Collings Foundation P-40B gear failure

[wacopilot]

Hello,
I would like to add some info here. I am familiar with this aircraft since it spent many years in my hangar as it was getting started as Project Tomahawk in the late 80's. I also spent a few years on the board of directors, so I have been following it since it went to England and I am glad it's home now. It does have the proper Curtiss electric propeller, so yes the blades are hollow. But of more significance and really if ever has it been mentioned is the engine. Allison 1710-15 is very rare to begin with. But that particular engine has great historical significance, the serial number had been traced back to being shipped to China with the AVG And some how making it back to the U.S. durring rebuild many inconsistencies were found that did not match drawings and overhaul manuals, this was later found out to be due to the way the engines were assembled at the factory. The U.S. gov't had claim to all the engines coming off the line so engine assemblers were given the task of using parts that weren't necessarily to spec. So each engine was essentially custom built and there for had slight variations and by most accounts they were extremely good engines.

[Chappie]

Yikes. That sucks. Glad pilot is okay. Any landing you can walk away from......


Chappie

[DH82EH]

Thanks for the insight wacopilot.
First hand info is always welcomed here!

Andy

[Richard W.]

Shocking how quickly bad stuff can happen in aviation. It was just a little while ago I was worried about that poor P-40 getting it's paint scuffed in the shipping container.

[Sabremech]

FAA preliminary data is up. Ground loop resulting in gear collapse. Sad to see them in this condition. Hope to see it back up soon.

[hang the expense]

FAA preliminary data is up. Ground loop resulting in gear collapse. Sad to see them in this condition. Hope to see it back up soon.

From the damage "soon" will be around 2 years, provided they have a spare prop assy.

[Dave Hadfield]

Ground loop. Darn.

The P-40 is fairly benign on the runway within narrow limits. But beyond those limits it rapidly goes beyond recovery. Even the long-tail models.

I teach that you simply CAN'T let a swerve get established on a P-40.

Dave

[Warbirdnerd]

Jim Harley posted pictures of the P-40 on Facebook. It is back in one piece and awaiting a test flight. Here is one of the pics, unscrupulously linked from Facebook:




Jim posted them here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

[Noha307]

This is the Pearl Harbor survivor, correct? I've always wondered, how much of that aircraft is actually original?

This is one of the warbirds I've always had a problem with the idea of being airworthy.

Is it just me or does it seem like gear-related mishaps seem to be the bane of the Warbird movement?

You're telling me.

[Dan K]

Is it just me or does it seem like gear-related mishaps seem to be the bane of the Warbird movement?

You're telling me.

I had understood that the damage to P-40M 43-5813 was caused by a leaking oil cooler resulting in complete engine failure, and that the gear damage occured after the plane left the runway while landing deadstick.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat ... 111&akey=1

Seems kind of a stretch to label this episode a "gear-related mishap"...or is there more to the story than the NTSB reported?

[Warbird Kid]

Like the paint adjustment on 284. Now who wants to see these two together:

[DaveM2]

This is the Pearl Harbor survivor, correct? I've always wondered, how much of that aircraft is actually original?

This is one of the warbirds I've always had a problem with the idea of being airworthy.

Is it just me or does it seem like gear-related mishaps seem to be the bane of the Warbird movement?

You're telling me.

As I understand it virtually none, when recovered the remains were noted as 'bite sized chunks.' Photos taken when the original group was rebuilding it show all new structure.
So I would be overly concerned about it flying 'historically speaking.'

[Richard W.]

Like the paint adjustment on 284. Now who wants to see these two together:

Which one is most correct? Numerals smooshed together or applied with some space between them?

Or, are both documented original a/c?

[JohnTerrell]

I don't think there was a real standard. The Rod Lewis P-40C, in George Welch markings, is accurate to all of the best depictions I've seen of the original aircraft. The Collings' (former TFC) P-40B is based on an original photo of the aircraft (as seen below). Perhaps there was only so much area of the fuselage that was designated for applying the 'buzz numbers' (say, between the stars and formation lights), and since the George Welch scheme had a '1' in the number, there was more room to play with/spread them out?



More examples of different 'buzz number' applications around the same time/place:

[Tim Savage]

This is the Pearl Harbor survivor, correct? I've always wondered, how much of that aircraft is actually original?

This is one of the warbirds I've always had a problem with the idea of being airworthy.

.

Thus the beauty of the free market system. If you have a problem with it you can pony up the 3 million or so and try to buy it. However, without a massive infusion of cash from a private individual it would still be a pile of parts in the back of a hangar at Torrance. That private individual wouldn't have put the money into it if it couldn't be flown.