Warbird Information Exchange

The concept of a 'necessary accident' is an interesting one.

While we can argue the toss over what's an acceptable risk, I don't think either the pilot or the CAF intended to bend the aircraft that day - I'd suggest that's the critical point. They certainly didn't have a satisfactory plan to getting it back into the air back then. Lots of later 'plan b's were made, and sadly, for various reasons, none came to fruition.

The details of the accident are out there, and I'm not going to comment on the right or wrong of it.

The CAF's mandate is to fly its aircraft (generally, and specifically in this case). It spent all those years on the ground after the accident due to CAF actions and decisions, and only latterly was the NMUSAF involved at all.

I've no dog in the fight here - it would be (IMHO) great to see a P/F-82 flying, but the reason there isn't one flying at the moment is a CAF issue as much as a NMUSAF one. Anyone suggesting that either organisation is faultless is cherry-picking the data that's publicly available - the 'enough of the whole story', if you like.

People can argue pro- or contra-. As has been said decision's been made, and it's time to move on. 'Yeah butting' the NMUSAF isn't helping anyone, either.

Thankfully there's other -82 options coming up.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Like JDK said, you can look up the accident report and find plenty of threads about the F-82's crash. The pilot was very experienced in warbirds, but unfortunately not in this aircraft, as he only had a grand total of 2 hours total time in F-82's. The "high flare" is a widely known cause of the crash, but what most people don't talk about is why he flared high. I've been told by several CAF members that this aircraft had the airspeed indicator either in knots, or MPH, I don't remember - exactly opposite of what he was used to flying. In other words he was using mph for his airspeed and approach numbers when he should have used knots or vice-versa. That simple confusion was enough to cause the stall too high above the runway and resultant drop-in and crash.

Fortunately, that was a "bygone" era for the CAF when checkouts were taken much more lightly. Now a days, they take safety much more seriously, and I don't think that "cavalier" attitude of aircraft checkouts would exist.

Seems to me that if a guy had reasonable time in two P-51s he should be qualified to fly the P-82 !

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

Problem would be where are you going to get a check airman for a P-82. The check airman would probably know less than the man getting qualified. Lefty had been flying earlier in the day with the man that wrecked the P-82 (who had plenty of current P-51 time), but I doubt either one of them had lots of time in the P-82.

The same could be said about the MAAM's eventual P-61 flight. As has been said, I'm sure the attitudes were different back then about how in-depth a checkout needed to be. I suspect that today, any pilot of such a rare type is going log beaucoup hours just sitting in the cockpit, talking to vets, working with the mechanics, scouring manuals or films from museum archives, you name it. Here's a judgement call - park the airplane rather than risk a flight with an under-prepared pilot.

In the end, just like the first flights of some homebuilts, success or failure may ultimately rest with the raw talent or air sense of the pilot.

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

I would expect that someone with a bunch of A-26 time would be your best candidate for the P-61.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

The only real question is, "Who are you gonna get if Steve Hinton is unavailable?"

Maybe you call Kermit, since a Mossie or B-26 probably is also a pretty good "trainer" for a P-61.

August

Russ Strine from MAAM talked about that very subject on Warbird radio recently. He said that he would be accomplishing the first flight of the P-61. He said there were a lot of similarities between the P-61 and B-25, even going so far as to say that some of the parts on the two airplanes were the same, e.g. - the landing gear. Russ said he wasn't too worried about taking up the rare aircraft as the performance was very similar to the B-25 - something he has been flying for over 30 years. He basically said that "he could handle it".

First off I want to thank those who offered some kind words, and support. This thread was just meant to show that the P-82 was on display and try to take the high road on a new aircraft on display. It was meant to get over the nasty threads and move forward. My opinions may not always be popular, but even if we disagree I like to think that the disagreement ends on that thread. Please don't confuse manners and respect for other members of this forum for weakness or trying to lesson the blow of what something means.

Dan K you are confusing two things. What happened to the plane over what you wanted to happen to the plane. It seems that you blame the NMUSAf for the whole deal, even though they tried to work some stuff out. You also seem to have lost the fact that the NMUSAF won the case twice. Don't you think that there just might be a chance that the NMUSAF did indeed own the plane, and that it is now with the correct owner. That is half of the battle it seems. Some don't really care about whether the plane went to the correct owner, just that it isn't going to fly. What is right is right even if it means that the plane won't be flown over a museum that was going to trade it to a private owner that might fly it if it ever got fixed.

