ANN coverage of the P-51 landing accident at OSH...

[Blueskies]

What a shame...pretty amazing set of pictures...

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

http://tinyurl.com/ypxybw




(I know many folks thoughts about this web site, so please, no flames)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:49:06 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

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

I get audio only, no video.

[[email protected]]

This is a longer version of the Aeronews TV Network-obtained video of the
crash, it shows a bit more of the final approach before the accident than
the version posted at Aero-news' own website. I'm still pretty much
convinced that the two Mustang pilots weren't trying to land in formation,
but rather just didn't see each other until too late. We'll have to see what
conclusions the NTSB come up with of course. Take a look and see what you
think...

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3692

Scott Wilson

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

The answer lies in the tower tape.
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
> This is a longer version of the Aeronews TV Network-obtained video of the
> crash, it shows a bit more of the final approach before the accident than
> the version posted at Aero-news' own website. I'm still pretty much
> convinced that the two Mustang pilots weren't trying to land in formation,
> but rather just didn't see each other until too late. We'll have to see what
> conclusions the NTSB come up with of course. Take a look and see what you
> think...
>
> http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3692
>
> Scott Wilson

[[email protected]]

On 30-Jul-2007, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> The answer lies in the tower tape.
> Dudley Henriques




The tower isn't in control during the show. The control is given over to the
airshow's Air Boss using 133.85 (tower freqs were 118.5 and 126.6). He
cleared all of the racers to land, and as I said before, after the Air Boss
gave them all a blanket clearance to land, I only recall hearing Beck in
Precious Metal making a position announcement, "Precious Metal, one mile
final". I'm pretty certain that Chris Odegaard in "Stang" never said a word.
I would guess the tower or EAA would be recording all of the radio traffic
on 133.85, but I don't know that for a fact. We'll see what the NTSB report
says when it comes out.
Scott Wilson

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On 30-Jul-2007, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> The answer lies in the tower tape.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
> The tower isn't in control during the show. The control is given over to the
> airshow's Air Boss using 133.85 (tower freqs were 118.5 and 126.6). He
> cleared all of the racers to land, and as I said before, after the Air Boss
> gave them all a blanket clearance to land, I only recall hearing Beck in
> Precious Metal making a position announcement, "Precious Metal, one mile
> final". I'm pretty certain that Chris Odegaard in "Stang" never said a word.
> I would guess the tower or EAA would be recording all of the radio traffic
> on 133.85, but I don't know that for a fact. We'll see what the NTSB report
> says when it comes out.
> Scott Wilson

When I say the tower tape, I mean the official tape in play at the time
of the landing, be that source the FAA tower or a com trailer such as
used by Oshkosh, the Thunderbirds, or the Blue Angels.

You are right. The NTSB report will reflect exactly what transpired
during the approach.
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:49:16 GMT, wrote in
>:

>
>http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3692

There's another video for Mr. Honeck to add to his web site. :-(

[Jay Honeck]

> >http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3692
>
> There's another video for Mr. Honeck to add to his web site. :-(

Along with links to the NTSB report(s), and any other informed
commentary I may be able to garner.

Mistakes like this landing accident should be avoided in the future,
and the best way to do that is to learn from them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different perspective
than the video we've seen.
Scott Wilson

http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
. net...
> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
> perspective
> than the video we've seen.
> Scott Wilson
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

Picture number two looks like a clear line of site, to me.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different perspective
> than the video we've seen.

Check out the prop damage on the blue turtle deck.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
. net...
> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
perspective
> than the video we've seen.
> Scott Wilson
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/

In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)

That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:

You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
leaving out.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
> perspective
>> than the video we've seen.
>> Scott Wilson
>>
>> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/
>
> In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
> more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
> the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
>
> That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
>
> You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
> several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
> experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
> occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
> leaving out.
>
> Peter
>
>

Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
awareness of the pilots doing this work.
It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
aircraft.
There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > In the video, it really looked like the situation had already
deteriorated
> > more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse.
(And
> > the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
> >
> > That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
> >
> > You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can
think of
> > several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
> > experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
> > occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I
am
> > leaving out.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
> Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
> The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
> associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
> runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
> blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
> could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
> are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
> filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
> The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
> a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
> of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
> rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
> issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
> are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
> For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
> initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
> space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
> down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
> this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
> reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
> awareness of the pilots doing this work.
> It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
> fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
> high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
> visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
> Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
> have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
> section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
> schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
> of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
> like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
> specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
> be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
> So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
> the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
> who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
> aircraft.
> There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
> The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
> Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
> to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
> basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
> Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
> Dudley Henriques

That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present
so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to
get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with
a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as
rapidly as possible.

