Warbird Information Exchange

Here it is:

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20 ... 0970&key=1

Sadly, not the first nor very likely the last to do this in a Mustang. Dick Snyder's civilian P-51 accident study ought to be mandatory reading for potential Mustang pilots.

T J

_________________
Make my day, punk!

Can you provide a link?

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

I did scan the report some time ago. If Scott or anyone has a place for it on their site, I could send him/ them a copy so that people can download it.

T J

_________________
Make my day, punk!

The answer to not having this happen again is out here and the process that seeks this answer must never be assumed unattainable.

The answer lies within the Mustang community itself; from improved inter-community communication at every level striving constantly and diligently to achieve a better understanding of the factors unique to the flying of high performance propeller fighter planes.

It's not that the check pilots in the community are lax, and no one can predict to an absolute certainty how a specific pilot will react in a given situation, but constantly keeping issues such as torque roll, throttle application and go around setup have to be constantly discussed within the community.
There is at least one powerful voice in the Warbird community advocating leaving props set for cruise on final in 51's and accepting the temporary over boost on a go-around initiation where throttle is mishandled.
I respect the person making this recommendation. I do however don't think this is the answer.
There is no reason why a Mustang can't be taken around using normal procedure and this has always been my approach to the issue. Creating crutches for pilots seeking to fly high performance airplanes is in my opinion NOT the proper way to deal with these issues.

The answer in my opinion is in constant education and training in the right procedures when flying these airplanes. The key word being stressed here is CONSTANT.

There is truth in saying that this type of accident will most likely happen again.
There is also truth in the fact that improving the flight safety communication within the Mustang community will serve to minimize the risk.

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

I like what Dudley says about not using "crutches" to cover up bad technique. I never heard of this until recently when a Mustang pilot says he leaves his rpm at 2300 and only pushes it up if he needs to go around. Another factor, the flatter prop gives drag and brakeing which is good when about to touch down. I can't find my manual to check on the approved version.
It may be this accident is just one in a thousand and hard to prevent. With 31 hours of dual the pilot should have been checked out. I wonder what his other training background was, did he own or have quite a bit of T-6 time, etc.? It reads like when he pulled the stick back abruptly he may heve lifted the mains at the same time the wing went to a stall angle of attack. Then the engine power rolled the plane even if he didn't use too much throttle too soon.
It may be a little bit of a personality thing, sort of like flying an instrument approach. Top instructors tell you to expect a missed approach, not to see the runway, so you are not surprised or tempted to go to low. Maybe he was a little too optimistic, he expected to land and was not ready to go around if the speed or angle was not just right. I know Charlie Brown teaching new Spit pilots, says on first solo the speed MUST be 80mph, plus 5, minus none, OR YOU GO AROUND. NO IFS about it.
Whatever we can learn is worth it if we can save someone. One wrong attitude I have heard some of is "this guy was nuts or a poor pilot or too new or panicked", therefore it won't happen to me so I don't need to worry or learn from it.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Thanks to TJ you can now download Dick Snyders report here:

http://www.warbirddepot.com/library/safety/snyder_accident_report.pdf

I was discussing this accident this weekend at Hollister with someone who does a lot of warbird checkrides, and he mentioned that the accident pilot had no T-6 time.

Does anyone know what became of the airplane? I'm pretty sure this is the one that I was looking at a couple of weeks ago in Saskatchewan.

Is the CAF process of 200 hours tailwheel and 200 hours T-6 time prior to single engine fighter or bomber in effect? When I heard of the CAF requirements, it sounded like the best structured program out there. I'm really surprised the guy flew a P-51 without at least a checkout in a T-6.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

The wreck has been sold indeed to Canada - see below ad from Barnstormers:

P-51D MUSTANG LOU IV • HELP WANTED • Retoration of P-51D LOU IV needs parts. Hydraulic tank, oil tank, header tank, cowlings, canopy frame/hardware, engine mount, misc parts. Help us put this beautiful aircraft back in the air.Call 800-213-8008 • Contact Terry Dieno - FAST TOYS FOR BOYS LTD located Davidson, SK Canada • Telephone: 306-567-5588 • Posted November 29, 2007 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad

Edited: additional infos.

