PDA

View Full Version : Big Crash at Reno


Pages : [1] 2

buggaluggs
17th Sep 2011, 00:26
Very bad news, looks like a P 51 went in, in the pits/grandstand area.

More here

Plane crashes into crowd at Reno air races - US news - Life - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44556695/ns/us_news-life/#.TnPotk9TxwQ)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNePeKn3Tg&feature=player_embedded


:sad:

nitpicker330
17th Sep 2011, 00:35
Seems the Pilot was 80 yo. Now to me that seems a tad elderly to be racing a P51 at 500 kts Low level pulling god knows how many G with the public close by.

westhawk
17th Sep 2011, 00:36
The appears to have impacted the ramp area in front of the pits just about where I've typically watched the races from for 15 out of the last 20 race years. A friend of mine introduced me to Jimmy Leeward a few years ago and he seemed very young at heart and spirit. We spent a while at his pit box listening to amusing stories and watching his crew prepare the airplane for the next race. I had no idea he was in his 70s at that time. He was flying a different Mustang at that time.

I've been present for several "big crashes" at Reno and I'm not sorry I missed seeing this one.

bnt
17th Sep 2011, 00:54
It's bad. BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14957437) relaying unconfirmed reports of 12 dead, 25 critical injuries.

Orvilles dad
17th Sep 2011, 01:19
If you look at some of the other YouTube Videos, you'll see the aircraft did a zoom climb rolled and dived into the ground. It was clearly not under control from the start of the zoom climb.

I don't race aircraft, but I do race vintage cars - another sport where lots of old guys go to have fun.

Last weekend, there was a fatality at a vintage race at Watkins Glen - the car simply went straight on at full speed, whereas the track turned right. There was no attempt to turn the corner.

Increasingly, it is becoming clear that many accidents such as this are caused by the driver having a heart attack and simply not being in control of the car. That's what happened at the Glen, and that looks awfully like what happened at Reno with the Mustang.

412SP
17th Sep 2011, 01:25
Looks like OD has this accident all figured out. Guess the NTSB can go home.

Load Toad
17th Sep 2011, 01:51
Tw itter has some links to 40 + minute video showing the crash & aftermath. There was a comment claiming to be from a relative of a pilot in that race saying a trim tab had failed. There seems to reports of aprox 40 dead.

I don't think sick, 'witty' comments have any place in the thread at this point.


#renocrash

News reports claim the pilot was (check the link if you are interested):
Update: Renown says two confirmed dead in air races crash; pilot was stunt pilot for movies | Reno Gazette-Journal | rgj.com (http://www.rgj.com/article/20110916/EVENTS05/110916036/Reno-Air-Race-spokesman-describes-crash-mass-casualty-situation-Medical-official-says-75-injured-25-critically?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE)


CBS Live Feed: CBSNews livefeed (http://www.cbsnews.com/liveFeed/widget.shtml)

Carbon Bootprint
17th Sep 2011, 02:02
CNN is reporting the pilot "sent a Mayday" before "pulling out of the lap" and then going in. I can't figure out how to post a link with my iPad that I'm using now, but at the moment it's right up front on CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News (http://www.CNN.com).

There's also a BBC report saying 3 dead at this point. It looks bad indeed. Given the current administration, this could well mean the end of air shows in the US. Let's hope it doesn't turn that Draconian.

Huck
17th Sep 2011, 03:11
A good friend and fellow pilot just called - he was 50 feet from the impact. He saw a dozen or more dead bodies. His description of what he saw is staggering.

onetrack
17th Sep 2011, 03:20
While there are air races with 50 and 60 year old combat aircraft being flown to their extreme limits by very elderly pilots, for the benefit of willing viewers, there will be fatalities.

Perhaps the only thing that will change is when an aircraft plunges into the centre of the watching crowd and the fatalities are in the hundreds. That will probably result in some tightening of rules, and perhaps smaller amounts of spectators at the next show.

The dreadful disasters at Farnborough in 1952 and Ramstein in 1988 have done little to quench the appetite of those who are prepared to risk their lives, to watch pilots risk their lives.
One really has to question, at what point, antique, rare and valuable ex-combat aircraft, will be stopped from performing extreme stunts in front of crowds.

No doubt the lawyers will be slavering over this one... or is there an all-encompassing "out", in the Air Race entrance conditions on the ticket?
I'll wager no air show watcher ever reads the fine print that says "air show watching is a hazardous occupation, and the promoters accept no responsibility for death or injury of patrons". :suspect:

List of airshow accidents and incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airshow_accidents_and_incidents)

Desert185
17th Sep 2011, 03:32
Jimmy Leeward was 74, not 80. He was an experienced race pilot and movie pilot. The NTSB will be onsite in the morning.

I think we can agree that any form of racing is dangerous, and air racing is no exception. I would venture a guess that more spectators have been injured or killed in auto racing than with air racing. Note that this is the first case of spectators being hurt at the Reno Championship Air Races.

Condolences to Jimmy Leeward's family and friends and for the injured and killed in today's tragic accident.

skol
17th Sep 2011, 05:01
74 years old, you gotta be joking. I've flown with 70 year olds and they need spoon feeding.

Lowlevldevl
17th Sep 2011, 06:00
Let's please show some respect here. Jimmy Leeward was one of Reno's best.
The Galloping Ghost was an extraordinary aircraft. Notably because of its extremely short 'clipped' wings and absence of the familiar P-51 cooling scoop.
If she lost an elevator tab as is suspected, it's unlikely a younger, less experienced pilot would have made any difference to the outcome.
Personally, I'm grateful there have been people in the world like Jimmy Leeward who have had the courage and means to live their lives at high speed. They demonstrate to people like me and Skol that not everybody has to live mundane, pathetic little lives.

Load Toad
17th Sep 2011, 06:47
Everyone is entitled to take risk in their lives, we knowingly and mostly without being aware of it at all measure & take risks everyday. Of course air shows / races should be as safe as possible...but it isn't possible to have no risk. As awful as it is those that race and spectate at races are taking risk but it is the excitement from that risk that makes us feel alive.

Any crash at a show inevitably brings comment about old 'planes and old pilots and a call to end such shows (making life just a bit more dull) yet the same outcry doesn't follow a road crash nor does the same outcry stop governments stop unpopular wars or such.

Just proving that humans exhibit some strange vagaries when it comes to risk & freedom of choice I guess.

keezy44
17th Sep 2011, 07:29
I was directly below the P51 when it pulled up went inverted and dove into the ground. I thought it was going to hit our section of the stands but it hit 300 ft away. My wife had just left a box in front of the stands 15 minutes prior to join me in the stands that was 100 ft from the impact point. A few of my friends were injured slightly that stayed in the box but had blood and flesh on their clothing from the people who took a direct strike. I was in a war in Vietnam and never experienced the shock of seeing my friends covered with blood and in one case flesh on his clothing. It was going over 500 mph when it went in at an 80 degree angle. We have been coming to Reno for the Air Races 12 years straight but have a bad feeling this is it.

I hope I am wrong on the races being over. It is our favorite annual activity. I saw the whole thing and it looked like a mechanical problem, not a pilot one. I personally know a lot of the unlimited racers. One was the kid I soloed on his 16th birthday in the 70's. The other, Steve Hinton, took me on two P51 rides in the same time period when I was putting him through an instrument pilot course.

mike rondot
17th Sep 2011, 07:29
I am here at Reno and can tell those of you speculating about what happened this afternoon that the NTSB will investigate the incident and will in due course publish their findings.
The mood here is sombre but nobody who knows anything about airplanes is offering opinions about what went wrong/happened/caused the crash. There is a message there to those who will insist on airing their opinions on PPRuNe.

Standby Scum
17th Sep 2011, 07:48
LiveLeak.com - Plane Crashes at Reno,Nevada Air Race - (Sept. 16 2011) Another angle of this incident

&

http://i.imgur.com/XPKil.jpg

Proteus9
17th Sep 2011, 08:25
Kalium's link isn't showing up for me, but I assume it is similar to this one I've found.
http://i.imgur.com/yPwE1.jpg

I'm rather saddened to see some of the rubbish being said about old pilots. It is most unfortunate accident.

stickandrudderman
17th Sep 2011, 08:29
I'm no expert. I'd be surprised to learn that a failure like that would result in such a catastophic loss of control, some difficulty perhaps, but total loss of control is not what I would have expected.
A very sad event on many levels.

Say again s l o w l y
17th Sep 2011, 08:36
Oh no. What an awful thing to happen.

Anyone who is speculating on causes at this time is at best an idiot. Pipe down and keep your uninformed opinions to yourselves.

This crash will likely have some serious repercussions for Reno and air racing and air shows in general. Lets hope that no kneejerk restrictions get imposed, but that any lessons that are there to be learned get implemented.

A horrible accident and my heart goes out to all involved.

JEM60
17th Sep 2011, 08:39
As a British enthusiast, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Leeward. I met him at Oshkosh five years ago, and he gave me his baseball hat, with his other Mustang 'Cloud Dancer' on it. He was a very nice man, who always had time to speak to enthusiasts. British people who met him were frequently invited to visit his 'Air Ranch', where he was most accomodating to everyone, inviting even casual spectators to share in his barbecue. His cap became my 'decorating' hat. I will now refurbish it to it's 'as new' status, and it will sit on a shelf at my house in memory of this very pleasant man, whom, I gather, had recently become a Lay Preacher. RIP Jimmy. You were one of the best. Condolences to EVERYONE involved in this tragedy.

hambleoldboy
17th Sep 2011, 08:54
Pure speculation, but here is a possible scenario, after all this is a rumour network...

Elevator trim tab failure at high speed causes extreme high 'g' pitch up, pilot blacks out, slumps forwards, 'g' causes tailwheel unlock, aircraft impacts at full power.

Notice that in the pictures of the aircraft just before impact that the pilot's helmet is not visible, the elevator trim tab is damaged and the tailwheel is extended.

Details of the aircraft in normal configuration:

Galloping Ghost Specifications | Florida's Premier Airpark - Leeward Air Ranch (http://www2.leewardairranch.com/racing/galloping-ghost-specs)

westhawk
17th Sep 2011, 09:13
I'd be surprised to learn that a failure like that would result in such a catastophic loss of control

It can and has done so before on many occasions. Especially at high speed. We can save the specific mechanical and aerodynamics lectures for later, but have no doubt that flight control malfunctions at high speed are often catastrophic in outcome.

westhawk

Harry Cooper
17th Sep 2011, 09:25
Happened in 98 I think to another P-51 - apparently the aircraft pulled around 11G in the pitch up but luckily went straight up and not over such as this one. Pilot blacked out initially but recovered through 10,000' to get the aircraft back on the ground.

jcjeant
17th Sep 2011, 10:52
Hi,

Very clear pics of the accident (care .. explicits pics)
Updated pics: Air Races tragedy | rgj.com | Reno Air Races | Reno Gazette-Journal (http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=J7&Dato=20110916&Kategori=EVENTS05&Lopenr=109160802&Ref=PH)
Head pilot not showing ... unconscious ?

eltonioni
17th Sep 2011, 11:11
IF that image is real;

My own reaction to an unexpected pitch up would probably be to pull the power.

I'm guessing that a race-spec P51 has a bit more torque than my spam can, so along with the wonky elevator and the speed, might that be enough to put it on its back and... well you've seen the video ?

sitigeltfel
17th Sep 2011, 11:19
There does not appear to be a post impact fire. How much fuel would this aircraft have been carrying at that stage of the contest?

SFCC
17th Sep 2011, 11:23
It's a real pic...
It's been captured from various angles.
:(

jcjeant
17th Sep 2011, 11:34
Hi,

It's a real pic...
It's been captured from various angles. I can see on the pic that the elevators (the left for sure) are in neutral position during final dive
Can because the pilot loss consciousness .... ?

Dr Jekyll
17th Sep 2011, 11:45
Onetrack

There has already been considerable tightening of the rules since the incidents you mention. Which is partly why no spectator has been killed or seriously injured at a UK display for nearly 60 years.

Incidentally neither the Farnborough nor the Ramstein crashes involved either elderly aircraft or elderly pilots. Can you give an example of an airshow crash where pilot or aircraft age was a factor?

Pilot DAR
17th Sep 2011, 12:41
What a sad event. Though I never met Mr. Leeward, I flew into his air ranch a number of times.

Though I have no more information than what I see here, and I am not P 51 pilot, I can say that an elevator trim tab failure would be one of the most scary in flight failures I could dread. Yes, it could very easily completely over power the pilot, and indeed even the flight control system itself.

