Warbird Information Exchange

Z you're mistaken.
We'll cool and always have been

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

I don't know that I've ever seen a T-28 that didn't have oil canning all down the fuselage. I flew in formation with a polished T-28 once and watched the oil cans switch directions as we bumped through some light turbulence.

Wrinkled skin and popped rivets are another story altogether, but I see no mention of that.

As to the motor mount, are you sure it wasn't just the rubber isolators between the engine case and the engine mount that were damaged?

I just went back and reread the owners written account. His last sentence is, "It was in one piece, none of which would ever fly again " So again I ask for that pesky old thing called truth. What are the facts? Did Hoover in one short flight render this whole plane, which had been "perfect, better than when it left the factory in 1962" (37years earlier) so wrecked that every part of it was finished for all time? Maybe the owner's version of the truth has just a wee bit of slant to it. One WIXer said the plane is registered and flying now.
And Zack or Zane, I'll try keeping you guys and all your alias straight. One was a nice guy who came out to Meecham for a visit, the other was a nice guy who served us great food at his house.
And where is Ed Owning anyway, it is probably his fault, most likely the wake turbulence left by some Skyraidersorus that Hoover hit ht and caused the problem.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Maybe this will help.

The airplane was definitely twisted up. I saw it myself. You could see as the airplane sat in the hangar how its stance was offset. Hoover's own statement in his book backs up the damage assessment. At the time, Tony thought it would never fly again.

Probability and proof between real-life and the legal system are two different things. The gentlemanly way of resolving this certainly would have been to split the cost of getting the airplane back in the air and avoid paying lawyers as they prove their worth.

Limits in airplanes are designed to provide a margin of error. An engine presumably would not explode at 11 seconds after being upside down in a T-28. But as we all know, engines that seem perfectly good can pull up lame at any time - sometimes at the worst possible moment and for completely unexpected reasons.

Certainly Hoover didn't try to break the airplane. But, he may have been pushing the airplane to it's limit. Once a test pilot, always a test pilot I suppose. Introspection would suggest that one would not push a unfamiliar 'N' number to it's limit. Old Yeller he knew and was familiar with and even though he was totally versed in the peculiarities of a T-28, NX171BA was a 'new' airplane to him. Hoover could not say that he had executed the same maneuvers in that very same airplane countless times before and therefore this failure was completely unexpected. I doubt that airplane had been put to that kind of a test in it's recently preceding history. Tony certainly liked to hot-dog around, as anybody that has seen or ridden with him in his Gnat would know, but not quite like Hoover would be used to doing. If this had happened on the NA factory line when the airplane was first manufactured and test flown, Hoover would have told them that it didn't pass inspection...obviously.

The T-28 story doesn't detract from his legend in my mind. But, I think Hoover should have stepped up to help get the airplane back in the air. I'm sure in his mind he truly felt as though he did nothing wrong. He didn't really, other than to push an unfamiliar 'N' number to it's limit which is just what you would expect of a 'test' pilot. Tony should have anticipated that I suppose and in retrospect require a 'guarantee' of some kind that Hoover would give him back the airplane in one piece.

Tony was generous with his airplanes to his friends as he stated in his story. He used to let my father borrow the T-28 from time to time; but then again, my father wouldn't push the airplane like Hoover would !!!

There's some moral here about good intentions....

BTW...since nobody has noticed, the airplane was on the line at the POF show at Chino this last weekend. It is the fourth down in this photo thread !!! After a lot of repair work and legal wrangling w/ a recalcitrant partner, it is once again airworthy.
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21920

F4, I could go on pointing out things that don't seem right such as $250k for a T-28 in 94, that was back at the airport sitting on its gear, with wings, tail, tires, canopies, instruments, avionics, etc. I checked Tradeaplane today, they are listed for as low as $119k to over $300k, you get extras thrown in for over $200k purchase. To me his claims are a bit exagerated. Even you admit the one about "no part flying again"is just plain false.
Nevertheless, I do wish Hoover and or the other parties would have paid part of the cost to repair the plane. It seems the party borrowing the plane, the one responsible for sending it up, may have been the friend the FBO guy. It is also possible, I think even likely, that Hoover's lawyer told him not to offer even a partial reimbursment as it would admit guilt and might leave Hoover open to larger claims, even exorbitant. ones.
The story in Hoover's book could fit what the owner says happened. One point I don't understand is Hoover said he got the plane from Bob Grant, he doesn't mention Anthony?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

If you ask me, it is the backseater's fault all together no matter what. He was the PIC hands down. THat ship and Hoover are his responsibility. Period.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Hyperbole is not just the realm of the politician.... That aside, the airplane was tweaked, feelings were hurt and It still cost a lot of money...even in '94. You're probably correct about the lawyer presumed advice.

What if that was you??? Would it be that easy to say that? Would you be able to stand up to the master and say no or stop.
IHMO the rearseater was chosen for for a specific reason. I'll let you speculate on thart. My question is did the GIB know what he was in for??Hoover testified in court that the sole purpose of the flight was for him to fly and demonstrate that he still had the magic. BTW before that flight he hadn't flown in almost a year. Might he have been a tad rusty on all those maneuvers

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Heck......... I would loan my pristine T-28 to either one of these guys, they're both super careful......... Oh wait a minute, on second thought......probably not to the guy on the left!!




Ted

and the guy on the right wasn't smiling afterwards either!!!!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

No......he definitely WAS NOT!


Ted

I don't see him being rusty as causing him to stay inverted longer than he should have. I've gone months without flying but I didn't forget how to finish a hesitation roll. I just finished watching videos of him in the T-28 and Saberliner, there's no point in the show where he is inverted that long.
Maybe they were goofing off or the GIB was wanting some acro tips or something. The video would put all this to rest.

Steve G

Talking behind someone's back about things that you were not at is frankly juvenile.

Bob Hoover has done more for aviation than the knockers here could even contemplate, let alone do...

He flew two of my friends T-28's here in Australia and was magnificent. I also owned a T-28D at the time..

Show some respect for older people as well and what did YOU do in the war???

_________________
..defeat is never an option!

Is the owner allowed to comment since he was not there. People have talked about events since the dawn of time.

We all contemplete very well

Which war? (see avatar to answer your Q)

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Oscar Duck said:

Talking behind someone's back about things that you were not at is frankly juvenile.

We're discussing a non fatal, non injury aircraft incident that has been argued about in a court of law. You mean you've never sat around the hangar and discussed an aviation accident and what the pilot did or could have done differently. Next to my Dad, Hoover's probably my biggest hero. There is no harm having this talk. I'm sure worse things were said in court.

Steve G