Warbird Information Exchange

Unfortunately, in the US we don't have a class of "super citizens" that combat veterans are a part of.

All citizens have the same rights and responsibilities equally, and military service or combat experience does not add to those rights and responsibilities.

One doesn't have to be a combat veteran in order to discuss or question the actions of those who are/were.

Randy, sir... you are hereby awarded three Internets for the quality and content of your post.

Randy, for an officer I've come to like you an awful lot! But then, AF officers aren't Army officers, eh?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Randy,
That is was one of the most profound statements I've ever read!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

I personally have admired Mr Hoover for decades. That being said and out of the way, I believe that the PIC has already been mentioned before, and we all know that being the PIC is not w/out responsibility(ies). From What I have read, I have determined, that no matter what the Great Mr. Hoover has, or has not done "for aviation" or in combat, did not, and does not, entitle him to wring out the airframe owned by another...it is blatant disrespect to abuse the property of another, and given Mr. Hoover's "experiance", he should have pulled back on the throttles and just went flying, instead of damaging this mans aircraft. The PIC also is responsible for the actions of the crew, being that of Mr. Hoover. Both the PIC and Mr. Hoover, in my honest opinion, should have paid for all the damages to the aircraft. I would never dream in a million years to shunn responsibility for my actions if it resulted in the damage to your aircraft, crew, or family. The Aviation commumity is a tight community, the elite. Egos' should be checked in at Flight Operations. What is right...is right. What is Wrong...is Dangerous.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

This is all just too eerily similar to the Bob Love discussion from last summer.

Being a decorated combat vet does not make one infallible.

Gary,remember Hoover won the court case, no finding at all against him. We don't have details of that, it may have hinged on him legally not being PIC. I may see if I can get info on the case. I don't think Bob hurt the airframe through too much stress, he was too smooth and too good to need to do that. A year layoff would not hurt that much, he could be a year deceased and be better than most. He does write in his book that he did both 8 point and 16 point rolls, and the prop/engine trouble occurred right after that. So it can reasonably be guesstimated that Bob might have gone too long at neg g.; there is no absolute proof. We can't be sure about the video, never having seen it. His book was two years after the incident.
In the end like you, I think Bob and/or the FBO and PIC should have made some offer to split the cost. Even now would not be too late. We don't know what negotiations transpired, if any. Maybe the owner demanded $250K, all or none, we just don't have that info. Bob may have been low on money at that time after his battle with the FAA. We only have the owner's story on this deal.
As for respect I put that on a separate topic by mistake.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Interesting, even though I tend to agree, I wonder if CY agrees with you? .... haha, here we go!!! ... good luck!

Over the years I have met Yeager, Boyington, Gay and Hoover ... and if 30 seconds could expose the true person and what they mean or do not mean to me personally, well, then I'm not impressed with kills or speed records. My dad didn't shoot anything down during the war or break a speed record, but he sure showed me what a hero was.

Second hand info to add.
Shortly after the incident the backseat pilot was doing an annual on a friends T-28 and he related some info which I will try to relate as best I can from my memory.
First he was incredibly impressed with Mr. Hoover's flying ability to the point where he told me that he did not feel that they would make the runway after the failure and he was sure that Mr. Hoover was the reason that they made it at all. He said that at the first sign of a problem the airplane was headed for the airport and Mr. Hoover was on top of the situation in a split second.

I am not sure of his flight time in the T-28 but I know he was a very experienced mechanic with a substantial amount of experience on the T-28. I am sure he had a lot of not logged time in the back seat since he had been around T-28's for a long time.

I have always found that mechanics typically are better pilots and catch on quicker and I feel this is due to being more one with the machine since they understand it so much more then the typical pilot.

This mechanic/pilot worked for Bob Grant and I truly believe he operated one of the best restoration shops ever in existence. So he was picked by Mr. Grant accepted by Mr. Hoover and someone who OK'd the flight, so at least a few hurdles had to be jumped for the flight where thoughts of what could happen might have cropped up.

Please don't forget that before this could happen the first call would be to an insurance company to get the pilot's approved. Since Mr, Hoover could not be approved the guy in back would have to fill out a form or at the least call the insurance company with his flight experience.

One would think that if this call was made that the insurance company would make mention of the status of the insurance policy.

As an owner I actually have been through this process several times and since I do not have hull insurance I make sure that anyone flying my aircraft are listed on the policy and this can only be done with contact of the three parties involved.

It just takes one ding to a G-5 while taxiing to bring liability costs over a million dollars.

Mike,
Just going by the pilots article..........

The owner stated that the aircraft was in perfect condition.
It had been completely restored two years earlier and had just
received a new engine and prop with less than 60 hours. The T28
was in the best condition it had been since leaving the factory
in 1962
If that a/c came out of Bob Grant's shop the $250,000 value Bill disputes is likely correct.
A few years later they did Bob Watt's T-28B for $1,000,000! The a/c was perfect!
In this episode, IMHO ,there's blame enough to go around and the cost to repair should have
been split between the FBO operator, the PIC and Mr. Hoover. I find it very sad that no one
did the right thing and stepped up to the plate instead they walked away and leaving the
owner holding the bag. I was alway taught that if you borrow something you better return it
in better in better shape than you got it.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

How on earth coud that have happened? Did the USAAF not use the Operational Training Unit system that the RAF and Allies used? Or did this guy simply fall through the cracks of the system somehow?

As for the rest of this thread I think it's rather bizarre. Whenever there's a non-fatal warbird accident like this the three predominant statements most repeated on forums always seem to be:

"Thank goodness no-one was hurt:
"Aircraft are replaceable, people aren't."
and
"Let's wait for the investigation findings."

As no-one was hurt thanks to the great skill of the pilot, and there are plenty of T-28's around to replace the aircraft with, and the investigation is long done and dusted and the findings are out, why keep debating it?

I don't know the circumstances of the incident and am not really that interested, but I kept reading because it intrigued me as to how many of the statements here are based purely on supposition, rumour and in some cases seemingly an attempt to besmirch reputations. If everyone is so interested why not go to the investigation findings reports, rather than offer opinionated theories?

And as to the financial and relationaship matters between the owner and the pilot in question, surely that is their own business and not open to discussion on a public forum?

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz

What's the point of all this! Here's what I get: Jack, you don't like Bob Hoover and Bill, call Bob and ask him to send a check.
David

A lot of the above is where you're slightly off base, this IS why we have an "open forum" ... this thread IS the very definition of the term "open forum" ... if your not interested, then simply don't read, contribute or debate. What we have here is an interesting thread that is open to supposition, rumour, speculation, theory and facts. You give and take away what you wish. I read many sides to this debate and I take what I care to take. The rest I simply don't pay much attention to. If you follow the thread and read long enough, the truth will appear, it always does. This forum is very fortunate to have contributors that are extremely well informed and educated in the warbird community. I believe many here have a right to debate theory and facts about any topic related to the warbird community as long as they show a mature level of respect and sensitivity. But you'll always read posts that you'll not agree with or personally feel are inappropriate .... that's the definition of an "open forum" .... IMHO

Actually no David you're wrong. The roll in the Shrike with the glass of water was just about the coolest thing I've ever seen. Has a kid he was a real hero and I saw him fly that P-51 and was "wowed" and I built more that one of the Revell 1/32 scale models of his Spit V. But the two things that lowered him down a notch in my eyes was walking away from that T-28 and accusing 2 fellow pilots of cowardice and leaving him to be shot down. Why did he have to say that? Why couldn't he just say that the FW pilot out flew and out shot him instead of leveling accusations at 2 good men who wern't around anymore to defend themselves? Now that's what really knaws at me!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

All I was saying is that ya borrowed the T-28, ya flew it, ya bent tit and broke it...each had a split in the cost of repair, yet two walked away from it, court no court it doesn't matter. If yer a Man, walk the walk, and talk the Talk. Character is what men are made of...be honest for cryin out loud. Ya did it....Own it.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.