Bob Hoover - T-28 Conversation - Be Nice

[F4U-7]

That plane is based at Chino and is airworthy after an engine change. Not sure about any airframe damage.

My father and I 'borrowed' that T-28 a couple of times. I can recall seeing the hub from the trashed engine. The splines had an 'S' curve from the inertial forces imparted when the engine froze up. Tony must have had to cut the propeller off of the hub. The airframe was tweaked as I recall.

Maybe it was the 16 point roll Hoover did....!!

[Bill Greenwood]

Let's look at the Hoover T-28 story with a skeptical eye, what is fact and what is alleged or claimed by someone? How does the owner know the plane was flown inverted too long or at negative G? There'e is no flight recorder for data in a 28 like there is on an airliner. The owner wasn't even in the airplane. So what you have is someones claim, AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE AND MONEY IS AT STAKE. Many people would have been glad to help Bob and loan him an airplane. It is likely the owner was glad to also.. Only after the damage do the accusations begin to fly. Is it likely Bob flew too long at neg G? Remember he used to do an acro act in a T-28. He should know the plane. A Merlin has a neg g limit of 10 sec, it's better not to do any. Bob flew P-51s for years and I don't think he made any engines seize from oil starvation. The owner's friend in the 28 can offer an opinion, but that's not fact. I doubt if he was sitting there with a stopwatch timing while Bob flew inverted or any way. This next point is a legal nicety; who was the PILOT IN COMMAND, the one responsible for the flight? If Bob did not have a medical, then the other pilot must have been PIC, legally responible for the safety of the flight. Legally it is is not a matter of who is moving the controls. If Bob had a medical, he probalby would have gone solo.
About the only FACTS are that Bob flew the plane and the engine was damaged when they returned. The neg g story is likely, it is not definite as far as I can tell.
This story was made worse by other facts, the hull insurance on the plane had just expired or been removed. It may have been the palne was to be sold, I am not sure.
Anyway, perhaps Bob should have offered to pay for all or half of the damages. I flew a Spitfire belonging to someone else, and thought about this. If I had damaged the plane through negligence, like a gear up landing or running out of fuel, I would have offered payment if the ins did not cover. If the damage was beyond my control, say some systems failure, then I would not have felt responsible.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Sun May 18, 2008 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Jack Cook]

The Q is Bill what did the IP GIB say about what transpired??
I wish I had that NATA article still.

[Bill Greenwood]

Yes, Jack what did the passenger or other pilot SAY about the flight, after the damage is done? My point exactly. What someone says, may be true, may be believable, but it is not the same as proveable fact. Is this other guy the one who, after the fact puts the blame on Hoover, the same one who sat there in the plane while Hoover destroyed the engine? Was he screaming at Bob to stop?
There could be other relevant facts. What kind of maintenance did the plane have? Was it an old military OH engine? Had anyone else like the owner or his friend flown acro in it prior to Hoover?

[Jack Cook]

Gees Bill I think were asking the same questions aren't we.
All I did was relate what the article said. Nothing more. I haven't
put a call out for Dr Kervorkian have I

[mustangdriver]

Jack in all fairness, you didn't ask a question rather just assumed that Hoover was to blame.

[Jack Cook]

Maybe then I'm the only one who read the article?
When I say "Burn him at the stake!" you'll know my real opinion.
Until then it would be interesting to know what really happened.

[Jack Cook]

may be true, may be believable, but it is not the same as proveable fact

Bill you sound like a attorney
That's why giulty often go free and innocent can and do go to jail.
In this instance only the truth mattrers. But, what is the truth?

[bipe215]

I don't know the whole story but I would add, in addition to doing many airshows in 28's, Hoover also did quite a bit of test work for NA in them.
Not saying he did or did not cause the failure, just he knew the airplane as good as anyone.

Steve G

[Bill Greenwood]

Jack, I did read the article at that time in NATA. It had some strong claims and opinions, I don't consider that the same as proof. One thing I don't recall is what was the final ruling or court result? Was there a NASA or FAA ruling or was this just an incident? Was there a court verdict or an out of court settlement?

[Jack Cook]

Bill,
Why do you keep asking me q's about this???
I was just relating what I read in that article.
I'm sure the true lies somewhere between the 2 opposing
views though.

[mustangdriver]

Just because it is in a FAA report does not make it correct. It's not like the FAA would ever just up and take someone's ticket for no reason....Oh wait never mind.

[51fixer]

AHEM..........Mr McKittrick's Mustang wreckage and his Sea Fury?


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

I did see an add in Barnstormers requesting info to purchase parts for it's rebuild.
I don't recall who it was that bought it.
The Sea Fury was purchased through Providence Fighters. I believe it was relisted after his accident. IIRC they have some sort of money back program on aircraft you purchase through them. That is why they charge so much. Don't know the exact nature of their services and all the ins and outs.
Rich

[Dasher]

It's Provenance - as in

1. The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.

2. The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.



http://www.provenancefightersales.com/

And the only Sea Fury I remember them having - is N20MD -- not owned by McKittrick.

And it has been sold.

Again.

[Randy Haskin]

IIRC they have some sort of money back program on aircraft you purchase through them. That is why they charge so much.

I think that's a liiiiittle bit of a stretch....