This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:12 am
My dad just called to let me know about this, it was on the local Norfolk news last night; no word on identity of the aircraft or the pilot and passenger at the moment.
My thoughts and deepest sympathies go out to the family and friends of those lost.
http://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/two-killed-in-vir-plane-crash/article_b68a8988-404a-11e4-b3f7-001a4bcf6878.htmlLynn
Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:56 am
Sad news. My thoughts & prayers go out to the families of the two people who were killed.
"...The craft, a World War II T28-C, crashed in an infield patch of kudzu on the 1.1 mile Patriot Course."
The level of ignorance of the reporter is sad too. Can't even find his way to verify his "facts" as far as Wikipedia for example.
Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:37 am
Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:35 pm
Could someone verify that the crash occurred during aerobatics OR after aerobatics. Thx.
( I run safety seminars for warbird pilots. Such details are of value in safety education. FYI)
RIP.............
VL
Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:07 pm
mlenoch wrote:Could someone verify that the crash occurred during aerobatics OR after aerobatics. Thx.
( I run safety seminars for warbird pilots. Such details are of value in safety education. FYI)
RIP.............
VL
One poor quality video shows a low zoom pass with smoke on, followed by a barrel roll and possible loss of control over the tree line, or just a loss of control on the climb. The aircraft rolled left and appeared to keep rolling.
Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:29 pm
mlenoch wrote:Could someone verify that the crash occurred during aerobatics OR after aerobatics. Thx.
( I run safety seminars for warbird pilots. Such details are of value in safety education. FYI)
RIP.............
VL
It could be highly relevant about the pre-crash smoke as to whether or not the airplane was equipped with a demonstration smoke system. I believe this remains to be discovered. If not, the pre-crash smoke could have been a factor in the crash.
As always, facts to follow.
Dudley
Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:55 pm
...and journalists wonder why journalism is dying.
Perhaps if journalists started behaving like journalists their industry would not be drying up in front of them. "World War II" era aircraft? Pathetic.
However, as a journalist, I know that there is a weekend, on-call editor simply wanting to put "something" out in to the giant mixing bowl that is the Internet in hopes of getting more traffic across their "news" website. Sad, really.
What a tragic loss. Two individuals and a beautiful aircraft. Godspeed.
Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:43 pm
Sad news, sad news. Blue skies & tailwinds to friends and family.
Ken
Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:47 pm
This reminds me of several years ago, Jim Price, a FEDEX pilot was buzzing some friends and he flew a high speed pass followed with a vertical pull up. It stalled at the top and snapped into a spin. He wasn't even doing aerobatics, just a steep pull-up. I've known two people that have died doing that and I almost busted it once doing the same thing about 25 years ago.
Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:11 pm
wdbj7.com wrote:State police say it was a World War II single-engine plane.
Guess the reporter was just repeating the police statement? They didn't say he was an
investigative reporter...
Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:27 pm
marine air wrote:This reminds me of several years ago, Jim Price, a FEDEX pilot was buzzing some friends and he flew a high speed pass followed with a vertical pull up. It stalled at the top and snapped into a spin. He wasn't even doing aerobatics, just a steep pull-up.
I believe that even that "vertical pull up" still qualifies as aerobatics...
14 CFR 91.303 includes the statement that "for the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."
And 14 CFR 91.307 requires the pilot to wear a parachute for any maneuvers which exceed "a bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or... a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon."
Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:05 am
Guess the reporter was just repeating the police statement? They didn't say he was an investigative reporter...
Verify, verify, verify. Police get things wrong constantly (street names, county names, etc.), especially when they communicate via press release, email, etc. It's absurd how poor writing skills in this country have become. That's the difference between cops and reporters: Cops relays to you what they think happened, a reporter (investigative or not) finds out the truth.
Enough of that.
Was looking through some negatives last night and I happened to see this particular T-28 at Thunder Over Michigan 2004. I thought it was a neat touch to have the VF-1 'Wolfpack' flash along the top of the vertical stabilizer.
Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:29 pm
Rajay wrote:marine air wrote:And 14 CFR 91.307 requires the pilot to wear a parachute for any maneuvers which exceed "a bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or... a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon."
Isn't there an exclusion for solo flight?
Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:40 pm
It wasn't a solo flight. The pilot's mother, of all people, was in the back seat. She too was killed.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.