B-25 Mitchell with bad attitude ?

[bomberflight]

The Duke of Brabant Air Force ( based in Holland ), have put in a number of appearances at UK airshows this year with their B-25 Mitchell ( N320SQ ).

These shots were taken at the Biggin Hill Air Fair a couple of weeks ago, with a record 120,000 plus people in attendance.

Their display starts fairly flat but gradually winds it's self in to some really tight turns ....... as I think the last picture shows









I just wonder if anyone in the crowd was impressed with how far these guys will push the airplane. I had visions of them going straight to the scene of the accident. ( and having witnessed three fatal crashes at airshows I would rather not increase that tally ).

When I glanced at the people standing near me ~ most had stopped watching at the point of the last shot.

If the B-25 was about to depart from controlled flight and you could avoid burning the images of the next 30 seconds in your head forever by looking at the ground instead, that's exactly what many of us did.

[warbird1]

Some questions about that last picture. What exactly was he doing? Was he doing an aileron roll or just rolling it past inverted as his momentum was pointing up? Just because an airplane flies upside down, doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous. As Bob Hoover, Tex Johnston and others have shown, it's the G's that affect an airplane, not it's attitude and whether it's upright or not. I would really like to see video of it's performance or more information to put that picture into context. I hate to make snap judgements about airplanes and their flying strictly off of a single photograph, especially one with no ground references in the same picture.

[Django]

I've not seen a B-25 do a roll before. That rules!!

[warbird1]

I just did a quick search on youtube and found this video of the Duke performing at an airshow from 2007:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMaai1LyjlM

If you look at about the 2:20 mark on that video, it appears that the airplane rolls a little bit past the 90 degree bank in it's upward climb.

From that video, it does appear to be a more aggressive display than what I've seen other B-25's do. I don't know if I'm ready to say that it's necessarily dangerous though. Remember, the airplanes attitude does not correspond to G loads. You can roll an airplane in a 1G environment. I'm not ready to pass any judgement yet.

What do others think?

[Mike]

I've seen their display on several occasions, and they do bank the aircraft steeply, beyond the vertical at times.

My only question is, is this really necessary? The Biggin Hill organisers know only too well (after the September 1980 A-26 accident) that you only need to get it wrong once. The golden rule should always be to display the aeroplane, not the pilot.

[Warbird Kid]

I thought the A-26 accident was due to the pilot being suicidal. Im not trying stir up anything, just trying to get the facts.

[bipe215]

I've not seen a B-25 do a roll before. That rules!!

Don't think he rolled it. Just a wingover a little past vertical.

Steve G

[gary1954]

Is it really "Necessary" to roll the B-25 beyond 90 degrees, or even to 90 degrees if actually unwarranted. Does this not fall into "unusual attitude", Personally, I cannot see intentionally placing an aircraft in an unusual attitude unless accompained by a CFI (but this is just my opinion)
The Mitchell sounded sweet though, saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaweeeeeeet

[warbird1]

Is it really "Necessary" to roll the B-25 beyond 90 degrees, or even to 90 degrees if actually unwarranted. Does this not fall into "unusual attitude", Personally, I cannot see intentionally placing an aircraft in an unusual attitude unless accompained by a CFI (but this is just my opinion)
The Mitchell sounded sweet though, saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaweeeeeeet

That's what happens when you get big-headed pilots who try to "outdo" everyone else just to stroke their own egos. I don't really see it as necessary either, but it's their airplane. The FAA considers anything beyond 90 degrees of bank aerobatics. I don't know what the rules are in Great Britain and Europe, though.

I'm sure at least one of those pilots is a CFI. Warbirds are not generally flown by low time or just private pilots. Though there are exceptions, most warbird pilots are exceptionally qualified with many years of experience.

[Matt Gunsch]

Gary,
Do you know what a CFI is ? it is someone with at least 250hrs of flying time, that has past some tests, and thinks he knows how to fly and is gods gift to aviation.

I have flown with alot of 250hr wonders from a flight academy I used to work for. Before I got my cert, I would have to get one of the wonderkids to go with me on flight tests, I would go thru my test card and then ask them if they wanted to verify my results. Most of them had no idea what I was testing for.

[rwdfresno]

I was flying in the B-25J "Heavenly Body" one time when the pilot exceeded 90 degrees of bank. The maneuver was at a decent altitude and didn't pull a lot of G's. I don't think it is a particularly dangerous maneuver for a B-25 if done correctly. It's isn't really a roll, it is more of an I am not one for taking a lot of unnecessary risks in aircraft but at the same time if you know the limitations of the aircraft and fly well within them then I don't see that as being irresponsible. Now flying an aircraft within feet of the ground is a VERY unnecessary risk that I see all the time and nobody seems to care about it other than me. Everyone hoots, hollers and cheers and I just look away and pray they don't cartwheel into my hangar when the prop catches the ground.

Being a CFI doesn't have much to do with being qualified, current and experienced in a particular type of aircraft. I have a good friend who was a CFI for years and maintains his CFI license and flies the absolute minimum amount of hours to keep his certifications current. He has plenty of hours and experience but won't take anyone up with him until he spends some time making himself current.

[vg-photo]

I LOVE that second shot!

[bipe215]

Is it really "Necessary" to roll the B-25 beyond 90 degrees, or even to 90 degrees if actually unwarranted. Does this not fall into "unusual attitude", Personally, I cannot see intentionally placing an aircraft in an unusual attitude unless accompained by a CFI (but this is just my opinion)
The Mitchell sounded sweet though, saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaweeeeeeet

That's what happens when you get big-headed pilots who try to "outdo" everyone else just to stroke their own egos. I don't really see it as necessary either, but it's their airplane. The FAA considers anything beyond 90 degrees of bank aerobatics. I don't know what the rules are in Great Britain and Europe, though.

I'm sure at least one of those pilots is a CFI. Warbirds are not generally flown by low time or just private pilots. Though there are exceptions, most warbird pilots are exceptionally qualified with many years of experience.

Actually, the FAA considers anything past 60 degrees acro. Don't know what the rules state across the pond. In the big wingover this guy is doing, the aircraft is basically in a ballistic arc over the top. No stress and no problem if he does it right and it looks like he knows his airplane pretty well. This isn't to say he can't screw up, just the maneuver itself isn't particularly hazardous.

Steve G

[daveymac82c]

It's also 60 degrees bank in Canada too, but celcius, not fahrenheit.

The 90+ bank noted in the youtube video wasn't quite as dangerous looking as the earlier wing-over at about 1:00 of the video. I didn't quite like the slow speed they were at upon recovery from the maneuver. Then again, from the video and no reference to the ground I may just be seeing things.

The photo posted of the 90+ degree bank almost looks like 130 degrees since there's no horizon reference... was it shot straight up?

Overall, I think the airplane was operated in a safe manor with the exception of the wing-over I mentioned.

Just my two cents.

- David

[bipe215]

I think we worry too much.

Steve G