Thanks again for the much needed observations.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

My pleasure. Sorry it has to be under such bad circumstances.
DH


Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> In the video, it really looked like the situation had already
> deteriorated
>>> more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse.
> (And
>>> the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
>>>
>>> That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
>>>
>>> You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can
> think of
>>> several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
>>> experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
>>> occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I
> am
>>> leaving out.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
>> The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
>> associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
>> runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
>> blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
>> could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
>> are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
>> filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
>> The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
>> a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
>> of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
>> rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
>> issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
>> are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
>> For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
>> initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
>> space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
>> down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
>> this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
>> reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
>> awareness of the pilots doing this work.
>> It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
>> fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
>> high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
>> visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
>> Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
>> have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
>> section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
>> schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
>> of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
>> like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
>> specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
>> be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
>> So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
>> the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
>> who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
>> aircraft.
>> There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
>> The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
>> Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
>> to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
>> basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
>> Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> That's almost the proverbial "elephant in the room" which has been present
> so long that it seems to dissappear. I did not even consider the need to
> get assets quickly inside a ground defense perimeter and on the ground with
> a minimun loss of speed; and then, if necessary, relaunch an air defense as
> rapidly as possible.
>
> Thanks again for the much needed observations.
>
> Peter
>
>
>

[Big John]

Dudley

Our pilots used to catch the German fighters (and jets) in pattern and
run their score up. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Never flew an overhead pattern until after the War that I can
remember.

The pitch off the deck was the procedure used until after War and the
accident rate doing that became excessive and they changed to the
overhead.

An off the deck pitch let you make a touch down after about only 15
seconds from the pitch

350 mph on approach. Throttle idle on pitch and pull up TIGHT in turn
to bleed off airspeed. After 180 degrees of climbing turn your
airspeed was down to where you could put down full flaps and drop
gear, continuing the last 180 degrees of turn to align with runway and
then touch down at normal touch down speed.

A pitch up almost killed me. Came back to base just after take off
with a leaking fuel cap. Made the normal tight pitch up (forgot I was
heavy with fuel) and bird stalled in last 90 degrees of turn. I rudder
walked the bird down and hit on right main gear and right aileron.
Took around and was much more cautious next landing. If I haven't been
a good and LUCKY pilot would not be here today :o(

Nice dry day here in Houston today.

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


On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:24:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>
>Peter Dohm wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
>> perspective
>>> than the video we've seen.
>>> Scott Wilson
>>>
>>> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/
>>
>> In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
>> more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
>> the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
>>
>> That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
>>
>> You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
>> several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
>> experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
>> occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
>> leaving out.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>
>Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
>The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
>associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
>runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
>blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
>could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
>are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
>filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
>The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
> a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
>of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
>rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
>issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
>are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
>For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
>initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
>space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
>down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
>this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
>reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
>awareness of the pilots doing this work.
>It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
>fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
>high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
>visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
>Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
>have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
>section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
>schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
>of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
>like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
>specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
>be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
>So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
>the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
>who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
>aircraft.
>There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
>The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
>Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
>to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
>basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
>Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
>Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Hi John;

That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
not to foul the plugs.
If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
Dudley Henriques

