P51 community at large." As far as I'm concerned, if you even make it
IN to "the P51 community" you've won the game. Thanks again for your
comments.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Immediately after I posted asking for patience and restraint on the P51
thread, I received an email from a good friend who is a P51 owner and
active in the flight safety section of the P51 community.
He sent me the information I will be posting here under a separate
header concerning the NTSB preliminary report on the accident.
He asked that I post the information for all to read.
Hopefully it will answer some of the questions.
Dudley Henriques

Gattman wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The A, because of the canopy construction, in my opinion anyway, would have
>> a lower visual cue factor on approach than the D and this in my opinion
>> could have been a relative factor.
>
> Fascinating. Thanks, Dudley.
>
>> May I respectfully suggest that because this accident is so recent, and
>> that as a result of this, there are families and friends in the P51
>> community whose lives have been terribly affected by this tragedy;
>
> Hopefully, on the off-chance that any of them lurk here or come across the
> discussion, they know that the people who
> discuss it here understand their loss and hope they are able to overcome the
> tragedy.
>
> At the risk of sounding callous, when my time comes, I hope it's doing
> something huge like flying a P-51 instead of driving to work, crossing the
> street or surfing the internet.
>
>> Asking for this in the name of the P51 community at large,
>
> "The P51 community at large." As far as I'm concerned, if you even make it
> IN to "the P51 community" you've won the game. Thanks again for your
> comments.
>
> -c
>
>

[Newps]

His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.

http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html




Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> Not knowing exactly what was done to either airplane prior to the
> accident I would not attempt to comment on this, but my gut feeling is
> no. The factors you have stated would appear to me not to have been
> relevant.

[Mike Williamson]

Gattman wrote:
>
> Question: If they were active military aircraft they would more likely have
> same powerplants, same construction, same mechanics and maintenance policies
> and all the things that would make them behave similarly at identical pitch
> and power settings. Is this correct?
>
> If so, is it possible that since the two aircraft were manufactured and
> maintained separately, there could have been subtle performance variations
> that made it more possible for the rear plane to overtake the other when the
> approach configuration is the same? There's a pretty big difference
> between a scratch-built A model and a D (that's already crashed once) is
> there not?
>

Even if they were both factory built, and maintained by the same
organization, there is a very large difference between an A and a D.
The entire powerplant is different, and there is a significant
weight difference, so their landing performance would vary
significantly.

Mike W.

[Blueskies]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
> His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.
>
> http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html
>
>

All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur built...

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 4:52?pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in messagenews:gO2dnR1x4JsTPS_bnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@bresn an.com...
> > His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.
>
> >http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html
>
> All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur built...

The A model Mustang was a homebuilt aircraft, there were a few mustang
bits, but the majority was built by Gary Beck, and was registared as a
amateur built aircraft. The Ultimate homebuilt.

[Danny Deger]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
snip
> I am in contact with flight safety people in the P51 community as we speak
> who are actively engaged as we speak in aiding the investigation.
> Naturally the NTSB will have the final answers to the many questions being
> tossed around by us here. May I respectfully suggest that because this
> accident is so recent, and that as a result of this, there are families
> and friends in the P51 community whose lives have been terribly affected
> by this tragedy; that all of take a step back and let the NTSB do it's job
> and let this thread go.
> Please understand as I tried to say before, that I'm not blaming anyone. I
> have posted on this subject with the rest of you.
> Asking for this in the name of the P51 community at large, and thanking
> those of you who understand and will attempt to comply.
> Thanks gang.
> Dudley Henriques

I would be glad to.

Danny Deger

[Blueskies]

" > wrote in message oups.com...
> On Aug 3, 4:52?pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in messagenews:gO2dnR1x4JsTPS_bnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@bresn an.com...
>> > His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.
>>
>> >http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html
>>
>> All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur built...
>
> The A model Mustang was a homebuilt aircraft, there were a few mustang
> bits, but the majority was built by Gary Beck, and was registared as a
> amateur built aircraft. The Ultimate homebuilt.
>
>

Yes. ???

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.
> >
> > http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html
> >
> >
>
> All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur
> built...

Not all of them, some are "Limited" category.

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> The A model Mustang was a homebuilt aircraft, there were a few mustang
>> bits, but the majority was built by Gary Beck, and was registared as a
>> amateur built aircraft. The Ultimate homebuilt.
>
> Yes. ???

I don't understand your "yes" in this response.

What was it that you were saying, for us slow to catch on?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dale" > wrote
>
> Not all of them, some are "Limited" category.

I have forgotten what the limited category gets you. Is that for racing?
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

"Dale" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.
>> >
>> > http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur
>> built...
>
> Not all of them, some are "Limited" category.

Oh, that's right...Racers, firefighters, crop dusters, other special use...I was only thinking about the ones at the
shows...

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Dale" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Blueskies" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Newps" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > His airplane was an experimental. Not that that matters any.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.airventure.org/2006/thurjuly27/51.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> All the warbirds are 'experimental', most are exhibition, not amateur
> >> built...
> >
> > Not all of them, some are "Limited" category.
>
> Oh, that's right...Racers, firefighters, crop dusters, other special use...I
> was only thinking about the ones at the
> shows...

No, limited isn't for special use aircraft.

The B-17 Nine O Nine flown by the Collings Foundation is licensed in the
"Limited" category as is Crazy Horse, the TF-51D flown by Stallion 51.
Those are two I know off the top of my head.

Limited category is no longer available as I understand.