Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Dudley

Let me hang this on your post.

The fighter pattern in WWII was flight in echelon and at a minimum of
cruise airspeed at 100 feet or less (high enough to give #4 ground
clearance).

At end of Runway, leader pitched up in a hard climbing turn and
throttle idle (to kill off airspeed) and rest of flight fanned out in
pitch up. After about 180 degrees of turn, speed of #1 would be down
where gear could be extended followed immediately by wing flaps. At
this time #1 was on a very short turning final. Rest of flight took
spacing after pitch up, put gear and flaps down as required to make
short pattern and flight landed close together right side, left side,
right side and left side.

Rational for this pattern I was told was that we often caught German
Fighters in big patterns or long straight in and shot them down
because the were slow and dirty (and many times short on fuel). To
prevent Germans from catching our fighters low and slow in pattern the
pitch up let us keep at least cruise airspeed (some Fight Leaders
pitched faster that cruise airspeed) until we pitched and made the
very quick pattern and got on ground.

After War's end there were some accidents associated with the pitch up
and it was changed to the overhead pattern.

In this pattern the flight in echelon flies down the runway at 1000 ft
and half way down the leader breaks hard enough with throttle back and
boards out to get down to gear down airspeed at or shortly after
rolling out on a downwind leg. Flaps are extended in the normal
position in rectangular pattern to let bird make a normal base leg and
turn to final at 300 feet or so.

Wing men each make their break at a number of seconds after leader
(varies with aircraft type) rolling out on a down wind with proper
spacing from bird ahead. Landings are again right side, left side,
right side and left side for safety.

On Dudley's comment about plugs. We used British Platinum plugs and
didn't have any plug problem going to idle on Merlin. We got 25-50
hours on these plugs with minimum fouling. Not sure these plugs were
available after War and those in supply channels used up???? If we ran
out of the British plugs and couldn't trade some booze to a Spit
outfit for plugs, we used American plugs which fouled up very easy and
were sometimes changed after every mission.

One technique we used was to run Merlin very lean on ground taxing out
prior to taking R/W for take off where we went to auto rich for
takeoff. This helped with any fouling. We also found that improper
ground adjustment by the mechanic, of the mixture control, caused plug
fouling.

On night takeoffs there was fire out of short stacks about half way
back to cockpit. After getting airborne and cutting back to climb
power the fire reduced to a little over a foot. After leveling off and
going to cruise power we manually leaned the mixture until there was
just a very light pale blue flame almost all in the short stacks. We
could then start working on getting our night vision and tuck it in
tight in night formation.

During War (WWII) there was no restriction I ever hear of about Idle
on Merlin in P-51. After War they put a restriction on idle rpm in
pattern to keep from warping valves.

Oh,those were the days with that sweet sound of a Merlin )


Big John


Dudley how is your health coming along? My Rotator Cuff surgery is
finally getting better and am getting full movement back in right arm.
I can almost hold my Martini in my right hand again )
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````



On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:17:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's
the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or
the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at
the airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've been
watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month. Nothing
looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we come back
from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a straight-in
landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as you announce
what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless you consider
formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side to be
inherently dangerous.

An approach flown from an initial overhead break has a practical side as
well. In the P51 for example, flying a regular pattern with reduced manifold
pressure can really foul up the plugs on you.
An overhead approach allows a tight in circular pattern that can be flown
with the power up in the range that keeps the plugs clean; allows for better
visibility, and allows for easier positioning without losing the runway
under the nose.
This doesn't mean that pilots flying high performance airplanes should
arbitrarily use these approaches without prior approval or radio contact to
clear first. It just means that in high performance airplanes, this type of
approach is requested for practical reasons by practical pilots who know
exactly what they are doing and have no wish to be showing off or violating
anyone's airspace.
Dudley Henriques
Ex P51 pilot........among others :-))

"Big John" wrote in message
...

Snip

John,

I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
posting these pearls ad infinitum...

Great little gems of history.

Thanks,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
dragging it in for three miles.

This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
pilots may not have been taught to do so.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!

If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
position, rather than the statements you did make.

It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern

In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

keeps you in close

Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

gets you to the downwind

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.

Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
on the ground).

There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
airport traffic safety.

Pete

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:25 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
dragging it in for three miles.

This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
pilots may not have been taught to do so.

I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime
in on what they teach you north of the 49th?

Don
[1] San Carlos, CA. Down the road at Palo Alto, they use left and
right patterns for a single runway. I do NOT care for that. I'm
anxious about where the guy in the other pattern is turning base. San
Carlos doesn't do that because there is a lot of helicopter activity
and the helos are segregated on one side of the field and land on the
apron while fixed-wing craft use the other side and land on the
runway.

Bob Martin wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around
here, where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily
flying, it's the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down
Lake Sammamish, or the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead
break" to a landing at the airport, or any number of other pilots
doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like
to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

THANKS, JIM!

-c

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:37:10 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
"BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."

(Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird arrival
is like."

The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
"Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with a
Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to get
out of our way."

I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted to
invite his cronies.


I agree. It seems the most arrogant fly the least little airplane
who's only association with the war was as a trainer. The AT-6 was
a trainer flown by "student" pilots. Their current owners, in some
cases, are not much better pilots than raw students.

The flip side of that coin is that not all AT-6 drivers are
arrogant. I've run into several at air shows who were most polite
and considerate of others. Answering endless questions during
static displays and in one case, performing a really amazing
aerobatic demo flight that really explored the limits of the AT-6.
Of course this guy flew a solo performance. It seems they only get
really obnoxious in groups of three or more.

Ron

Jim,

Most of the warbirds are classed as Experimental. By definition, they
are "our own" as much as the squadrons of glass-cockpit RVs and
Lancairs and the increasingly-rare builder-designed or even plans-built
birds.

Aviation - especially Experimental aviation, VERY especially
high-density Experimental aviation - is a high-risk endeavor.
Situational awareness is never perfect. Accidents DO happen.

A good many T-6 drivers may be hot-doggers. The waddling TBM doesn't
lend itself to that sort of attitude, though. Having seen TBMs and RVs
up close, though, I can understand how it might be hard to see an RV
from a TBM - especially if it was close-aboard.

To the under-30 crowd who "can't relate" to WW2 aircraft, I
respectfully submit the observation that if not for those aircraft -
and the men and women (now in their 80s if they're alive at all) who
built, maintained, and flew them - you would almost certainly not be
reading this post today. Totalitarian states do not permit
experimental aviation.

Those "ancient clattertraps" serve to remind us that freedom such as we
enjoy is not - has never been, will never be - free.

-Corrie

RST Engineering wrote:
So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
this sort of stupidity.

Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

Jim