Reply to: P-51D/K Mustang Question 'roll'

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:27 pm

It seems to me that is unlikely that one would fly a fighter in cruise or acro flight with the canopy open in England in the winter. It would not only be cold , but with a lot of wind noise. In a normal aileron roll or barrel roll that is common in fighters, you would have positive or at least neutral g, One would not normally do an acro type point roll with forward stick and neg g because if nothing else it deprives the engine of oil feed. I have seen it done in a Corsair, of which the engine failed a few weeks later. I am not sure what the entry speed for a normal roll is in a 51, perhaps 200 or so. It is given in the Pilot Notes as 206 K in a Mk IX. Someone may have at some time flown a 51 without putting on the shoulder straps, but it seems highly unlikely that you'd ever put enough neg g on a plane to break the straps inadvertenly. Sounds far fetched, but who knows.

Mod edited title. - JDK.

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:27 pm

Bill Greenwood wrote:

One would not normally do an acro type point roll with forward stick and neg g because if nothing else it deprives the engine of oil feed. I have seen it done in a Corsair, of which the engine failed a few weeks later.

Respectfully, an alternative opinion on the roll issue.

Can't speak for the Spit but for the Mustang; most pilots flying display acro in Mustangs do indeed fly a pitch curve slow and point roll as this avoids the negative g scavenger pump issues, but both slow rolls and point rolls are possible in the Mustang using a pull to a roll set then a pin on the roll axis resulting in a -1g profile through inverted with no particular issues with oil pressure loss using a fairly quick roll rate and good technique keeping the invertedphase between the two knife edges under 10 seconds.
Done this many times without oil pressure issues.
I agree with you however that doing slow rolls and point rolls on a pitch curve carrying no negative g is the more common way to do them for the reasons you have given.
Dudley Henriques

Vessbot · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:32 am

I love being the first one in years to do negative G's in a particular plane, and having all sorts of crud fly off the floor to hit me in the face.

Reminds me of a funny moment just today, when in the middle of an instructional flight where I wasn't planning on going negative and didn't secure all the loose objects too well, a checklist came flying out of the door pocket and I calmly grabbed it from mid-air beside my head and re-inserted it in the middle of the student's botched hammerhead. It all happened slow-motion-like, and I felt like some sort of super-reflex Ninja.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:40 am

I have seen 51 pilots do point rolls in shows with a descending line to offset the neg g, and I think the manual says not more than 10 sec of inverted flight to avoid oil starvation. It just seems to me than any time spent in neg g is not the best idea for a Merlin; if 11 sec will starve the engine for oil with possible damage, then it seems to me that even 5 sec is going to create an air bubble in the oil system and I don't want that in my Merlin that I paid for and that I am depending on for my safety and that of the plane. Same as i don't want to taxi through clouds of dust at Osh or Chino without air filters. But my view on this would likely be in the minority.

In England, returning from a mission and at combat weight, I doubt if a pilot is going to be doing point rolls at low altitude. For me, with average acro ability, I try to show a Spit as it would be in a dogfight with tight turns and climbs, rather than hanging inverted.

Dudley, I hope you get to fly one sometime, especially a Merlin one. I recently flew a simulator of a Mk II. I did everything I could think to do, stuff I never do in a real one, and it was effortless. Alex Henshaw, famous Supermarine factory test pilot, said the MK II was his favorite model because it was so light and forgiving. Not the combat weapon the later ones became, but a joy to play with.

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:52 am

Bill Greenwood wrote:

I have seen 51 pilots do point rolls in shows with a descending line to offset the neg g, and I think the manual says not more than 10 sec of inverted flight to avoid oil starvation. It just seems to me than any time spent in neg g is not the best idea for a Merlin; if 11 sec will starve the engine for oil with possible damage, then it seems to me that even 5 sec is going to create an air bubble in the oil system and I don't want that in my Merlin that I paid for and that I am depending on for my safety and that of the plane. Same as i don't want to taxi through clouds of dust at Osh or Chino without air filters. But my view on this would likely be in the minority.

