Warbird Information Exchange

The shot of the Mustang with the left wing low looks like it is probably a photo pass, not a hard G turn. His wingtip seems to have adequate clearance to the ground, even if not a lot extra. His fuselage is slightly nose up so he is probably not descending. I think the telephoto lens compresses the scene and makes it look closer. The one thing that does look a little dangerous is that the tower sticking up a ways in the background is underneath and in his blind spot.
The straight low pass is pretty low, but it is not uncommon. I would not go quite that low if it was a bumpy day,or there was a lot of prop wash from other planes. If the air is smooth, then the plane feels pretty stable on a low pass. With excess speed, even a little back pressure makes it climb. It could work the other way also. I try to have a little nose up trim near the ground so if you relax it climbs.
As for formation, there are a lot of pilots who just aren't that interested in doing it. It takes a lot of concentration, it is tiring and some feel it is dangerous. I don't think the stats show many accidents, but the potential is there. Frankly, just flying wing, straight and level in calm air with a smooth leader is not at all hard. It is if you add turn and climbs, and real hard if it is bumpy. My off the cuff guess is that about 1/3 of warbird pilot have formation cards, maybe more. Even less have acro cards.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

This all seems kind of blown out of proportion to me.

Snort's Mustang passes were high-energy, low G maneuvers in a high wing loading airplane, which will be quite resistant to gusts etc. A mechanical failure is only going to be redressed by converting airspeed into altitude, and at 300 mph+, I'm doubt an extra 100 ft will make much difference in the pull up to a deadstick landing while directly over the airfield.

The following were cited as "experts who crashed while maneuvering low" (my paraphrase):

Excepting Jim Leroy (who ostensibly suffered a loss of orientation due to smoke obscuring his vision), ALL of the above were low energy stall/spin maneuvers that were uncontrolled well before nearing the ground: Mark Hanna - stall/spin on a low-speed, high-G turn on approach, Wayne Handley - engine/prop failure during a beta descent below stall speed, Nancy Lynn - failure to recover from a flat spin.

We're not comparing apples to apples. From a pure safety standpoint, I'd rather be in the back of that Mustang doing those passes, than any of the maneuvers listed above.

Franlkin and Younkin also got bit by the great ughknown. They were both the type of pilots I strive to be, but something happened and despite their skills, planning and talent, they are no longer with us. I do not want to toast another fallen warbird pilot on his/her flight West.

I'd argue there were at least 2G on that turn as the wings appear to be around 45 degrees.

Again I respect Snort's skills, and would love to have him teach me a thing or two, but we all need to fly with an extra margin of safety these days, or we will all need formation cards, checkrides, and a letter from God to be allowed to fly at airshows. ( just to may the FAA happy, even more to make the insurance underwriter happy). If that happens, you can kiss the airshow as we know it good bye.

The bottom line, have fun, fly safe no matter who you are.

If you guys are getting your panties in a wad over this pass, what would you guys say to those of us jet dudes who fly at 400+ at 100 feet tactically?

Just thank you

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Truer words have not been spoken......................................things seem a bit surreal at WIX lately...............................we have two threads about Hoover and a T-28 written by experts who I doubt have read the FAA/NTSB reports or the court transcripts BUT are experts all..................and one hammering Snodgrass for a low pass while another hammers a pilot who wrote a letter about an aerobatic display that resulted in an accident............................this after the endless discussion that resulted from the Spitfire/Hurricane accident that confused staggered, sequenced, and formation landings to the point of incomprehensibility.

Tom-

I'd say pay me back my tax money you just turned into twisted scrap metal.

And flying that low at that speed has nothing to do with defending my freedom. And now that you have my attention, I'd bet some of my additional tax money that 99.9% of all current military pilots DON'T have "defending my freedom" in mind when they chose to fly for the military. I would venture to think that .... a chance to fly very modern, high tech, high performance military aircraft for relatively free was the first thought in mind for most of you "jet dudes" before any thought of why you are actually flying those jets in the first place to defend my freedom. ..... Now, before you get your panties in a wad, no one's bashing your patriotic good intentions. but I'm sure you have several of your "jet dudes" who could care less about why and who they are actually "privileged" to fly for. .... your taxpayers

BTW .... I for one wear no panties, (as far as you all know ... lolol) so they couldn't possibly get wadded up, and I for one could care less if "snort" wants to meet Jesus sooner than he would have liked. Nothing against the man personally, It's his decision to meet his maker sooner than he may would like. It's not about the man, it's about the decision. The lower you fly, the lower you think you can fly. I'm a pilot too, maybe not a "jet dude" but one never the less, I know when "low" is "too low"



... And for those who seem to forget ....

This is an open forum, what would or could you possibly expect? .... I have finally learned the hard way that if you have the balls to type a post on ANY forum about anything, you better be able to take the good with the bad .... again, if you don't like what your reading ..... Stop reading and go pet puppies.