Big John wrote:
> Dudley
>
> Our pilots used to catch the German fighters (and jets) in pattern and
> run their score up. Shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> Never flew an overhead pattern until after the War that I can
> remember.
>
> The pitch off the deck was the procedure used until after War and the
> accident rate doing that became excessive and they changed to the
> overhead.
>
> An off the deck pitch let you make a touch down after about only 15
> seconds from the pitch
>
> 350 mph on approach. Throttle idle on pitch and pull up TIGHT in turn
> to bleed off airspeed. After 180 degrees of climbing turn your
> airspeed was down to where you could put down full flaps and drop
> gear, continuing the last 180 degrees of turn to align with runway and
> then touch down at normal touch down speed.
>
> A pitch up almost killed me. Came back to base just after take off
> with a leaking fuel cap. Made the normal tight pitch up (forgot I was
> heavy with fuel) and bird stalled in last 90 degrees of turn. I rudder
> walked the bird down and hit on right main gear and right aileron.
> Took around and was much more cautious next landing. If I haven't been
> a good and LUCKY pilot would not be here today :o(
>
> Nice dry day here in Houston today.
>
> Big John
> *******************************************
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:24:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> . net...
>>>> Here's a good set of photos of the accident showing a different
>>> perspective
>>>> than the video we've seen.
>>>> Scott Wilson
>>>>
>>>> http://flickr.com/photos/lscan/sets/72157601065523576/
>>> In the video, it really looked like the situation had already deteriorated
>>> more than a quarter mile out, and then it just continued to get worse. (And
>>> the assumptions which I initially made are now in serious doubt.)
>>>
>>> That further amplifies a question that I have for Dudley:
>>>
>>> You mentioned a distinction military and civilain pilots; and I can think of
>>> several possible reasons: the civilians pilots are usually older, less
>>> experienced in type, and formation flying is not part of their primary
>>> occupation--but I suspect that there is something even more basic that I am
>>> leaving out.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. It's so basic it has a tendency to lose itself in analysis.
>> The military was just as aware as everyone else about the hazzards
>> associated with section landings. Putting multiple airplanes on the same
>> runway landing at the same time has obvious risks. If lead for example
>> blows a tire on the side the trailer is landing on, the resulting swerve
>> could be a real issue. Judgment and unforseen incursions on the runway
>> are also considerations. The list of possible issues is indeed long and
>> filled with pot holes that could spoil your day.
>> The military however has a problem we as civilians don't have. They have
>> a situation that involves time. In combat, there is always the issue
>> of getting multiple aircraft on the ground quickly and turned around,
>> rearmed and refueled and back into the air again. Also, there is the
>> issue of vulnerability. Fighters slowed down to pattern speeds and dirty
>> are duck soup for attacking enemy fighters.
>> For the reasons I've stated above, the 360 overhead approach was
>> initiated by the military. The objective of this type of approach is to
>> space close in and tight, keep the pattern speeds up, and get the birds
>> down as quickly as possible. Section landings became an integral part of
>> this scenario and was accepted and is accepted even today as a
>> reasonable risk factor considering extensive flight training and
>> awareness of the pilots doing this work.
>> It is worthy of note that even in the military, landing prop tailwheel
>> fighters this way was considered a far greater risk factor than landing
>> high performance nose wheel jet fighters; the reason being the loss of
>> visual cues for the wingman landing next to his element lead.
>> Now enter civilians with a few bucks and flying P51 Mustangs and you
>> have a situation where the time factor is no longer present in the
>> section landing equation. The powers that be who set up training
>> schedules for these pilots in these aircraft know quite well the dangers
>> of section landings in prop fighters. For this reason, organizations
>> like Warbirds of America and EAA and the T34 Formation Training Syllabus
>> specifically note that section landings in P51's are NOT considered to
>> be safe enough to warrant the risk factor.
>> So this is basically how it works. If you own a P51 and you have taken
>> the trouble to seek out and take the suggested training given by people
>> who know what they are doing, you don't attempt section landings in P51
>> aircraft.
>> There is no law however that MAKES the P51 owner attend these classes.
>> The result I believe, we have seen with this latest accident at Oshkosh.
>> Both of these pilots were good sticks in these airplanes. It saddens me
>> to know that this accident was so damn preventable simply by following
>> basic information and training readily available for pilots flying P51
>> Mustangs, and in play as we speak.
>> Dudley Henriques
>

[Big John]

Dudley

OK show off :o)

We used between 300-350 mph as that was a good increase from our
cruise speed of 230-240. The Merlin at METO was certainly a sweet
sound :o)

Starting off the deck we probably got back up to 500-600 feet max in
pattern.

Of course we were not trying to put on an airshow. Lots of things you
could do in bird to impress the 'great unwashed masses' :o)

The thing I missed most was the "plop, plop, plop" of the Merlin at
idle in pattern before they stopped the full idle because it was
sucking cold air in and warping the valves.

