Warbird Information Exchange

Darn, now, you've made it complicated! Obviously one of those American Canadians.

Good post, but I don't buy the old = kid gloves argument.



[My emphasis]

So that's a vote for sticking them in the museum with a good sprinkler system then? It's all degrees of risk. Warbirding is about managed risk and managed aging. We all are drawing the line away from stick 'em in the museum; some rate positioning flights as safer than others.



Errr, that exactly what they were built for, albeit as warplanes.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well, if you want them to last FOREVER (more or less) than yes you can go the velvet rope routine and put them under glass. If you want them to last for hopefully another fifty years or so you can fly them conservatively (which means no ocean crossings). And if you want them to last for just a few days or even hours then lets just put the guns back in and we'll have us a REAL re-enactment. It's risk management.

What you call transoceanic flying is not what I call transoceanic flying, and for the record the P-38 was designed as a long range interceptor, not an ocean crosser. The Tigercat... well it was designed to be a shipborne aircraft granted, but again yours and my definitions vary. And to be fair I probably edited my post some between the time you read mine and I read yours. However, that being said, I do respect your right to be wrong.

Hi Mustangdriver,

True. But we discuss specific warbirds here - not just general aviation ops. In this case an evaluation of the specific risk - for a paper exercise as here, or if it were a project (IMHO) does need to be P-38 specific, otherwise I could get my answers on any aviation forum.

I am not talking about general aviation, I am talking about aerodynamics that affect all aircraft(even P-38's)

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Hi Paul,
Thanks for your response.

T33driver wrote:

You keep coming back to the fact that because others have flown transoceanic with vintage aircraft and made it, and still others would do it today, that it's a sound decision...and I'm saying it doesn't matter if others do it, it's still a bad idea, unsafe, and not a mere difference in attitude or opinion.

No-where have I said, or implied, 'because it's been done it's OK'; that's [i]your assumption of my position. I'm 'just' asking the question. (I've also learned not to take the pilot's first answer... )[/i]

Ok got it. What was the question?

I'm a journalist, not a pilot, and I'm seeing a lot of squirted ink from opinion, and no evaluation of risk beyond 'it's a bad idea' based on generic experience or personal preference. Your experience is respected, but like my doctor, I want you to enumerate a specific assessment, not a general one based on 'I'm experienced, I've decided not.' Sure, banging your head against the wall's a bad idea, but we can both provide data as to why that is if we need to convince a skeptic. No-one's provided any analysed data

Measuring risk in aviation is highly subjective even when you have a lot of objective or quantitative data to aid in the assessment. I doubt you're going to be able to mine the data on Allison and Merlin failures rates per thousand hours given these warbirds are privately owned and each owner/operator would have to be queried for the data. So now you're back to a subjective analysis in part. In the USAF we had an operational risk management matrix where we subjectively scored risk factors such as weather, aircraft maintenance status, pilot experience/currency/fatigue, mission complexity/difficulty etc. At the end we added up the score to see how "risky" the mission was and made the decision to continue and if so, seek higher command approval if the score went higher than a certain risk value. Sometimes the data can only be so instructive and it's not always as simple as reciting numbers and plugging them into some formula and Viola! You're safe...or not...like your doctor's evaluation process, the numbers don't always tell the whole story or much of anything and then it IS judgement and experience that must fill in the blanks and make the decision--a decision where intelligent, thinking folks may find disagreement. Say your knee gives out occasionally when you play rugby but your doctor can't find anything wrong even after he does x-rays, has you perform all sorts of weight testing and flexibility measurements that indicate it's normal. What do you do? Keep badgering him for more data where there is none? No, you know your body and perhaps play less rugby or find a new sport or figure the risk isn't prohibitive and keep playing, but ultimately it's a judgement call on your part, like it or not.

Unlike banging your head against the proverbial brick wall, intercontinental multi-engine W.W.II era aircraft ferrying has been done, and will continue to happen, by and for wealthy owners - hardly foolish people or 'wingnuts'. Flying the A-26 to Australia from Canada late last year was organised by the owner, a man who when we were discussing aviation was clear he takes aviation safety very seriously. The Pacific hops to Australia are longer than the Atlantic ones to Europe, I understand.

Bless his twin-radial heart. Ok then give me quantitative data to support that A-26 trip other then "he made it" and "he's safety conscious". Base jumpers diving into narrow canyons with gusty wind conditions give lip service to safety, preparation and good equipment but their actions convince me otherwise. Stupid is as stupid does.

It's a pity that so many Americans feel that it's not worth a risk (size to be debated) to promote, in Europe, America's wartime achievement with the P-38, as mentioned here several times by those same Americans.

Perhaps cost and priorities at home get in the way too, I don't know. Perhaps shipping the P-38 to Europe for an entire airshow season as opposed to just one show is an option?? A big commitment, but it would seem a logical thing to do to get the most out of going to all the trouble to get it there.

It's also interesting that the anti-ferry position sounds exactly the same as the FAA / CAA / CASA 'old aeroplanes crash sometimes, so let's not allow them.' How ironic. That position was beaten down by hard work in the USA, Britain and Australia by hard work by warbird enthusiasts - they didn't take the general opinion (shared by many pilots) that old aircraft are dangerous, they evaluated it, analysed it, and agreed what was and what was not reasonable risk - and they went out and proved it worthwhile.

I own and fly a Canadair T-33 maintained to a very high standard so obviously I'm betting my life that old airplanes can be safely flown with acceptable levels risk. We already lose too many friends and warbirds to accidents IMO, but at least when a malfunction occurs over land, the pilot and the warbird have a chance to survive and fly another day, unlike being over the ocean.

Anyone know if the REDBULL’s are planning to fly the old White Lightning P-38 over or Can it?

_________________
"Any excuse is good enough if you're willing to use it!"

OK troops...To fly or not to fly. That is the question.
This post started out, (if I can remember that far back) as a "Will it go or won't it go?" It gone from that to a "SHOULD it or SHOULDN'T it.
May I suggest this solution so some of us can stop getting our "knickers in a knot" about why it should or shouldn't? (The current discussion has put forward some quite valid points for both views but....)
Here's my suggestion:
Call the owner(s) and ASK THEM.
If no one wants to do it, give me the name of the people to talk to and I'll call 'em. What's the worst that could happen? They could tell me to pi$$ off and mind my own business. They can't KILL me. (Well, they COULD kill me but they can't eat me. That's against the law.)

Mudge the courageous

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

I have an old BT-13 friend, Blake Thomas (Randy Haskin may know him he flew F-15 out of Seymour Johnson AFB at the time) Before he got the BT-13 Blake was stationed TDY in Atlanta. He restored and flew a C45 named Southern Comfort to the U.K. He tells quite a story about the adventure over, with the freezing cold at one of the stops that froze the primers and the oil so much so that he had to rent a hanger just to thaw it out to get it started.

Steve

_________________
"Any excuse is good enough if you're willing to use it!"

Considering the circumstances that led to it having to be rebuilt in the first place, I certainly hope not.

Paul,

Thanks for the response, that's the kind of details I was hoping for; as we agree, I think, it can be frustrating for someone with expertise to be expected to quantify a view or decision by someone else; but then the worthwhile experts are those that are prepared to do that, as you've done. It's appreciated.


I forget now.



Very good point.



That's the kind of think I was thinking about. And I agree with your following point, re the Dr. assessment.


I'll take the ~um~ fifth (or is it a first? I forget - we don't have it) amendment on that. More seriously I can't because it was a discussion in confidence; and I don't want to breech that.


I absolutely agree. Too many aircrew who've made people's day with their flying have gone too early.


I guess that's one of the assumptions I think it broadly true but simplistic. There's a fair amount of 'over land' that's as lethal (and more so) than the ocean - I'm thinking mountains, deserts and forest. Certainly in general you are going to be loser to an airfield or a landing space over land than you are over the sea, but I can think of several accidents where the land gave the pilot no-chance. The tragic accident with the Hughes H-1 Racer replica a couple of years ago for instance. What I'm trying to say is that it's perhaps too easy to summarise water as dangerous and land as safer - it's not that wet or dry, perhaps.

I appreciate the other posts too.

Good post Dan. Warbirds at dawn? I choose Aden cannon, what're you gonna have?

And I equally respect your right to provide evidence for your view.


Yes, we can all appreciate that - it's the base data. As I said before, a P-38 (and a modern P-38 ) will have specific info. I'd like to know, genuinely -

P-38 props - non-feathering (I'm presuming) - big factor. Wacky idea - I presume feathering props can't be fitted? (Of course not, but if you don't ask...)

A modern P-38 - the fuel system, drop tanks, etc; how much can you control engine out performance, can you dump tanks and fuel, what's the equation for a single engine divert, speeds, range etc...

Warbird P-38. What's the modern weights and performance? Do you need dead weight up front to replace the guns, or can you get lighter?
Fair point Mudge. For the record I think it important to point out I'm only interested in a paper exercise. If someone wants to do something with their aircraft, or not, it's their call, and not up to me to pass some kind of judgement. Doesn't mean I'm not interested or that I don't have a good idea of what's likely.


How do you know I haven't. (OK, I haven't.) Why don't you?

Start here: www.provenancefightersales.com

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

All moot points as GG now lives in Gods country.

That's odd, as I heard it had gone to Texas.

They can all go to he11, i"m going to Texas. Davy Crockett

What did Gary just buy something else and put GG in his pond next to the PBY?

Tim

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

Ah, Texas..............where all great warbirds shall go.

AMEN!

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com