TF-51 due to fly across the Atlantic this summer ?

[mustangdriver]

It went so well the first time.

Everyone seems to be forgetting how she ended up in Greenland the first time....I don't believe that the Germans are going to have an affect on their navigation equipment this time around. Just a hunch.

[Trey Carroll]

Everyone seems to be forgetting how she ended up in Greenland the first time....I don't believe that the Germans are going to have an affect on their navigation equipment this time around. Just a hunch.

Ya never know

On a lighter note, does anyone know the color scheme she will be sporting?

TC

Trey, if you are talking about the TF then check out Martin's post. He quoted an e-mail directly from Stephen Grey himself. Sounds to me like she is going in a European paint scheme.

[Trey Carroll]

Trey, if you are talking about the TF then check out Martin's post. He quoted an e-mail directly from Stephen Grey himself. Sounds to me like she is going in a European paint scheme.

55th FG, sounds pretty cool! Glad I'm going!

[mustangdriver]

However you look at it, you are talking about taking rare WWII aircraft that are 60 years old, and flying them for great periods of time over water. I hope that the crew is safe, and that the flight goes great. But you can't tell me that it does not enter that back of your head that this might be dangerous. I just don't see where the fire is to get them across the ocean, and back again.

[Trey Carroll]

However you look at it, you are talking about taking rare WWII aircraft that are 60 years old, and flying them for great periods of time over water. I hope that the crew is safe, and that the flight goes great. But you can't tell me that it does not enter that back of your head that this might be dangerous. I just don't see where the fire is to get them across the ocean, and back again.

To be totally honest that chance is so remote, it's barely worth considering. Here is my reasoning behind this: this TF is being rebuilt to factory, maybe even better than, conditons. Sure it's a risk, but isn't driving your car to work a risk? Sure, they're no where near the same but that's not the point. Stephen Grey has a brand-new Merlin, one of the warbird pilots ever, it's a recipe for succsess. I do see where you are coming from though. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it, and I also respect it.

Furthermore, I found this pic of the proposed scheme.



Trey

[mustangdriver]

All ocean crossing conversation aside, that is one sweet paint scheme.

[T J Johansen]

To those who plan to fly the aircraft (aircrafts...) across the pond this summer. Best of luck to you. I look forward to see you all at Duxford this coming July!

T J

[Bill Greenwood]

How can those planes be "better then new" or Stephen have a"brand new Merlin" ? Do those engines have new cases, new crankshafts, new prop shafts, etc.? Mike and Jack and other leading overhaulers do a great job, but there is no way that 60 years later they have access to all new parts, or expertise or budget that Rolls Royce had. Engine failure while not common is not unknown, and anything with a scoop underneath like a P-51, Spit, P-40 is known to have poor ditching qualities. With 2 engines the P-38 has more margin, but I'd guess the real reason to fly across might be to film the recreation of the original flight.

[Trey Carroll]

How can those planes be "better then new" or Stephen have a"brand new Merlin" ? Do those engines have new cases, new crankshafts, new prop shafts, etc.? Mike and Jack and other leading overhaulers do a great job, but there is no way that 60 years later they have access to all new parts, or expertise or budget that Rolls Royce had. Engine failure while not common is not unknown, and anything with a scoop underneath like a P-51, Spit, P-40 is known to have poor ditching qualities. With 2 engines the P-38 has more margin, but I'd guess the real reason to fly across might be to film the recreation of the original flight.

The materials are probably better, fuel qualities are better, there's probably a ton of thing that are done better than they used to be. I'm no professional but it's my educated(I try ) guess. Stronger metals, there's gotta be stuff thats better than it was 60 years ago.

[Lynn Allen]

It will make a great Imax movie, knowing Ed Shipley, it will be a winner.
Trey, where did you find the drawing of Miss Velma??

Lynn

[Bill Greenwood]

Trey, don't know if fuel is better; but my point is those engines and planes are not all new. Many of the critical parts are in fact 60 years old and have had some wear from vibration, and heat. As for metal, I have been told that Rolls Royce metalurgy was very high standard and some modern auto stuff is not as good due to budget limits. Jack Roush group has some great metal work that seems that may be the next step; but you must remember it has not undergone as lengthy testing as Rolls did. Nobody is going to run Merlins to failure on a test stand 24 hours a day as Rolls did. There are modern advantages in navigation and tracking that can help, especaially if one needs resecue, but that is not a factor in basic reliablility.

[Trey Carroll]

Actually, fuel quality is better. There was a study done, I have it around here somewhere, and Paul Draper from Roush Aviation might be able to post it, he fowarded it to my dad and I.

I do understand that the engines aren't BRAND NEW, I just thought that things could have changed, i.e. quality of metals. But now I get that they are the exact same Merlins as darn near 70 years ago. I just don't think that a freshly-restored engine won't take a dump over the ocean, now, I've seen parts fresh off the shelf go bad the first time they were used, but doesn't it seem likely that this trip will be well planned out, in order, ect. ect. I just don't think that that engine will take a dump, too unlikely. Yah, it happens but maybe I'm too optimistic. O well, at least it's in the best hands possible.

[mustangdriver]

The thing that worries me is that the loss is not worth the gain. Let's look at it this way. If it all goes well, you have a cool movie, and a bunch of people that might not ever see the plane get to see it. If it goes bad, stand the risk of losing "Glacier Girl", and a P-51, the lives of pilots, and no one gets to see any of the aircraft ever again. Do you guys really think if Glacier Girl makes a water landing that she is just going to float forever?(If she stays in one piece during the ditching) It is the attitude of the people here that scare me as if "if we crash this one we will just go get another." There are no more. As far as I know GG is the only E or F model around. I guess I would feel better if some one stopped and thought this out here, rather than just saying "Oh that is just one of those guys that wants to spoil the fun, and is against flying the old planes". That is the last thing I am saying. But if you see no difference between flying over Ohio , or flying over the ocean, then there is a problem. "There is such a thing as putting you ass on the line for something, and doing it for nothing"-Pete Conrad