I once suffered a 5 degree elevator trim tab stop rigging error on a Cessna 206 (one quarter that airspeed of a P 51), and that very small control error created control forces which were at a minimum 50 pounds, where they should have been able to be trimmed out completely. I have total empathy for what Mr. Leeward must have had to manage for those last few seconds.

M609
17th Sep 2011, 12:54
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/jYoRbpYcu0h5Bi8ExcHFzQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD02MzA7cT04NTt3PTQ3OA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/23c6ee56ec89fb14f80e6a706700459c.jpg

Pilot DAR
17th Sep 2011, 13:04
Two things strike me about that photo:

The tail wheel is extended, when the mains are not, and, Mr. Leeward is not visible in the cockpit, a I would expect. Could a very high G event be a single cause of both of these things? A pitch trim failure could certainly cause very high G.

stickandrudderman
17th Sep 2011, 13:17
It looks as thought the one small consolation is that the pilot knew nothing about it.

Jane-DoH
17th Sep 2011, 13:40
I don't think the pilot's age had anything to do with this. There was at least one guy who was 82 and was an aerobatic instructor. I think that as long as a pilot can pass the physicals and has no sign of demential and such he/she should be allowed to keep on flying. (Personally I think the requirement that dictates airline pilots have to retire at 60 is stupid as well -- from what I remember, the requirement didn't have anything to do with age related problems)

From what that still picture shows (if the shot is legit), it looks similar to what hambleoldboy described.

BTW: Regarding to the statement of racing a P51 at 500 kts at low level... I was under the impression that the P-51 was only capable of those speeds in a dive, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was the case.

finfly1
17th Sep 2011, 13:51
How old was Bob Hoover when he quit? Gen Yeager?

BobM2
17th Sep 2011, 14:03
A sudden heavy G load may also explain why the tailwheel is down.

Skittles
17th Sep 2011, 14:06
To suggest that the crash was a result of his age simply because of his age alone is ridiculous.

Whilst I typically hate speculation, I think there's some evidence in the photographs - which along with previous accidents might give an insight into what happened. These are photographs of the aircraft;

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Vy6fF0D.pWevRzT36FCQRQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MTk7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/5e7548b1ec89fb14f80e6a70670062b6.jpg

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/jYoRbpYcu0h5Bi8ExcHFzQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD02MzA7cT04NTt3PTQ3OA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/23c6ee56ec89fb14f80e6a706700459c.jpg

Notice the lack of an elevator trim tab in the first photo. There was a previous incident a few years ago when during fast level flight, the trim tab of another P-51 (Voodoo Chile) broke off and the aircraft pulled into a 10G pitch-up. The pilot at the time was Bob Hannah. He immediately lost conciousness, and woke up having gained almost 9000 feet. If you look at the photographs of his aircraft 'Voodoo Chile' after the incident, you'll notice it's the same trim tab that went missing.

Also notice in the second photograph that you cannot see a pilot in the cockpit. One way or another he must be slumped forward, very consistent with heavy positive G.

And let's face it, I doubt there's anyone in the world who can stay concious with a completely unexpected and immediate 10G load.

Furthermore, the testimony of people on the scene suggests structural failure.

sitigeltfel
17th Sep 2011, 14:14
Another pic showing part of port stab trim tab missing..

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee201/sitigeltfel/GallopingGhost.jpg

An earlier shot showed it beginning to detach.

O'Neill No6
17th Sep 2011, 14:17
I've never seen an aircraft accident like this. Incredible footage on The UK Daily Mail website, taken from a podcast.

Considering the speed of the aircraft, it seems fortunate that it went down vertically. In the podcast you can see an impact point and then nothing (I can see) that looks like an aircraft. No fire or smoke (save a short initial burst), just impact and debris.

Those hit by shrapnel must be in a state and I hope they don't suffer too much, too long.

I haven't been to an air race, but these sort of high impact crowd incidents take one back to motor racing in the 1950's and 60's. 74 years old seems to be a bit much to be absorbing so much g and for this sort of high energy environment.

O'Neill.

NWA SLF
17th Sep 2011, 14:19
The unlimited class winner last year (I believe, it could have been a year or 2 earlier) averaged 482 mph over the 6 lap race. I believe they fly about 450 feet AGL and are highly modified to obtain these speeds, but are at their limits. A failure at the speeds they fly of course can tax anybodies abilities. Jimmy Leeward could handle them with the best. My prayers to his family and all the people at the races who were injured physically and mentally by this horrific crash.

Zorin_75
17th Sep 2011, 14:26
BTW: Regarding to the statement of racing a P51 at 500 kts at low level... I was under the impression that the P-51 was only capable of those speeds in a dive, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was the case.
Those aren't ordinary Mustangs. Top qualifying lap this year was a 499 mph average...

austerwobbler
17th Sep 2011, 14:36
I hope all the people criticising the age of the pilot feel a bit silly now, I have done a lot of flying with a pilot 70+ years of age, they should try it ! You would learn a lot of old school flying skills as well as etiquette .

"My heart goes out to all in such a tragic accident"

Austerwobbler

Say again s l o w l y
17th Sep 2011, 14:36
Low level, high speed. Any problems in that situation tend to be a very serious ones.

These unlimited machines are absolute rocket ships and are right on the limit much of the time. With the picture of the trim stab coming off. A picture is starting to form about what *might* have happened. The pilot could have been 10 or 100 and I don't think the outcome would have been different.

With that in mind, can we forget about the pilots age in subsequent comments please.

Sawbones62
17th Sep 2011, 14:43
From KOLO-TV (http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/A_Pictures_Says_a_Thousand_Words_130007898.html)in Reno:

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/plane+enlarged.jpg (http://media.graytvinc.com/images/plane+enlarged.jpg)

O'Neill No6
17th Sep 2011, 14:54
Possibly age is relevant in the ability of a very mature human being to absorb the sudden unexpected increase in g caused by the suggested trim tab failure?

I was accustomed to flying aircraft where moderate to high g was a normal part of the day. But even with a g suit it was tiring, and I was in my 20's then. I am 50 now and would not want to put myself under that sort of stress now, let alone at 74!

May turn out not be related to this horrible accident. But I don't think you would find many people who are not surprised at the age of this man, given the stress of the sport of air racing.

O'Neill.

FleetFlyer
17th Sep 2011, 16:15
How about quitting the squabbling chaps, and getting back to the topic?

Skittles' analysis gives what seems to be a very plausible scenario for how this incredibly tragic accident occurred.
Despite this accident having probably nothing to do with the age of the pilot, I agree that there may be reasons to look into the physiology involved in racing at the ages some of these pilots are. However, any restriction should be based on empirical evidence and possibly individualised testing to establish personal limits.

To those who wish to clamp down on speculation; belt up and stop reading a forum named 'Professional Pilots' RUMOUR network'. Discussing the probable causes of tragedies helps us to prevent future ones. Don't even get me started on waiting for accident reports to be produced. Discussing safety is an insult to nobody.

Pilot DAR
17th Sep 2011, 16:20
Uh oh, this thread is going downhill fast!

Age could be a factor, but could be a small factor. To be truthful, I very much doubt anyone will ever know that for sure. Stirring that pot here, with so few facts, is totally pointless. I do know that age is a major factor in some amazing training I have had over the years, and as recently as last month, from a super 75 year old private pilot, who's been flying longer than I have been alive. I'm not amazed by his age, I'm envious! I hope I fly as he does, when I reach age...

It would appear that there is reason to suspect a control system failure. It is certain that a serious control system failure could cause a crash in any aircraft. Those who seek out the report in time, will read whatever answers the NTSB comes up with.

For myself (while occupying left seat, in case that somehow matters), when I am required to flight test to dive speed, I check elevator trim tab freeplay and security very carefully. I have had two rebuilt before I would test the aircraft, because I was not satisfied the freeplay was acceptable. What I have seen so far in this really unhappy event assures me that I should keep doing that!

I struggle to imagine anyone here having a personal agenda on this topic!?!. This is a place where people exchange ideas and opinions for entertainment, and perhaps some mind expanding. Don't worry SAS, a few posters seem to have some growing up to do, I know you won't be phased.... I don't recall seeing your posts here for a while, welcome back, if that's appropriate. I look forward to more of your thoughts....

So, if wise people reading here, were to actually try to learn something from the very preliminary FACTS known, and be better pilots in their own right, what would we do?

I'll be paying even more attention to trim tabs, particularly on faster aircraft I fly.... (Oh, and I'm going to act my age!)

Say again s l o w l y
17th Sep 2011, 16:59
Hiya Pilot DAR, Too busy at work I'm afraid to do much posting on here! Hopefully that'll change soon, but until then I have content myself with the odd fly by posting!

I can't add anything to your post, because it's spot on.

Duckeggblue
17th Sep 2011, 17:00
Respect people PLEASE.
Speculation as to cause is fine and may even be healthy.

But if it reads as blame and/or advocates all sorts of restrictions based on sweeping generalisations and a little knowledge, it does nobody any good - and it may hurt those directly connected to this accident.

The range of pilot abilities in this world is vast and not always related to pilot age.

BreezyDC
17th Sep 2011, 17:11
In the photo of the plane diving from the left, it looks like not just the trim tab, but the entire left elevator and part of the horizontal stab is gone.

The cooling boiler appears to vent on the left as well. What was the impact of steam flowing over the left side at speed?

thcrozier
17th Sep 2011, 17:45
Anyone know what elevator trim settings are used in the unlimited class as you make your way around the full course? I'd think it would be pretty nose up during the turns probably transitioning to nose down as you roll the wings level toward level. Just curious.

Lyman
17th Sep 2011, 18:13
keezy44

I saw Hinton crash into the sage after engine failure (seizure) at low level. Initially he was announced as dead, but as we all know.... I think it was 1980. "RED BARON" with twin contra rotating Props.

If a racer is having problems, his first duty is to leave the circuit, with a max (if possible) climb. This is consistent with the photography, and the roll seemed gentle. If the climb was inadvertent, or unavoidable, well, things happen. Just to add, shoulder harness or no, without a helmet bracket (NHRA), pilot's neck broke likely immediately. The Pitch Up was unreal.

Informed consent is the drill. If you agree, you got no bitches coming if you croak. Allowing children, who cannot give consent to this, is another story.

No one gets to RENO by accident, but sometimes they leave because of one. I honor the cessation of the racing this year, who could fly after such a thing? But next year, I'll be back. Danger diminishes as the distance from show center increases.

Latte tester
17th Sep 2011, 18:26
I would speculate that he was unconscious prior to impact, but at what point is uncertain. If that aircraft did in fact pitch up at 10g due to control failure, he was probably asleep almost instantly. In one of the pictures there is something visible in the front of the cockpit area, possibly his helmet, but in the side view nothing is visible...
RIP Jimmy Leeward, you died doing something you loved.
Condolences to family and friends.

Gulfcapt
17th Sep 2011, 19:47
My condolences to all who have been affected by this tragedy.

No speculation here but I will add that when the same malfunction happened to Bob Hannah in Voodoo, he did not have his shoulder harness locked. When he regained conciousness at 9000-10000 feet, he was bent over at the waist and his face was planted against the floor of the cockpit. At the time, Bob was in his prime and in excellent shape as prior to air racing he made his living as a professional athlete racing motorcycles off road - and was US National Champion for a number of years.

An almost instantaneous application of 9-10g's is a game-changer for everyone. I don't think Jimmy ever saw the ground fill the windscreen.

WilyB
17th Sep 2011, 20:30
The death toll from the Reno, Nevada, air race plane crash has risen to nine people, Reno police said Saturday.

Seven people died on the tarmac, including the pilot, and two died in hospitals, police said.

More than 50 people were transported from the scene with injuries, officials said shortly after the crash Friday.

CNN Breaking News

ExSp33db1rd
17th Sep 2011, 20:39
Old pilots.

ONLY because I'm an 'old' pilot did I find out that I had a problem - 'cos my age demanded an additional exercise ECG to renew my licence.

The problem was attended to and my licence re-issued, albeit with some restrictions - better than the alternative !

How many guys hurtling down the road towards you even know that they have a problem before they die and slam into you ?

Keep RENO to the facts as known.

On another site I've read a suggestion that the RENO accident was a deliberate Terrorist Attack. The "Darwin Awards" clearly aren't working.

