Dave2 wrote:
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.
