P51 crash in Reno, pilot a hero.

[olafpfj]

I've grown up with aviation. My father was an engineer at Northrop Grumman for 30+ years, my cousins fly and run aviation shops and my brother is a commercial airline pilot.

It is, and has been, well known that the Reno air races are extrememly dangerous for participants and spectators alike. While I am devastated by what happened I don't for a moment think that anyone there was not aware of the risks of attending the races.

Cutting edge aviation is still one of those pursuits that can frequently result in death and there is still little we can do to change that save not flying anymore. Every astronaut has had to come to grips with this and sadly some have died.

Despite what happened to members of the crowd at Reno people will resist mightily if they attempt to ban spectators. Someday I will make the pilgramige to the races fully aware of the potential risks for the chance to see highly modified experimental airplanes whizz by at mind numbing speeds.

[Dave2]

I've grown up with aviation. My father was an engineer at Northrop Grumman for 30+ years, my cousins fly and run aviation shops and my brother is a commercial airline pilot.

It is, and has been, well known that the Reno air races are extrememly dangerous for participants and spectators alike. While I am devastated by what happened I don't for a moment think that anyone there was not aware of the risks of attending the races.

Cutting edge aviation is still one of those pursuits that can frequently result in death and there is still little we can do to change that save not flying anymore. Every astronaut has had to come to grips with this and sadly some have died.

Despite what happened to members of the crowd at Reno people will resist mightily if they attempt to ban spectators. Someday I will make the pilgramige to the races fully aware of the potential risks for the chance to see highly modified experimental airplanes whizz by at mind numbing speeds.

I don't suppose they're televised?

[olafpfj]

I've grown up with aviation. My father was an engineer at Northrop Grumman for 30+ years, my cousins fly and run aviation shops and my brother is a commercial airline pilot.

It is, and has been, well known that the Reno air races are extrememly dangerous for participants and spectators alike. While I am devastated by what happened I don't for a moment think that anyone there was not aware of the risks of attending the races.

Cutting edge aviation is still one of those pursuits that can frequently result in death and there is still little we can do to change that save not flying anymore. Every astronaut has had to come to grips with this and sadly some have died.

Despite what happened to members of the crowd at Reno people will resist mightily if they attempt to ban spectators. Someday I will make the pilgramige to the races fully aware of the potential risks for the chance to see highly modified experimental airplanes whizz by at mind numbing speeds.

I don't suppose they're televised?

They are and I've seen them that way over the years. I've never been able to figure out what network or when. I usually stumble across them on some obscure channel.

[Dave2]

I really like the old warbirds, and the P-51 is probably my all-time favorite aircraft. There just aren't enough of them left.

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why they're not still made, or at least available as a kit? It seems like everyone loves the P-51, so I'd think there'd be a market for them.

[olafpfj]

I really like the old warbirds, and the P-51 is probably my all-time favorite aircraft. There just aren't enough of them left.

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why they're not still made, or at least available as a kit? It seems like everyone loves the P-51, so I'd think there'd be a market for them.

There have been many attempts over the years to produce a kit of a P-51. There is a scaled down version and some attempts at a full version. They generally haven't caught on because they are really just a toy. You can't really take anyone (aside from yourself) or anything anywhere with it. They are also frightfully expensive and if you're going to sink that much money into a project you're going to want to get some practical use out of it.

Here's a 3/4 size one.

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/article ... 4_womb.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edited to add: I was told by a P-51 owner that it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1mil a year to own and operate a P-51.

[Dave2]

I really like the old warbirds, and the P-51 is probably my all-time favorite aircraft. There just aren't enough of them left.

Kinda OT, but does anyone know why they're not still made, or at least available as a kit? It seems like everyone loves the P-51, so I'd think there'd be a market for them.

There have been many attempts over the years to produce a kit of a P-51. There is a scaled down version and some attempts at a full version. They generally haven't caught on because they are really just a toy. You can't really take anyone (aside from yourself) or anything anywhere with it. They are also frightfully expensive and if you're going to sink that much money into a project you're going to want to get some practical use out of it.

Here's a 3/4 size one.

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/article ... 4_womb.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edited to add: I was told by a P-51 owner that it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1mil a year to own and operate a P-51.

Is that about in line with what other small single-engine planes cost to keep maintained and fueled, and if not, why is that one special?

[MadMonkey]

There's an extremely small niche market for real warbirds... think about the already small number of pilots in the country, then the number who actually own their own planes, and then those who can afford a high-performance warbird that really doesn't serve a purpose beyond being fun and historic.

Personally, I'd love to have one of the small replicas, but even if I was a millionaire, I don't think I'd own a full-scale one unless it was a museum piece that I'd never fly. It's just too much hassle to maintain, and I'm a HUGE WWII aviation buff.

[Dragonfighter]

edited to add: I was told by a P-51 owner that it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1mil a year to own and operate a P-51.

Is that about in line with what other small single-engine planes cost to keep maintained and fueled, and if not, why is that one special?

No. First off a Mustang is not a small single engine plane. A stock empty weight is 7295# vs. a nicely equipped Cessna 182 coming in under 2000#. The Rolls Royce/Merlin (Stock 1700 Hp capable) burns about 60 gallons an hour in it's normal operating envelope vs. Cessna 182 (Lycoming or Continental 200hp) burning about 13 gallons per hour. The typical maintenance cost of a Cessna 182 is around $1500 dollars a year vs. the same for an oil change on the Merlin. You can double that if you have a TEO but that is a very infrequent expense depending on how much you fly. Parts are readily available for the typical civil aircraft where their rarity and/or need to be blueprinted makes any parts on the Mustang wicked expensive. Oh yeah, you can have a relatively low time Cessna 182 with a nice instrument package for the cost of a mid range sports car, new your talking a good sized house ($180-225K). A flying, ready to go Mustang hovers around 2 million AND you have to have special ratings, special licensing, special A&P certificates, etc. I think your friend's estimate of a million a year is conservative if the plane is flown with any regularity.