In England, returning from a mission and at combat weight, I doubt if a pilot is going to be doing point rolls at low altitude.

I can't speak to a pilot returning from a combat mission and I've never been all that happy to be replacing Merlins myself. This being said, I see no reason to anticipate oil pressure issues using good technique involving an aggressive and well timed roll rate and have done rolls this way many times with a negative 1g through inverted with 0 issues concerning oil pressure.
I agree with you however, that any pilot rolling a Mustang should be completely familiar with the potential oil pressure issues that can be expected exceeding the RR parameters for the scavenger pumps.
Different strokes for different folks.
Dudley Henriques

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:08 am

Just as I wrote that most pilots would not cruise with the canopy open, along comes the photos from the Raiders reunion, with the Spit flying with the canopy open! Course winter in Texas ain't like England!

Am I correct than normal Mustang procedure is canopy closed for takeoff and landing? In Spits it was open, I guess in case of emergency exit. Mine doesn't work as easy as a single seater, so I usually have it closed.

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:14 am

Bill Greenwood wrote:

Dudley, I hope you get to fly one sometime, especially a Merlin one. I recently flew a simulator of a Mk II. I did everything I could think to do, stuff I never do in a real one, and it was effortless. Alex Henshaw, famous Supermarine factory test pilot, said the MK II was his favorite model because it was so light and forgiving. Not the combat weapon the later ones became, but a joy to play with.

I believe I mentioned to you once that Bader was a charter member of our association. I talked with him several times on the phone about the Spitfire. He loved the early marks. He would on for long periods laughing about the Mustang and how "heavy" it handled compared to the Spit.
He said they were a joy to fly; quick, sensitive, and in his words "just marvelously balanced". He got carried away one evening and told me he honestly believed he could have landed a Spit, closed his eyes and the airplane would track straight as an arrow until it stopped. I distinctly recall laughing back at him saying I wouldn't suggest doing that in a Mustang :-)

Dudley

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:23 am

Bill Greenwood wrote:

Just as I wrote that most pilots would not cruise with the canopy open, along comes the photos from the Raiders reunion, with the Spit flying with the canopy open! Course winter in Texas ain't like England!

Am I correct than normal Mustang procedure is canopy closed for takeoff and landing? In Spits it was open, I guess in case of emergency exit. Mine doesn't work as easy as a single seater, so I usually have it closed.

I never had my canopy open on takeoff or landing. Landing wouldn't be all that bad but I don't think there's a pair of fuzzy earmuffs big enough to handle the noise at 61 inches not to mention sucking everything but the kitchen sink up into your face from every corner of the airplane. The stacks were right in line with my ears :-)

)) My normal procedure was closed, checked locked.
Dudley

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:33 am

I was never fortunate enough to meet Bader, though Ms. Lettuce Curtis was nice enough to introduce me to Lady Bader, who was very gracious to this silly American nobody who was a bit star struck and tongue tied.

Sir Douglas is one of those people who casts a very long shadow. Not many guys are shown such respect not just by his own people,but even by the Germans after he was captured. Right or wrong, like him or not, agree with him or not, all seem to respect him.

Ray told me a story once that in later life Douglas landed a plane gear up. When the investigators came they suggested that there must have been mechanical failure. He said baloney, he just forgot. He had no need to make himself bigger than he was.

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:46 am

Bill Greenwood wrote:

I was never fortunate enough to meet Bader, though Ms. Lettuce Curtis was nice enough to introduce me to Lady Bader, who was very gracious to this silly American nobody who was a bit star struck and tongue tied.

Sir Douglas would be one of those people who casts a very long shadow. Not many guys shown such respect not just by his own people,but even by the Germans after he was captured. Right or wrong, like him or not, agree with him or not, all seem to respect him.

