Fwd: Reno Air Race - Probable conclusion to fatal crash

He said he'd been in 1 and 2-grade landings before, where tails fell off and landing gear collapsed. As an IFR instructor in Anchorage, AK, he'd seen guys forget to drop the landing gear, too. One of his jokes as instructor was to get the new pilot confused, then head him due north. When asked if there was anything in his way, the pilot would say "No." About that time, Dad would pull the pilot's hood off and he'd be looking straight ahead (and up, 20k') at Mount McKinley. Mean! But he taught pilots to pay close attention to the potential hazards in their flight paths.

I guess you had to be there.

And blonde, no doubt?

-- If you're trying to take a roomful of people by surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets if you don't yell going through the door. -- Lois McMaster Bujold

snipped-for-privacy@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) fired this volley in news:j5no0n$son$1 @blue-new.rahul.net:

Yeah, well, since I'm not an A&P mechanic, and don't really know how my aircraft is rigged internally, I always check. I have to do a mental double-take to remember that ailerons UP means wing DOWN .

LLoyd

The Reno P-51s, at least one that AOPA Pilot magazine carried an article about, have the vertical fin re-aligned as I described. The article specifically said that the stock airplane was tamed so as not to kill new pilots, and the Reno P-51s are re-rigged for less drag and maximum speed.

I think the same article also says that the racing engines remain basically stock. They already can produce more power than their metal is capable of containing.

Do I need to find that magazine? I really don't want to search through a

4-foot tall stack of magazines.

It's an old report.

The need wasn't top speed. They were designed to perform as well at 200 mph as at 400 mph. Pilots racing them today don't care about much of that.

All horizontal stabilizers are movable! Take out rivets, cut, bend, and put it back on in a new position. Even the famous air scoop under the P-51s belly is movable. The Galloping Ghost's was moved somewhere, I can't see it in any pictures.

Beryl fired this volley in news:j5o6as$jfg$1 @speranza.aioe.org:

Yeah, again, although he protested loudly about it, he didn't read the post he responded to.

Nobody SAID the stab was "movable", only that its incidence angle was set; set by modification, not by "articulation".

Any aircraft can have modifications. I wonder if he thinks the incidence angle of the stab (or wings, for that matter) was just accidental?

I helped a friend modify a DC3 for export (he did one about every seven months). I'm not an A&P, but I'm an aircraft "groupy" and always willing to throw in some grunt labor on an interesting project.

Before we were done, we'd changed a whole lot of how the airframe worked, including re-bracing and re-framing the starboard side of the fuse, carving a 10' wide cargo door in the side, and moving numerous components, including electrical and hydraulic systems. We didn't move the vertical or horizontal stabilizers, but it's pretty apparent how one would go about it.

I also helped another friend rebuild an SNJ (got to fly it, too! ). That project was almost a complete un-skin job. There was all kinds of corrosion in load-bearing structures. It took a while. And while he was at it, he made mods... Any aircraft can be modified, even some of those "glass slippers" like GlassAirs or Rutans.

LLoyd

Yeap, teach them the first rule of flying, don't hit anything with the plane.

Or know he did 3 days after ditching in the ocean.

Nope, short haired brunette.

SW

Sounds like a classic side slip - pull the nose up to peal off speed, then drop one wing and let it slide a few hundred Or thousand) feet, drop the nose to catch back a few knots, and hit the runway, instead of doing another 2 circuits around lake meade to get down.

Not according to race pilots I've spoken to. They all say any quick change in trim can put in excess of 8 Gs load on the plane - and 8 Gs will turn out the lights just like THAT. Telemetry showed over 12 Gs, apparently, on the Ghost.

And EVERY modification, unless in Unlimited experimental class, requires [aterwork up the yazoo - and on certified planes it requires a "supplimental type certificate" for EVERY modification.

If exporting to the third world, one MIGHT get away without.

snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It was standard approach practice for the Aussie pilots flying Caribous in 'Nam. They wanted to avoid ground fire, so they'd do what amounts to a side-slipping stall right above the threshold, and drop in like a rock, recovering just enough airspeed to flare near the end.

On 1100' PSP runways, that actually looks like an attractive way to make an approach!

LLoyd

snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

No... even with the market, one had to STC every change, because the aircraft had to be flown "commercially" (that is, in pursuit of being sold) in US airspace.

