Warbird Information Exchange

Honestly guys, I'm just glad he's ok. And it's a bonus that the P-40 didn't sustain a lot of damage and will be flying again soon. It seems that recently theres been too many 'accidents', and sometimes we lose sight of the fact of there being people in those planes. I guess this one hit home a little bit because of who the pilot was. I'm not trying to restir the pot here or anything, I just feel like adding in my two cents.

I was shocked to see this though. Bob is a great guy. I got to know him a bit last air show season, he helped me get engaged!! I'll never forget him for being so kind to help me out and make a memorable event even more memorable.

Here's to bluer skies for Bob and his P-40. Good luck and Good flying.

Brian

Has the FOD problem been resolved?
Luck was on his side; glad he is OK.
VL

My point on my posts are twofold; 1) the reporter or the information given to the reporter was very inaccurate. The airplane did not actually fly with the AVG and Gen Scott, it is painted to represent one of his "Old Exterminators". Ie it's not a national treasure per se. WHat happened between takeoff and 600'AGL. to jam the controls? Could this have been caught on preflight? WHy wasn't this caught on the pre-takeoff checklist? The reporter says he was concerned about an ensuing fire so he chose a wet soft field instead of an airport with emergency services? Sometimes when people have an emergency,say landing gear in this case, they will go back to an airport environment, call the tower and have them telephone a Jeff Clyman, or someone that is an expert in that aircraft and go through every possible option to try to remedy the problem. I have heard of this many times and sometimes it helps. SOmetimes they still have to make a gear up landing. Did they do this?
Doug Rozendaal wrote an excellent letter to the editor in the October 05 issue of Warbirds magazine. Not to speak for him, but essentually the article points out that there were ten fatalities last year in Warbirds. Four out of five of the accidents didn't have to happen at all. ATP rated pilots taking off downwind, others hitting powerlines,Stall on takeoff, etc.
Others are trying to say that I am criticizing the owner or his flying ability, or his experience level in the P-51. I'm not and like I said , I don't know him.
If it is not a mechanical failure, then about 90 per cent of the time the "human element" enters into why an aircraft gets damaged.

I think it is worth pointing out the commenting on accidents before the FAA reports is asking for trouble, or at the very least a backlash. I would suggest it is not wise to speculate AT ALL regarding pilot or plane until the FAA reports, and even then leave it to the report regarding the cause and maybe discuss prevention.

The appropriate direction this thread should have gone it would be to chastise the reporter for come clearly poor reporting. Unfortunately it was not the first time, and I would suspect it won't be the last.

I hope this helps put some perspective into this debate. Comments? Am I out of line here?

Regards,

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

Mike;
You're not out of line.
Most people want to know "what" happened and, many others like to speculate about what "could've" happened to cause an accident. I think it's part of human nature.

As a pilot, I am always interested in what actually happened because it could relate to me and my flying behaviors in some way. I've lost many friends in accidents, and have had many friends survive accidents.

Working in the airshow industry, I have been asked on many occassions to comment about "what happened". "No comment" is the standard reply. There are offical channels and proper investigative bodies for the "offical" comments. Even if we actually KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, "No comment" is the answer we are trained to give.

As most everyone knows, eyewitness accounts vary from person to person, and unless collected and correlated by someone with the proper training, such comments can be constured by the press to point to something that, in actuallity, has nothing to do with what caused the accident. This creates mis-leading information being put out for all to see.

As I stated, I thinks it's human nature to speculate, even if it is privately among our friends. This forum opens a lot of doors for public speculation among those with various knowledge levels.

I will always wait for the final report or a first hand discussion with the pilot before I'll start to speculate publically.
Blue skies,
Jerry

Might not have been prudent to fly around trying to fix gear problems while experiencing control problems.

Chad is exactly right. I know Brookhaven well. It is a busy uncontrolled field on the weekends. The "Crash rescue" when I worked out there was a pickup with fire extinguishers and a hose on it manned by whoever was working the Unicom radio. It is surrounded by suburban sprawl, shopping centers and pine trees.

Bob made the right call. If he departed Rwy 33 and found he only had rudder to adjust course? North of Brookhaven are huge sod farms and corn fields, and it would make perfect sense to just adjust the flight path and set up a glide angle, reduce power and just put it down where nothing is in the way.

Not to jump all over the reporter but unfortunatly reporters sometimes jump to conclusions just to get the story out. And as to whos "Fault" it was, accidents happen, people over look things, forget things. And sometimes its not anyones fault. So I think everyone should wait till the FAA report comes out before pinning the fault on someone; and even then dont get all on them about it.
Thats what I think and Im glad everything came out good at the end.

_________________
The conquest of space is worth the risk of life. - Gus Grissom

Is there any update on this aircraft?

I read about it a few months ago but haven't heard a word since then.

I hope the plane and pilot have recovered nicely. The "11456" plane and the Banta P-40 are my favorites. Love the sharks on them. I guess that's how they restore them in Kiwiland, they both look damned good.

Danny - aka 57burb, Gotgas, 46Tbird - if anyone here is on various other message boards. I can do an intro if needed, but suffice to say I'm a fan, but not involved with any birds or nests. I may be volunteering at Cavanaugh FM in Addison, TX next year.

The P-40 has been flying all season! I guess the damage was not too great!
Jerry

Danny/P-40less--

Pleased to report Mr Baranaskas' P-40 is back on the circuit; both "11456" and the Mustang "Glamorous Gal" were in the lineup at Thunder Over Michigan last month (there'll be some Thunder-related threads farther back with a photo or two of the Kittyhawk)...

Cheers

Steve T

The P-40 was flying two weekends ago at their home field, but I missed it
http://www.warbirdsoverlongisland.com/

I saw the P-40 in June at the WW2 weekend in reading PA and could not see any signs of repair or damage.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

Crap........did not put the 2 together.......seen it at our show here in VT in aug...........also had Jacky C show......pretty cool for 2 to be here.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005