Final NTSB report on fatal '07 Camarillo Mustang crash out

[Dave Hadfield]

I wonder about the 31 hours of dual in the P-51. That's a very large number, and raises several questions.

I think it's best to get a whack of tailwheel time in something else, even if it's a light airplane, until the taildragger requirements are solidly anchored in the long-term memory.

There's a lot to be said for flying from the back seat of a tandem light airplane such as a Citabria -- you can't see anything, and there are no instruments. Not P-51 training, obviously, but tailwheel technique. It's cheap and effective. (Try Instructing from back there -- your instincts get fine-tuned quickly!)

Then front seat of the T-6, back seat of the T-6, and transition to the fighter.

But the fighter itself is not, I'd say, the best place to train. Too much going on.

However you can't stop an owner from trying to fly his airplane (though I don't know the details here). All you can do is suggest, and hope there is a response that is intelligent and professional, as is sometimes the case.

Dave

Dave

[Dudley Henriques]

Dudley,
Thanks much. One of the best explanations I've seen here using the basic aerodynamic forces to explain what is going on in a landing of a particular type of aircraft. So what are the numbers you like to see, and how much power can you add quickly to get out of trouble without running out of aileron and rudder to counteract it?

*Edit- Bill G., thanks for your 2cents as well...

My pleasure and thank you.
my approach profiles would differ slightly depending on whether I was doing a display or just ending a local flight or X country; also if the approach involved a long final I preferred carrying half flaps.

The 51 does very well carrying 120 to 130 down the chute scrubbing it back to about 100 through the flare at our weight would usually give me a nice easy sink rate with not much stick involved right on down to runway contact on the mains.

From the fence on in its totally a "feel" situation. I liked landing tail low on the mains and usually landed that way, flying the tail down easy.
3 point in the 51 for me was fine as an option as our bird was a straight military setup and we didn't have the forward cg problems that some of the conversions had. I never liked 3 pointing the Mustang as it could get a bit hairy on occasion setting it up in the flare with some asymmetrical wing behavior as the angle of attack rode its way up the lift curve toward Clmax. Just my preference; tail low was my preferred method both for display and for play

[Jack Cook]

as our bird was a straight military setup

I'm not sure what you mean by that?? Combat weight???
What Mustang(s) were you flying and what years? The folks
in Vulter's Row are always interestred in such things.

[Dudley Henriques]

as our bird was a straight military setup

I'm not sure what you mean by that?? Combat weight???
What Mustang(s) were you flying and what years? The folks
in Vulter's Row are always interestred in such things.

Simply means ours didn't have the civvie conversions done to it that changes the cg moving it forward. Nothing else; a stock Mustang that's all.

[Bradburger]

as our bird was a straight military setup

I'm not sure what you mean by that?? Combat weight???
What Mustang(s) were you flying and what years? The folks
in Vulter's Row are always interestred in such things.

Indeed!

And a very interesting discussion on the safety aspects of flying the P-51. I've downloaded the Pdf of the paper on post war civil P-51 accidents and will read it later.

I know I'm drifting off topic slightly, (although you could argue that weight distrubution & CoG changes can make a difference to the handling) but as for restored P-51's today, just how close do the 'stock' restorations (those with guns, ammo, radios, armour, and other original military equipment) come in weight terms to a combat machine of WWII? I suppose it depends on just how 'stock' they are, but according to my references, a wartime D model (without rear fuel tank or external fuel) weighed in at 9611 lbs*.

I guess a light weight non 'stock' P-51, stripped of all Military equipment and with just the main wing fuel tanks (and possibly a few civil mods), would weigh not too far over 8000lbs, which I should imagine makes it much nicer in the airshow enviroment than one that approaches the weight of a wartime example.

Looking at the CAA Airworthiness Approval Notes for Maurice Hammond's G-MSTG & Rob Lamplough's G-BIXL, I note that the fomer had a basic weight of 7,138 lbs, and the latter weighed in at 7116 lbs after restoration. However, Maurice Hammonds machine does have de-activated guns and ammunition, plus a gunsight and is pretty 'stock' in terms of the cockpit, and it does have a rear seat (as does the Lamplough machine) instead of the fuel tank. I don't know what other original military equipment is fitted as it's not listed on the AAN.

I'd be intersested to know from Dudley and our other resident P-51 jocks how a 'stock' and non 'stock' machine compares and which they prefer to do displays in.

*Source: America's Hundred Thousand by Francis H. Dean

Cheers

Paul

[Jack Cook]

Simply means ours didn't have the civvie conversions done to it that changes the cg moving it forward.

What conversons??? Second seat..&.......................?
Which Mustangs(?) are we talking about??

[Dudley Henriques]

Simply means ours didn't have the civvie conversions done to it that changes the cg moving it forward.

What conversons??? Second seat..&.......................?
Which Mustangs(?) are we talking about??

I had little to do with civilianized Mustangs. I believe Vlado might have some information for you if you check with him.
I do know that many 51's flying out here now have been reconfigured as to avionics and other factors. These changes have resulted in a much more forward cg than a 51 in military cfg.

[warbird1]

Regarding all of the talk about CG and changes therein, I'm surprised that the accident report didn't bring this up. The instructor - a highly experienced Mustang pilot is not a light guy. He's pretty heavy compared to a lot of the population. Is it possible, that when the accident pilot did all of the training, that the Mustang acted differently? When the heavy instructor left for the pilot to go solo, could this have changed the CG enough to have made the Mustang fly differently or at least react differently to what the mishap pilot thought it would do? Could this have contributed to the accident? This aspect was not brought up at all in the NTSB accident report. Just curious, thoughts anyone - Dudley?

[Dudley Henriques]

Regarding all of the talk about CG and changes therein, I'm surprised that the accident report didn't bring this up. The instructor - a highly experienced Mustang pilot is not a light guy. He's pretty heavy compared to a lot of the population. Is it possible, that when the accident pilot did all of the training, that the Mustang acted differently? When the heavy instructor left for the pilot to go solo, could this have changed the CG enough to have made the Mustang fly differently or at least react differently to what the mishap pilot thought it would do? Could this have contributed to the accident? This aspect was not brought up at all in the NTSB accident report. Just curious, thoughts anyone - Dudley?

In my opinion no. With the pilot properly checked out and ready to fly solo, the weight reduction should be an automatic compensation causing appropriate control pressures on all controls at all times.

The input pressure applied to the controls should be the result of both anticipated and present flight behavior of the aircraft at all times. In other words, input based on what the airplane is doing NOW regardless of its GW. As for the cg; this shouldn't have been an issue.

[Jack Cook]

I had little to do with civilianized Mustangs.

Maybe I'm dense but to me civilianized means no armor, guns, bomb/rockets racks,
aux fuel tank ect. Are you saying you flew military (non-civilianized) Mustangs with all these doo-dads???
Which 51s did you fly???

[sdennison]

I'm not speaking for Dudley, but that's part of the problem, Fighter flying has become too mechanical. You need to be able to feel what the airplane is doing and act acordingly. There is now way to post "numbers" to accomodate the wide array of situations possible. Besides, by the time you figure all of that out as far as speeds, boost, rpm, etc., it's probably already over!

Glenn

I believe that you have hit it right on the head. We can read all the theory, the instuctions, listen to instructors, watch DVD's, etc. When the rubber meets the road, it all comes down to "can you wear the armor?" Flying is like racing. There were no two seat race cars to train in. Jump from a 300 hp midget to an 800 hp sprint car, nobody could drive it for you. The track was the same but the speed, side bite, stagger, throttle, brakes, cross up were all different. How did you learn? You drove it and used your feel and experience. How good was that connection between your foot, your tushy, and your brain? Some could, some could not. It is not like setting the trim from one click to six.

You must respect the jump in class and, unfortunately be prepared for the consequences. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. This is old school flying with old school risk and results.

We seem to have changed. We can program our TV's, computers, etc. We can't just reprogram to fly a monster aircraft, if A then B, but neither could my Pop or his compadres. They too, learned the hard way.

[Dudley Henriques]

I had little to do with civilianized Mustangs.

Maybe I'm dense but to me civilianized means no armor, guns, bomb/rockets racks,
aux fuel tank ect. Are you saying you flew military (non-civilianized) Mustangs with all these doo-dads???

Not at all. Our airplane was a stock surplus P51D with a few avionics additions. No bombs, no rockets, no second seat; and no guns. Needed the gun bay space for clean clothes and a stuffed Teddy Bear used for dubious purposes; hence no serious civvie conversion. We just flew it clean.

I've emailed Vlado Lenoch for you to get the scoop on exactly what was changed to "civilianize" many 51's. I'll email you when he answers.
Hope this helps a bit.

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't put much stock in the different CG theory. If a Mustang was flown in WWII it was likely in the normal and approved cg range for acceptable handling. The exception of course, was at the start of long range missions when an aft fuselage tank was full and the pilot was cautioned about the aft cg problem until it was run down. Same case for Spitfires using such a tank. But once in combat the planes had to be able to handle normal combat maneuvers such as high g turns, loops, even stall turns. If not, then you'd never recover, the first stall and or spin would be the end and we know that was not the case.
Now when these planes come into civilian use they must be in the normal and accepted cg range, even if much lighter. That is unless the A&P building them is negligent or the pilot flying them is nuts. So the idea that a civilian 51 can't make a 3 pt. landing or fly without an instructor in the back seat seems doubtful.
After I got my Spitfire the rear cockpit was reinstalled. I looked up the factory specs on CG range and Ray weighed the airplane. We found the allowed weight when solo to be near the front cg limit and with a chute and 190lb backseater it was near the aft cg limit, FOR NORMAL HANDLING. It does not mean it could not be flown beyond this limit, such as for ferry or long range missions, but that you were not assured of normal handling and recovery outside the limits. Seems like a 51 would be the same situation, although there are probably lots flying that haven't be weighed in years.