I used the Cessna 182 because for practical purposes it can actually carry 4 passengers and luggage. A 172 on the other hand can carry a couple of adults and a couple of kids but virtually nothing behind the seat. A 152 may be a fairer comparison though. A 152 could, given enough concrete, get me and my instructor up and tool around at somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 knots. But for all intents and purposes it is as its name suggests a "Commuter". Well suited for a business man and his brief case cruising down to San Antonio for a meeting. IOW it is typically a single passenger plane making it a truer single engine comparison to the Mustang and what a difference in cost there. You can have one for the cost of a decent used car, it is easy to maintain and operate.

Now to TAM's points. Wing bobbing does not undermine the airworthiness of a plane, inherently. Airworthiness is determined by mechanical structural soundness vs. performance design goals. For instance you find a used Cessna sitting in someone's grass field for a low price. Maintenance may be sketchy but you think the price makes it worth a go at the maintenance hangar. You have an FAA mechanic come out inspect it and issue a "special" airworthiness certificate that states it is sound mechanically but you have to limit it to one trip and perform under certain limitations (typically well under max performance). In the experimental classes, be it a civilian bush plane, aerobatic performer or war bird, any modifications or for that matter restorations have to be cleared and certified by FAA inspectors. In a lot of cases (war birds excepted) the inspector will actually flight test the plane; this is common in home built kits. Once the plane is certified a special data plate is affixed giving the type rating and noting "experimental".

What extreme performance modification does do is make the plane more unforgiving to begin with (the mustang was a handful in its original form). So when your operating in the coffin corner of the envelope (low altitude max performance in this case) any departure will mean almost certain disaster. So then we look at the risk. This is the first time spectators were killed in a Reno crash while there have been dozens in auto racing. When you go to an air race, an air show or a NASCAR you expect bold men (and women) pushing there high performance machines to do incredible feats of high speed and aerobatic daring-do. When you attend one there is an assumed risk that an out of parameter accident can (and does) result in spectator casualties. So if Reno goes, so should Red Bull and by extension NASCAR, Indy, F1, etc. After all, was it worth the risk to the (now hundreds) who have been killed by-standing auto races?

As to the trim tab, anyone knows that the faster you go the more downward trim must be dialed in to keep pressure off the stick. When you are hurdling a 7000# piece of machinery through the air fine, and I mean VERY fine, adjustments need to be made in control input and trim adjustments. If he changed the chord of the wing, the cross section of the fuselage and did NOT change the size of the trim tabs, he would be negligent. The question of the elevator trim is hovering around whether the mechanical limits of its linkage were and can be expected to fail in this performance range. I would bet at least an AD calling for a redesign of the system for this application.

Remember, races like Reno, Schneider, Bendix, Reims et al gave us the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Sabre jet and any number of history makers in the first place. I attend air shows all the time with the understanding that, in rare occasions, people die. Is it worth it? I think so and for myriad reasons.
To suggest the pilot was negligent when he was known for his attention to safety checks, the plane was certified by the FAA and used in a very limited and isolated way is not appropriate. That said, Reno's death knell may have rung.

Added in Edit: Someone mentioned an Immelman...it was closer to a Reverse Half Cuban Eight that didn't recover. Just being persnickety.

[Keith B]

Added in Edit: Someone mentioned an Immelman...it was closer to a Reverse Half Cuban Eight that didn't recover. Just being persnickety.

It was me. And yeah, you are correct since the plane had gone back upright from inverted, but was still traveling in basically the same forward line (even though downward) instead of back 180 from the original path.

I really don't think there was a darn thing the pilot could do other than maybe the pitch up to try and climb away, but since the control tab was gone and he GLOC'ed, the end result was inevitable.

[esxmarkc]

Added in Edit: Someone mentioned an Immelman...it was closer to a Reverse Half Cuban Eight that didn't recover. Just being persnickety.

In my circles we call that a "Reverse Half Cuban Nine"

[7075-T7]

I've been in an Single engine aircraft that had all of the correct maintenance done to it by a certified mechanic at the correct time, but it still came down. Long story short, mechanic used the same bolts to secure the propeller after a rebuild that he removed. At about 7500 ft one of the bolts let loose, which caused another to fail and so on. Since the prop pitch was oil controlled, the line had been damaged and the windscreen quickly became fouled with nice dark oil, the engine also ceased to function due to the damage. The pilot dead-sticked it down using the pilot window and landed in a remote field in alabama. On the way in a large tree wasn't seen since it was on the starboard side removed the starboard wing at 30ft AGL which caused the airframe to yaw almost 180 degrees in the last 30ft. "landed" backwards, removing the gear, propeller, and other bits on the base of the plane. All passengers remained unharmed.

Even certified maintenance at a certified shop on a certified airframe, all things will fail. Now this was neglegence of the mechanic on my side, and we'll know where the neglegence was in the reno crash, but it's likely to be one small part in which its time was up and tragedy results, which IIRC is the cause of most aviation disasters. That third dimension is the demon for any pilot. /rant

[Rex B]

Excellent background story on the airplane and the owner. Long.

http://www2.leewardairranch.com/racing/ ... -made-reno" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[knotquiteawake]

My buddy's younger brother was there, this is him interviewed by the today show or something like that... he's clearly feeling the effects of the pain killers as he tries to answer their questions. But it was interesting to hear from a friend who was there and his opinion of the safety of the airshows.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/ ... %3Bstories" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;