Warbird Information Exchange

This thread makes me wonder how many CAF pilots have had multiple accidents.
Is there some "Board of Review" to return to flight status after a incident?

There are and there is.

Poor Maintenance of Fifi? First of all, that monster requires big $$$. You could annual an L-bird for what it cost to clean the plugs on the B-29. I think if they had an extra few $million, most problems large or small would/could have been adressed. Now if only we didn't have to support those elaborate trips to Rio for staff........ I think everyone in CAF is aware we need to broaden our membership and try to find more funding. It's not easy. The hard fact May be that these days old warbirds just don't hold the public's interest as much as they once did. Steam trains once drew crowds, but now few would go all the way to Osh or Midland just to see them.
Some like reliable engines, might be difficult to solve even with money.
Lastly these planes may be old in years, but may not have that many flight hours on them. My Spitfire is 62 years old, but only has about 2600 hours. I never run the engine full throttle and I only use half the 9g limit. Some T-28, T-34 acquired five times that much in service, and airliners may have upwards of 50,000 hours. Flight school Cessnas may have
10,000.
Finally, Gary I wish you could/would speak freely on WIX, and hope the gen staff is seeking your input. Who knows more about this stuff? And don't take any critisism so personal, you weren't even there when some of this may have happened. If any scrutiny saves lives and planes, that is what really counts.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I'm going to takea pass at commenting on the CAF. I do have a business idea to put forward;

WHy doesn't someone build an FAA approved simulator to do flight training and acquire type ratings for some of these warbirds? I flew in a Citation last week on a flight where an instructor was giving some "actual" to a newly type rated Citation pilot that had done all of his work in a simulator. After gettings his type rating, he then has to fly X numbers of hours to have a restriction removed.
Keeping this limited to multi-engine types, it would be ideal for crew training, currency, and of course practicing every possible emergency scenario, some of which would be much too dangerous to practice in a real aircraft.
Aircraft types I would be interested in paying REAL MONEY to get a type in; B-25, HU-16, A-26, etc.

This particular topic has been pretty extensively covered by Bob Stenevik... he has been kind enough to offer a presentation to any wing interested. Based on his statistics, the majority of the accidents are considered pilot error. Maintenance had little contribution in the numbers.

_________________
Keep 'Em Flying

Bill...I think that I've historically spoken freely on WIX, but in my new position here, it's not always appropriate for me to discuss policy or policies that are being worked on or considered. That would only lead to rumor and false information. We just want to circulate the facts, not rumors.

marine air...we do have a program in place for you to spend REAL MONEY to get a type rating in the B-24 and B-29 (when it's up and flying again). We won't use simulators, but will use the actual aircraft in a controlled environment (ie., instructors, extensive ground school, etc.) Oh, and how much did that Citation simulator you flew in last week cost to build and operate? Would that be cheaper than maintaining and operating Warbirds? Just curious. My suspicion is that you could likely fund two or three FIFI re-engine projects and completely restore it for the price of one FAA approved simulator of a B-29.

B-25 MM Jim.....You're absolutely right. Safety Bob has done a fantastic job of doing accident research regarding the CAF. It's true that the vast majority of accidents were considered pilot error and that is certainly an area in which we are trying to make improvements. However, even though the maintenance related accidents have been very few (are you listening to this, Pilotgrl 24? ), we are still trying to improve that area as well so that they won't be a factor in the future either. Thank you for your input in this.

Gary

Marine Air does have a good idea, even if at this time not fully practical. Visiting with Rudy Frasca he mentioned that new sims cost generally a few $mil to develop. They do seem to do the job in some cases like IFR training. But flying a Spit is a little less by the numbers and more visual and hand eye coordination and feel.
There are now very sophisticated video programs that are reported to be very close to flying many planes including Spitfires, etc. I have been given one, but haven't gotten it set up yet. I can barely type on a computer, much less know all that gibberish.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

My former employer had interest in purchasing the ex-ERA Aviation Convair 580 sim and I believe eventually did purchase it, however most of the flying and training was done in the aircraft. Why? Because each aircraft is unique. You have to do differences training on each airframe as none are 100% exactly the same, so why spend time training them in the sim that costs almost 2/3 what the real thing does and still have to spend the same amount of time in the airframes anyway? In addition, he created a wooden cockpit with large paper diagrams of the panels for the purpose of doing the basic flows much like the procedures trainers that the big airlines use for less than $200.

I think for the larger, more complex aircraft, we need to have more training, but I think spending $200 on a basic procedures trainer would do as much good as a full-fledged, FAA certified simulator.

CAPFlyer,

Since you mentioned the procedure trainer concept, here are a few examples of such equipment from Fairmont Army Air Field. When 2AF was tasked with B-29 training in '44, there was virtually no equipment, including real Superforts, available to train with. The first two photos are of emergency procedures training mock-ups, but the third photo is a really nice flight engineer's panel crafted out of wood and what appear to be actual switches and instruments.

Forward flight deck trainer:


Engineer station looking aft (notice the communications tube! ):


Flight engineer procedure trainer from April of '45, when mock-ups were more elaborate and useful:


Scott

Good points Bill. The guys that got killed in the Marauder Sept 28, 1995 were the most experienced in the type in the world. Walt Wootten and Vernon Thorpe were some of the best in the business and the guy riding check on them Tom Cloyd was not exactly a slouch pilot either. These weren't pilots that would do something careless or stupid, Walt was great pilot and a friend of my late uncle, they worked on the PBY that went to Australia. This one hit close to home for me. And tragic as well for the two English enthusiasts riding in the back who deserve mention. Sad.


John

dup, delete