Some interesting points on an old, unresolved topic. Some comments in response to some -
k5083 wrote:
As an example, even further off topic, I've always wanted to see a really spirited acro routine done in an accurate WWI replica. The Camel and Dr.I had legendary maneuverability, okay so what does that mean? The fact that nobody is doing it makes me think it's just too suicidal.
According to Kermit and Gene deMarco, the Albatros is one of those types that looks good but doesn't fly nearly as well as it looks. However their flight of the Camel and Albatros at Classic Fighters in NZ in 2011, while not aerobatics, was excellent and showed the aircraft off to a great degree.
Bear in mind that aerobatics (what is this 'acro'?) particularly with Great War era aircraft speeds, weights and aerodynamics
reduces the flight's
margin above the stall and spin automatically at altitudes where a recovery from a stall / spin will occur at -1,000ft.
CH2Tdriver wrote:
It's also one which I'd love to hear from some of our resident WIX members who do it for real, Dudley, Vlado, Jim Beasley and Doug Rosendaal come to mind. (Am I missing anyone?)
Quite a few highly skilled aerobatic warbird pilots aren't writing anything any more...
The post-hoc blame the pilot element that often comes up in the post fatal accident crash is actually an avoidance of the cultural change from 'the right stuff' bu11. We
are getting better, but pilot peer pressure still fails to remove some clowns before they take a good aircraft with them.
CH2Tdriver wrote:
There really is no mystery or inherent danger in a well SCRIPTED and PRACTICED aerobatic routine. The danger comes when one DEVIATES from that routine due to distraction, complacency, physiological/environmental reasons (performing in poor weather or feeling 'under the weather'), inexperience (not well practiced), mechanical, or as one well known warbird pilot put it a "juvenile moment". Lose your focus, deviate from the rehersed routine and all bets are off. It might work it might not.
True. However even more important is
margins and
energy management. A well scripted and practised display that projects the aircraft's energy towards the crowd (any more than a minimum required for repositioning) is
not safe enough and there is always a conflict between flying at levels where recovery from a minor issue is difficult and needing to demonstrate the aircraft where the crowd can see it.
The choice isn't between 'dangerous' aerobatics in warbirds or 'racetrack' / 'sedate' flights, but positioning the choice somewhere appropriate to pilot skill, aircraft capability, location etc.
between the two extremes.
N3Njeff wrote:
Older aircraft with older engines up to modern standards??? Im sorry but Rosie's quality of riveting is not even CLOSE to the quality of todays restorations. You should take in the fact that these restorations are better than factory. Flown within their original flight paramaters should not make any difference between today and whey they were built.
Unfortunately that's broadly true and occasionally specifically not. I can think of a couple of accidents where modern servicing and inspections, and higher than period flight hours contributed to engine failure and structural failure, both fatal. Yes, it's fair to say that warbirds are better maintained and repaired (or rebuilt) than new, but they aren't doing what they were built to do. They most often fly in a more benign regime than their design, but not always. We've seen (thankfully not fatal) accidents where gear retraction hardware has failed because the cycles are way off any W.W.II expectation.
N3Njeff wrote:
Yes it would be very tragic if there was losses on the ground in accidents like this but I would also think that the guy with the Pitts or Extra could afford to fly a P-51 to do aerobatics, he would still continue to do so as its HIS AIRCRAFT. It might be a shame to loose a piece of history but until the very last second, it is HIS AIRPLANE and if this is the way he enjoys himself, who am I?............................I would like to think that when I die, I would like to be doing something I love and not sitting in a wheel chair not knowing what day it is.
When I die, I certainly wouldn't hope to deprive others of enjoying something historic after my death because I 'take it with me'. However I think the laptop I'm likely to keel over on is unlikely to have the same interest to the wider community as a warbird...
Sometimes some owners and pilots talk about having an aircraft 'in trust' for future people or the community. Sure, some (many) aircraft benefit and fit in private ownership (all P-51Ds, for instance
) but others are held in trust for us and our descendants. That's the reason the BBMF do what they do and the aircraft are owned and operated by the RAF for the people to see and appreciate. To a degree the same applies to aircraft like Fifi - 'seeing what she can do' would come a long way after keeping her flying safely for as long as possible as widely as possible.
And just to extend the argument further, I've no time for the hardcore 'only fliers are worth it'. There are aircraft that are just too precious to fly; and they belong in national collections - the Wright Flyer, Alcock & Brown's Vimy, sombody's Ryan
Spirit of somewhereorother and the NC-4 in Pensacola. I'd pay good money just to hear and see one pass by the Macchi MC 72, but wouldn't be able to justify it to even myself.
Just to be clear, these aren't my personal views*, just some other facts, exceptions and angles not on the table so far. Hope they're of interest.
Regards,
*The sarcastic remarks re- P-51Ds and Lind... something are entirely mine however and are TM. 
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