Dick had all the approvals. The inspectors would glide by about twice a week, just give a cursory look, and sign off. Remember, Dick did this for a living, and had all the mods pre-approved. So it wasn't like doing "custom" mods.

LLoyd

Good rule!

Yeah, that could certainly make a difference in an attitude.

-- If you're trying to take a roomful of people by surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets if you don't yell going through the door. -- Lois McMaster Bujold

Correct, the British specified the Alison V-1710 ( 1475 H.P. @ 3,000 RPM) and "was first flown operationally by the Royal Air Force (RAF) as a tactical-reconnaissance aircraft and fighter-bomber".

Not correct. Both the Allison and Packard-Merlin engines were supercharged. The most powerful version of the Packard-Merlin V-1650-9 was actually of a lower horsepower (1380H.P. versus 1475H.P.) then the earlier Allison. The difference was that the Packard-Merlin had a two speed supercharger which allowed better performance at altitude then the Allison. The first airplane fitted with the Merlin engine was an RAF test craft and first flown on 30 April 1942.

Cheers,

John B.

Not to argue but here is what I can find about the P-51's dorsal fin, which was not fitted to the earlier aircraft.

Despite these modifications, the P-51Bs and P-51Cs, and the newer P-51Ds and P-51Ks, experienced low-speed handling problems that could result in an involuntary "snap-roll" under certain conditions of air speed, angle of attack, gross weight, and center of gravity. Several crash reports tell of P-51Bs and P-51Cs crashing because horizontal stabilizers were torn off during maneuvering. As a result of these problems, a modification kit consisting of a dorsal fin was manufactured. One report stated: "Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C and P-51D airplanes, a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll. The horizontal stabilizer will not withstand the effects of a snap roll. To prevent recurrence, the stabilizer should be reinforced in accordance with T.O. 01-60J-18 dated 8 April

1944 and a dorsal fin should be installed. Dorsal fin kits are being made available to overseas activities"

One specification that was part of the cockpit canopy modification was " Because the new structure slid backwards on runners it could be slid open in flight. The aerial mast behind the canopy was replaced by a "whip" aerial which was mounted further aft and offset to the right."

True, but it is the report that the AAF produced at the time the P-51H was accepted by the AAF.

Actually most of the modifications of the P-51 were to improve high altitude performance or to allow better visibility. The original Allison engines were actually more powerful then the later fitted Packard-Merlin however the Packard-Merlin with their two speed supercharger were faster at altitude.

Certainly one can butcher anything but it is a bit more complicated then taking out rivets and bending. The horizontal stabilizer is a major control surface and on these airplanes a fixed structure. The cooling scoop is not movable, again it is a fixed structure. What you are referring to was, I believe, the total removal of the cooling scoop done to the Ghost as part of converting the cooling system to a totally different type - the "boil off cooling system". Cheers,

John B.

So what? We once manufactured and installed the entire aft fuselage on a U-10 that had been run into by a truck at Nha Trang. We removed the floor from the cargo compartment of a C-47 gunship and replaced all the supporting structure after the crew complained about the mini-guns "wiggling".

But this is not to say that we arbitrarily changed the incidence of either the wing or stabilizers.

Cheers,

John B.

There was also a reference to a named pilot who experienced the same difficulty - loss of trim tab at high speed. the result was immediate and violent pitch up and black-out. In that case the airplane apparently climbed to several thousand feet and the pilot regained consciousness and landed.

Cheers,

John B.

If it settled into a climb like that, instead of continuing to loop, G forces quickly went right back to 1. The horizontal stab held it at whatever pitch attitude it took, the elevator and trim tab needed to do nothing.

Not exactly....

I would expect it to decelerate in the climb. Rapidly, in fact.

OK, a quick 10 G, then less than 1 G when things stabilized. But the trim tab was gone, and the unconscious pilot wasn't pushing or pulling the stick.

john B. fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

And that's not to say that they "arbitrarily" changed anything, either. But they could -- relatively easily, considering the scope of a complete re-build.

And I'll bet they did, because almost any aircraft can benefit from some tweaking. But certainly not "arbitrarily". There's a boatload of empirical data on how to make the P-51 a better racer. They've been flying them in pylon circuits for a lot of years.

LLoyd