BrooksPA-28
17th Sep 2011, 20:56
Does anyone know if pilots are required to wear G suits for this class of race? I hear there is a G suit specifically designed for racing named G-race. I believe it is used at Red Bull air race.

relevant info from IF1 technical rules (http://www.if1airracing.com/index_htm_files/IF1_Technical_Rules_Rev2011.pdf):
"You will be asked to demonstrate
a 6g load in flight, and perhaps
see 9+g in turbulence during
racing later."

Very sad day for all of aviation.

SFCC
17th Sep 2011, 21:03
No, there isn't :ugh:

BackPacker
17th Sep 2011, 21:30
Anyone know what elevator trim settings are used in the unlimited class as you make your way around the full course? I'd think it would be pretty nose up during the turns probably transitioning to nose down as you roll the wings level toward level. Just curious.


I'm not a race pilots but I do fly aerobatics. You set the trim to a certain value/speed before the sequence starts, and you don't touch it during the sequence. For starters because you don't have enough limbs to do so (one hand on the stick, the other on the throttle) and furthermore because a trim change also changes the characteristics of the aircraft. All of a sudden you are confronted with more or less back or forward stick force for the same maneuver. Not funny. So you simply haul the aircraft around the sky with rudder and stick alone, and don't touch the trim at all.

I would assume air racing is the same. You set the trim, probably for max power horizontal flight, before the race, and leave it there during the race.

What you might be confused with is that people on here are simply talking about a trimtab that apparently got loose. Now I'm not familiar with the P51 trim system but in a lot of aircraft that little tab is not used exclusively for trimming (in the speed stability sense) but also to create artificial stability into the tailplane. The aerodynamics and mechanics are a bit too complicated for now, but without such a tab you're not just lacking speed stability. You also lost all force feedback from the tailplane, which may lead to Pilot-Induced-Oscillations and even flutter. Both of which are not good news.

Even worse would be if the trimtab would detach partly, then bend over and start to act like an aerofoil on its own, forcing the tailplane against the stops all of a sudden. That would induce a massive pitch change.

drag king
17th Sep 2011, 21:52
I've never seen an aircraft accident like this. Incredible footage on The UK Daily Mail website, taken from a podcast.


I did. Same place, almost-same a/c...MISS ASHLEY II. And very similar reason too, at least from what you can figure out from the pics: trim-tab separated.

A very sad outcome even that day with pilot killed but the a/c (which broke up in midair) hit nothing on the ground but the desert floor...

Sad day. Even sadder to read so much cr@p about pilot's age, etc from the usual armchair experts.

DK :(

Lyman
17th Sep 2011, 21:53
At these altitudes, no one wants to burp and eat dirt, so let's set the trim for a NOSE UP bias, and 'need push' to stay low.

If the tab then departs, the NOSE will drop, BIG time. So pilot will counter with an emphatic NOSE UP.

Passenger 389
17th Sep 2011, 22:23
According to the AP:

"In a podcast uploaded to YouTube in June, Leeward said major changes were made to the plane before this year's race. He said his crew cut five feet off each wing and shortened the ailerons - the back edge of the main wings used to control balance - to 32 inches, down from about 60 inches.

"The goal was to make the plane more aerodynamic so it goes faster without a bigger engine.

"I know the speed. I know it'll do the speed. The systems aren't proven yet. We think they're going to be OK," he said.

Whether those changes may have had any bearing upon what happened is a question I'll leave to those more knowledgeable.

Note: that podcast quote reportedly is from June, so there were several months in which to do additional testing. I don't want to imply that he hadn't thoroughly tested the modifications.

GeeRam
17th Sep 2011, 22:24
There was a previous incident a few years ago when during fast level flight, the trim tab of another P-51 (Voodoo Chile) broke off and the aircraft pulled into a 10G pitch-up. The pilot at the time was Bob Hannah. He immediately lost conciousness, and woke up having gained almost 9000 feet.

And Hannah was 42 when that happened, so clearly he was too old as well........:rolleyes:
I think it's highly likely that the outcome of this event would have been the same had the pilot been 74 or 24.

Sad day for aviation and air racing.

Hats off as well to the civvie owned static 'vintage' Huey crew for immediately putting the a/c to use for casevac.:D

Jetblu
17th Sep 2011, 22:45
Very sad news.

I met Jimmy at Vero Beach in 1989/1990. What a down to earth, fantastic guy and brilliant pilot.

So many of these warbird guys have their heads up their own A...s, but Jimmy was a true exception.

Don't let his age fool you! I would fly with Jimmy tomorrow if I could, rather than some pilots I know half his age.

Sincere condolences to all affected

fdr
17th Sep 2011, 23:09
Initial reports are of a call from the aircraft indicating a problem, and then a very high g manoeuvre occurring. It is hard to reconcile this with any age factor. The photo of the tail section shows the inner tab separating and forcing the remaining tab to deflect (servo) the elevator TE up.

Whether 18 or 80, a sudden high g onset without being prepared will put most people's lights out. The pitch rate of the aircraft in the pull up, pull down, and the final start of the pull out is indicative of very high g loads being sustained.

Reno is spectacular, and not too many people go there without being aware that it historically can be dangerous for the participants, and the public are proximate to the event... at 500mph, a loss of control can cover a lot of ground, and "proximate" becomes down in it. It is a tragedy, but not completely unexpected. The surprise is that mixing high speed aircraft, low level ops and spectators is as incident free as it is generally.

thcrozier
17th Sep 2011, 23:36
Thanks BackPacker. That makes a lot of sense to me. I wrote the post while trying to figure out how separation of that tab, if it turns out to be related to the cause, would cause a sudden pitch up. If anything, it seems it might cause a pitch down.

I've never actually been to the RAR, so don't know what % of the time you are in level flight as opposed to some degree of left turn. If it's mostly left turn, I'd think you would trim it for the turn and muscle it toward the ground for any short period of straight and level flight.

http://www.visitrenotahoe.com/images/events/attheraces_course_photo.gif

Looks to me like they are in some degree of left turn almost all the way around.

P51D "Voodoo" - Qualifying monday noon, Reno Airraces 2011 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=2rWhrpirZEs)

englishal
18th Sep 2011, 00:42
Any problem with the trim or elevator at high speed could cause this type of crash, so it looks pretty obvious to me that this was the cause. The tail wheel seems to back that up. I'd also have thought that a sudden unexpected 10g climb might not only put your lights out but also break your neck whether 20 or 80 (in my limited aerobatic experience of not exceeding 6g). It is a testament that the wings didn't come off.

How many G would be required to pop the tailwheel out?

thing
18th Sep 2011, 01:33
It may be salutary to the age knockers to remember that John Glenn flew on the Space Shuttle Discovery at the age of 77, and trips on the Shuttle weren't given away in cornflakes boxes, you had to earn your place. Still going strong at 90 years of age.

Condolences to the spectators and pilot's families.

deSitter
18th Sep 2011, 03:42
Pure speculation, but here is a possible scenario, after all this is a rumour network...

Elevator trim tab failure at high speed causes extreme high 'g' pitch up, pilot blacks out, slumps forwards, 'g' causes tailwheel unlock, aircraft impacts at full power.100 percent agreed, and the TT failure was the result of a high-speed stall and buffeting. To say the pilot is to blame is an understatement. The one thing you can't do at an airshow is crash into the crowd. That's just not allowed.

This Mustang was extensively modified but still a Mustang with short wings. It had aerodynamic limits based on being a Mustang. I think he forgot that.

Interestingly it's been rebuilt four times, once after being gutted (for parts?) and twice more for previous crashes, in addition to the radiator removal and cooling system modification. Not a happy airplane.

-drl

lomapaseo
18th Sep 2011, 03:51
deSitter


100 percent agreed, and the TT failure was the result of a high-speed stall and buffeting. To say the pilot is to blame is an understatement. The one thing you can't do at an airshow is crash into the crowd. That's just not allowed.



any chance you could translate this a little better:confused:

are you saying that the trim trab is secondary to a pilot induced condition?

Just how can you control where a plane crashes when it's out of control in an uncommanded over-the-top?. So it appears that it is possible to crash into a crowd.

deSitter
18th Sep 2011, 04:03
The Mustang was always known to be subject to high-speed stall - separation of airflow from going too fast. This would cause buffeting in the elevator (an early warning) and the evidence here is that the elevator was torn apart. He seems to have been way wide in the turn and was probably pushing it to get in the race. Really, really stupid.

-drl

Zorin_75
18th Sep 2011, 06:26
He seems to have been way wide in the turn and was probably pushing it to get in the race. Really, really stupid.NTSB must be glad you've figured it all out so they can call it a day.
:mad:

BEagle
18th Sep 2011, 08:22
Agreed, Zorin_75!

deSitter, your comments are without evidence and are complete nonsense.

NX79111 was an Experimental Category aircraft; it is plausible that aerodynamic stress loads on the tailplane and pitch control system may have been modified as a result of the structural chnages made to the aircraft. But that will be for the NTSB to ascertain.

Whirlybird
18th Sep 2011, 09:03
"74 years old, you gotta be joking. I've flown with 70 year olds and they need spoon feeding."

And I've flown with 18 year olds who should go back to wearing nappies.

I've also flown with both 18 year olds and 75 year olds who are first rate.

Any of you age-bashers ever heard these two little words...INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES? Or do they have too many syllables for you?

hambleoldboy
18th Sep 2011, 09:14
Quote:
'Does anyone know if pilots are required to wear G suits for this class of race? I hear there is a G suit specifically designed for racing named G-race. I believe it is used at Red Bull air race.'

Youtube cockpit video of a similar Mustang at Reno, speed and 'g' are shown top left, sustained 'g' is around 2 to 3.5 so I would have thought tolerable for a fit pilot without g-suit.

Unlimited Air Racer 'Voodoo' Heat 3A with mayday landing. - YouTube

Zulu Alpha
18th Sep 2011, 09:53
Someone wrote this on another forum. I think it is a very sensible view.

Having a fair degree of experience in aerobatics, I'll offer the following:

For control failure to be the problem, it had to be both elevator and aileron failures. The gradual pitch up and following barrel roll was actually fairly leisurely and allowed plenty of time at the top to either push to sustain inverted flight or roll back to upright. The pilot did neither.

The pilot is not visible in the posted photos. This is possible only if he has slumped hard forward or down and to the side. Given the restraining harnesses, both would be difficult.

Again from the posted videos, there is no evidence of a sudden pitch up, spin, snap roll, or any other heavy gee-load inducing maneuver. There is a noticeable pitch up, but it is not a "snap" type pitch. It was simply the beginning of a barrel roll that ended vertical in front of the stands. I saw no evidence of last-minute maneuvering, either.

Having said all that, video can be extremely deceiving. I was scored on several maneuvers that should have been zeroed because the video did not show what about half of the judges saw. The only thing less reliable than video is the human eye.

Let the NTSB do their work. Conjecture is painful for those closest to the event

DX Wombat
18th Sep 2011, 10:29
Well said Whirly. :ok:
ZA :ok:

BarbiesBoyfriend
18th Sep 2011, 11:00
That horizontal tail looks unlike a regular Mustangs'. It's way too square and the corners are too sharp.

Was it just modified or was it from a different type or even a one-off?

Pilot DAR
18th Sep 2011, 11:43
100 percent agreed, and the TT failure was the result of a high-speed stall and buffeting. To say the pilot is to blame is an understatement.

Huh? Would deSitter please decode this?

In general, a high speed stall (among other factors) could cause buffet, which is quite different from flutter. That buffet could, and should act upon the leading edge of the H stab to give the pilot a warning of impending stall. It is unlikely in the extreme that the buffet would affect the elevator trim tab in any meaningful way.

Flutter of a trim tab could occur from a combination of circumstances, which would generally include none to only light aerodynamic forces on the tab and high speed, and a combination of other factors, which could be design, construction, or maintenance (but not piloting) related. A larger aerodynamic load (like high G - piloting) on the tab would tend to prevent flutter.

A high speed stall will occur when a combination of increasing G and decreasing speed causes the critical angle of attack to be exceeded, and the wing stalls. A stalling wing is associated with rapid deceleration, which is the best thing to stop flutter. To get the increasing G, a lot of pitch control force is being applied. This control force input is likely to also assure that trim tab flutter does not begin.

High G and/or high speed stall will not cause flutter, or buffet which would harmfully affect a trim tab.

Flutter of a trim tab, caused either by poor flutter resistance at high speed (design), or failure (construction/maintenance) could very certainly cause a loss of control and high G, which the pilot could not overcome (so not piloting).

Having no more information than the photos and videos I have seen here, it certainly does not appear to me that a high speed stall occurred, though there does appear to have been a trim tab position problem.

