Warbird Information Exchange

It sounds like you are a thorough instructor, Jim! Good on you!

Does Stallion emphasize the high AOA, slow airspeed, throttle response arena as well? How much time do they spend on that in their syllabus?

I'm sure Lee and his instructors spend lots of time there. You really have to. jb

Does Stallion emphasize the high AOA, slow airspeed, throttle response arena as well? How much time do they spend on that in their syllabus?[/quote]

I'd be amazed if they didn't. Any thorough checkout (and I mean to check a pilot out in the airplane; not a familiarization flight here) by any competent check pilot in the Mustang should absolutely include a demonstration
AT ALTITUDE of rapid power application at high angle of attack with the airplane slowed down to flare airspeed with the airplane in landing configuration.
Haven't met Lee and Co, but their reputation in the community is as solid as granite.
I can't recall ever hearing anything negative about the Stallion operation. In fact, all the feedback I've had on Stallion has been more than positive.

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Oh I agree, you would have to. Stallion has a stellar reputation, for sure! They are THE gold standard when it comes to Mustang training. I was just wondering how much they emphasized it. Do they just show it a few times, or is it constantly stressed, practiced and flown each and every sortie, so that it becomes ingrained in the pilot's head to become a habit pattern?

Just curious.

Developing the necessary habit patterns required to safely fly high performance propeller fighters is a process that should be the domain of every check pilot engaged in this work. Scaring a newbie can certainly leave a lasting impact but isn't the optimum method in my opinion to use when training someone to fly something like a Mustang.
Check pilots have to be more than check pilots when it comes down to teaching newbies to fly high performance fighters. You literally have to get inside a pilot's head and get a "read" on how the pilot thinks, especially if a pilot has been flying something less powerful for any length of time.

Its these pilots who need to be "read" more carefully than the fairly new ones, who are more easily impressed and more easily molded into a new mindset by a check pilot than the more "experienced" counterparts.
Pilots who have been flying for awhile slide easily into a mindset that can accept personal performance that is bad enough at their present level flying their present equipment, but carrying that mindset into something like a 51 could easily kill them.

The check pilot has to get this "read" on any newbie, and discover how best to impress a NEW mindset into that pilot. It's absolutely imparative that this be done.

The process involved creating the necessary habit patterns in a prop fighter newbie should begin the first day of exposure between the newbie and the check pilot and continue on throughout the entire time the two are paired, even long after the newbie has been checked out.


As for the torque roll demo; trust me on this one; taking a newbie up to altitude, lowering the gear and flaps, running the prop up to 3000 (we're assuming the newbie can afford the good gas here ) slowing the bird on back to about a hundred indicated then slamming in 60 inches will leave a lasting impression on any newbie after his head clears from bouncing off the side of the canopy )
He'll NEVER want to do that on a landing.....guaranteed!!!!

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

True, however there is such a thing as negative learning. When a pilot is under stress, it is most common to fall back on habit patterns that have been engrained since the formative years of learning how to fly. For example, in jets, the normal response to approaching a stall or a quick decision go around where the plane is about to fall out of the sky is to slam the throttle through the firewall. This is an engrained habit pattern that one learns very early on in jet training. That might not have been the case in early jets where sudden surges in power can lead to a compressor stall or even flame-out the engine, but this has been the training for at least the last 40 or so years. You take somebody like that, or perhaps even a recip trained person who learned on something other than warbirds and stick them in a Mustang and it's easy to fall back on long established habit patterns.

I guess my point is that just seeing that demo once may not be enough for somebody of either a jet background or a low power recip background. When the mind is under stress, such as a landing anomoly or quick decision go-around when you're about to pack it in, you will revert to old habit patterns. That is just the way the human mind acts under duress and stress. It will seek the familiar. The tendency for those of that background will be to cobb the power through the firewall. I believe it would take more than just one demo to "reprogram" the mind to develop this habit pattern, IMO!

I'm trying to see where we are in disagreement on this, as this is just about exactly what I was saying. )
The main objective of the check pilot should indeed be the changing and upgrading of the newbie's habit patterns, and yes, the changing of these habit patterns would indeed be a far better approach than a single demonstration. So important is the stress I place on this issue that I project it as something that should continue post checkout. In fact, the discussion on the development of these habit patterns is something I've been
personally "pushing" in the community as part of an "improved" inter-community communication for many years.