Ray told me a story once that in later life Douglas landed a plane gear up. When the investigators came they suggested that there must have been mechanical failure. He said baloney, he just forgot. He had no need to make himself bigger than he was.

That's Douglas all right. He would never slack out on something he did wrong. He spent his entire life saying the roll with the Bulldog that nailed him was "a total cockup" as he so aptly put it.
Believe it or not, what I liked and respected about Douglas had nothing to do with his war exploits or even flying. It was what he did after the war for paraplegics, specifically children.
Nothing was too much trouble for him and no task too large or small when it came to aiding these people. The work he did in inspiring them changed their lives. I'm absolutely certain that today there are literally thousands of people who discovered they could live again after being horribly maimed and crippled because they were lucky enough to have been exposed to Douglas.
I loved the man. He will always have a permanent place in my heart.
Dudley

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:10 am

Bill was answering the question here: http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... p?p=253593

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:18 am

Conversations like this are priceless ! Thanks for the discussion !

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:27 am

Vessbot wrote:

I love being the first one in years to do negative G's in a particular plane, and having all sorts of crud fly off the floor to hit me in the face.

Do your mechanics not vacuum the plane out and clean the interior as part of the annual? At the show where I help out we always try to take care of that kind of stuff...

Oh, and Bill, a minor point - the reunion was for Pearl Harbor survivors - NO Raiders were present that I know of.

Good discussion.

Ryan

n.wotherspoon · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:16 pm

Hi Everyone & thanks for all the replies, some excellent information and viewpoints - all very much appreciated + some fascinating "bonus" information as well!

A bit more on the crash - there are two reports that form parts of the original 1945 Investigation report. The first states that:

The Mustang was seen to make a shallow dive from about 1,000ft over the village and then climb up again and commence another dive, this time from about 800 ft, again on a south-north heading having orbited the village. It was then seen to complete a roll to the left, steady momentarily, and then begin another roll to the left. During the second roll the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft, which immediately dived vertically to the ground with the engine running.

The second differs slightly:

The witnesses statements indicate that he made a shallow dive at about 1000 feet over the village and then climbed up to approximately 700 to 800 feet, and then commenced to orbit the village. Again on a South to North heading he commenced another dive immediately rolled over to the left again still losing height. During this roll the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft and the aircraft completed a roll and immediately dived straight into the ground at high speed. The pilot was thrown forward and was found 40 yards ahead of the crash with his parachute open but undeveloped and parachute cords around his legs.

The aircraft was new having been assembled at Lockheeds at Renfrew after being shipped over to the UK. Comments were made about the difficulty in adjusting the harness straps and that the pilot followed the common British ferry pilot practice of sitting on the aircraft's manuals and logbooks - I would think this lot would create a veritable snowstorm of paperwork if flown with the canopy open?

Comments are made elsewhere in the report about observed injuries including possible bruising to the eyelids and "suffusion" of the eyes, which it was thought might indicate the effects of negative G - though medical opinion seems to have been divided and it also says a severe blow to the head could have caused this - in view of what happened to the unfortunate chap and an eyewitness I have spoken to, who described the impression he left in the field where he came down, makes me wonder how any of his injuries could be attributed so specifically!

I really am not happy with the report, as it lays the blame on the pilot for carrying out unauthorised aerobatics and makes comments about his psychological state. The manoeuvres made were hardly spectacular aerobatics and even the report concedes that there was really no one around to see them anyway. The more I looked at the details, the more it reminds me of another incident we investigated a couple of years ago - P-51B Mustang 43-6635 http://www.south-lancs-aviation.co.uk/N ... 3-6635.htm also lost on a routine ferry flight. That aircraft was newly assembled at Speke and was being flown to Warton for further modification, when it suffered a fuel or glycol leak - the pilot, Flight Officer Eugene Stanley Rybaczek, tried to save the aircraft and to put it down on a satellite landing ground at Knowsley Park. Witnesses saw vapour streaming from the obviously open cockpit and the aircraft made unexpected manoeuvres before it stalled and crashed on the threshold of the runway.