Desert Dawg
18th Sep 2011, 12:35
In the pictures posted earlier in this thread, there is one pic of the plane inverted and it appears (to me) there is a small trail of smoke emanating from the lower mid-section of the fuselage immediately behind the trailing edge of the wing.

Can the real pilots among us kindly comment on this and tell me if it is indeed smoke? And if you believe it's smoke, why is it there... and does this have any bearing/impact on the cause of this very sad disaster (aside from the obvious fail of the trim tab in the elevator)?

Thanks.

Ditchdigger
18th Sep 2011, 12:39
Someone wrote this on another forum. I think it is a very sensible view.



Having a fair degree of experience in aerobatics, I'll offer the following:

For control failure to be the problem, it had to be both elevator and aileron failures. The gradual pitch up and following barrel roll was actually fairly leisurely and allowed plenty of time at the top to either push to sustain inverted flight or roll back to upright. The pilot did neither.

The pilot is not visible in the posted photos. This is possible only if he has slumped hard forward or down and to the side. Given the restraining harnesses, both would be difficult.

Again from the posted videos, there is no evidence of a sudden pitch up, spin, snap roll, or any other heavy gee-load inducing maneuver. There is a noticeable pitch up, but it is not a "snap" type pitch. It was simply the beginning of a barrel roll that ended vertical in front of the stands. I saw no evidence of last-minute maneuvering, either.

Having said all that, video can be extremely deceiving. I was scored on several maneuvers that should have been zeroed because the video did not show what about half of the judges saw. The only thing less reliable than video is the human eye.

Let the NTSB do their work. Conjecture is painful for those closest to the event



I'm trying to read between the lines of that opinion--what that poster is pointing to, but not saying outright, and what I'm reading is that the pilot was incapacitated, which was cause, not effect.

Or am I misreading?

Spit161
18th Sep 2011, 13:01
There is some newer technology being used, I believe, on the German Typhoon fleet, that if I understand it correctly, would adapt to an aeroplane like this quite readily, but I don't believe that it's been made available to the civil world as yet.

If I'm correct, you are referring to the new Libelle G-Suit, that uses liquid (water filled) "muscles" rather than air filled?

cheers,
Jake.

OMGisThatJohn
18th Sep 2011, 13:02
Unsure if this has been posted anywhere yet, but this is not the first time this has happened.

Around 1998ish another modified P51 lost its left trim tab (http://i.imgur.com/VD8aX.jpg), pitched nose up due to the highly nose-down trim, and the pilot suffered from GLOC (http://aafo.com/racing/news/98/voodoo.htm). Thankfully he recovered in this case

This video shows the full movement of the aircraft from the race-line to the crash-site.

From a completely uninformed point of view, it looks like the loss of the left trim tab caused pitch up and a little left roll as the aircraft was inverted, directing it into the crowd.

Genghis the Engineer
18th Sep 2011, 13:03
On the question of anti-g suits: conventional g suits require support from the aeroplane that whilst not impossible, would be very hard to achieve in a piston engined aeroplane. I don't think it's been tried.

There is some newer technology being used, I believe, on the German Typhoon fleet, that if I understand it correctly, would adapt to an aeroplane like this quite readily, but I don't believe that it's been made available to the civil world as yet.

G

Jane-DoH
18th Sep 2011, 13:54
Zorin 75

Those aren't ordinary Mustangs. Top qualifying lap this year was a 499 mph average...

What kind of modifications did they put into the aircraft if I may ask?

Graybeard
18th Sep 2011, 14:20
> Moose Peterson Aviation Photography « Moose Peterson Aviation Photography (http://www.warbirdimages.com/1947-reunion)

The first time these two aircraft met was on the ramp on the Cleveland Air Races in 1947. Back then #74 Super Corsair and the modified P-51D Galloping Ghost were spring chickens. So this morning (15 Sep 2011) on the ramp at Stead Airport, home of the Reno Air Races, these two champs were reunited. Both aircraft look exactly the same as they did in 1947. Arron who is one of the marvelous photographers here can testify to it. He was at the races in 1947! When I heard this little piece of history I talked to the two owners and they graciously made them available for us to photograph. A very unique piece of aviation history! GB

Lyman
18th Sep 2011, 14:38
Galloping Ghost also reminds of the "A" model, or Apache, first delivered to Great Britain, and with the Packard engine. This makes it one of the first Mustangs built.

Evidence is the lack of a bubble canopy, which the original Mustangs did not have. The aerodynamics of the original lack the burble of the blister, and are slipperier; The new Grifon and Merlin more than made up for the sexy new bubble's drag.

I think in 1947, the Ghost retained all her original wingspan?

FlyingStone
18th Sep 2011, 14:40
On the question of anti-g suits: conventional g suits require support from the aeroplane that whilst not impossible, would be very hard to achieve in a piston engined aeroplane. I don't think it's been tried.

As far as I understand the anti-g suits, they are usually connected to the bleed air derived from the engine via the controller, which senses the amount of G and adjusts the air flow (and thus pressure from the suit on the legs) to the suit accordingly. Usually, only turbine-powered aircraft require wear of anti-g suits, so using a small amount of bleed air isn't a problem, but I don't think it would be as hard to achieve as you point out. One could use supercharger, similar to the ones used for cabin pressurization piston aircraft and modify it to deliver sufficient amount of airflow for use of anti-g suits. But as you point out, if they exist, I don't think they are widely used on piston aircraft.

hambleoldboy
18th Sep 2011, 14:49
It's not smoke visible on the underside of the aircraft, it's steam, this article has some interesting information about the aircraft's cooling system:

A Ghost Story - How We Almost Made Reno | Florida's Premier Airpark - Leeward Air Ranch (http://www2.leewardairranch.com/racing/story/a-ghost-story-how-we-almost-made-reno)


Power and reliability would come from Shanholtzer’s hot-rodded V-12 Merlin. In a big move, the drag reduction part of the equation came from removing the Mustang’s iconic belly scoop. The function of the radiator and oil cooler would be combined in a heat exchanger, and that would be placed in a tank of water/methanol. As hot coolant and engine oil flowed through the exchanger, heat would transfer to the water/meth where it would boil and vent overboard. The whole idea was to have zero cooling drag on the airplane. In fact, the only air coming into the airplane is fed to the engine. Since the late 1940s, The Galloping Ghost is only the fourth racing P-51 to undergo this surgery. If done right, it has some big benefits to offer.

The East Rhodesian
18th Sep 2011, 15:21
The photos showing separation of the trim tab. At what point of the accident are they taken? If they are in the later stages as they seem to be, doesn't that mean they are a symptom not the cause? The fact that at no point was power reduced along with the lack of 'evasive' maneouvres would seem to be fairly strong evidence for GLOC or some other form of pilot incapacitation wouldn't it?

Gulfcapt
18th Sep 2011, 15:31
The Galloping Ghost is only the fourth racing P-51 to undergo this surgery. If done right, it has some big benefits to offer.


Galloping Ghost, Strega, Voodoo...I can't recall the last...Miss America II?

The unlimited racers that win are all highly modified from their original form - bubble canopy removed, cooling scoop removed, wings shortened, aerodynamic tweeking and mechanical tweeking so that the Merlin's output is 3800 horsepower plus...twice that of the stock version.

Video of Strega qualifying last year at 484 mph (499 this year). Water/meth vapor clearly visible.



Reno Air Races 2010 Strega qualifying @ 484 - YouTube

Dave Barnshaw
18th Sep 2011, 15:48
Skol,you are talking from where the sun don't shine,I am a 70 year old flyer and I was doing spins over the Buckinghamshire countryside yesterday-absolutely awsom.:D

WilyB
18th Sep 2011, 16:02
Galloping Ghost also reminds of the "A" model, or Apache, first delivered to Great Britain, and with the Packard engine. This makes it one of the first Mustangs built.

The Galloping Ghost is one of nine hundred P-51-15-NA type Mustangs produced by NAA during World War II. It was originally delivered to the Army Air Forces (AAF) on 23 December 1944 and later was assigned to the Third Air Force before being declared surplus on 25 October 1945 and put in storage at Walnut Ridge, Arkansas.

Galloping Ghost - Cleveland | Florida's Premier Airpark - Leeward Air Ranch (http://www2.leewardairranch.com/racing/history/cleveland)

sablatnic
18th Sep 2011, 16:07
Gulfcapt, are you thinking of Bill Odom's Begin the Beguin, which had the cooling duct removed too, but cooling pods located at the tips?
Come to think of it. Stiletto, I think, had the duct removed too, and the radiators relocated to inside the outer wings.

Flight Safety
18th Sep 2011, 16:42
Description of similar event for P51 Voodoo Chile in 98.

Voodoo - 98 NCAR (http://www.warbird.com/voodoo.html)

http://www.warbird.com/voodoo3.jpg

Interesting link previously posted by OMGisthatJohn (and reposted here), containing an interesting aerodynamic discussion of mods made to Voodoo just prior to its event in 98, that might be insightful. I'm including a relevant quote from the article.

Reno Air Racing: Voodoo Comes Home (http://aafo.com/racing/news/98/voodoo.htm)

Weighing in at just a shade over 7200 lbs, the Voodoo sported several new modifications for 1998, including large wing fillets, a slick composite engine cowling, and a VERY smooth wing and fuselage. These mods resulted, however, in an aft c.g. condition which was most prominent at racing speeds. "With all the power that Buckwheat was carrying it kept wanting to pitch the nose up", Button explained. "It was something we were fighting all week. He kept putting more and more nose down trim into it until finally it [the elevator trim tab] got so far out into the airstream that it started to flutter. Once it went, it broke the elevator link and caused the pitch up."

Definitive photo from KOLOTV of Galloping Ghost

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/9/4/6/1/a4284416-128-thumb-plane%2Benlarged%20%281%29.jpg?d=1316248026

LowObservable
18th Sep 2011, 16:55
Not trying to start a catfight here, but...

The original P-51A was designed around an Allison engine developing 1150 hp, in a very rapid wartime design effort. The P-51B/D had a 1500 hp Merlin and the P-51H's engine could be boosted to 2200 hp with water injection. However, once the two-stage Merlin was introduced the aircraft was regarded as a high-altitude fighter - sea-level to low-level (5000 feet = Reno) speeds were not above 370 mph for any versions.

500 mph and 3800 hp is another kettle of fish.

Lost in Saigon
18th Sep 2011, 17:15
This photo is credited as "AP photo/Grass Valley Union, Tim O'Brien".

It looks photo-shopped to me. You can see reflections in the spinner of what appears to be the horizon, and 3 parked aircraft .

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/02_1024.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/02crop1.jpg


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/02crop2.jpg

mixture
18th Sep 2011, 17:49
Lost in Saigon

I don't really want to get involved in this whole thread, however if one were looking for evidence of shopping' one might also question the smudge in the rear half of the cockpit canopy.

One might also question the likelihood of someone being able to capture such a sharp image of an unplanned event.

Also, most photos shown in media outlets portray the aircraft as moving from left to right (i.e. undercarriage towards the left of the image), this photo is the opposite.

But I'm staying neutral, as it might just be a case of "right place, right time" (plus right camera, right lens, right photographer !).

John Farley
18th Sep 2011, 18:21
Pilot DAR has been talking about the subject of flutter which he understands.

This is what control surface flutter can look like on a Commanche.

TwinCom.mp4 video by johnfarley - Photobucket (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/?action=view&current=TwinCom.mp4)

I would guess the IAS here was about 150 max. Aerodynamic forces are dependant on IAS squared.

So the forces at 150 kt are related to 22,500 and those at 500 kt are related to 250,000 namely over 10 times as much.

The only way to stop such an oscillation is to slow down a lot. That takes time and may not be possible before structural failure.

I have lost several good friends during flutter clearance testing. The level of vibration with flutter is quite unimaginable unless you have experienced it.

It could easily dislodge a tailwheel from the up position.

mustpost
18th Sep 2011, 18:39
John Farley, thank you for your erudite comments here (and some others as well.) Much appreciated.

jumpseater
18th Sep 2011, 18:48
One might also question the likelihood of someone being able to capture such a sharp image of an unplanned event.

Also, most photos shown in media outlets portray the aircraft as moving from left to right (i.e. undercarriage towards the left of the image), this photo is the opposite.

Well I don't question the likelihood at all. Then again people sometimes ask me to take images and I understand how to take pictures, and how to work a camera.

