Yak close call

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ps.com...

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:

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


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

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

Peter

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

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

Therefore, I will presume that Dudley is correct.

Peter
(Just my $0.02)




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


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


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

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

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

Ron Lee





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

Bela P. Havasreti

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote

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

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

Morgans wrote:
"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote

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

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


"Holy ****!"



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

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

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

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

Pete

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


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


Montblack :-)

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

You would be correct, sir

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

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

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

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

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

See above.

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

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

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

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

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

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

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

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

Pete

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

I opined:

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

You replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete