P-51 Mustang Crash at Camarillo Airport - July 2007

[mlenoch]

To follow the above:
Many years ago, Joe Frasca (of the Frasca family) was lost when his aerobatic monoplane disintegrated in mid air due to a prop blade break. He was at altitude, on the cross country home from a contest. He was sitting on his parachute, not strapped in.
VL

[51fixer]

Thanks Bill, that needed to be said. I wish more of the "Big" warbird folks would do what you did. It would certainly save a few lives. The same could be said of the seats (ensuring that they are well secured). Don Hinz was killed in the CAFs P-51C due to the seat breaking loose during the crash landing. Another thing to consider. When you fly an aircraft infrequently and have an emergency, your instinct is to fall back to the training you received in a more familiar aircraft. .

This is my 1st post here. My background is in Warbird maintanence and restorations since 76. I have worked for some great leaders of the wardbird industy the years I was at Chino. With that said I wish to express a couple of things;
1: The armor plate behind the seat of a P-51D was not meant to be a roll over structure. They fould the Mustang had a low incidence of flipping over in landing accidents. In a NAA Field Service Magazine Article written when the D was introduced mentions that the engineers felt the existing structure of the prop/engine and windshield along with vertical provided enough protection. The armor plate would help, but was not designed to carry a roll over load. One can only imagine wwhat would happen in soft soils with the thin amount of surface area of the armor plate.
2: In this accident I have heard that the engine or parts from the FWF went through the forward fuselage and cockpit area. In viewing the photos that are available I would agree with that. A roll over structure would not have helped.
The P-51B and C seat arrangement has the bottom of the seat rails sitting in 2 holes in thick formed pieces of alum which is attaced to the top of the wing. I take care a flyable C which is very stock and that is how ours is. The upper seat is supported by a great deal of structure which also supports the armor plate. In fact a roll over structure. The Red Tail P-51C did not have this as it was equipped with a rear seat. The original seat support structure was not installed as this would make it impossible to access the rear seat. I belive that was also a factor in the severe injuries that lead to Don Hinz's death.
Most warbirds that had roll over protcetion still retain it unless they have been modified for a jump seat. Due to a lack of space the roll over structure could not be retained in most of those situations.
Rich

[Lynn Allen]

I remember one of my rides in the P-51 here. Jim went to 12,000' and set her up in landing configuration. On the imaginary short final he went quickly to take-off power and the 51 just rolled over and tucked it's nose down even with full opposite rudder. A great display of the raw power of the machine It's very sobering imaging that happening to someone

It would be like a single engine Vmc demo in a Barron, you better be quick or you'll be along to the ride. It rolls right over on its back

Lynn

Last edited by Lynn Allen on Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[skydaddy61]

If the engine quits just after takeoff, you land straight ahead - maybe 30 degrees left or right - regardless of what you're flying. Airspeed isn't a factor. It's just a matter of choosing what to hit, and how to hit it.

However, it is certainly true that frequency and recency are very powerful. (As a trainer and educator, I deal with them a lot.) But not being either a commerical or warbird pilot, I'd be interested in hearing from "them what are" how they get their heads into the airplane they're flying now as opposed to the cockpit they have the most recent time in.

Maybe we need to start a different thread?

[Dave Fish]

I offer the below opinions (not mine, as I am no expert) I received from some members of the AWON website I earlier posted in reference to the loss of the pilot of LOU IV. I will leave it up to you experts to agree or disagree with their statements. (Remember, be kind, regardless if you agree or disagree...they may not see it, but we at WIX will.)

Dave


**********

That's the trouble was the P-51. It is a VERY powerful plane. When
taking off you have to dial in right rudder trim, or it's hard to keep it
going straight. So many of these plane have been lost because when
coming in with reduced power, the rudder trim is centered. If power
is applied quickly the plane can quickly veer left then drop.

**********

Joe, that incident does indeed appear to be a torque roll. The pilot
was in the process of being checked out in the airplane, and was
making his first solo flight in it. The first landing came off
OK, but on the second he was a bit hot. He made a wheel landing
(main wheels only), tried to bring the tail down too soon, and the
airplane lifted off at what was by then a low airspeed. With most of
the runway used up, he applied power to go around and just jammed it
on too fast. The Mustang delivers 2000 horsepower into a 400-pound
prop, and when you apply that power too fast it simply rolls over.