The guy was assigned to shoot the event so the chances of him submitting a photoshopped 'moneyshot' like this with worldwide sydication to news media, is about as unlikely as you working out where he was positioned to take it. To do that would be the fastest way of assuring you never get any work again. The only thing second to the number of armchair accident investigators when these sorts of event occur, is the number of armchair professional photographers it brings out.

Flight Safety
18th Sep 2011, 18:58
Given the description of the 1998 event, I wonder if there's adequate testing of these aircraft after modifications have been made to the airframes. Given that the purpose of the mods is to increase airspeeds at low race altitudes (i.e. dense air), surely flutter testing would have to be part of ANY test regime following these modifications. Surely this testing needs to be completed prior to ANY racing in front of grandstands.

I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but do we know if any significant modifications were made to this P-51 just prior to this race?

mixture
18th Sep 2011, 19:26
jumpseater,

is the number of armchair professional photographers it brings out.

Take a chill pill.

I will repeat again what I said, with extra bold for emphasis.


But I'm staying neutral, as it might just be a case of "right place, right time" (plus right camera, right lens, right photographer !).

Spit161
18th Sep 2011, 19:44
Underside of that wing looks pretty well-lit for an aircraft which is supposed to have been photoshopped on the ground, when the underside would be in shadow...

I agree.
I say it is just a trick of light/right place, right time.

Lyman
18th Sep 2011, 20:07
On the ground, almost invariably, the Propellor is in flat Pitch, not High.

Thinking that is the real deal.

jumpseater
18th Sep 2011, 21:31
Well mixture, yourself and LIS suggesting its photoshopped are talking out of your holes. A simple compare and contrast with other images and video of the event elsewhere will show other photographers images with 'no pilot'. So unless theres a secret Jane-Doh type conspiracy that every snapper there colluded, via the every snapper knows every one else network, to all remove the pilot from their images, stills and every single video still image, theres a pretty good chance wysiwyg.


The guy who took that image was on assignment. So, right time, right place, right equipment, right settings, right skillset, right awareness, right image cropping, etc etc. But no, wait, it may be photoshopped and heres a whole list of ill thought out reasons for you to disregard, subject to doing a minutes thinking. I now await the 'disgust bus' to arrive full of complainers that the pro snapper was paid for taking these images, that are now being used to discuss the accident ...

Passenger 389
18th Sep 2011, 22:50
I apologize if this has been asked and answered already, but do we know if any significant modifications were made to this P-51 just prior to this race?


@Flight Safety. Post #67 references some changes through June 2011.

AP also has story on the wire entitled "Plane in NV crash had 'radical' changes to compete" -- though bear in mind how accurate the media can sometimes be on aviation issues.

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AIR_SHOW_CRASH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-18-18-39-09)

the snapper
18th Sep 2011, 22:54
Hi Guys
I'm new to this forum and have been reading all the posts regarding this
horrific and tragic accident.
Judging by some of the comments posted by some of the forum members
i can only pressume they have their minds made up on all the different theories and reasons as to what may have caused the crash in the first place.
My personal views on the whole scenario are,
1. The pilots age would IMHO have made no difference whatsoever to the
outcome,if a trim tab breaks of at the speed that he was travelling at and
especially when he's least expecting it the pitch up from level flight to near vertical would have induced some serious g-forces which probably and surely would cause blackout almost immediately.
2. These guys that race these planes do modify them and spend huge bucks doing so, obviously they have to operate them to a standard that allows them to fly them at their limits,where as in Europe the build them and fly them for authenticty and for everyone to see them as they were
in whatever theatre they flew in way back when.
3. When involved in,let it be road racing,bikes or cars,flying, let it be racing
or displaying risks are high.Anyone who partakes in any of the above know
the risks and know when and when not to cross the boundaries.We as spectators know the risks to and unfortunately for those involved in Reno
the unthinkable happened.
And finally lets hope that this tragic event won't put an end to a brilliant
show that really shows the work and effort put in by the pilots,crews and organisers of truly one of the greatest flying spectacles in the world.

FoundationMetro
18th Sep 2011, 23:10
I would really like a high resolution of that shot. I've downloaded the one you put up but the resolution is such that it will not allow me to zoom into the detail I would like to see. Thanks

Pilot DAR
18th Sep 2011, 23:38
I speak as a person who knows next to nothing about the regulations which apply to the modification and racing of warbirds. I also know very little about P-51's. However:

surely flutter testing would have to be part of ANY test regime following these modifications. Surely this testing needs to be completed prior to ANY racing in front of grandstands.

Gosh, I hope so, But I wonder...

These intrepid aviators invest fortunes in these aircraft to get every knot of speed out of them. That obviously involves modifying them. Were it to be a certified aircraft, there would be very specific criteria to which the modified aircraft would have to demonstrate compliance - by test flight.

I'm guessing that's not the same in respect of these racing planes (but I don't know for certain). I'm imagining a fellow with his pride and joy super fast modified warbird, going to the races to wring every knot out of it he can. I'm not imagining that he takes the plane to the races and says: "Yep, here are the flight test results demonstrating a flutter margin up to 550 knots, so I'm going to fly the course at exactly 500 knots, so the margin of safety is there for everyone. I'm not passing judgement either way, I'm just guessing that it's just different from certified flying most of us know.

Most of us get in our beloved and equally maligned "spam can", see a red line on the airspeed indicator, and think to ourselves: "Gawd, I can't imagine having the nerve to even take it that fast!". Be assured that model has safely flown faster. Every aircraft I flight test, I fly to 110% of the red line speed, as required by the design requirements. This is of course done in accordance with a flight test plan, under the terms of an experimental flight permit. But it is done so that when someone goofs in the cloud, rolls it over and pulls through, they are safe, if they don't fly it past the red line (and don't over stress it). Try to imagine how far the nose has to be put down to get a Citabria float plane past red line! It's not going to happen by accident! On the other hand, you can get a Caravan or Navajo through fairly easily....

The military back in the day subjected the P-51 to intensive flight testing, and I'm sure there's lot's of data out there. But from that, I'm betting that they established appropriate limitations, and red lines. When you start clipping wings, adding power, and flying it extra fast, it's no longer a P-51 out of the box, it's a new plane, with a lot of P-51 parts in it. Things can be different.

None of this is intended to portray the racers in a poor light. I'm confident that they apply the resources needed to produce a plane which is appropriately safe. I would if I had that much invested! They know they have the design standards to fall back on, if they need guidance for the modifications.

I'm just having trouble imagining the same margins (110% for speeds, or factors of safety of 1.5 to 2) between "proven during testing" and "flown in service" that we are used to with certified aircraft.

I wish the racers safe and happy flying (and little regulatory interference), I am in awe of what they do. More than in a lot of corners of aviation, I trust that they do things carefully, and well. But, I also think they are probably flight testing around those pylons too...

Oakape
19th Sep 2011, 00:17
Looking at the photo on the left in post #111, there appears to be a white sphere in the windscreen (forward portion of the canopy).

Is this likely to be part of the aircraft equipment or is it possible that it is the pilots helmet, giving weight to the theories posted earlier in this thread that the pilot has been forced forward due to the 'G' forces experience in the pull-up?

M609
19th Sep 2011, 00:33
The high res version

http://www.middletownpress.com/content/articles/2011/09/17/news/doc4e74311cd3282920201166.jpg

BreezyDC
19th Sep 2011, 01:47
Two points:

1. Note the photo is copyright, and should always be posted with credit to the photographer: AP photo/Grass Valley Union, Tim O'Brien (MANDATORY CREDIT Photo: AP / AP) . I'll leave it to others to judge whether these postings and reuse of the photos without license payments falls under fair use.

2. For the Photoshop conspiracy theorists, a video interview with the photographer is at Reno Air Race Photographer Tim O'Brien re: Crash of Galloping Ghost Jimmy Leeward - YouTube

westhawk
19th Sep 2011, 02:07
CNN.com today provided some updated information regarding the Reno crash. Here is a link (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/18/nevada.plane.crash/index.html?iref=allsearch) to the story. I have no idea how long the link will last.

I'll summarize what I believe to be the interesting parts related to understanding what happened.

NTSB board member Mark Rosekind, PHD (http://www.ntsb.gov/about/bio_rosekind.html) (some of you might be familiar with his work in pilot fatigue research) announced that a telemetry system was installed aboard the accident aircraft and that NTSB personnel have been provided with the received data stored by the ground crew. Information regarding which specific parameters were recorded was not detailed in the briefing. A video cam was also installed. Multiple data memory cards were recovered from the wreckage and sent to the NTSB lab for analysis. The origin of these memory cards is unknown. Some may be from devices carried by spectators.

Rosekind was also quoted as saying that no mayday call was received from Leeward.

Parts of the tail section have been recovered including the detached trim tab.

It was also noted that a tremendous amount of video has been provided for investigators for analyze.

Analysis to follow.

tartare
19th Sep 2011, 03:27
A question - having never been to Reno, I am attempting to understand the layout of the racecourse, relative to the crowd.
From the charts that I can find online, it appears the unlimited course `front' and `back' straits (for want of a better term) both face toward the main grandstand/viewing area.
If I am reading these charts correctly, would it be possible to rotate the racecourse by 45 degrees, meaning that aircraft were flying at highest speed parallel to the viewing area, instead of straight at it?
Or are the terrain issues - I see hills in the background of much of the videos.
I'm pretty sure that post the Ramstein airshow crash, manouveres towards the crowd were prohibited.
I guess at 400+ knots, any distance of less than a mile from the course to the crowd is purely academic if there is a loss of control.
An awful accident - but it would also be a terrible shame if this event was brought to an end.
The engine and air-frame noise from those aircraft and the sight of them is awe-inspiring...

westhawk
19th Sep 2011, 04:35
First I'd like to say how badly I feel that spectators were injured and killed in this accident. As someone who barely escaped a similar fate at Flugtag '88 and saw my share of disturbing sights, I have nothing but sympathy for all those affected.

That said, I have an interest in analyzing and understanding the events that take place in aviation and this event is no exception. As a pilot, aviation mechanic and long time race fan who has attended 15 of the last 20 race years, I have more than a passing interest in this accident. To the "don't speculate, wait for the report" gang: Sorry, no dice. Well reasoned discussion of a technical nature is a different thing than wild uninformed speculation. Trouble is, only technically savvy people with good reasoning skills seem to recognize the difference!

My own analysis of the information available to me as of this date comes with the proviso that it is only a working theory and subject to modification by new facts or correction of any flawed theories or assumptions. We're not gonna hear much substantial analysis from the NTSB for quite some time. Consequently, I feel that some reasonable speculation among the more informed participants having a factual and/or supportable theoretical basis for their ideas is more constructive than might otherwise be proffered if these ideas were not offered for the purposes of discussion. So here goes my take on what's apparent so far:

Photos indicate that the trim tab on the left elevator became partially detached then departed the aircraft at some point in the sequence of events. It is logical to presume that the detachment of the trim tab would cause a significant change in elevator hinge moments and therefore the elevator control forces.

At very high airspeed, the trim would typically be adjusted pretty far in the nose down (tab T/E up) direction to counter the airplane's natural nose up tendency with increased airspeed. Removal of the trim tab induced force about the elevator hinge point would result in a significant change in the control force required to hold the elevator in the desired position. I would expect that an immediate and strong elevator trailing edge up (stick back) force would result from the loss of the trim tab under this condition of high speed flight.

When added to any force already applied, the gees could reasonably be expected to build faster than the human can react to apply forward stick before the onset of gee induced loss of consciousness. (As happened to Hannah in '98) What video of the sequence I've seen appears to indicate a rapid upward change in flight path somewhere west of the pits approaching the home pylon. At 500 mph, that rate of angular change certainly appears to me to be indicative of some pretty high "G" forces. Why Hannah's plane continued skyward and Leeward's rolled into a dive is open to conjecture, but that's the difference in outcomes it seems.

The video and still images seen so far appear to support the theory that the pilot was rendered unconscious during the pullup and exerted no control after that. Had the airplane not been rolling as well as pitching, there might have been more time for a recovery such as Bob Hannah's, but we'll never know.

I'll be interested to see if the NTSB opens a public docket so we can access some of the investigative work product prior to release of the final report as has been the case in many major accidents. The possibility that they may have some recorded flight parameters is intriguing will hopefully include good time reference, attitude and/or accelerometer data.

westhawk

westhawk
19th Sep 2011, 05:01
A question - having never been to Reno, I am attempting to understand the layout of the racecourse, relative to the crowd.