Could this chap have opened the canopy to try to clear such a problem and then lost control? Others have said the manoeuvres appear more like he was testing the aircraft or had a control problem?

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:50 pm

n.wotherspoon wrote:

Hi Everyone & thanks for all the replies, some excellent information and viewpoints - all very much appreciated + some fascinating "bonus" information as well!

A bit more on the crash - there are two reports that form parts of the original 1945 Investigation report. The first states that:

The Mustang was seen to make a shallow dive from about 1,000ft over the village and then climb up again and commence another dive, this time from about 800 ft, again on a south-north heading having orbited the village. It was then seen to complete a roll to the left, steady momentarily, and then begin another roll to the left. During the second roll the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft, which immediately dived vertically to the ground with the engine running.

The second differs slightly:

The witnesses statements indicate that he made a shallow dive at about 1000 feet over the village and then climbed up to approximately 700 to 800 feet, and then commenced to orbit the village. Again on a South to North heading he commenced another dive immediately rolled over to the left again still losing height. During this roll the pilot was seen to leave the aircraft and the aircraft completed a roll and immediately dived straight into the ground at high speed. The pilot was thrown forward and was found 40 yards ahead of the crash with his parachute open but undeveloped and parachute cords around his legs.

The aircraft was new having been assembled at Lockheeds at Renfrew after being shipped over to the UK. Comments were made about the difficulty in adjusting the harness straps and that the pilot followed the common British ferry pilot practice of sitting on the aircraft's manuals and logbooks - I would think this lot would create a veritable snowstorm of paperwork if flown with the canopy open?

Comments are made elsewhere in the report about observed injuries including possible bruising to the eyelids and "suffusion" of the eyes, which it was thought might indicate the effects of negative G - though medical opinion seems to have been divided and it also says a severe blow to the head could have caused this - in view of what happened to the unfortunate chap and an eyewitness I have spoken to, who described the impression he left in the field where he came down, makes me wonder how any of his injuries could be attributed so specifically!

I really am not happy with the report, as it lays the blame on the pilot for carrying out unauthorised aerobatics and makes comments about his psychological state. The manoeuvres made were hardly spectacular aerobatics and even the report concedes that there was really no one around to see them anyway. The more I looked at the details, the more it reminds me of another incident we investigated a couple of years ago - P-51B Mustang 43-6635 http://www.south-lancs-aviation.co.uk/N ... 3-6635.htm also lost on a routine ferry flight. That aircraft was newly assembled at Speke and was being flown to Warton for further modification, when it suffered a fuel or glycol leak - the pilot, Flight Officer Eugene Stanley Rybaczek, tried to save the aircraft and to put it down on a satellite landing ground at Knowsley Park. Witnesses saw vapour streaming from the obviously open cockpit and the aircraft made unexpected manoeuvres before it stalled and crashed on the threshold of the runway.

Could this chap have opened the canopy to try to clear such a problem and then lost control? Others have said the manoeuvres appear more like he was testing the aircraft or had a control problem?

Trying to make any sense out of something like this without an official report stating airspeeds, specific angles and other products of the "official" report is extremely difficult and subject to a high degree of speculation which in my experience seldom nails what actually happened.
Wish I could be of more help but what I've said above is almost always relevant.
The only thing that piqued my interest in what has been revealed is that from the flight path profile as described, I believe I would have questions about physical symptoms showing on the pilot as having been caused by negative g. I didn't see anything in the description that would have caused these injuries.
The canopy on the 51 locks with the canopy locking handle and the pilot would or should have checked the canopy indicators to insure that it was locked down.
Losing the canopy on a Mustang in flight, especially maneuvering flight with any sideslip angle on the airplane could indeed play havoc with your head and the result of that could easily kill you.
Aside from these factors I'm afraid I can't be of much help.
Dudley Henriques

Warbird Information Exchange

Reply to: P-51D/K Mustang Question 'roll'

Who is online