My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:59 am
I know this is a passionate topic, but given the number of incidents during warbird low level aerobatics for airshows/practices, for me the tide has recently changed. I used to be all for low level aerobatics by the warbirds, but I would now rather see a more sedate and safer show. Heck I just get excited seeing them start up. I do love a high speed pass, but am fine when low level loops and rolls are not part of the show. The last show I attended (a smallish prop only warbird display) had none, and I was fine with that. At larger shows I do enjoy aerobatics by the modern jets, but do not have much interest in the sport aero displays- just not my cup of tea- that is when I enjoy the static park. Perhaps there is a difference in what the general public wants and what the enthusiasts are happy with?
I know there are strong opionions both ways- some avoid airshows entitrely and some say let 'em fly all out. Perhaps there is room for everything and aero can be done safely- but I just get gutted when I see another low-level trajedy.
I know there are strong opionions both ways- some avoid airshows entitrely and some say let 'em fly all out. Perhaps there is room for everything and aero can be done safely- but I just get gutted when I see another low-level trajedy.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:52 am
GEEZ...you mean there's someone, besides me, who couldn't care less about the Pitts, Sukhois,Yaks, Extras, etc. doing loops and spins and stuff.
Mudge the pariah
Yeah...yeah...INCOMING!!!
Mudge the pariah
Yeah...yeah...INCOMING!!!
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:13 pm
X2
I'm OK with unlimited aerobatics for aerobatics sake, although the sound of the horizonatlly opposed engines in some of those aircraft are really annoying.
I think by comparison though, warbird aerobatics are too lazy and take up too much sky to be interesting. The wow factor just isn't there. Also, the flight characteristics of many warbirds makes low level aerobatics more risky in my opinion. Low level stalls and spins just aren't part of the typical warbird repertoire, so if they happen inadvertantly, averting a crash in unlikely. They just can't be made to fly out of a stall or spin entry like a compretition aerobatic plane. There is too much momentum, too little low speed control authority and the power to weight ratio just isn't there. I saw Joe Frasca intentionally snap roll a P-40 at the top of a loop many years ago and I know that Bud Granley does low level snaps in his Harvard. Those are the only examples I can think of in 40+ years of going to airshows.
I do appreciate low level flypasts however. They are generally closer to the crowd and afford a better view of the aircraft. It also showcases the speed very well.
I'm OK with unlimited aerobatics for aerobatics sake, although the sound of the horizonatlly opposed engines in some of those aircraft are really annoying.
I think by comparison though, warbird aerobatics are too lazy and take up too much sky to be interesting. The wow factor just isn't there. Also, the flight characteristics of many warbirds makes low level aerobatics more risky in my opinion. Low level stalls and spins just aren't part of the typical warbird repertoire, so if they happen inadvertantly, averting a crash in unlikely. They just can't be made to fly out of a stall or spin entry like a compretition aerobatic plane. There is too much momentum, too little low speed control authority and the power to weight ratio just isn't there. I saw Joe Frasca intentionally snap roll a P-40 at the top of a loop many years ago and I know that Bud Granley does low level snaps in his Harvard. Those are the only examples I can think of in 40+ years of going to airshows.
I do appreciate low level flypasts however. They are generally closer to the crowd and afford a better view of the aircraft. It also showcases the speed very well.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:21 pm
Different topic Mudge.
Sandiego was questioning whether low acro in warbirds is worth the risk.
On that question, I do like to see warbirds get wrung out a bit. It gives me a perspective on their capbilities that fly-fast-turn-left does not. I don't think I would be as interested in the subject if I had not seen Hoov, Lefty, Billing, Bonhomme, Frasca, Sanders, Dameo, Hinton, and yes, Pardue and Odegaard, among others, toss the planes around the way they do/did. I know that my enjoyment of the experience comes with a substantially increased risk that the plane will not be around to educate future generations, and I feel some guilt about favoring my present indulgence over the preservation of heritage in that way. But there it is.
On your question Mudge, it's a little bit related because although I can appreciate the skills involved in doing acro in the purpose-built flippy flops, for me, acro in a plane that is built to fly backwards or hang from its prop all day is not as interesting as acro in a "real" working plane. A good routine even in a Stearman (preferably not one of the 450-hp+ mods) or T-6 or Younkin's twin Beech routine will always hold my interest longer. So the very shortcomings that bdk points to that warbirds have for acro performances actually add to the interest for me.
As an example, even further off topic, I've always wanted to see a really spirited acro routine done in an accurate WWI replica. The Camel and Dr.I had legendary maneuverability, okay so what does that mean? The fact that nobody is doing it makes me think it's just too suicidal.
August
Sandiego was questioning whether low acro in warbirds is worth the risk.
On that question, I do like to see warbirds get wrung out a bit. It gives me a perspective on their capbilities that fly-fast-turn-left does not. I don't think I would be as interested in the subject if I had not seen Hoov, Lefty, Billing, Bonhomme, Frasca, Sanders, Dameo, Hinton, and yes, Pardue and Odegaard, among others, toss the planes around the way they do/did. I know that my enjoyment of the experience comes with a substantially increased risk that the plane will not be around to educate future generations, and I feel some guilt about favoring my present indulgence over the preservation of heritage in that way. But there it is.
On your question Mudge, it's a little bit related because although I can appreciate the skills involved in doing acro in the purpose-built flippy flops, for me, acro in a plane that is built to fly backwards or hang from its prop all day is not as interesting as acro in a "real" working plane. A good routine even in a Stearman (preferably not one of the 450-hp+ mods) or T-6 or Younkin's twin Beech routine will always hold my interest longer. So the very shortcomings that bdk points to that warbirds have for acro performances actually add to the interest for me.
As an example, even further off topic, I've always wanted to see a really spirited acro routine done in an accurate WWI replica. The Camel and Dr.I had legendary maneuverability, okay so what does that mean? The fact that nobody is doing it makes me think it's just too suicidal.
August
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:43 pm
As an example, even further off topic, I've always wanted to see a really spirited acro routine done in an accurate WWI replica. The Camel and Dr.I had legendary maneuverability, okay so what does that mean? The fact that nobody is doing it makes me think it's just too suicidal.
August[/quote]
Does this count for low level WWI aerobatics??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBZgmiYIiY
I also enjoy watching the warbirds doing MILD acro. Pardue's show in not only the Bearcat but the Sea Fury and Wildcat was just plane awesome! Jon Ellis in the F7F...WAY COOL....Vlado in the P-51...and my favorite and rarest...Klaus Plaza's acro demo in the DB605 powered Bf-109G4 "Red 7" You NEVER get to see a 109...especially doing acro! What an amazing airplane! (and better sound than a Merlin too!) (opinion)
August[/quote]
Does this count for low level WWI aerobatics??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBZgmiYIiY
I also enjoy watching the warbirds doing MILD acro. Pardue's show in not only the Bearcat but the Sea Fury and Wildcat was just plane awesome! Jon Ellis in the F7F...WAY COOL....Vlado in the P-51...and my favorite and rarest...Klaus Plaza's acro demo in the DB605 powered Bf-109G4 "Red 7" You NEVER get to see a 109...especially doing acro! What an amazing airplane! (and better sound than a Merlin too!) (opinion)
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:05 pm
k5083 wrote:As an example, even further off topic, I've always wanted to see a really spirited acro routine done in an accurate WWI replica. The Camel and Dr.I had legendary maneuverability, okay so what does that mean? The fact that nobody is doing it makes me think it's just too suicidal.
August
Mikael Carlson does an excellent aerobatic routine in his very accurate, rotary-powered Fokker Dr.1 and Tummelisa replicas. I'm sure there is footage on YouTube.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:45 pm
skooterN2767K wrote: Does this count for low level WWI aerobatics??!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBZgmiYIiY
Brilliant. That's exactly what I'd like to see.
August
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:55 pm
Ive changed my opinion too......as one of the guys who now helps to keep them flying I CRINGE every time I see a "hero pilot" throwing around a near priceless and irreplaceable plane in low level acrobatics that is fueled more by pilot ego then any real sense of maturely displaying a preserved piece of flying history.
Most of us who actually work on them, to keep them flying, just want to see them start up, and fly a sedate routine....maybe with a high speed pass or two.
Sure some of us do want to see the full hog......but the reality is if these people really understand the team work and man-hours required to keep them in the air.......they would likely also just be happy to see a sedate display.
Sadly, pilot ego is a well known phenomenon at airshows and Youtube is full of the results.
Most of us who actually work on them, to keep them flying, just want to see them start up, and fly a sedate routine....maybe with a high speed pass or two.
Sure some of us do want to see the full hog......but the reality is if these people really understand the team work and man-hours required to keep them in the air.......they would likely also just be happy to see a sedate display.
Sadly, pilot ego is a well known phenomenon at airshows and Youtube is full of the results.
Last edited by BAJ on Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:02 pm
This has the potential to be a very interesting thread, provided we stay away from speculation on the recent accident. It's also one which I'd love to hear from some of our resident WIX members who do it for real, Dudley, Vlado, Jim Beasley and Doug Rosendaal come to mind. (Am I missing anyone?)
There really is no mystery or inherent danger in a well SCRIPTED and PRACTICED aerobatic routine. The danger comes when one DEVIATES from that routine due to distraction, complacency, physiological/environmental reasons (performing in poor weather or feeling 'under the weather'), inexperience (not well practiced), mechanical, or as one well known warbird pilot put it a "juvenile moment". Lose your focus, deviate from the rehersed routine and all bets are off. It might work it might not.
Frankly, a well practiced routine by a warbird pilot with an unlimited acro card, in a waivered airspace box all by himself, may actually be safer than a dozen or more warbirds flying racetrack patterns making flat passes over the field. How many accidents have occured in the mass take-offs or landings at OSH? Two well known ones come to mind. I for one would not want to see warbird airshow flying relagated to that of the "airplane of the month fly day" at FHC or POF. That day may yet come but that time is not now.
There really is no mystery or inherent danger in a well SCRIPTED and PRACTICED aerobatic routine. The danger comes when one DEVIATES from that routine due to distraction, complacency, physiological/environmental reasons (performing in poor weather or feeling 'under the weather'), inexperience (not well practiced), mechanical, or as one well known warbird pilot put it a "juvenile moment". Lose your focus, deviate from the rehersed routine and all bets are off. It might work it might not.
Frankly, a well practiced routine by a warbird pilot with an unlimited acro card, in a waivered airspace box all by himself, may actually be safer than a dozen or more warbirds flying racetrack patterns making flat passes over the field. How many accidents have occured in the mass take-offs or landings at OSH? Two well known ones come to mind. I for one would not want to see warbird airshow flying relagated to that of the "airplane of the month fly day" at FHC or POF. That day may yet come but that time is not now.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:35 pm
A pilot should never fly an aircraft at an altitude where if something goes mechanically wrong...he's a dead man (with obvious exceptions for take-off, landing, etc).
Especially when he's flying an older aircraft with older engines where reliability isn't up to modern standards.
Add in the chance of losing an irreplacable aircraft (to say nothing of the crew and potential victims on the ground) it doen't make sense.
Witness the Mosquito, Firefly and other warbird mishaps.
If a guy want's to kill himself in a Pitts, Sukhois or Extra..it's a free country.
But risking a piece of history is different...
Especially when he's flying an older aircraft with older engines where reliability isn't up to modern standards.
Add in the chance of losing an irreplacable aircraft (to say nothing of the crew and potential victims on the ground) it doen't make sense.
Witness the Mosquito, Firefly and other warbird mishaps.
If a guy want's to kill himself in a Pitts, Sukhois or Extra..it's a free country.
But risking a piece of history is different...
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:55 pm
I never would have become as interested in warbirds as I have without low-level warbird aerobatics. John Ellis' Tigercat display, Dale Snodgrass in the Air Zoo FG-1D and Vlado Lenoch's aerobatics at Warbirds Over Kalamazoo, Elkhart, etc. are some of my top memories of airshows as a kid and really set the hook for my interest. With that being said...
With all the crashes the past few years, I get nervous watching any warbird aerobatic routine these days. I enjoy and appreciate the skill it takes to perform a low-level aerobatic routine in these aircraft. It's always spectacular. But there's a part of me that holds my breath, especially when an aircraft is coming down through a barnstormer's loop or performs a roll at low level. I have really mixed feelings about seeing this displays now.
With all the crashes the past few years, I get nervous watching any warbird aerobatic routine these days. I enjoy and appreciate the skill it takes to perform a low-level aerobatic routine in these aircraft. It's always spectacular. But there's a part of me that holds my breath, especially when an aircraft is coming down through a barnstormer's loop or performs a roll at low level. I have really mixed feelings about seeing this displays now.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:19 pm
Where does the Aeroshell T-6 team fit into this discussion? They routinely accomplish the avalanche (snap at the top of a loop) and some other maneuvers that leave little margin for error - while doing it in formation and during their night show.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:09 pm
T-6's are so extremely prevalent that I would almost place them in the general aerobatic category. No disrespect to T-6's!
It's kind of like seeing six Ford Mustang coupes racing full-out around a road race course versus seeing all six surviving Shelby GT "Ferrari killers" doing the same thing. At some point a line is crossed where the average knowledgeable enthusiast is more focused on chewing his nails off rather than enjoying the routine, while the average show goer wouldn't know the difference. I personally harbor no grief toward the average data plate restoration or post-war Reserve unit Mustang making hay for the thrill of the crowd, but just imagining 'Upopa Epops' in the same circumstance makes my stomach sink. The personal story that plane has to tell will be completely diminished for future generations if it is ever destroyed.
Of course even the most generic warbird has a story to tell, but I've reached the point where I feel the the unique/priceless examples should be generally accepted as airframes not to be trifled with for the purposes of wowing crowds with unnecessary pushing of the envelope. Other planes like Rare Bear are still making history, far moreso than can be attributed to their uneventful post-war storage years. Bob Hoover's yellow Mustang would not be nearly as historical an item had it not been for the flying history it established after it was in private hands. Same goes for Glacier Girl, so circumstances such as that need to be considered as well. I would never ask the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum not to fly their P-61 Black Widow because I honestly believe more historical relevance will be attributed to the type over the long term if they do present it to the public as a flyer. Just don't attempt knife edge passes at 20' AGL is all I would ask!