**********

I was (am) a private pilot. I haven't flown in about 30 years. All light
planes (Cessna 150 & 172 Skyhawk). I actually was approved for pilot
training in the USAF, but decided to be a doc instead!

When you're in the "pilot world" you learn all these things. The problem
here is not just the torque with that powerful motor and heavy prop (is the
plane turning the prop or vice versa?). You also have the "p force" the
downgoing blade (on the right as it rotates clockwise as seen from the
cockpit) pulls more than the upgoing blade, especially in a nose up
attitude. Hence, the plane wants to turn to the left. You compensate by
giving right rudder. But with that strong engine you needed rudder trim to
help. The "p force" problem is made worse in twin engines, if you lose the
left engine on takeoff, not only do you have the lever of the engine out on
the right wing, but you have the p force as well. That's why in tests they
cut the left engine. If you lost the right engine,
the p force actually helped; left engine trying to turn left, p force trying to turn right.
That's also why some twins started having "counter rotating props", where
the right engine rotated counter clockwise.

I can't believe I remember that stuff!!!!

[Dave Fish]

If the engine quits just after takeoff, you land straight ahead - maybe 30 degrees left or right - regardless of what you're flying. Airspeed isn't a factor. It's just a matter of choosing what to hit, and how to hit it.

However, it is certainly true that frequency and recency are very powerful. (As a trainer and educator, I deal with them a lot.) But not being either a commerical or warbird pilot, I'd be interested in hearing from "them what are" how they get their heads into the airplane they're flying now as opposed to the cockpit they have the most recent time in.

Maybe we need to start a different thread?

I'm not a pilot nor a caveman, but "WHAT?"

[bdk]

Thanks Bill, that needed to be said. I wish more of the "Big" warbird folks would do what you did. It would certainly save a few lives. The same could be said of the seats (ensuring that they are well secured). Don Hinz was killed in the CAFs P-51C due to the seat breaking loose during the crash landing.

Let's not get overly judgemental here! We are talking 60+ year old planes here that exhibited TERRIBLE crashworthiness when new (by modern standards). Do you think they ever did a crash test on a Mustang to verify pilot protection? How about any aircraft of the era? OBS knobs, sharp corners on everything, pedestal lights, fuel tanks in the cockpit without a firewall, lack of crush zones, boiling hot liquids in the cockpit, inadequate head to canopy clearance, lack of hardhat helmets, not to mention dangerous handling characteristics.

I guess factory original gives you some kind of known entity, but how do you know that a modification from that makes things better or worse? You might make one aspect better but another worse.

A friend of mine did a crashworthiness analysis of my T-6 for an aircraft design class he took a few years back. I read it once and refused to ever look at it again. Very sobering when you consider how much better it could have been designed now. No wonder the manufacturers do what they can to prevent these old aircraft from flying.

There is a fine line between having a seat too rigid causing neck injuries and too flexible causing the seat to detatch. The car manufacturers spend millions on each model of car to optimize these things.

[Bill Greenwood]

As for a P-51 being hard to fly or land or go around from too much power, in my opinion that is WAY overstated. Now I am no Mustang expert, but have enough flight time and landings to give an informed guess. You don't need 61 inches or even 55 for a go around if it is begun early enough and you use a smooth power application. I can't recall the power settting fo a go around, but I used 50 inches for a touch and go in Crazy Horse, on a 5000 ft runway. If you come up smoothl;y on the power at some point, I guess about 40, you have enough power to feel it support the plane, a little more and you fly. You don't go right away to 55 or 61 inces. It depends on airspeed also, at 50 mph, 55 inches might be too much, at 80mph, it would be fine. the manual calls for about 5 ? degrees right rudder trim on takeoff, and with that you just need normal right pressure. Remember these planes are at civilan weights. The metal prop does seem to accelerate slower thatn the wood blades on the Spit, and have more P factor. If you try to force the tail up quickly the nose tries to swing left. In a late go around with full flaps there is not much acceleration even at 50 inches until one raises the gear and flaps. The Mustang flaps are big and very effective. It seems to sit there and make noise, but if you are patient, don't pull the nose up too quickly you can get gear and flaps up and begin to aceelerate. It is by no means uncontrollable. Doing it from a bounced landing at a speed below say 70 mph probably would require more care.

[JohnH]

Thanks Bill and Vlado. I had questions in my mind about torque, applying the rudder pedal and power and you have both answered them. I wasn't sure if I should post the question, didn't want to do something inappropriate.

John

[RMAllnutt]

It may not be the differece in a crash, but I feel better knowing we have done what we can for passenger protection.