By single demonstration of the torque roll issue, I'm merely suggesting that once around the block with this will implant an image that when included in an overall changed habit pattern toward flying high performance prop fighters would certainly help to insure the newbie not making this critical mistake on a landing post demonstration.

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Oh, O.K., I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were implying that one demo of a torque induced go-around up at altitude would be enough to permanently change the student's habit pattern.

Yes, we are in complete agreement.

A lot of people think that flying any type airplane is all the same. Just because you know how to fly one does NOT mean you can fly another. Training and instruction must be accomplished on aircraft which are substantially different from what a pilot's background is. I've flown a lot of different types of aircraft ranging from the puddlejumper taildraggers up to supersonic jets. They are NOT all the same. Yes, the basics of how to fly are there, but there are enough differences between them all as to warrant training. I've been offered to fly other owners' airplanes, knowing full well that it was outside my abilities without training, and yet turned down their generous offers. And I consider myself a pretty experienced pilot. I have in excess of 12,000 hours of flight time (most of which is high performance) yet I wouldn't dare touch some airplanes out there without a thorough checkout. The Mustang would be one of them. Even though I have T-6 time, I wouldn't dare fly a Mustang without a FULL, THOROUGH checkout!

Aircraft are very different, and can vary quite substantially from one to another. I'm with you Dudley, and I agree, that full, comprehensive checkouts are a necessary mandatory requirement for many types of aircraft - warbirds included!

Used to have a couple of signs hanging over my desk.
The first one read,
"Flying a P51 with a Bonanza mentality can spoil your whole day"

and the other one read,

"Money can only buy horsepower. It can't control it. NEVER forget this!"
)))

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

What a great sign and oh so true!

It seems like a lot of these so-called "millionaire" warbird owners are taking that advice as well. Tom Cruise, Rod Lewis, and others are taking warbird training and checkouts seriously. I hope that trend continues not only for their benefit, but for the warbird community as well!

There's no evidence that this owner did anything other than serious training. If he had 31 hours of dual instruction in the 51 I'd say that was pretty serious. It is certainly expensive, perhaps $60,000 worth or more. I know that is half again more than I had when I went on my own in the Spitfire. I had some previous T-6 time, never owned one, but had a good checkout.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Thanks for the link. I downloaded it and read it. Very interesting reading. So many people lying about their time/experience.

That report of the Mustang accidents actually makes me more assured. Many, if not most, were of pilots who were really foolish, either they had little training or background experience or they took off on a short runway with a rough engine or some such. AND IN SOME CASES EVEN SURVIVED. My nomination for the one least likely to succeed was the French pilot with no 51 experience who decided his first flight should be a little puddle jump across the N. Atlantic, west into the wind. He did not survive.

The flights that give me more pause are the ones like the Camarillo accident, where there is no clear cause until it happens. I doubt if many of us just before that takeoff could have looked at the situation and say this is not ok. Overall the safety record of pilots on first supervied solo is very good.

If we have respect for the airplanes, realize a Mustang or a Corsair is not just a big Cessna, and do the proper training we should be able to fly them safely. But there is still some risk, it is not like driving a car down your street.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

That report of the Mustang accidents years ago actually makes me more assured. Many, if not most, were of pilots who were really foolish, either they had little training or background experience or they took off on a short runway with a rough engine or some such. AND IN SOME CASES EVEN SURVIVED. My nomination for the one least likely to succeed was the French pilot with no 51 experience who decided his first flight should be a little puddle jump across the N. Atlantic, west into the wind. He did not survive.

The flights that give me more pause are the ones like the Camarillo accident, where there is no clear cause until it happens. I doubt if many of us just before that takeoff could have looked at the situation and say this is not ok. Overall the safety record of pilots on first supervised solo is very good.

If we have respect for the airplanes, realize a Mustang or a Corsair is not just a big Cessna, and do the proper training we should be able to fly them safely. But there is still some risk, it is not like driving a car down your street.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I agree. I haven't flown one of these warbirds (but am working towards it), so I can't speak with the authority of direct experience. However I cannot see these aircraft as frightening killers, so hard to fly that only the best of the best can ever hope to solo one and live to tell the tale.

After all, thousands of pilots successfully flew these sorts of aircraft and not all of them were the best of the best. The airplanes were built to behave, more or less. True they all had proper training, and no one would suggest taking on one of these birds without the proper training....and the right attitude.

But my impression is that these aircraft were designed and built to be safely flown by the average pilot with good training. And I agree that the risk level is higher.

My vote for the least likely to survive would be the guy who hadn't yet finished his PPL.