As for it's current condition, it is greatly improved over where it was when it came to Dayton. And it is not done. The plane will be getting more work, but the museum can do that work on the plane after the plane had been moved to the Gallery, so that the gallery can be locked in and prepared for the big opening to honor the Korean War Veterans. Which brings me to the role it is serving now. It is honoring a crew that went MIA during a war that not many know about. That is nothing to scoff at simply because the aircraft is static.

As for the gentleman that couldn't touch the aircraft. You said quote,"Because I couldn't touch the P-82 on my birthday, I will side with the CAF" I am not sure where to start with that. First off you couldn't get too close to the P-82 because they were preparing the Gallery. I know that it sucked, but it had to be done to allow for the great new displays. In the long run it is going to look great. The bars are in place to protect these treasures, however the bars are set up to keep you just out of reach of the aircraft, but close enough to enjoy. I have seen first hand as many others here have, just what the general public are capable of and I am 100% in favor of the bars. As our morning briefings always said from the General, "Each one of these aircraft are a memorial to the men and women that flew them, built them, designed, them, crewed them, and worked on them. They should be treated as such." That was at the top of the sheet placing us in each gallery every morning. On a normal day, when the gallery is open, and if the volunteers are not too busy, yes they will take you over the bars to photo the aircraft. You will still be asked to please not touch. This has nothing to do with static over flying as you usually are asked not to touch at airshows too. This has to do with the oils in your skin and the finish on the aircraft. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask not to touch unless you are a veteran of this aircraft.
I just want to say thank you for those who are positive and would like to move forward. I never have or never will say I am sorry for my connection to the NMUSAF as I feel it is one of the best museums out there. I will however always try to remain respectful even while not seeing eye to eye with someone. Anyone here that has actually met me in person knows that always willing to try and see stuff from another perspective, and treat your opinion as valid, as long as you treat mine the same way.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Don't think I've ever seen a B-25 with that kind of performance ! Looks more like A-26 numbers to me !

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

Chris, that is very well put. I am reminded of my little
back and forth sessions with Rob Rohr when NNAM was
the object of so much vitriolic hatred here on WIX. It
is strange how things have changed in that regard.

WE could all do with a bit more tolerance for the other
guys viewpoint. I remember a time when Rob couldn't
say Buddy Macon's name without an expletive. As it
wound up they ended up exchanging recipes.

Hey, I'm just the messenger and telling you what he said, but I agree with you. I think the Tigercat might be even better.

In response to the questions about color... Yes, gloss black is the correct color. Tests by the Germans, Brits AND the US all showed that a standard FLAT Black absorbed the light better, BUT, created a moving black spot. The GLOSS Black reflected the light away in a manner that made the a/c disappear.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

Chris, I respect your views and often look for threads that you've started or contributed to because of your insight and knowledge. However, on this occasion, you stepped over the line. You mis-quoted me! I didn't say "touch" anywhere in the post. I can tell sarcasm doesn't come across very well on message boards - at least not this time. My entire post was in jest. Read it! I plainly admit that my facts are baseless and they are what I was using to make my decisions. If you read the post with an open mind and light-hearted attitude, its easy to "see" the wit. I think often times some of these "spirited" posts are not even given a chance and taken as negative or contradictory at first glance. I was really just being fecitious. There is some hint of what I truly think of the NMUSAF and the CAF, but it doesn't really matter. If you read my follow up post, I even vow to return to the NMUSAF next year to maybe get beyond the dreaded ropes/barricades to get a better look at the P-82 in its new home (I'm talking about the ropes/barricades that had the entire section closed last week - sarcasm). I'm a pilot, aviation enthusiast, and amateur plane historian that knows full well how fragile these relics are and what is good and not good for them. I've even been priveleged to have worked on a few. I appreciate your "behind the scenes" information concerning the museum and have used your recommendations during my visits. In this case, chill, I was playing. Just having some fun. It appears I was pushing the right buttons though, huh?
Tommy

It's all good buddy. The bad thing about writting in a forum is a tone is lost to see how the person meant it. I took what you wrote as somewhat jokingly. I just wasn't sure how much of it you were joking about. It's all good man.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager