Warbird Information Exchange

As someone mentioned inverted doesn't necessarily mean negative G's. I've seen Hoover perform many times in the P-51, Shrike, F-86 and T-33, and have always been impressed by the obvious grace and smoothness of his flying. While his performances were impressive on reflection I've always remarked how tame his performance was compared to the currently popular high energy aerobatics, the G loading always looked low.

Recently I was ferrying a freshly restored biplane for the owner powered by a Kinner that had less than 100 hours since OH by one of the recognized Kinner shops when one cylinder blew and I landed in a field............the owner was riding along so there was no question about how it had been operated................my 9.5 hours in the aircraft were all straight and level cross country. Neither Antique nor Warbird engines come with warranties.

In the case of the Hoover T-28 incident there are many questions unanswered and wild speculation. I find it interesting that the owner seems to have loaned his aircraft to a number of pilots, that the insurance may have recently been cancelled, while I can understand the sentiment that you pay if you broke it prior operational history must be considered unless there is a smoking gun and given the fact that there was no jury award that seems doubtful.

Tom-

Gary, while I think it is a reasonable guess that Bob's acro MAY have been neg g and the cause of the prop gov failure thus the engine; it sure as heck is not the same as proveable FACT. To you, it is real clear that he "broke it". But the fact is, in court, needing only 51% burden of evidence, the owner could not prove this case to a jury, apparently not even in part. I've asked my son, a law student, to see if he can find the court case. I'd like to see if Hoover won just on not being PIC, or was it that the damage could not be assigned to him? If not to Bob, how about the other pilot or the FBO?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I see where you are coming from Bill, my point is that if you "Knowingly" damage anothers property...it is your moral obligation to right it. That's all. And, I believe that BH rung that T-28 o-u-t to the point that he knew he was stressing her to the limits.....and that is just so, so very wrong. Now, I could be wrong in my thinking, and if so, I will be the first in line to apoligize to the Great Mr. Hoover....But the "way" I read the information, the Owner of the -28 got screwed, and it took a court to torque in the screw.

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

Gary, what is the fact that you use or rely on that Hoover "KNOWINGLY DAMAGE" IT? Can you simply tell us that?
By the way, I just heard back from my law student Son, he could not find ANY court case against Hoover in California in the 90's. He said a lot of them don't make or stay in the records, if there is no appeal.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Did anyone ever mension the possiblity that the other guy was flying the ship not Hoover? And maybe Hoover intently took the blame?

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

I'd like to know what maneuver broke the '10 second' rule. The owner mentions 4, 8 and 16 point rolls. You can do 4 and 8 without even going negative. And theres no way in a 16 pointer you're inverted that long.
If they just flew along inverted I could see it, but the owner doesn't mention that.

Steve G

You missed my point. This forum is full of remarks about the greatest generation etc. I assume those comments refer to those that served in WW2. I simply said that we should show some respect to an older citizen, Bob H., who has done more than most in aviation and not to denegrate him 'behind his back' in a public arena that does not indentify the writer.

PS: When Mr H. flew my friend's T-28 a couple of times at an air show here he was a smooth as silk and performed a spectacular routine. Neither of the T-28's he flew here had 'engine failures' because of his operations during or after his flights. Also Australia was the only country for a time that gave him a medical and we're proud of that. I helped on that...

_________________
..defeat is never an option!

If I had a T-28, I'd be honored to let Hoover fly it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

That's what the guy said who let CY fly his T-6

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Bill, what I am saying is that the crew - especially the PIC in my opinion, is responsible for the damages to this mans aircraft, and if the PIC is not going to scribe a check soley to compensate the owner, then the crew at the flight controls needs to share in the cost of the repair....This is a moral issue...not a blame game. If the T-28 was a flight ready example, and was returned as a basket case...then the crew returning the plane is the responsible party(ies)...how frickini' hard is that. I know that if I had the reputation as a highly skilled and qualified aviator, that I would rather fall on a grenade and take the metal, than present a broken aircraft back to the owner. In my life time, I have had to borrow a car on few ocassions..and when I returned the car to its owner after it had been washed, with a FULL tank of gas. This is a moral issue...not a blame game.

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

Gary, here's where we differ. You seem to be certain that Hoover CAUSED the damage, no doubt about it. I was asking what fact makes you sure, is it just that he did 8 and 16 pt rolls? Remember he's probably done more rolls than we have eaten em. Or do you just take the owner's word as to what the video shows, the video that we haven't seen? So to me there is still some doubt as to the cause. It was likely some neg g from the rolls, it is even possible that because they were over the sea without a good horizon Bob might have held the nose up. It's just that a case based on Bob making a big error in his flying is a pretty hard sell to anybody who knows his career. Even those slimy little wimps who first started the FAA action against him could never find anything in the video of his show to point out a flaw; they had to make a vague and general claim that somthing might go wrong.

Here's where we agree: Whoever was as fault or of it was just a fluke, it seems to me the best thing to do would be if Bob offered to pay for part of the damage. We don't know much about this, Bob's lawyer may have advised against it as it could be taken as an admission of guilt, or the owner may have been so rigid and demanding so as to push partial payment away. We do have the statement of the owner of "no part of it flying again", which seems false so we have some clue that the owner may been unreasonable; we just don't know.

And if you and or Jack or anybody can see through the grey area with ABSOLUTE clarity, could you perhaps tell me what all stocks in the Dow will close the year at?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I agree that if Hoover's actions caused the damage he should be responsible. But what if there was a pre-existing condition that led to the failure. If so, the owner should be thankful the ship made it back, or there would have been a huge lawsuit against him. Just to much stuff we don't know. Love to see the court transcripts or the vid.

Steve G

Bob Hoover is the greatest pilot that ever lived, and he flies with great care and assurance, and whomever the PIC is,as long as he is flying with Bob, it's Great with me I'm seeing the forest though the trees.

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

Mechanical failure can be as a result of many things. Quite often the guy flying winds up wearing a previous flyer's 'handy work'.

Let's just stick to the known facts.

_________________
..defeat is never an option!

I'll throw in my $0.02

If I'm flying a friend's plane (at one time I had the keys to 2 Piper Warriors), which I've done, and I have a catastrophic engine failure (which I've not) and I put the airplane on the ground in one piece, I think I would have been seen as a hero and not a 'goat'....

If a friend was flying my Citabria (and one of them did, regularly) and he was doing Acro (which he did, occaisionaly) and he had a catastrophic engine failure (which he did not) and put the airplane on the ground in one piece (which he has done 3 trimes in his over 20,000 hrs that I know of) I would have been grateful, first that he was unhurt, and second, that I had an airplane to rebuild.