Looking at the clip many more times you can see #2 angling in toward
#1 well prior to contact. Only way I can see that happening is that #2
lost sight of #1.

Transmissions will help NTSB sort that out.

I'm going to quit making surmises based on part of the data. The more
I look at clip the more I see that could be the root cause.

Think we have pretty well covered the basic P-51 flying. Am sure yours
was light and the ones I flew were heavier, always with ammo, full
fuel, etc. If I were doing an airshow I'd not put any fuel in fuselage
tank to keep the CG within proper limits and not have to burn tank
down. Could do more with a light bird vs a heavy one.

Hope your health is progressing in good shape. I started Omega 3, on
my own, for my heart and I got so dizzy I could hardly walk. Stopped
yesterday and feel much better today.

The very best.

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

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:45:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Hi John;
>
>That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
>a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
>also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
>I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
>climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
>roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
>I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
>firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
>solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
>hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
>the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
>circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
>not to foul the plugs.
>If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
>ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
>for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
>and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
>and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
>Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
>The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
>the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
>Dudley Henriques


----clip----

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Health is hanging in there John; the back is a mess and I'm adjusting to
cataract surgery changes but aside from that I'm still able to put one
foot in front of the other :-)
You're right; my bird was lighter. I had no fuselage tank in the
airplane and tried as well to have the fuel in the mains balanced out at
about 50 gals maximum for demonstration work. If I was heavy I had to
compensate for that naturally.
I agree. We've beaten the 51 issue to death on what data is available.
I've looked at another angle of the crash and I totally agree with you
that the A slanted in and hit the D with the prop through the corner of
the stabilizer and sliced it nearly in half behind the cockpit.
The violent snap of the A at impact had to be a combination of control
input reflex and some extremely strong physical forces caused by the
prop impacting the D.
Anyway, as you say, even old hands like us are just guessing. The final
report will include the radio transmissions and that should fill in a
lot of blanks.
Take care. I'm glad you're hanging in health wise. Remember, to stay
young, "Climb High" "Fly Fast" :-)
Dudley

Big John wrote:
> Dudley
>
> OK show off :o)
>
> We used between 300-350 mph as that was a good increase from our
> cruise speed of 230-240. The Merlin at METO was certainly a sweet
> sound :o)
>
> Starting off the deck we probably got back up to 500-600 feet max in
> pattern.
>
> Of course we were not trying to put on an airshow. Lots of things you
> could do in bird to impress the 'great unwashed masses' :o)
>
> The thing I missed most was the "plop, plop, plop" of the Merlin at
> idle in pattern before they stopped the full idle because it was
> sucking cold air in and warping the valves.
>
> Looking at the clip many more times you can see #2 angling in toward
> #1 well prior to contact. Only way I can see that happening is that #2
> lost sight of #1.
>
> Transmissions will help NTSB sort that out.
>
> I'm going to quit making surmises based on part of the data. The more
> I look at clip the more I see that could be the root cause.
>
> Think we have pretty well covered the basic P-51 flying. Am sure yours
> was light and the ones I flew were heavier, always with ammo, full
> fuel, etc. If I were doing an airshow I'd not put any fuel in fuselage
> tank to keep the CG within proper limits and not have to burn tank
> down. Could do more with a light bird vs a heavy one.
>
> Hope your health is progressing in good shape. I started Omega 3, on
> my own, for my heart and I got so dizzy I could hardly walk. Stopped
> yesterday and feel much better today.
>
> The very best.
>
> Big John
> ************************************************** ******
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:45:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi John;
>>
>> That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
>> a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
>> also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
>> I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
>> climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
>> roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
>> I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
>> firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
>> solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
>> hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
>> the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
>> circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
>> not to foul the plugs.
>> If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
>> ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
>> for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
>> and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
>> and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
>> Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
>> The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
>> the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> ----clip----

[Big John]

Dudley

My back is also bad. I use "capsaicin", Pepper Juice. I tolerate it
well and can add additional applications as I need to control the
pain. I use it both at neck and lower back. If you haven't tried and
want to send me your mail address at my home e-mail address I'll send
you some. It can get warm like jock strap lotion.

