Scatterbrain Kid II News

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

maradamx3 wrote:

Man, it would be great to see Scatterbrain Kid II fly again. Last time I saw her fly was at the Gathering of Memories in San Marcos, I think. :?:

Many moons ago, when I was still in high school. I have the same looking pictures in the damaged state sitting in the hangar in San Marcos. It's time to get her back to her former glory; she's been sittin way too long.

Tommy

Agreed, Tommy. It's strange that the P-38 is my absolutely favorite aircraft, but in all of my years attending air shows, I have only ever seen Porky II twice, 2003 and 2004. My brother has yet to see one, and '03 was with my dad. I hope, along with the Kid, several more take to the air. I still say we need and East Coast Lightning

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:48 pm

When is the last time that the one at the War Eagles Air Museum flew? I have some old pictures of it from Reno somewhere.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Dan Jones wrote:

When is the last time that the one at the War Eagles Air Museum flew? I have some old pictures of it from Reno somewhere.

Dan, it seems as though it has been a while since she took to the air.

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p38regis ... 27053.html

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:56 pm

Matt Gunsch wrote:

[quote="
So the FAA blamed the pilot for taking off with the selectors in drop tank postition, even though they were told otherwise, just blame it on the pilot, and don't let facts get in the way.

Sounds like FLight 800

262crew · **Joined:** Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:24 pm **Posts:** 877

After looking at and participating in an FHC restoration I will bet it will be restored to the factory fresh condition!

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

262crew wrote:

After looking at and participating in an FHC restoration I will bet it will be restored to the factory fresh condition!

Let's hope it winds up being finished like the Red Bull P-38, and that the Red Bull P-38 stays with minimum markings

I wonder if the Kid will wind up with a different nose as well, or if they will keep the glass? A Pathfinder warbird would be cool to see.

262crew · **Joined:** Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:24 pm **Posts:** 877

MattP38 wrote:

262crew wrote:

After looking at and participating in an FHC restoration I will bet it will be restored to the factory fresh condition!

Let's hope it winds up being finished like the Red Bull P-38, and that the Red Bull P-38 stays with minimum markings

I wonder if the Kid will wind up with a different nose as well, or if they will keep the glass? A Pathfinder warbird would be cool to see.

AGREED

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:12 pm

I'm no expert on the topic, but I don't think that's a "pathfinder" or a "droop-snoot" nose, I think it's a Mark Hurd photo-mapping nose.

I'd like to see it done as a nightfighter M model, but just as long as someone rebuilds it and gets it back on her feet again I'll be happy. They're a beautiful and graceful aeroplane.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Dan Jones wrote:

I'm no expert on the topic, but I don't think that's a "pathfinder" or a "droop-snoot" nose, I think it's a Mark Hurd photo-mapping nose.

I'd like to see it done as a nightfighter M model, but just as long as someone rebuilds it and gets it back on her feet again I'll be happy. They're a beautiful and graceful aeroplane.

Hycon Survey, actually. No it isn't a pathfinder nose, I was however stating that I think a Pathfinder would make for a neat warbird configuration. Basically, I feel we need an airworthy warbird of each of the major Lightning variants.

Lynn Allen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:30 pm

Matt Gunsch wrote:

Dan Jones wrote:

I haven't read the accident report. Was that the airplane's initial test flight, or had it been flying for awhile? Unusual that both engine's would calve like that together - almost makes one think she took on a load of bad fuel.

The plane had been flying for a while. They had changed a tank out a couple of months before, and the plane had been running good at times, and bad other times. My personal bet is fuel tank venting. The pilot did nothing wrong, and did a heck of a job of keeping themselves in one piece.
As far as being in the nose, it is my understanding that no one was allowed to ride in the nose.

They worked on it all day and had taken across the field on Rwy 22 and ran it up with the backfiring and smoke. Ladd Garnder was going to ride in the nose was overruled by guess who. It didn't make half way down the rwy before it was popping and blowing black smoke. They never did a test flight but they were going up for a photo mission with Lefty flying White Lighting.They made a left turn out and went down. Somebody in a L bird took off through a crowd as he thought somebody else was driving it. I was with Ober at the summer meeting and ask the pilot why he did land on the hwy next to the airport..

Lynn

airnutz · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:49 am

Matt Gunsch wrote:

Dan Jones wrote:

I haven't read the accident report. Was that the airplane's initial test flight, or had it been flying for awhile? Unusual that both engine's would calve like that together - almost makes one think she took on a load of bad fuel.

They had changed a tank out a couple of months before, and the plane had been running good at times, and bad other times. My personal bet is fuel tank venting.

The pilot did nothing wrong,

Engines running good times/bad times?? :shock:

The pilot ignored this situation..decided to keep an
appointment for a photoshoot..carried a passenger in a flight ending in disaster??? He did nothing wrong???

Hopefully an example of the CAF in the early death throes of leaving the "bad old days" behind them... :roll:

airnutz · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:01 am

Dan Jones wrote:

Was that the airplane's initial test flight, or had it been flying for awhile?.

1-No
2-Yes

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:45 am

Questionable judgement? Started many hours before the accident.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Lynn Allen wrote:

They worked on it all day and had taken across the field on Rwy 22 and ran it up with the backfiring and smoke. Ladd Garnder was going to ride in the nose was overruled by guess who. It didn't make half way down the rwy before it was popping and blowing black smoke. They never did a test flight but they were going up for a photo mission with Lefty flying White Lighting.They made a left turn out and went down. Somebody in a L bird took off through a crowd as he thought somebody else was driving it. I was with Ober at the summer meeting and ask the pilot why he did land on the hwy next to the airport..

Lynn

No good. It's a wonder the situation came out as good as it did, all things considered. I read up on Michael Proudfoot's accident recently. Such a sad loss of a great pilot.

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:28 am

airnutz wrote:

Matt Gunsch wrote:

Dan Jones wrote:

I haven't read the accident report. Was that the airplane's initial test flight, or had it been flying for awhile? Unusual that both engine's would calve like that together - almost makes one think she took on a load of bad fuel.

They had changed a tank out a couple of months before, and the plane had been running good at times, and bad other times. My personal bet is fuel tank venting.

The pilot did nothing wrong,

Engines running good times/bad times?? :shock:

The pilot ignored this situation..decided to keep an
appointment for a photoshoot..carried a passenger in a flight ending in disaster??? He did nothing wrong???

Hopefully an example of the CAF in the early death throes of leaving the "bad old days" behind them... :roll:

the plane was flying well enough to fly from San Marcos to Breckenridge, so it was flying before. They had been having intermittant problems and were going nuts trying to figure it out. It would run for hours with no problems, then pack up and run like sugar.

They took the plane to the run up pad, performed as many checks on the ground as they could, and it passed them all, they taxied back, we recowled it, and then they went out to fly it. they performed thier runup and everything was good, there was no sign of anything bad, so they took off, and it was not until rotation that it started to smoke. There was not enough runway left to stop so he did what he thought best, get it into the air as high as he could, and hopefully limp around and land. The reason he did not land on the highway was he never got high enough to make a turn, he barely made a left turn before there were unable to keep it in the air any longer.

I don't remember a L-bird looking for them. The Zero took off after they went down, and it took him a while to find them. Lefty was all ready in the air and he could not find it.

The pilot did nothing wrong, and as far as the passenger, she was crew, and had been working on the plane,so it was not a beaver flight. Lori had been busting her butt working on that plane, and the only reason I went over to help is my 4 planes were out flying, and I had nothing to do.

Warbird Information Exchange

Scatterbrain Kid II News

Who is online