Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
As far as the wing sitters go, I think insurance will be more likely to
prohibit that practice, than bikes on the taxiways. Plus, if you polled
the
warbird drivers, and asked them how many would be willing to let someone
sit
on their wing, I'll bet MOST of them would say, "NO Way!" Might leave a
dent, or scratch the paint, or ..... Fill in the blank.
--
Jim in NC

Can't really say, but the pilots I know personally I think would say that
the scratches and dents obtained by plowing into that Pitts up there under
the nose might require a bit more work to rehab than the risk of someone
scratching the paint on the tip.
We always put out the word before hand to potential wingtip sitters that we
preferred them to have nothing in their back pockets and no rivets or jeans
were encouraged. We never had a problem getting people to do this for us.
Oshkosh might be another matter however, because of the sheer density of the
operation. People wanting to serve as sitters would need prior notification
that's for sure.
But its all academic really. The lawyers advising the insurance people will
most likely shoot down the tip riders anyway :-)
Dudley

"David J. Zera" wrote in message
...
I like the idea it is a good one. No right now the guys on scooters are
not
allowed on the taxiways only the ramps my guess that is directed by the
insurance guys.

It is my understanding that the only thing keeping them off the taxiways is
the fact that all vehicles on active taxiways are required to have a yellow
flashing light above them. Put a pole up from them and mount a light, and
there you go!

Check on that, if you will. You might be able to get that going.

As far as the wing sitters go, I think insurance will be more likely to
prohibit that practice, than bikes on the taxiways. Plus, if you polled the
warbird drivers, and asked them how many would be willing to let someone sit
on their wing, I'll bet MOST of them would say, "NO Way!" Might leave a
dent, or scratch the paint, or ..... Fill in the blank.
--
Jim in NC

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.

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.

I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
"church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
"hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.

Jim

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

You are correct it is normal to join the pattern from over the feild
in Canada. At uncontrolled aerodromes straight in approaches are not
standard. I was also taught to never be more than gliding distance
from the runway while in the pattern. It drives me nuts when I see
cessna 150s flying 3 mile finals or are so wide on downwind I think
they've left the pattern. Oh ya another difference is we don't use 45
degree entries to the pattern.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message ...
:
: ".Blueskies." wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Dave Stadt" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
: : news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
: : I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
: : airshow at all.
: :
: : And the money for the fuel they receive comes from the Warbirds division
: not
: : from the EAA as some believe.
: :
: :
:
: Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?
:
:
: Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.
:
:

Been there, same questions. If you know the answer show it...thanks!

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
: Gatt,
:
: I agree with you.
:
: It's the new
: Cessna....
:
: There was no new Cessna. There was a "proof of concept". Google
: "vaporware"...
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"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?

Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits. Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.


gets you to the downwind

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

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

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).

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.


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, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!