Yes, the terrain is one feature determining the present layout of the unlimited course. The existence of some housing does as well. The "dead line" or no transgression zone is aligned roughly parallel to the East/West runway as are the grandstands. The airplanes ground track is normally oriented parallel with or slightly away from the crowd by the time they are in front of the pits, west of the grandstands. In this case it appears that the detachment of the trim tab and subsequent pitch up occurred just as the airplane was completing the last turn and continued across the dead line in a climb, then rolled into a dive, impacting the VIP box area on the ramp. (apron in ICAO-speak)

It would be nice if aterpster or another of our map gurus would come along and post a relief map with the course layout superimposed. I'll check out MAPS and see if a decent view is possible there.

tartare, I suspect your suggestion of reviewing the layout will be one of the things race officials, the NTSB, FAA and other concerned parties will be looking at too.

westhawk

sitigeltfel
19th Sep 2011, 07:12
Ignorant Journos strike again, this from the Torygraph....

They also said they had found no indication yet that the pilot of the plane sent out a distress call before his sleek silver jet plunged nose-down into the tarmac.

MichaelJP59
19th Sep 2011, 08:41
Looking at the crash video posted above, if the speed is about 500mph and the time from horizontal flight to vertical is about 2.5 seconds a back of the envelope calculation suggests approx 15g initial G!

On a personal note, I've never been to Reno but have been fascinated by the unlimited air racers for years. I hope that the community recovers from this tragedy and also hope to get to see them one year.

deSitter
19th Sep 2011, 08:51
I hope these stupid races end. For one thing, it's a historic shame to mangle a priceless airplane like the Mustang just for racing. If you want to race dedicated racers, fine - but this plane was pushed beyond what she was made to do, which was to kill Nazis and defend Allies. The pilot's manual shows how not to kill yourself by inducing a high-speed stall in a turn, which is exactly what this guy did. He cut the wings down by 5 feet and the ailerons by 30"! That alone is certifiably nuts. I think the ultimate in stupidity at these shows took place a couple of years ago when someone decided he could do low-level aerobatics in a P-63! A P-63!!

-drl

Pace
19th Sep 2011, 09:21
As an EX club car racer who then went into flying there always used to be multiple signs around race tracks informing spectators that racing is dangerous and spectators attended at their own risk.

Putting high speed vehicles close to spectators always carries a risk that a crash can involve spectators.

I will add that before car racing we went through scrutineering where the cars were closely examined to be sure they were fit for racing.
I presume the same is done with Air racing?

Watching car rallying where spectators stood in their hundreds alongside mountain forest tracks it was always an amazement to me that more were not killed.

I circuit raced back in the early 80s spectators were still very close and vulnerable to a car departing the circuit and leaping the Armco barriers.
There were fatalities and spector areas were moved further and further back from the action with other means brought in to stop cars reaching the spectator areas.

That is all well and good but at what put does the thrill factor for spectators go?
Spectators watch racing of any kind for the thrill factor.

I know little about air racing but high speed low level would imagine that a pilot with anything not being right would pitch to gain altitude as altitude is his saviour.
Pitching an aircraft with control problems could in itself aggravate those problems where a reduction in power and level speed would have been a better option but pitching must be an inbuilt reaction with racers?

What is likely to happen from this tragic event? I would imagine that Reno Follows car racing and place spectators further and further away from the action to a point that the thrill factor diminishes.

Pace

Unusual Attitude
19th Sep 2011, 09:28
I hope these stupid races end. For one thing, it's a historic shame to mangle a priceless airplane like the Mustang just for racing. If you want to race dedicated racers, fine - but this plane was pushed beyond what she was made to do, which was to kill Nazis and defend Allies. The pilot's manual shows how not to kill yourself by inducing a high-speed stall in a turn, which is exactly what this guy did. He cut the wings down by 5 feet and the ailerons by 30"! That alone is certifiably nuts. I think the ultimate in stupidity at these shows took place a couple of years ago when someone decided he could do low-level aerobatics in a P-63! A P-63!!

-drl

Idiot.....:ugh:

Farrell
19th Sep 2011, 09:35
Agreed!

deSitter.......did you not read this (http://www.pprune.org/non-airline-transport-stuff/463966-air-show-crash-mods-what-problem.html#post6704917) earlier, or are you just too ignorant to care?

What the heck.....I'll paste it in here for you...

DeSitter:

One of your first ever posts on this forum was:

"I am a physicist, not a pilot, so I promise to say nothing stupid about flying or commercial aviation."

I suggest you go and meditate on that , as your latest post is just disrespectful drivel.

The post below, my dear expert of the skies, is your best by far and shows those who matter, what they are dealing with.

"I live under a waypoint for KATL on the way to RWY 26 - the jets pass over at 8-11 thousand feet typically, parallel to the runways in the opposite direction, before turning 180 into the airport. This afternoon a 767 passed over at no more than 2! and perhaps as low as 1,500 - really quite low - the plane seemed in no distress and the engines sounded perfectly normal - he was headed (fortunately!) toward the field - is it common for a go-around to fly so low? What would explain it? I've lived here for 5 years and that's a first for me, a keen spotter. Thanks in advance."

Pilot DAR
19th Sep 2011, 10:54
deSitter,

Just so I know....is it your expectation that the opinions you have expressed here will be seriously considered?

Lost in Saigon
19th Sep 2011, 11:44
The pilot's manual shows how not to kill yourself by inducing a high-speed stall in a turn, which is exactly what this guy did.

He cut the wings down by 5 feet and the ailerons by 30"! That alone is certifiably nuts.

I think the ultimate in stupidity at these shows took place a couple of years ago when someone decided he could do low-level aerobatics in a P-63! A P-63!!




Some might say your willingness to comment on things you know very little about as the "Ultimate in Stupidity"

1) The aircraft did not experience a high speed stall. What makes you think it did?

2) Most of the Unlimited Class are modified. Do you have problems with them as well.

3) The P-63 is a fighter aircraft. Fighters do aerobatics. Why do you think it should not be able to?

lomapaseo
19th Sep 2011, 12:00
total loss of control is not what I would have expected.


From what I've read the aircraft didn't lose total los of control, but the pilot may have passed out from the intial manuever

fotoguzzi
19th Sep 2011, 12:48
[Not a pilot, so I will not attempt any jargon. Please delete this if it is just adding to the noise.] I have not been to Reno for some years. When I was last there, planes would pass in front of and behind the grandstands. There were penalties for cutting pylons, but I had never heard that there was a minimum height necessary to cross the deadline. Perhaps if one crossed beyond the painted end of the deadline (i. e., to the west of Runway 8/26), they would be allowed to pass behind the grandstands, but could not cross the physically painted deadline, otherwise. No one ever crossed over the grandstands.

A minimum height above the ground was instituted some years ago, around the time Lefty Gardner's P-38 came back with barbed wire in one of the wings. [I understand that his day job was crop dusting.] There were reports of a Mustang [was it Skip Holmes'? ] hitting a rabbit, and I do recall spectators diving to the ground on the back course before the minimum height rule was instituted. From memory, below 1500 feet (above sea level?) altitude was considered the active race course and above that was reserved for emergency use and for slower traffic (e. g., overheating planes that wished to cool down before resuming the race). If a pilot declared a mayday, the remaining planes would circle above the race course until the emergency was resolved.

Incidentally, the AT-6 Texan/Harvard planes are so evenly matched that they fly in tight formation. I believe that they honored the deadline, but I always feared what might happen if a few of them touched wingtips at the point where Mr. Leeward lost control.

Lost in Saigon
19th Sep 2011, 12:55
From what I've read the aircraft didn't lose total los of control, but the pilot may have passed out from the intial manuever


And it looks like the initial maneuver was caused by a mechanical failure of the trim tab.

fotoguzzi
19th Sep 2011, 13:57
[Not a pilot - Please delete as others add better charts]. Here is a quick and dirty map via Google:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-p_B7ACzvj8U/TndHSQJZ39I/AAAAAAAAAOM/eWcInbcRgUI/s512/reno_stead.png

The course is a ~9 mi. counterclockwise oval with the short side along Runway 8/26 and the grandstands. The longer sides fit mostly within the hills, though some of the planes do go directly over the foothills that parallel Lemon Valley Drive.

I understand that the race officials put certain homeowners up in hotels for the duration of the races.

Lost in Saigon
19th Sep 2011, 14:16
It would be nice if aterpster or another of our map gurus would come along and post a relief map with the course layout superimposed. I'll check out MAPS and see if a decent view is possible there.







I found this online: Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world! (http://wikimapia.org/#lat=39.6865158&lon=-119.882555&z=14&l=0&m=b&v=8)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1-42.jpg

Lyman
19th Sep 2011, 17:34
LIS

Are you not showing the field and all the spectators inside the course?

The show line is actually between the runways and the grandstands.

Otherwise thanks, folks were getting the geography of the airfield seriously fubared.

Lost in Saigon
19th Sep 2011, 18:14
The Grandstand is on the south side outside the course.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/Reno-Stead-Field-crash-site.jpg

NigelOnDraft
19th Sep 2011, 18:45
What is likely to happen from this tragic event? I would imagine that Reno Follows car racing and place spectators further and further away from the action to a point that the thrill factor diminishes.
I'm pretty sure that post the Ramstein airshow crash, manouveres towards the crowd were prohibited. I guess at 400+ knots, any distance of less than a mile from the course to the crowd is purely academic if there is a loss of control.In the UK (and fairly similar in certain other nations) the rules are, as per CAP 403 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP403.PDF) :

[Display Line distance from Crowd Line] Above 300 kt IAS 200 metres [flypast] 230 metres [aerobatics]
Over CAP403, typically "or 450m display line with on-crowd vector above 300kts"
Whether normal air display rules are applicable to Reno type events is a subject for debate, but hopefully this provides some form of answer to the pointa quoted above

NoD

westhawk
19th Sep 2011, 19:08
Thanks Lost!

I think that will help people to orient themselves somewhat. There is normally a course diagram on the race website somewhere, but not right now. From seeing it previously, the deadline is shown but I don't recall exactly where it is with respect to the centerline of rwy 08/26. Unless I've got it all wrong, it is at least 1,500' from the line the spectators are kept behind.

As long as the airplane energy is directed parallel to or way from the show line (spectator barrier) this margin has always been considered sufficient in he past. Obviously not every possible occurrence can be guarded against by this or any safety precaution, but this is the currently accepted standard. Obviously the measures in place up until now will come under scrutiny following this accident. I just hope reason prevails.

englishal
19th Sep 2011, 19:55
I think people know that if they go to watch high speed sports there is an element of risk involved. Same thing happened at Le Mans many years ago when an engine cut its way through the grandstand after an accident.

Bad news, but would I go to Reno....? You bet I would and if I weren't working this year, I would probably have gone.

Fate is the hunter ;)

Pilot DAR
19th Sep 2011, 20:35
Hmm, Seeing the layout (having never been to the races myself) brings to mind the wording of the Canadian regulations:

Air show aerobatic manoeuvres conducted inside the aerobatic box that have a descending recovery with a pull or push and having a flight path which, when extended, would contact the primary spectator area will not be approved for inclusion in an air show.

The Reno races (though I agree they are American, not Canadian) are not an "airshow" you say?...

"air show" - means an aerial display or demonstration before an invited assembly of persons by one or more aircraft;

The races are not "aerobatics" you say?....

"aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying;

Zorin_75
19th Sep 2011, 21:36
I think people know that if they go to watch high speed sports there is an element of risk involved. Same thing happened at Le Mans many years ago when an engine cut its way through the grandstand after an accident.

Bad news, but would I go to Reno....? You bet I would and if I weren't working this year, I would probably have gone.

Fate is the hunter http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
Official death toll for the '55 Le Mans is 83 spectators and the driver (sadly there was a lot more flying into the crowd than 'just' the engine). It certainly was a big shock even back in the days when safety wasn't really that high on the agenda (BTW to this day, motorsports is illegal in Switzerland as a result).
Looking at the car racing scene shows that progress in safety can be made. The following chart shows the average yearly death toll in F1 racing. F1 has come from times where it was perfectly normal to bury 1 in 10 drivers per year (not even counting those getting killed off track or while driving in different series) to not having lost a driver for 17 years now (knock on wood).

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4683/f1fatalities.jpg

Yes, motorsports is dangerous (as is flying). That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a hard look at the risks involved and minimize them where appropriate.

westhawk
20th Sep 2011, 01:18
The advances in auto racing safety worldwide are attributable to number of factors from driver equipment to car design to track safety features. HANS, track runoff areas, energy absorbent barriers and more robust driver compartments coupled with frangible exterior have been very effective in reducing injuries and deaths in the sport. Drivers and teams push it harder than ever before, relying on these safety features to protect them in the event of a crash. There are probably more crashes than ever before.

As it happens, little of this is directly applicable to air racing. Unlike auto racing, any safety gains made in this sport are made by preventing a crash from happening in the first place rather than by minimizing the consequences of a crash. As far as racing at Reno goes, I'd have to call the overall effort pretty successful considering that something like 18 pilots have died in crashes in all race classes since 1964. Considering the nature of the sport and the number of flight operations conducted during this time, 18 is not a large number.

This year marks the first time a spectator has died or been seriously injured in a racing accident. Certainly fortune plays a part in lack of spectator involvement in crashes before this year, but so too does the design of the race course layout and designated spectator areas. Undoubtedly, this will now be scrutinized as never before.

In auto racing, catch fences and barriers are ever more robust and spectators placed further from the action in an attempt to isolate them from the crash energy. Mostly it works well enough, though the next disaster could happen at any time and race organizers know it. They take the steps that are deemed necessary and continue to hold their races. Any risk remaining is deemed acceptable by everyone* attending the races or they wouldn't be there. Caveat Emptor

*Exception: children and others legally precluded from deciding for themselves.

Jet Jockey A4
20th Sep 2011, 02:31
Just announced a tenth person died from the accident.

Earlier today it was announced that a newly retired (age 60) B-777 Air Canada captain and his wife had died at the airshow. They were seated in the VIP box.

How ironic can this be? Fly for Air Canada for 40 years, retire, go the Reno Air Races and unfortunately die at the show.

RIP to all victims and sympathies to their families.

mike734
20th Sep 2011, 02:59
If you are spending millions modifying aircraft for max speed why would you want a trim tab deflecting in to the wind causing unnecessary drag? Do any of these war birds have a trimable stab like jet transport? Wouldn't redesigning the horizontal stab to get rid of the trim tab be more aerodynamic and therefore faster (and probably safer)?

Pilot DAR
20th Sep 2011, 03:00
driver equipment to car design to track safety features

Indeed. The [voluntary, I presume] adherence to these safety features (also known as "design requirements for safety"). Have had a markedly positive human outcome. It appears to me that the "lessons learned" in aircraft design and safety may not be quite as readily being voluntary adopted into certain aircraft types. Perhaps this is a result of the right of a person to "experiment" with aircraft (or most anything else not involving explosives). Of course, the aircraft would bear warning words on the outside, informing people who might get in, that the aircraft is "experimental". I guess at the air races, the spectators also know that the participating aircraft are experimental, but perhaps they don't quite recognize the hazard of one being pointed at them.

There are references to racing cars being built to have "robust driver compartments". Some planes do too - most purpose built Ag aircraft.

I agree that structure which can dissipate a 500 MPH crash, and keep the occupant safe, is an engineering stretch, is an attempt even made? Can the canopy take a bird strike? (that is the main reason for speed limits below 10,000 feet). Military aircraft have hardened canopies, and ejection seats. But I'm sure that the air racers don't want to carry the weight. And those features won't keep a disabled aircraft out of the crowd anyway.

It's just sad that spectators suffered.....

westhawk
20th Sep 2011, 03:34
It's just sad that spectators suffered..... Agreed.

But then I doubt many of them would have paid for a ticket to see airliners safely "race" around the track at 250 kts and 1500' AGL while limited to 30 degrees bank angle either. People flock to Reno every September to see the spectacle of air racing. This year the Friday attendees unfortunately got more than they bargained for. I was considering making the 500 mile drive up for Sunday. I hope I have the option next year.

Pace
20th Sep 2011, 08:32
In auto racing, catch fences and barriers are ever more robust and spectators placed further from the action in an attempt to isolate them from the crash energy.

WestHawk

I was not really referring to aircraft safety and driver protection as other than improved ejection systems in aircraft driver or pilot safety is different re aircraft and race cars.

My real point here is that as a result of this crash I am sure the course and procedures will be looked at and no doubt the spectators will be pushed ever further back from the action.

People go to any racing to see the action (and in cars the crashes) The closer you are the more exciting.
I no longer go to watch car racing partly as I was never a good spectator preferring to partake.

Back in my car racing days you could stand within feet of the track with only an armco Barrier seperating you.

The last race I spectated at about 5 years ago the spectators were so far back from the action there was no thrill factor only distant colours flashing by.

Sadly I think the same will happen with air racing

Pace

westhawk
20th Sep 2011, 09:40
Hi Pace,

Unfortunately moving the barriers back further may indeed be the "solution" arrived at. But that won't really provide the same kind of protection from airplanes that it does from cars.

I used to go to allot of car races too. I only got to drive a few times, but worked as pit crew and track safety crew in addition to being an ordinary race fan. I don't find the experience as fun as I once did either.

No ejection seats allowed for civilian aircraft has probably kept a few pilots from jettisoning airplanes over crowded areas even when they were in serious trouble and would have if they could have. There was a guy who bailed out of his burning race plane at Phoenix back about 20 years ago. He parachuted to safety, but broke his back on the vertical stab on the way out. The plane crunched in the desert.

cats_five
20th Sep 2011, 12:12
Thankfully the guy that parachuted at Phoenix was eventually OK:

Bail Out (http://www.warbirdaeropress.com/articles/bail_out.html)

AVLNative
20th Sep 2011, 22:05
First I've heard of this theory...

Photo Suggests Pilot In Deadly Reno Air Crash Had Broken Seat, Aviation Mechanic Says | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/20/photos-suggest-pilot-in-deadly-reno-air-crash-had-broken-seat-aviation-expert/)

Desert185
20th Sep 2011, 22:47
I think that's a bogus assumption.

1. There is (was) a bulkhead behind the pilot that I feel would preclude him from sliding or falling backward.

2. If the shoulder harness system in the Galloping Ghost was an inertia reel type, then the shoulder straps would allow the pilot to slump forward after experiencing GLOC. If slumped forward, he would not be able to be seen by viewing the canopy from the side. In another photo showing the aircraft inverted, you can barely make out the pilot's helmet against the forward part of the canopy due to gravity.

3. That last picture, which supposedly shows the airplane in the last seconds of the dive into the ramp area might also be bogus. Note the reflection on the spinner showing the horizon (and airplanes on the ramp when viewed elsewhere on the net) aligned with the longitudinal axis. The reflected horizon in a dive should be perpendicular to that direction of flight if the aircraft was pointed to the ground.

Lost in Saigon
21st Sep 2011, 00:01
First I've heard of this theory...

Photo Suggests Pilot In Deadly Reno Air Crash Had Broken Seat, Aviation Mechanic Says | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/20/photos-suggest-pilot-in-deadly-reno-air-crash-had-broken-seat-aviation-expert/)


That "theory" about the seat is the biggest load of GARBAGE that I have ever heard or seen from a "reputable" news source.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1-44.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1e-3.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1b-10.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1c-6.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1aa-4.jpg

englishal
21st Sep 2011, 00:35
Wouldn't it have been an aerobatic harness? I doubt it would have been inertia reel would it in a fully aerobatic experimental...?

Jet Jockey A4
21st Sep 2011, 00:46
I don't believe in the seat theory either.

I guess it's just some "expert" trying to get his "airtime" but that's expected from "Faux News". :-)

KUAO
21st Sep 2011, 01:28
Here's a great diagaram of the course layout...source:

Speed: 500 MPH. Altitude: 50 Feet. Feeling: Amazing. | Autopia | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/09/steve-hinton-jr-reno-air-races/)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/09/RaceCourse-Unlimited1-660x856.gif

Lyman
21st Sep 2011, 01:42
The mechanic is confused. He may have seen "Voodoo" in its similar dustup you tube vid. In it, Hannah slides the cockpit back on roll out, it looks very much like the pilot is rolling forward, he isn't.

Its at the end of the vid.

hambleoldboy, #81

indexed at around 9:00.

Truth be told, the canopy closing (at the beginning of the vid), shows the same thing, but the pilot appears to be "moving back" in the cockpit. take your pick!

FoundationMetro
21st Sep 2011, 11:52
I'm not sure if this link will work properly, but if it does, it leads to a very telling photo.

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1924/111442big.jpg

If this is the pilot's posture during a race, it would not be very good for high G loading. He appears to be using a typical airline/corporate shoulder harness that joins in a V and then connects to a inertia reel. (You have to download the image and zoom in to see this. A little tweaking on the contrast and mid tones helps as well).

I realize he probably has to sit like this to see the pylons and other aircraft, but with his head not against any support and turned to the left and down, even if the g loading was only 4 or 5 (not 20 as the media is claiming) he is in a very poor posture to deal with it.

Oakape
21st Sep 2011, 12:48
Another eyewitness account.

http://www.ignomini.com/reno.html (http://www.ignomini.com/reno.html)

antic81
21st Sep 2011, 14:21
That last photo in that link was pretty chilling - as was the mans account of events.

Slightly off toppic - I've seen a few go down in my time at airshows - but they were always well away from the crowd. Only one was fatal - the thing that got me was the way time seemed to slow down, watching an aircraft fall out of the sky and wondering why the poor chap didnt eject - it seemed to me like he had all the time in the world - only when I saw it again on the news that night did I realise how quickly it all happend. (Impala of the Silver Falcons aerobatic team, the wing detached due to fatigue circa 1993 at Lanseria in Johannesburg)

hum
21st Sep 2011, 14:42
An extraordinary eyewitness account, thanks to the man that wrote it and to oakape for posting it here.

BTW, an article on temporal distortion here:

http://library.ndmctsgh.edu.tw/milmed/avitation/file-air/fsmjun99.pdf

antic81
21st Sep 2011, 15:45
Hum - Very interesting read - many thanks!

fernytickles
21st Sep 2011, 15:59
All 11 killed in Reno air race crash identified (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-21/Reno-air-race-crash/50490504/1?csp=34news)


The National Transportation Safety Board took over the investigation into the cause of the crash, and said a preliminary report would be released Friday. A final report with the cause and recommendations will likely take months to complete.

jumpseater
21st Sep 2011, 20:28
3. That last picture, which supposedly shows the airplane in the last seconds of the dive into the ramp area might also be bogus.

It is, and it isn't. :ugh:

ChrisVJ
21st Sep 2011, 22:41
While I appreciate that it is more exciting to see the aircraft banking 60 or 70 degrees and it is quite difficult to get an idea of the scale from the diagram I would have thought it was crazy to fly aircraft at coming up on 500MPH in an arc that requires them to have control to keep them from going off the arc into the crowd.

In my mind, from hearing rules and guidelines, I would have thought that the only possible way to lay out a course would be with the long straight parallel to the crowd line and the last turn perhaps a mile or so before. That way the aircraft should be straightened out before entering the vicinity of the spectator zone.

An alternative, perhaps, would for the spectators to be within the race circuit, with usual distance clearance, then any fast aircraft going astray is far more likely to crash outside the perimeter. Some of the best views and pictures I have taken have been of aircraft flying an arc concave to the crowd line seen in almost plan view but some shows I have been to have been constrained by traditional air show mindset and a total lack of imagination on the part of the organisers. One in particular uses the longest runway as a dispersal and static show and sits the crowd on the North side of the runway in use. It is nearly impossible to get a good picture and on a clear day even to watch the aircraft comfortably because they are against the sun. Doesn't anyone think of these things?

keezy44
21st Sep 2011, 23:42
Where we have been sitting in the stands for the last 12 years is perfect for watching the race. Moving the home stretch back much would take a lot of the effect away and putting the stands inside would obscure over 80% of the track so nobody would go. Yes, for a second, friday, we thought we were done but we won't go back if they try to make it 100% crowd safe and make the race boring. They might as well just close down the last air race in the world if that is the only solution.

If closing down the Reno air races is their solution then we had better close down Nascar too because people in the crowd get killed there too. Didn't somebody get killed with a baseball and a golf ball in the last 10 years too? We could make this world really safe if we outlawed all of these sports. Soccer will have to go. Remember the stands that collapsed. The list goes on.

Von Klinkerhoffen
22nd Sep 2011, 16:01
Just some observations of the picture posted above by FoundationMetro (post 162) and particularly the trim tab and elevator position. The aircraft is in a left turn not disimilar to its last turn before the abrupt pitch up. The elevator appears to be in the slightly nose up position as would be expected to keep the nose up during the turn. But the trim tab looks to be in a nose down trim position suggesting that in high speed level flight (racing) nose down trim is required to maintain level flight and give the pilot a rest as he is always pulling in the turns. This means the tab is always in the high speed airflow and with the loss of the tab, an immediate pitch up could be the result due to the loss of nose down trim force.....not to mention a large change is static and dynamic balance of the elevators.