My catract surgery is also giving me problems. Couple of months ago
said come back in 3 months. Want to get some decent eyes (20-10) back
to fly.

Take care.

John
************************************************** *



On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:48:55 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Health is hanging in there John; the back is a mess and I'm adjusting to
>cataract surgery changes but aside from that I'm still able to put one
>foot in front of the other :-)
>You're right; my bird was lighter. I had no fuselage tank in the
>airplane and tried as well to have the fuel in the mains balanced out at
>about 50 gals maximum for demonstration work. If I was heavy I had to
>compensate for that naturally.
>I agree. We've beaten the 51 issue to death on what data is available.
>I've looked at another angle of the crash and I totally agree with you
>that the A slanted in and hit the D with the prop through the corner of
>the stabilizer and sliced it nearly in half behind the cockpit.
>The violent snap of the A at impact had to be a combination of control
>input reflex and some extremely strong physical forces caused by the
>prop impacting the D.
>Anyway, as you say, even old hands like us are just guessing. The final
>report will include the radio transmissions and that should fill in a
>lot of blanks.
>Take care. I'm glad you're hanging in health wise. Remember, to stay
>young, "Climb High" "Fly Fast" :-)
>Dudley
>
>Big John wrote:
>> Dudley
>>
>> OK show off :o)
>>
>> We used between 300-350 mph as that was a good increase from our
>> cruise speed of 230-240. The Merlin at METO was certainly a sweet
>> sound :o)
>>
>> Starting off the deck we probably got back up to 500-600 feet max in
>> pattern.
>>
>> Of course we were not trying to put on an airshow. Lots of things you
>> could do in bird to impress the 'great unwashed masses' :o)
>>
>> The thing I missed most was the "plop, plop, plop" of the Merlin at
>> idle in pattern before they stopped the full idle because it was
>> sucking cold air in and warping the valves.
>>
>> Looking at the clip many more times you can see #2 angling in toward
>> #1 well prior to contact. Only way I can see that happening is that #2
>> lost sight of #1.
>>
>> Transmissions will help NTSB sort that out.
>>
>> I'm going to quit making surmises based on part of the data. The more
>> I look at clip the more I see that could be the root cause.
>>
>> Think we have pretty well covered the basic P-51 flying. Am sure yours
>> was light and the ones I flew were heavier, always with ammo, full
>> fuel, etc. If I were doing an airshow I'd not put any fuel in fuselage
>> tank to keep the CG within proper limits and not have to burn tank
>> down. Could do more with a light bird vs a heavy one.
>>
>> Hope your health is progressing in good shape. I started Omega 3, on
>> my own, for my heart and I got so dizzy I could hardly walk. Stopped
>> yesterday and feel much better today.
>>
>> The very best.
>>
>> Big John
>> ************************************************** ******
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:45:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John;
>>>
>>> That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
>>> a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
>>> also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
>>> I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
>>> climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
>>> roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
>>> I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
>>> firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
>>> solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
>>> hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
>>> the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
>>> circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
>>> not to foul the plugs.
>>> If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
>>> ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
>>> for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
>>> and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
>>> and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
>>> Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
>>> The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
>>> the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> ----clip----

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Big John" > wrote

> My back is also bad. I use "capsaicin", Pepper Juice. I tolerate it
> well and can add additional applications as I need to control the
> pain. I use it both at neck and lower back. If you haven't tried and
> want to send me your mail address at my home e-mail address I'll send
> you some. It can get warm like jock strap lotion.

Oh, yeah ! ! !

A quick story about Capsaicin.

My wife had been using that stuff for a pulled muscle that was not getting
better. She had the extra strong stuff ordered at the drug store.

One day she got the idea that I should try it for my chronic bad back. I
thought it sounded like a good idea, too.

She said that I needed to start with small doses, since it takes a while for
it to not burn to the point of pain. I did as she suggested. In a week or
so, I was ready to have the doses up to a pretty heavy application.

I went to work, and it was the first day that it was starting to get hot in
the spring. I started to get a bit hot, and sweating quite a bit. The next
thing I knew, my back was like it was ON FIRE! ! ! Really hot! Like, how
fast do you need to run, to get away from your own back?