I was talking to Rob Holland at Geneseo about his wearing a parachute. I pointed out that odds are an incident with his little stunt plane would be too fast and low for a parachute. He replied that he would hate to have the opportunity to use it and not have it with him.

So I guess its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I seem to recall that Sean Tucker had to bail out from his aircraft last year due to some sort of failure. I think it pays to wear a chute if you can... you never know what situation you'll be in, and it would really stink to have the opportunity to use it, and have neglected to wear it!

Cheers,
Richard

[John Beyl]

Good conversation but I would like to add a couple points of clarity about Don Hinz and the Red Tail C model crash. While it is true that the rollover structure was removed from the airplane and the seat was not mounted with the original NAA fittings, in this instance even if it would have been, it would have made no difference in the outcome of the crash. I’m not going to get into the details, just understand that it would not have made any difference if the seat was still firmly affixed to the fuselage and the rollover structure would have been in place.

Any Mustang with a jump seat in it will have a similar set up as the one we had in that airplane. It’s not a matter of a substandard design, it’s a matter of necessity to have access to the jump seat. After the crash we took a long hard look at what parts failed, how and why they failed. We had a very frank and honest discussion over risks and benefits of including a second seat in the rebuilt airplane. In the end part of our mission with this project is to inspire people without life goals or those who feel they cannot accomplish what they truly want out of life. There are d@mn few things in life more inspirational than a ride in the jump seat of a P-51! In light of that we opted to put the jump seat back in it but it will be an improved version that should be less prone to failure on impact with the terrain (Obviously there are limitations) god forbidding that should ever happen again. Having a jump seat and the original solid mounted rollover structure in a Mustang is not an option since it effectively closes the opening needed for ingress and egress to the rear seat. It’s a conscious decision to build an airplane that way and it’s a conscious decision to pilot and fly in one built that way. Frankly there are other things that scare me about warbirds far more than that.

On that note I would like to ask each of you drivers out there (does not matter the type of aircraft) consider very seriously the bucket you put on your head when you strap in. In most cases they are probably the finest Kevlar designs available but I’ll buy you a Coke at Oshkosh that it has some cheesy thumb snap on the chin strap. I’ve never understood this about aviation headgear. You won’t even find a snap on a pair of high quality jeans ‘cause they don’t always stay together under load. This is probably the only time we can ever say, “Look to the auto racing community to find the safest answer.” A double “D” ring on the chin strap is the most reliable and safest way to hold that bucket on your head. It’s only coming off when you (Or your rescuer) released the lock of the “D” rings with a finger and not before. I’ve notice recently that some of the aerobatic guys are starting to where the high end, light weight Simpsons and Bells when they fly. You have to ask yourself why…

Thanks to Vlado for adding to the discussion on the dreaded bounced landing. Preface: I’m not a pilot but have several friends who fly Mustangs and I usually debrief missions and occurrences on a regular basis with them. I’ve watched severely bounced landings happen on three separate accounts where if it would not have been immediately controlled with a measured response buy the pilot, it would have resulted in a fur ball. In each of these individual occurrences, after the first bounce no further attempt to stick the landing was made. Power up, nose level, fly out, go around, clean your shorts, settle your gut and try again! Most often trying to stick a landing that’s going south on ya is only going to result in another bounce oscillation but this time it’s going to be bigger and more severe. The result of which may end up in the pilot finally getting the airplane on the ground because enough forward speed and lift over the wing has been scrubbed off, it’s real tough on the airframe and you stand a very real chance of damaging the structure (On the Mustang most often it will be empennage just behind the aft duct).

Sorry for the long post. Fly safe and I hope to see you at Oshkosh and Columbus.

John
CC CAF P-51C

[Ollie]

John, are you referring to the same attachments as on SPH-5 helmets?

I have the thumb snap thingie on me HGU-55.

[Shay]

‘Warbird’ crash kills valley pilot on solo flight

Did P-51 roll because of too much power?

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005116115


Seems he was an accomplished pilot.


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[John Beyl]

John, are you referring to the same attachments as on SPH-5 helmets?

I have the thumb snap thingie on me HGU-55.

Ollie,

I'm unfamiliar with those helmets so I have no idea what they are using on their straps. The difference between a snap and a double D ring can't be confused.

John

I was re-reading the latest Warbird Digest. Was this the same John McKittrick that Sanders Aircraft is restoring the Sea Fury for ??

Steve