I figure there should at least be two of any given type of aircraft before one is put at operational risk, and preferably a couple more. Rare touchstones such as known combat veteran aircraft that do not survive in any great numbers should be well regarded as such and operated accordingly and not subject to low level aerobatics for sport, etc in my opinion. If in the unfortunate case an ultra rare or otherwise irreplaceable warbird is lost, we should never have to look back in regret knowing that a ridiculous degree of risk was involved. Planes will be lost, and I most certainly want to see them keep flying(!), but preserving the most intrinsically valuable examples for future generations has to factor in there somewhere. It would be rather selfish for us to unnecessarily roughhouse with toys today that will ultimately be regarded as priceless, irreplaceable touchstones by historians and enthusiasts 100 years from now.
It's kind of like seeing six Ford Mustang coupes racing full-out around a road race course versus seeing all six surviving Shelby GT "Ferrari killers" doing the same thing. At some point a line is crossed where the average knowledgeable enthusiast is more focused on chewing his nails off rather than enjoying the routine, while the average show goer wouldn't know the difference. I personally harbor no grief toward the average data plate restoration or post-war Reserve unit Mustang making hay for the thrill of the crowd, but just imagining 'Upopa Epops' in the same circumstance makes my stomach sink. The personal story that plane has to tell will be completely diminished for future generations if it is ever destroyed.
Of course even the most generic warbird has a story to tell, but I've reached the point where I feel the the unique/priceless examples should be generally accepted as airframes not to be trifled with for the purposes of wowing crowds with unnecessary pushing of the envelope. Other planes like Rare Bear are still making history, far moreso than can be attributed to their uneventful post-war storage years. Bob Hoover's yellow Mustang would not be nearly as historical an item had it not been for the flying history it established after it was in private hands. Same goes for Glacier Girl, so circumstances such as that need to be considered as well. I would never ask the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum not to fly their P-61 Black Widow because I honestly believe more historical relevance will be attributed to the type over the long term if they do present it to the public as a flyer. Just don't attempt knife edge passes at 20' AGL is all I would ask!
I figure there should at least be two of any given type of aircraft before one is put at operational risk, and preferably a couple more. Rare touchstones such as known combat veteran aircraft that do not survive in any great numbers should be well regarded as such and operated accordingly and not subject to low level aerobatics for sport, etc in my opinion. If in the unfortunate case an ultra rare or otherwise irreplaceable warbird is lost, we should never have to look back in regret knowing that a ridiculous degree of risk was involved. Planes will be lost, and I most certainly want to see them keep flying(!), but preserving the most intrinsically valuable examples for future generations has to factor in there somewhere. It would be rather selfish for us to unnecessarily roughhouse with toys today that will ultimately be regarded as priceless, irreplaceable touchstones by historians and enthusiasts 100 years from now.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:19 pm
REALLY!!!! are we getting that and old and cautious? maybe we shouldn,t fly them at all!!! i spin wrenches for a vintage motorcycle racing team my rider is 67 his brother is 56 they both win races on a regular basis any piece of machinery well maintained and properly inspected can be used to its fullest purpose! don,t hold them back and i,m dissapointed to read that sugar on here! and sukhois sound awsome!! there my two cents have to go now the igloo needs another layer of ice!!!
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:28 pm
JohnB wrote:A pilot should never fly an aircraft at an altitude where if something goes mechanically wrong...he's a dead man (with obvious exceptions for take-off, landing, etc).
Especially when he's flying an older aircraft with older engines where reliability isn't up to modern standards.
Add in the chance of losing an irreplacable aircraft (to say nothing of the crew and potential victims on the ground) it doen't make sense.
Witness the Mosquito, Firefly and other warbird mishaps.
If a guy want's to kill himself in a Pitts, Sukhois or Extra..it's a free country.
But risking a piece of history is different...
Older aircraft with older engines up to modern standards??? Im sorry but Rosie's quality of riveting is not even CLOSE to the quality of todays restorations. You should take in the fact that these restorations are better than factory. Flown within their original flight paramaters should not make any difference between today and whey they were built.
Yes it would be very tragic if there was losses on the ground in accidents like this but I would also think that the guy with the Pitts or Extra could afford to fly a P-51 to do aerobatics, he would still continue to do so as its HIS AIRCRAFT. It might be a shame to loose a piece of history but until the very last second, it is HIS AIRPLANE and if this is the way he enjoys himself, who am I?............................I would like to think that when I die, I would like to be doing something I love and not sitting in a wheel chair not knowing what day it is.
I will have my ticket ready and someday I will take my seat in the bleachers and watch Bob in 74 and Jimmy in GG rounding that pylon in the sky and the 3 of us will be smiling.