I wouldn't begin to second guess either Mckittrick or Matt Jackson on this accident, but I can say that although T6 time helps a great deal, the 51 is a VERY different animal and ANY pilot getting a bit lax at touchdown in the Mustang can find themselves in a situation that absolutely demands immediate and correct control input, especially power.

If you let a 51 get a bit slow over the fence and set it up just a bit too high, it can pay off quite suddenly. If you react and force the tail down at runway contact you can get a healthy bounce. Accompanied by a pitch input causing a nose rate, you can have a VERY dangerous situation going for you if the throttle in misused in any way. The throttle is a barrel shape and unless you have your throttle hand braced against the quadrant to apply an opposing force for your hand as you make what amounts to a vernier application of power during an excursion like this scenario, you can have a REAL bad day.
The danger is that you have every force imaginable present in this situation. Because you have relative wind on that 11+ foot monster hanging on the nose, you have P factor. Because the nose is rotating in pitch, you have gyroscopic precession in play. Add to this the spiraling slipstream effect on the tail caused by sudden power application and you could have a REAL mess on your hands in a nano-second.

These are yaw corrections. The kicker is that torque is also present and a real issue at low airspeed and high angle of attack;all of which are present as well.
Torque correction is in ROLL, not yaw, so ANY misuse of the throttle to correct the bounce needs BOTH a rudder AND an aileron input.
In this situation it's very easy to bang in enough power to put all these forces in play simultaneously.
I can't think of a more precarious situation for a Mustang and a newbie.
With no airspeed and high alpha, any misuse of throttle on a bounce like that without correcting in BOTH roll and yaw could easily cause exactly what happened to Mckittrick.

You can put a pilot in a T6 or anything else for that matter and in the end, once in the 51, it always boils down to how you set up the flare and what the parameters are going into the landing that matters.

Flying these airplanes is a very demanding pastime. Flown correctly, the 51 is a wonderful airplane that can be handled easily throughout its envelope, but one moments inattention at the wrong time can be extremely costly.
The answer isn't in the T6. The answer is in check pilots concentrating heavily on developing the ability to get a "read" on the attitudes and habit patterns of the pilots they check out in these airplanes; then taking a bit more time to make sure that they have tried everything humanly possible to instill the RIGHT mental attitude and habit patterns required by those who wish to own and fly these aircraft.

_________________
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

I have known of guys who flew fighters without T-6 time after transitioning from a Pitts or similar.
I am not really an expert in T-6 or P-51. I haven't had to make an emergency recovery in either, fortunately. But it seems to me that the T-6 is a good first step and a simulator for the 51. the main similarity to me is that both planes have effective flaps and allow a slightly nose down approach on short final. I don't land with partial flaps so I can't really be sure of that type.
The standard method of training for US pilots was to become competent in the T-6 before flying the 51. The two big differences are the Mustang is moving so much faster and it feels heavier. About 110 mph or 100 knots at the flare seems to be a common accepted speed in the Mustang. I used 80 mph or 70 knots, full flaps, power off at the flare in the Harvard and I liked the landing.
The T-6 seems to be a great step into a 51, and it sure is a lot cheaper to pay than $600/hr for the 6 rather than the $3500/ hr or somesuch in a 51. And if you bang a prop or similar during training it is a lot cheaper in a 6 worth perhaps $250 K, versus a 51 at 5 or 6 times the price.
One can certainly train/or fly a 51 without the T-6, but it is probably wiser to include it in your training before going into the Mustang. In WWII the pilot would have 60 hours in the Texan before going to the fighter or bomber. My 10 hours or so in a 6 did not teach me how to fly a Spitfire, but it did, along with Cub and Stearman, teach me how to fly a tailwheel plane, and to have some confidence.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Dudley,
Thanks much. One of the best explanations I've seen here using the basic aerodynamic forces to explain what is going on in a landing of a particular type of aircraft. So what are the numbers you like to see, and how much power can you add quickly to get out of trouble without running out of aileron and rudder to counteract it?

*Edit- Bill G., thanks for your 2cents as well...

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

I'm not speaking for Dudley, but that's part of the problem, Fighter flying has become too mechanical. You need to be able to feel what the airplane is doing and act acordingly. There is now way to post "numbers" to accomodate the wide array of situations possible. Besides, by the time you figure all of that out as far as speeds, boost, rpm, etc., it's probably already over!

Glenn