Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1545863
Iron Chicken wrote:That's crazy! From the skew of the aircraft on the trailer it looks like the driver tried to take it through the gap and hit the traffic lights with the wingtip - so now even more damage likely at the wing root fittings. It's difficult to believe that such a valuable aircraft could be handled in such a clumsy manner. An assistant walker watching the tips would have prevented the hit and one with any experience of ground handling an aircraft, particularly hangar stacking, would have got it through easily.
I don't think there is a smilie that fits my opinion.

IC

You could do better, could you. The damage to the wing occurred during the forced landing.
avtur3 liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1545870
Robin500 wrote:The damage to the wing occurred during the forced landing.


To the right wingtip, yes - you can see it in the final airborne photos of the forced landing, and in the video below.

But the left wingtip looked undamaged when it was lifted in the field and onto the recovery rig, and in the video below.

vATCO's post on the previous page is relevant.

By Highland Park
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1545926
I've read somewhere that at Duxford they have to now be at least 500 ft over the M11 apart from take off and landing (happy to be corrected); in this instance it wasn't a solo display but part of the Balbo and pulled out of the formation on the downwind leg. I've no idea what height the Balbo crosses the M11 but it looks higher than 500 feet...
#1545928
flyingeeza wrote:Does anyone know what the official minimum authorised display height was for these warbirds' run-ins down the display line?


It will be whatever is in the individual display pilots DA, or that set by the Flying Display Director, whichever is the higher.
#1545940
The last time I attended a display at Duxford the crowd line was further back,and displaying aircraft were flying higher, spoiled it for me.

I obviously understand why, but it was a far cry from the days of the late great Ray Hanna &co.
Barcli liked this
#1545990
Maxthelion wrote:From those Facebook photos it looks like he may have been trying to stretch the glide to avoid the near boundary of the field he was aiming for. This would have been the right thing to do when you consider that it's likely that there is a ditch there that could have turned him over had he landed before it. There is a lot of up elevator shown as he crosses the fence, at a height that seems too high to be flaring. Presumably the 'substantial damage' sustained by the aircraft was as a result of the gear legs being punched through the wing as the aeroplane dropped on from a height after stalling. Something I've done myself, though without quite as much damage. :oops:


The glide speed of a P51 operating around 9000Lbs is 130mph clean, full flap 120mph, these do not account for a windmilling prop which will produce enormous amounts of drag giving a glide path angle approaching that of a lead balloon, although with the damage to the prop tips it may have still been producing some power at touch down.

I can imagine a few reasons for trying to raise the gear whilst still having a functional hydraulic pump from the windmilling prop or an engine producing some power.
1. To try and increase the glide range.
2. To reduce the stall speed which would be around 85mph depending on the final aircraft configuration,
3. Probably most important is to avoid nosing over and getting trapped after landing in a rough field.

The stall characteristics of most P51's in all configurations except with fuel in the fuselage tank, are a slight tail buffet 3-4 mph above the stall at which point the right wing drops gently, that may explain the damage to the right wing tip if the pilot touched down just above the stall.
If fuel was carried in the fuselage tank which I very much doubt as it was displaying and that tank is for long rang ferrying then the stall characteristics change dramatically. There would be no buffeting approaching a stall but a series of stick reversals and the right wing would drop sharply necessitating immediate recovery action as a spin may develop.

Regardless of all of the above the pilot did an exceptional job avoiding the local school, hospital, puppy farms and getting the aircraft down safely whilst walking away uninjured which is all that matters. :thumleft:



"Meaxthelion"
Presumably the 'substantial damage' sustained by the aircraft was as a result of the gear legs being punched through the wing as the aeroplane dropped on from a height after stalling. Something I've done myself, though without quite as much damage. :oops:


Looking at this recovery video around 4:20 there is no damage to the upper wing surfaces from the u/c coming through after impact, so a successful gear retraction for belly landing in a rough field. :thumleft:

bogopper, MikeB liked this
#1546040
The stall characteristics of most P51's in all configurations except with fuel in the fuselage tank, are a slight tail buffet 3-4 mph above the stall at which point the right wing drops gently, that may explain the damage to the right wing tip if the pilot touched down just above the stall


The Mustang's wingtip hit a concrete block hidden in the cornfield, hence the damage. The pilot, a member of our team, reports that he still had partial engine power at 600' on left base for 24 and he put the gear down and started to turn towards the field. It then quit again, this time for good, and he realised that he wouldn’t be able to get round onto finals, so rolled wings level and headed for a cornfield in the undershoot.

"I chucked out some flap and retracted the gear, which was just about up when I touched at about 120mph. Unfortunately there was a concrete post hidden in the field boundary which took off the right wingtip and yawed me sideways a bit, but the aircraft only skidded for about 100m before stopping."
Lockhaven, mick w, skydriller and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1546256
Robin500 wrote:The last time I attended a display at Duxford the crowd line was further back,and displaying aircraft were flying higher, spoiled it for me.


And an opposing view from me: I prefer the slight increase in height as it means ALL of the audience can see the show, not just those people who arrived at o-gor-blimey o'clock and set up their chairs, wind blocks and sunshades all the way along the crowd line thereby blocking the view for all the "late" arrivals.
Rob L liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1546271
No longer permitted.

A white line is drawn about 10 metres back from the crowdline and no erections are permitted in front of this line.

Rob P