dors wrote:
At every airshow I have been too I have seen flying that is much more dangerous than Dale in a mustang or sabre. Just about any aerobatic acts (Sean Tucker, Patty Wagstaff, Skip Stewart etc.. ) pushes the envelope pretty far. I have never heard cries of outrage for their safety. Makes you wonder how much weight the "warbird" really carries in some of these arguments.
You are absolutely right and I think some of these aerobatic acts press the envelope too much. I have not mentioned that because this thread is directly related about warbirds specifically flying too low. I do think there are many aerobatic acts out there that press the limits too much. There are two performers who always made me nervous when I watched them fly. One was when Jimmy Franklin used to fly upside down in his Waco and cut a ribbon suspended between 2 Coke bottles with his rudder. That was just insane! The other was when Delmar Benjamin used to fly his GeeBee replica extremely aggressively, including inverted flight at very low altitudes.
So yes, there are some acts out there that press too hard, but there are some important distinctions between them and warbirds:
1) Most aerobatic performers as mentioned above (Tucker, Wagstaff, Stewart, etc.) are former aerobatic champions. They have flown, and perfected their craft for many, many years up high, prior to doing them low. They know their airplanes inside and out and know how they will react. Because they are former aerobatic champions, they tend to fly very, very precisely and in coordinated flight. Unless you are Kermit Weeks, the vast majority of warbird pilots do not have this background of precision flying. There is no doubt about it, having that kind of background and experience will definitely give you an edge over other pilots. In general terms, this means an aerobatic pilot will be able to operate more safely closer to the ground than the average non-aerobatic trained pilot.
2) Most aerobatic performers perform in airplanes that are much slower than most warbirds and have much tighter turn radii. An airplane with a tighter turn radius needs much less altitude to complete vertical maneuvers. This translates into a lower buffer zone to operate at low altitudes. For example, what is the loop radius of a Pitts or Extra compared to a P-51 or F-86? The difference is HUGE. This means that you can operate a small, lightweight, nimble aerobatic airplane at much lower altitudes safely than a typical warbird. For those of you that aren't familiar with aerodynamics, the turn radius of an aircraft is directly related to the airspeed at which it is traveling. In other words, the faster you go, the bigger your turn radius is. So, that means a P-51 doing a high speed simulated strafe run on an airfield will ALWAYS take more vertical height in completing than a Laser or Pitts doing the same maneuver. So, translated, that means, the faster the airplane, the less margin for safety when maneuvering in the vertical plane. Because of the difference in speed between your typical aerobatic performer and your typical warbird, the "buffer altitude" is accordingly different. You can't simply compare just the height of the airplane above the earth. Speed and type of airplane are needed for the comparison also. Would we all not agree that a J-3 screaming along at 10 feet above the runway at redline would be a lot different than a P-51 screaming along at 10 feet above the runway at redline?
3) If an aerobatic pilot crashes versus a warbird, the general public will react differently. As cold and impersonal as it sounds, the general non-informed, non-pilot public will think that is just par for the course for an aerobatic crash. They know that aerobatic accidents sometimes happen and the pilots knew what they were doing when they got into it. In other words, it's an accepted risk, that unfortunately, sometimes happens. If a warbird crashes from a low level display, the first thing the general public asks is "why". They ask why was the "old" 60+ year old warbird operated like that? Why was it put at risk during the display with such discretionary aggressive flying? Aerobatics are part of the "act" of an airshow performer, while NOT a part of the "act" for most warbird displays. Because of this huge distinction, the public outcry and outrage will be VASTLY different between a crash of a warbird that is "shining it's ass" vs. an aerobatic act that is supposed to "shine it's ass". That public outcry and outrage will manifest itself differently when the FAA gets pressure put on it by either the general public or congress.
4) Aerobatic airplanes and warbirds are built differently. Most aerobatic airplanes have much better visibility out of the cockpit than most typical warbirds. Aerobatic airplanes were built with good vis in mind, so the pilot can make good use of ground references and seeing outside. Being able to look outside and know exactly where you are at in relation to the ground is obviously a huge advantage compared to a warbird, where an obstructed forward view, canopy cross bracing, a low wing that obscures forward vis and other design flaws might obscure one's view of the ground. If you know exactly where you are at and how high above the ground you are, then obviously you don't need as much of a "buffer zone" to fly low. Also, most aerobatic airplanes have symmetrical airfoils, and most warbirds do not. This means that an aerobatic airplane will be able to fly inverted close to the ground without a negative angle of attack. A warbird will have to have a negative angle of attack, just to maintain level flight. Because of the differences in airfoils, the typical aerobatic pilot will be able to fly with relative ease whether rightside up or upside down, close to the earth. This again, provides more margin for safety than your typical warbird.
Your assumption that a faster a/c uses more room is true, but its all in scale. A Cub looping from ground level is trying to recover at ground level. Same is true for an F-15.
Your assumption that acro a/c have better vis is not always true. The most popular acro ship is a Pitts, and its blinder than any fighter. The fighters were built for good visibility to see the enemy.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