In a flash, I had my shirt off, and was running around trying to make a
breeze on my back to get it to cool off. All of this was in front of my
carpentry class, of course. They got a big kick out of it. Later on, one
said that my back had turned bright blood red. All over. I believed him.
<g>

Turns out, this stuff gets hotter with the application of water. This
stuff, the capsaicin is an extract of pepper juice, 100 times stronger than
jalapeno peppers. Those of you that like to eat hard core hot peppers know
how water only makes the burn worse. Same thing for this stuff, times 100.

That was the last time I tried capsaicin on my back. <vbg>
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Big John wrote:
> Dudley
>
> My back is also bad. I use "capsaicin", Pepper Juice. I tolerate it
> well and can add additional applications as I need to control the
> pain. I use it both at neck and lower back. If you haven't tried and
> want to send me your mail address at my home e-mail address I'll send
> you some. It can get warm like jock strap lotion.

Many thanks John, but I think my back issues are beyond the medication
stage. They've been my spine 3 times and the result is that I no longer
have the violent attacks of excruciating pain like I used to, but I now
have a low level constant pain in the lower back caused by nerve damage
that can't be repaired or medicated. I could if I chose, use a strong
pain med, but living like a zombie doesn't have much appeal for me, so I
just roll into and out of bed gently, try not to bend down so much, grit
my teeth, and keep on truckin :-)
>
> My catract surgery is also giving me problems. Couple of months ago
> said come back in 3 months. Want to get some decent eyes (20-10) back
> to fly.

Sorry to hear that John. I sincerely hope that it works out for you.
Mine seems ok so far. I'm getting my new glasses in about a week. The
surgeon said my tests seem normal and I'll have a slight correction at
far range and I'm about 225 for reading up close. Right now on the
computer I'm wearing 150 reading cheapo's and I can see fine.
Dudley
>
> Take care.
>
> John
> ************************************************** *
>
>
>
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:48:55 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Health is hanging in there John; the back is a mess and I'm adjusting to
>> cataract surgery changes but aside from that I'm still able to put one
>> foot in front of the other :-)
>> You're right; my bird was lighter. I had no fuselage tank in the
>> airplane and tried as well to have the fuel in the mains balanced out at
>> about 50 gals maximum for demonstration work. If I was heavy I had to
>> compensate for that naturally.
>> I agree. We've beaten the 51 issue to death on what data is available.
>> I've looked at another angle of the crash and I totally agree with you
>> that the A slanted in and hit the D with the prop through the corner of
>> the stabilizer and sliced it nearly in half behind the cockpit.
>> The violent snap of the A at impact had to be a combination of control
>> input reflex and some extremely strong physical forces caused by the
>> prop impacting the D.
>> Anyway, as you say, even old hands like us are just guessing. The final
>> report will include the radio transmissions and that should fill in a
>> lot of blanks.
>> Take care. I'm glad you're hanging in health wise. Remember, to stay
>> young, "Climb High" "Fly Fast" :-)
>> Dudley
>>
>> Big John wrote:
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>> OK show off :o)
>>>
>>> We used between 300-350 mph as that was a good increase from our
>>> cruise speed of 230-240. The Merlin at METO was certainly a sweet
>>> sound :o)
>>>
>>> Starting off the deck we probably got back up to 500-600 feet max in
>>> pattern.
>>>
>>> Of course we were not trying to put on an airshow. Lots of things you
>>> could do in bird to impress the 'great unwashed masses' :o)
>>>
>>> The thing I missed most was the "plop, plop, plop" of the Merlin at
>>> idle in pattern before they stopped the full idle because it was
>>> sucking cold air in and warping the valves.
>>>
>>> Looking at the clip many more times you can see #2 angling in toward
>>> #1 well prior to contact. Only way I can see that happening is that #2
>>> lost sight of #1.
>>>
>>> Transmissions will help NTSB sort that out.
>>>
>>> I'm going to quit making surmises based on part of the data. The more
>>> I look at clip the more I see that could be the root cause.
>>>
>>> Think we have pretty well covered the basic P-51 flying. Am sure yours
>>> was light and the ones I flew were heavier, always with ammo, full
>>> fuel, etc. If I were doing an airshow I'd not put any fuel in fuselage
>>> tank to keep the CG within proper limits and not have to burn tank
>>> down. Could do more with a light bird vs a heavy one.
>>>
>>> Hope your health is progressing in good shape. I started Omega 3, on
>>> my own, for my heart and I got so dizzy I could hardly walk. Stopped
>>> yesterday and feel much better today.
>>>
>>> The very best.
>>>
>>> Big John
>>> ************************************************** ******
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:45:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi John;
>>>>
>>>> That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
>>>> a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
>>>> also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
>>>> I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
>>>> climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
>>>> roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
>>>> I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
>>>> firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
>>>> solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
>>>> hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
>>>> the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
>>>> circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
>>>> not to foul the plugs.
>>>> If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
>>>> ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
>>>> for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
>>>> and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
>>>> and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
>>>> Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
>>>> The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
>>>> the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> ----clip----
>

