Stupid pilot, step away from the Mustang.

THE tail dragger, on steroids. Everything that happens on landing is magnified by a factor of five. Then the runway disappears on flare.
Not the first one to be pranged on landing, won't be the last.

Glenn
 
When he'd fly the DC3 old guys pulled up lawn chairs to get a front row seat. This bird was sold to somebody in Salinas, ca unrepaired. They "restored" it to a more standard warbird paint scheme. The pilot has LOTS of DC3 time.
 
Yep. Lots like definitely hundreds if not 1000's.
 
DavidWhite said:
I know a handful of mustang drivers, the general consensus is wheel landings are the way to go.
Click to expand...
No Mustang time but I have landed a T-6 (successfully:D) several times and all those landings were on the mains first. The consensus on that one is that when you put the tail on the ground the airflow over the rudder is partially blocked reducing it's effectiveness.
 
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
Click to expand...

Yup. The guys wrecking these things must really suck.:lol:
 
RoscoeT said:
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
Click to expand...

Probably also doing it on grass.

That was no three point, the touchdown was in no man's land between three point and wheel landing.


a wheel landing is fast and you have lots of airflow over the rudder. And plenty of rudder authority to stop a groundloop

The 3 point has less rudder authority but you plant the tailwheel at the same time, a planted tailwheel keeps the plane straight.
 
He had about 2000 feet of good-iffy pavement left from where he first touched the tires. I'm thinking that weighed heavily on his mind.
 
My checkride (1969) was in a Beech 17A. I had 40.2 hours AFTER the ride.

This is just incompetence. 44709 here we come.
 
Nah, this was years ago and he still holds all his ratings.
 
I thought this was going to be a thread about somebody on the ramp standing too close to the engine of a Cessna jet.
 
Oh dear god. The woman.

Oh yeah, sorry about the prop strike.

But dear god... How to undo the damage to my brain?
 
RoscoeT said:
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
Click to expand...

Lots of 18-20 year old kids died flying them too. More in accidents than in combat in most cases.
 
Anyone consider that he was just trying to make it go away by ending it all?
 
RoscoeT said:
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
Click to expand...
Here's the problem....those 18-20 year olds were flying every freakin' day, often multiple flights in a day (and back then the three point was the standard landing - I have a Navy training video for the SNJ that was filmed in the late 40's/early 50's and every landing was a three point). While their overall experience was low, their proficiency was a heck of a lot higher than the typical warbird operator today. I'd estimate that the average warbird flies only 25-50 hrs a year.

I think that is one of the reasons why so many prefer wheel landings. In most heavy warbirds, wheel landings are easier to do than a good three point. The weight of the aircraft and the shock absorption of the landing gear really delay the bounce effect and give you more time to get the stick forward and pin the aircraft on the mains. The same sink on something like a Citabria would have you instantly rebounding into the air. Consequently, because of the heavier weight, the momentum is much greater if you have deviations once on the ground. Moderate swerves that can be correctly easier with rudder and brake in a light airplane can quickly get out hand in a larger warbird.

Consequently, IMO you really need to have very good speed control going into a three point landing (which is what the accident pilot in the video did not have). Problem with that is that it requires proficiency that many warbird operators don't have because they don't fly as much.
 
RoscoeT said:
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
Click to expand...
Back then those young pilot's didn't have to pay for the airplane and similar landing accidents were likely quite common.
 
gismo said:
Back then those young pilot's didn't have to pay for the airplane and similar landing accidents were likely quite common.
Click to expand...

The military wasn't dumb...they would have had those boys doing wheel landings back then if they were somehow proven to be "safer". Pilots will wreck tailwheel airplanes regardless of the type of landing they choose to do.
 
RoscoeT said:
The military wasn't dumb...they would have had those boys doing wheel landings back then if they were somehow proven to be "safer". Pilots will wreck tailwheel airplanes regardless of the type of landing they choose to do.
Click to expand...
My own personal take is that when the tail is down it's harder to detect when an airplane starts to yaw on the runway. If it's harder to tell when an airplane starts to swerve the required correction has to be greater and this makes it more likely that at some point the rotation will become uncontrollable. IOW, wheel landings are "easier" and when someone's own wallet will get dinged along with the airplane, taking the easy way seems somehow more prudent. Couple that with the fact that a 3-pt landing isn't necessary if you increase the minimum runway size slightly and there's little incentive to sharpen the "full stall" (most 3-pt landings are NOT full stall) skills. Also a lot of T-6 landings are in formation and I'm told that the better view afforded at touchdown in a wheel landing is a safety factor then. In any case, when I fly a friend's T-6 he prefers that I stick with wheel landings and I want to keep him happy.
 
RoscoeT said:
It's funny how 18-20 yr. old kids with between 5 and 150 hours could so successfully 3-point Stearmans, BT-13's, T-6's, and P-51's during WWII, but they're so dangerous and difficult now. ;) Somebody get some skirts for these modern guys. :D
Click to expand...

Of course, when they bent one, as long as they didn't bend themselves in the process, they could just go hop in the next one down the line and try again.

gismo said:
In any case, when I fly a friend's T-6 he prefers that I stick with wheel landings and I want to keep him happy.
Click to expand...

When you have friends like that, you'd better keep 'em happy! :goofy:
 
If that was the pilot's wife, I wonder if the divorce papers have been filed??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top