[Dudley Henriques]

I don't put much stock in the different CG theory. If a Mustang was flown in WWII it was likely in the normal and approved cg range for acceptable handling. The exception of course, was at the start of long range missions when an aft fuselage tank was full and the pilot was cautioned about the aft cg problem until it was run down. Same case for Spitfires using such a tank. But once in combat the planes had to be able to handle normal combat maneuvers such as high g turns, loops, even stall turns. If not, then you'd never recover, the first stall and or spin would be the end and we know that was not the case.
Now when these planes come into civilian use they must be in the normal and accepted cg range, even if much lighter. That is unless the A&P building them is negligent or the pilot flying them is nuts. So the idea that a civilian 51 can't make a 3 pt. landing or fly without an instructor in the back seat seems doubtful.
After I got my Spitfire the rear cockpit was reinstalled. I looked up the factory specs on CG range and Ray weighed the airplane. We found the allowed weight when solo to be near the front cg limit and with a chute and 190lb backseater it was near the aft cg limit, FOR NORMAL HANDLING. It does not mean it could not be flown beyond this limit, such as for ferry or long range missions, but that you were not assured of normal handling and recovery outside the limits. Seems like a 51 would be the same situation, although there are probably lots flying that haven't be weighed in years.

My understanding on the cg issue is that by the time they got finished taking out everything and adding the seat, the 51's cg was pushed forward enough that it was still in the envelope but wound you pretty far back on elevator trim which could be a bit hairy on a pure 3 pointer.
Remember, the Spit has a much more friendly wing in such situations.
With the Mustang, the cg change wasn't a major issue; just wasn't optimum, and one more thing to consider when landing the airplane.

[Jim Beasley]

Dudley is right about the CG issue; every Mustang I've owned or flown are "civilianized" and have a very forward CG. When we got Princess (it didn't have the "real" (heavy) guns and ammo, and had an aluminum replica armor plate behind the pilot) the CG was too forward. We removed the armor in front of the header tank and that helped a bit, but it was still forward. Bald Eagle has about 60 lbs of lead on the tail to attempt to compensate for the forward CG. Princess had about the same back there (Rich can tell us exactly how much). And it only drops the aircraft weight a small amount relative to the overall weight of the plane.

Having said that I don't know that the CG issues made a substantive difference with regard to the the high AOA/slow airspeed/rapid increase to high power and resulting torque roll. Whenever I show someone how to fly the T6 or Mustang almost all of our initial flying is slow with a high AOA and lots of rudder and throttle control exercises as well as lots of time in buffett. In my view it's the only way to understand these machines and not recreate the abuses reported in the Snyder report (btw thanks for posting I had lost my copy). jb

I don't put much stock in the different CG theory. If a Mustang was flown in WWII it was likely in the normal and approved cg range for acceptable handling. The exception of course, was at the start of long range missions when an aft fuselage tank was full and the pilot was cautioned about the aft cg problem until it was run down. Same case for Spitfires using such a tank. But once in combat the planes had to be able to handle normal combat maneuvers such as high g turns, loops, even stall turns. If not, then you'd never recover, the first stall and or spin would be the end and we know that was not the case.
Now when these planes come into civilian use they must be in the normal and accepted cg range, even if much lighter. That is unless the A&P building them is negligent or the pilot flying them is nuts. So the idea that a civilian 51 can't make a 3 pt. landing or fly without an instructor in the back seat seems doubtful.
After I got my Spitfire the rear cockpit was reinstalled. I looked up the factory specs on CG range and Ray weighed the airplane. We found the allowed weight when solo to be near the front cg limit and with a chute and 190lb backseater it was near the aft cg limit, FOR NORMAL HANDLING. It does not mean it could not be flown beyond this limit, such as for ferry or long range missions, but that you were not assured of normal handling and recovery outside the limits. Seems like a 51 would be the same situation, although there are probably lots flying that haven't be weighed in years.

My understanding on the cg issue is that by the time they got finished taking out everything and adding the seat, the 51's cg was pushed forward enough that it was still in the envelope but wound you pretty far back on elevator trim which could be a bit hairy on a pure 3 pointer.
Remember, the Spit has a much more friendly wing in such situations.
With the Mustang, the cg change wasn't a major issue; just wasn't optimum, and one more thing to consider when landing the airplane.