[Big John]

Dudley

The wild stories using Capsaisin are not unusual. They package it in
several strengths. I'm using the strongest 0.075 percent.

What I advise the first time users is to start on your arm just above
the wrist, and only apply a little. If you don't have any problems go
ahead and increase the amount and frequency. If it gets hot you can
easily wash it off with soap and water with the other hand.

If you, say, put it on the lower back at the belt level and it is hot
out side where you sweat then you will get the hot burning feeling and
it is hard to reach to get off behind your back.

A War Story. A good model pilot was one armed and had back pains. I
gave him some and he put on before going to bed. It took off and he
had to get his wife up and get in shower with her and scrub his back
like she did normally because of the one arm but at a better time of
day and night :o)

What I'm told how it works is that it stops the signals from being
sent over nerves from pain area to brain. It does not cure the
underlying problem.

In my case I have become accustomed to it and even working out side in
yard in summer I can stand the heat under the belt and it sure cuts
the problem big time. If you want I'll get a tube of 0.025 (the lowest
they make) and send to you. Need to order some shortly for me and will
be glad for you to give it a try.If it works for you like for me then
you will be home free :o)

I used to get a grease but found that I had to wash my hands with soap
and water after application. I now have found it in a role on and you
don't get on your hands and eventually into your eyes :o(

If you are going to go out in sun then don't put on or at least just a
single swipe until you establish your tolerance.

Think you gave me your address prior but for some reason I didn't
save.

Just got a new e-mail address. j*hnc*a*l*atcomcast.net. Use it to keep
some semblance of privacy to your USPS address. Think you know how to
modify to make correct address. Remove *'s and use symbol for at.

On eye's. I had right eye done 6 years ago and it was doing good. when
left eye started growing very dim. Has not turned out as what I
experienced with right.Should get the second new set or glasses this
month and hope they can make both eyes see the same one to another.

The best.