AS my platoonSgt told us "Thats what Uncle pays us the big bucks for"
Norm

"And flying that low at that speed has nothing to do with defending my freedom."


Another expert speaks.......................

Far from it friend .... but I'm learning a lot from you.

BTW just so I don't get too many dudes panties wadded up too high, why would any current military aviators need to fly at 100 feet 'tactically?" ... And NO I'm not bashing Randy H or anyone here. I just wonder why with all our superior military equipment that you would find a need to fly that low? ... What possible mission would require 100 feet off the ground? ... Please educate me, maybe I'm just a simple, small civil VFR pilot. .. and I have a few friends who happen to be either current or X-military pilots and I have never heard them ever state they flew any mission 100 feet off the ground. So again, what possible mission would feel the need to fly that low at 400 mph other than landing or taking off?

I believe that the pass was no more dangerous or risky than any of our modern jet teams flying in such close proximity in very complex maneuvers. They TRAIN to accomplish something that looks impressive for the show crowd and as a result, the performance thrills with the highest level of safety possible.

It is an airSHOW afterall.

If this was a video of my 200 hour TT neighbor putting his Piper Arrow through it's paces, then I would be extremely worried. In this case it is Dale Snodgrass... a high time military and civilian warbird pilot who has more experience flying airshows in such maneuvers than many of us have driving to work.

It is his experience that makes me feel that this maneuver was fine in the controlled show environment he was in at the time. If there was ever any doubt of it, then the FAA and the show boss would have nabbed him for it... and as far as I know, they didn't.

If you have an issue with this type of flying with this type of pilot, then you can't complain when airshows dry up completely. Because folks, if the percieved thrill to some acts goes away, then so does the attention of the crowd.

Sports and spectator activities all have a percieved risk... NASCAR, horse racing, football, whatever. Sure in some cases the likelihood of the crowd being injured is pretty nil, but the players certainly are at risk. It's the trade-off. If you go to a hockey game and complain because there is a CHANCE you may get hit with a puck, then you might as well stay home. There are no guarantees here folks.

In the case of the airshows... if you take away the inverted ribbon cut, the low passes, the tight formations, the controlled chaos of Tora Tora, or the pyro... then what do you have? Planes flying around in circles.

Though that may be fine for us warbird nuts, I can tell you that ma and pa public couldn't care less. And ma and pa public are the people that are 80% of the revenue at many of these shows (if not more) and if they don't go, then you can kiss your flying warbirds goodbye.

You forget that shows like these are revenue vehicles that make owning a high performance warbird just that much easier. While I am sure the owners here can safely say that the appearance fees they get don't cover much of the cost... at least it's something. And at least they put more time on the plane which softens the cost of the fixed costs like insurance.

Airshows are also a revenue vehicle for many museums... POF, 1941 HAG, CAF Midland, Valiant Air Command are just a few I can think of. If attendance drops there... who makes up the difference?

By running over and over about how safe or unsafe what you see in the picture is, we are only making an argument for the CNN reporter that Googles "airshow" the next time something happens, sees this, and gives them more tinder to throw on the fire. What I see is an accomplished airshow pilot performing within his envelope of experience and aircraft performance.

I will say, that is based on the photo and the video alone. I wasn't there and am in no way an expert.

I do know that with everything, there is a repercussion... let's all think of that as we post here. Yeah, it's freedom of speech... but remember how the internet is a great storage space our "opinions" and they can come back to haunt us when we are older, bolder, and wise.

_________________
Ryan Keough
Stow, MA

Snort does what he does, and I say God Bless him. We'll all leave this life sometime, and I'm sure that Snort understands that, wishes to put it off as long as possible like most of us, and would never want to hurt anyone else doing what he loves. His performance in the P-51 at Willow Run about 4 years ago was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen, and I've been to hundreds of airshows (over 180 days of my life at Oshkosh alone).


Rich

_________________
Rich Kolasa
www.crystalgraphix.com

I'd also say thanks.

I'd also say Snort was not flying that F-14 "tactically" by the carrier in the pic.

What would you say if he went in YOUR P-51?

I'm already older, bolder and wise, but I'll tell you this, if you look at airshows as revenue for museums and the like. All it takes is one great experienced pilot to end up in a ball of flame in front of several groups of families to end any revenue that any airshow or museum will ever acquire. And I never worry about what I post on the internet, because I back up every word I post. I'm no bullsh*tter and not afraid to state my opinion. Again and again I'll state, this is an open forum, as long as you stay true to how you feel ... without personal attacks and insults .... then stand up and take it or give it and stop your wining ... Again I learned this several months ago when I had what was called by many of you old timers as "thin skin syndrome" ... not anymore, so you thin skin dudes .... learn the hard way like I did and stop visiting the puppy and butterfly websites and take what you dish out ....

I used to play professional Hockey for many years .... bad analogy to use. Don't get me started on the Hockey world. ... hahaha