Big John

************************************************** ***********
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:37:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>
>Big John wrote:
>> Dudley
>>
>> My back is also bad. I use "capsaicin", Pepper Juice. I tolerate it
>> well and can add additional applications as I need to control the
>> pain. I use it both at neck and lower back. If you haven't tried and
>> want to send me your mail address at my home e-mail address I'll send
>> you some. It can get warm like jock strap lotion.
>
>Many thanks John, but I think my back issues are beyond the medication
>stage. They've been my spine 3 times and the result is that I no longer
>have the violent attacks of excruciating pain like I used to, but I now
>have a low level constant pain in the lower back caused by nerve damage
>that can't be repaired or medicated. I could if I chose, use a strong
>pain med, but living like a zombie doesn't have much appeal for me, so I
>just roll into and out of bed gently, try not to bend down so much, grit
>my teeth, and keep on truckin :-)
>>
>> My catract surgery is also giving me problems. Couple of months ago
>> said come back in 3 months. Want to get some decent eyes (20-10) back
>> to fly.
>
>Sorry to hear that John. I sincerely hope that it works out for you.
>Mine seems ok so far. I'm getting my new glasses in about a week. The
>surgeon said my tests seem normal and I'll have a slight correction at
>far range and I'm about 225 for reading up close. Right now on the
>computer I'm wearing 150 reading cheapo's and I can see fine.
>Dudley
>>
>> Take care.
>>
>> John
>> ************************************************** *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:48:55 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Health is hanging in there John; the back is a mess and I'm adjusting to
>>> cataract surgery changes but aside from that I'm still able to put one
>>> foot in front of the other :-)
>>> You're right; my bird was lighter. I had no fuselage tank in the
>>> airplane and tried as well to have the fuel in the mains balanced out at
>>> about 50 gals maximum for demonstration work. If I was heavy I had to
>>> compensate for that naturally.
>>> I agree. We've beaten the 51 issue to death on what data is available.
>>> I've looked at another angle of the crash and I totally agree with you
>>> that the A slanted in and hit the D with the prop through the corner of
>>> the stabilizer and sliced it nearly in half behind the cockpit.
>>> The violent snap of the A at impact had to be a combination of control
>>> input reflex and some extremely strong physical forces caused by the
>>> prop impacting the D.
>>> Anyway, as you say, even old hands like us are just guessing. The final
>>> report will include the radio transmissions and that should fill in a
>>> lot of blanks.
>>> Take care. I'm glad you're hanging in health wise. Remember, to stay
>>> young, "Climb High" "Fly Fast" :-)
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>> Big John wrote:
>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>> OK show off :o)
>>>>
>>>> We used between 300-350 mph as that was a good increase from our
>>>> cruise speed of 230-240. The Merlin at METO was certainly a sweet
>>>> sound :o)
>>>>
>>>> Starting off the deck we probably got back up to 500-600 feet max in
>>>> pattern.
>>>>
>>>> Of course we were not trying to put on an airshow. Lots of things you
>>>> could do in bird to impress the 'great unwashed masses' :o)
>>>>
>>>> The thing I missed most was the "plop, plop, plop" of the Merlin at
>>>> idle in pattern before they stopped the full idle because it was
>>>> sucking cold air in and warping the valves.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the clip many more times you can see #2 angling in toward
>>>> #1 well prior to contact. Only way I can see that happening is that #2
>>>> lost sight of #1.
>>>>
>>>> Transmissions will help NTSB sort that out.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to quit making surmises based on part of the data. The more
>>>> I look at clip the more I see that could be the root cause.
>>>>
>>>> Think we have pretty well covered the basic P-51 flying. Am sure yours
>>>> was light and the ones I flew were heavier, always with ammo, full
>>>> fuel, etc. If I were doing an airshow I'd not put any fuel in fuselage
>>>> tank to keep the CG within proper limits and not have to burn tank
>>>> down. Could do more with a light bird vs a heavy one.
>>>>
>>>> Hope your health is progressing in good shape. I started Omega 3, on
>>>> my own, for my heart and I got so dizzy I could hardly walk. Stopped
>>>> yesterday and feel much better today.
>>>>
>>>> The very best.
>>>>
>>>> Big John
>>>> ************************************************** ******
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:45:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John;
>>>>>
>>>>> That approach is what we called a 360 Tactical overhead approach. I used
>>>>> a variation of it as a finishing touch on my demonstration in the 51 and
>>>>> also on arrival at a show site weather and ATC permitting :-)
>>>>> I used 300 at 46 and 27 and pitched off the deck into a straight 45
>>>>> climb line roll set. Neutralizing, I immediately initiated a 270 degree
>>>>> roll to the opposite side of the downwind leg (pattern left/roll right)
>>>>> I stopped the roll at 270 by stomping on the top rudder and holding in
>>>>> firm forward stick. This stopped the airplane at the second knife edge
>>>>> solidly. At that point I blended in back pressure using top rudder to
>>>>> hold nose position through the transition from climbing knife edge into
>>>>> the turn to downwind at 1500 feet AGL. The rest was your standard
>>>>> circling close in turning approach in the 51 keeping the power up so as
>>>>> not to foul the plugs.
>>>>> If this approach was done just right, it was beautiful to watch from the
>>>>> ground and was extremely good for maintaining visual cues in the cockpit
>>>>> for me. Once I had things slowed down to 160 and had 20 degrees of flap
>>>>> and the gear lights on the bird, the rest was just keeping it in close
>>>>> and turning milking in the flaps until full down on final.
>>>>> Over the fence at 120 or a bit less and tail low on the mains.
>>>>> The main thing crowds liked with this approach aside from the roll was
>>>>> the sound you always got with the 51 low, fast, and at METO.
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> ----clip----
>>