The other telling thing about this pic is the HORIZONTAL reflection of the ground in the spinner ! As mentioned previously, the reflections in the picture of the aircraft supposedly in a dive do not match up. The same photo was shown in one of the links to a news website but the photo was shown with the aircraft horizontal and it looked correct there. I think that pic might be genuine but turned through 90 degrees to make it more 'dramatic' !

jumpseater
22nd Sep 2011, 17:01
The other telling thing about this pic is the HORIZONTAL reflection of the ground in the spinner ! As mentioned previously, the reflections in the picture of the aircraft supposedly in a dive do not match up.

They do actually, the spinner is dark because its reflecting a dark surface, more commonly known as the ground. :rolleyes:

If you think the image has been rotated 90 degrees the sky on your planet must be a very peculiar color. At what point in the accident sequence was the aircraft straight and level at the same plane as the photographer to get a perfect side on shot?, and where was the photgrapher standing in relation to the aircraft at the time to get this perfect side on straight and level shot? You know, angles, distances etc etc. In your own time.:rolleyes:

Funny that none of the photoshop keyboard warriors has come up with a plausible explanation as to why a photographer with a world wide syndicated image of such a widely covered accident would risk his career in manipulating such an image. The only way a photographer or agency would 'manipulate' such an image is close cropping, you don't need to see blank sky, the close vertical crop works for this image and emphasises the 'story' being told by the image. i.e. the aeroplane is pointing at the ground ...

Von Klinkerhoffen
22nd Sep 2011, 18:14
Hmmm lots of thoughts of a photographic nature on an aviation forum but not much opinion of an aviating nature...sure you belong here Jumpseater ?

Who said anything about photoshopping ? I said the photo looks like it has been turned through 90 for dramatic effect.....not neccessarily by the photographer.......plenty of unscrupulous news papers/stations to do that sort of thing.

Look again at all the photos on page 6, especially posts 104,111,& 120.

In my world the horizon runs from left to right or vica versa.....since when has it gone vertically ?

In post 111 with the 2 pics side by side , with the aircraft rolling on its back the reflection is along the a/c longitudinal axis as expected, with the a/c in a dive pointed at the ground.....the reflection of the horizon is still along the longitudinal axis....what Lost in Saigon says about the reflections is hard to dispute !

PS at what point did the a/c roll left because thats what the ailerons are demanding in that photo ( unless it is aileron upfloat that we are seeing ) !

robrose
22nd Sep 2011, 18:59
I'm sure the photograph is real: reputable photojournalist, underside of wing is well lit, top of tailwheel door is shadowed, etc.

As far as the reflection goes and Saigon's claim: bright spots in the spinner are probably hanger roofs at the airport. If you look at the google aerial view of the airport you'll see that right near where the plane came down there rectilinear hangers with bright white roofs against a black tarmac.

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=reno+stead+airport&hl=en&ll=39.660656,-119.880989&spn=0.003465,0.005901&safe=off&fb=1&gl=us&view=map&cid=3806567945567739338&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&iwloc=A)

Can we please drop the conspiracy theories now? please!
-Rob

jumpseater
22nd Sep 2011, 19:46
Hmmm lots of thoughts of a photographic nature on an aviation forum but not much opinion of an aviating nature...sure you belong here Jumpseater ?

More knowledge than thought, well from some quarters that is...

Whether I belong here isn't for you to question, we'll leave that for the mods to decide, but if the board ever becomes professional aviation licence holder only to be a member, I'll still be here, will you?

PS at what point did the a/c roll left

Just before it hit the ground actually, didn't you know? :rolleyes:

Sorry, I don't think you mentioned it, just remind me where was the photographer standing in relation to the aircraft? Angles, distances you know that sort of stuff ...

Desert185
24th Sep 2011, 17:06
www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110917X22412&key=1 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110917X22412&key=1)

Ditchdigger
24th Sep 2011, 17:09
I was rather surprised to find that nobody had posted a link to the preliminary report from the NTSB, posted yesterday.

Nothing there that hasn't been discussed here already, but if it saves you the time of searching for it:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/k5lvl4asvmyol255lexspx451/R09242011120000.pdf

Pilot DAR
24th Sep 2011, 19:44
This unhappy event is fresh in our minds now, but in decades, someone is going to pour over reports, and read:

Aircraft: NORTH AMERICAN/AERO CLASSICS P-51D, registration: N79111
Injuries: 11 Fatal,66 Serious.

and ask "What the heck?"

And perhaps:

"the airplane sustained substantial damage"

Is a bit of an understatement...

mat777
25th Sep 2011, 01:17
forgive me if this comes across as insensitive bearing in mind the tragic events, but a friend who saw the pictures asked me (as an aero eng. undergrad... like i'd know) why there was no explosion or fire in the crash. the more i thought about it, the more it puzzled me, as surely it would have been carrying enough fuel for the rest of the race plus the usual safety reserves. the only other time i have heard of such an explosion-less crash was ken wallis' wellington during the war, and that was because it had been run completely dry.

rip mr leeward and the spectators. may the awesome spectacle of the races continue to run in future years

xmh53wrench
25th Sep 2011, 05:28
This is an amazing read....
Ignomini Home (http://www.ignomini.com/reno.html)

Some amazing footage....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoncG_j5AdI

Hello, obviously very new here. This forum has been an amazing source of intelligent info regarding the Reno accident. Although I wasnt there, I like countless others have been affected by this. I spent 20 years racing cars, so I love competition, speed and the idea of doing those things to their limits. I also was a helicopter mechanic in the Air Force so also have a love for aviation. Thanks for all the insight and experienced input. I too have wondered about the absence of fire, but some of the theories out there make a bit of sense. And after watching the above video would love to know if any of you have a different opinion than what you originally thought. I understand about speculation and the damage it can do. Just curious, and hope you folks dont mind this as my first post here. Thanks again, and prayers to ALL those affected by this tragedy.

knot4u
25th Sep 2011, 06:51
Link to the best video of the accident. No impact footage. Final Flight of the Ghost on Vimeo

JEM60
25th Sep 2011, 07:50
Seen two double fatal crashes with steep descent resulting in no fire whatsoever. Firefly at Duxford, T.34 at Mildenhall. Seen some fiery ones too, unfortunately.....

patowalker
25th Sep 2011, 07:52
the only other time i have heard of such an explosion-less crash was ken wallis' wellington during the war, and that was because it had been run completely dry.

You haven't heard much then.

mat777
25th Sep 2011, 11:12
patowalker,

I readily admit that compared to the minds on here, I am but a huge noob with much to learn about the world of aircraft and how they work. i was simply wondering what would prevent the presumably large amount of fuel from catching fire as in my limited experience it always usually finds a spark or hot piece of debris and catches alight. i would be grateful if someone could offer me an explanation, by PM if neccessary if not suitable for the thread, for me to further my knowledge of how such situations work.

thing
25th Sep 2011, 11:41
An extraordinary eyewitness account, thanks to the man that wrote it and to oakape for posting it here.

BTW, an article on temporal distortion here:

http://library.ndmctsgh.edu.tw/milme...r/fsmjun99.pdf (http://library.ndmctsgh.edu.tw/milmed/avitation/file-air/fsmjun99.pdf)Odd thing that time dilation stuff. I saw a Phantom crash at Coningsby back in '75 (XV 416 for the pedants) . I was out on an aircraft and looked up to see a 'toom doing a roller but trailing black smoke. The Speys didn't smoke unlike the J79 so that was unusual in itself. I kept my eye on it and the crew banged out, the a/c rolled slightly and crashed into the River Witham. I would say the whole episode lasted a couple of minutes until I was told by a mate in ATC that the whole incident had lasted about 10 seconds.

Also have you noticed that from the time you chop the throttle, do the flare and actually have tires on tarmac can seem quite a while but when you watch someone else do it from the ground it takes no time at all. Or maybe I just float down the runway for miles........

The eyewitness account was thoroughly chilling, glad the man only had minor injuries.

sycamore
25th Sep 2011, 13:15
Mat777,the reason,or at least one of possibly several,there was no explosion is that the fuel tanks are filled with fire retarding foam,same as in most racing cars/racing bikes.According to some witnesses the foam,blue in this case was everywhere,thus no pooling or gushing effect,and rapid evaporation.
You can also get a fine foil which has the same retardent effect..Google ..`Explosafe`,..also `exmesh.co.uk ` made in Hartlepool..

ULMFlyer
25th Sep 2011, 14:23
sycamore,

you may be right, of course. However, Pete Law, the thermodynamicist who designed the Ghost's cooling system, is quoted in Air & Space magazine as saying that the anti-detonation injection (ADI) fluid (a 50/50 mixture of methanol and distilled water)
had doused any flame. He told us that a friend who had been standing a hundred feet away had been splashed by the stuff.The Ghost carried 1 gallon of ADI fluid for every gallon of Avgas or 150 gallons of each on every flight. Link to the article:
Tragedy at Reno | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Tragedy-at-Reno.html)

Also, within the article, there is a link to another great piece on the Ghost's modifications in EAA Sport Aviation (haven't seen it posted here, so apologies if I missed it). There, Leeward was quoted as saying that
the seating position in the Ghost is stock (...)EAA Sport Aviation - May 2011 (http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201105#pg36)

FoundationMetro
25th Sep 2011, 20:18
Even though the resolution isn't super high, and the camera is a great distance from the plane, if I had to place a bet I would say pretty certainly this was tail flutter. If you look at the aircraft just before the even occurs, things like the exhaust stacks are reasonably sharp. After the even begins, virtually everything on the aircraft is more blurry.

Before the aircraft begins climbing, there is a short abbreviated roll left and right. It doesn't look like much here because of the distance; however, I suspect in the cockpit it was quite violent. If the flutter was related to the trim tab it could have become asymmetric (caused the elevators to become out of phase with each other with one moving up when the other one is moving down. At these speeds and with such a highly modified aircraft, who knows what that might have caused in the way of controllability problems.

If the pilot was seated as shown in the picture I posted earlier in the thread, I think he might have been out from the first roll left and right. Everything from there on was just physics and aerodynamics.

172driver
25th Sep 2011, 21:45
It probably has no bearing on the accident, but what strikes me is that he lifts off A LOT further down the rwy than anyone else.

ULMFlyer
25th Sep 2011, 22:12
172driver,

from the EAA article:
The ailerons are a little more than half the size of the originals, so the name of the game on final is speed. "Otherwise, everything gets mushy," he [Leeward] said. "I'm doing 190 mph on final, and touchdown [is] in the 150-160 mph area, which, by the way, Hoot Gibson told me are about the same numbers he uses in a Mig-21. It stalls at 130 mph (...)"

patowalker
26th Sep 2011, 07:33
Quote:
the only other time i have heard of such an explosion-less crash was ken wallis' wellington during the war, and that was because it had been run completely dry. You haven't heard much then.

Quote:
I readily admit that compared to the minds on here, ...

Nothing wrong with not knowing why the Ghost didn't explode, I don't know either, but to suggest that the last time there was an 'explosion-less crash' was 70 years ago is a bit OTT methinks. For recent examples search for "There was no fire" on the NTSB site. No use doing it on the AAIB site, because the search function is useless.

MichaelJP59
26th Sep 2011, 10:58
Nothing wrong with not knowing why the Ghost didn't explode, I don't know either

Again, only speculation, but perhaps the very high speed near-vertical impact into the hard surface means that the structure of the aircraft and the uncontained fuel is dispersed too rapidly and widely for any flame front to keep up.

FoundationMetro
26th Sep 2011, 13:13
"Again, only speculation, but perhaps the very high speed near-vertical impact into the hard surface means that the structure of the aircraft and the uncontained fuel is dispersed too rapidly and widely for any flame front to keep up."

Many years ago I read a story about the development of Napalm. They wanted to use an explosive to scatter it far from the impact site. But if they made the explosion too powerful, the speed at which it traveled simply exceeded the flame propagation rate and no fire occurred. I wonder if the crash conditions created conditions necessary to allow this type of to phenomena to occur?

CRayner
26th Sep 2011, 13:34
Appears to be quite early on in the sequence. To my uneducated eye it looks as if it pops out well before maximum positive G. Perhaps some disintegration of mechanical structure in the tail section?

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 14:32
The tailwheel looked like a mechanical extension, not a broken mechanism, overcome by inertia. So is it possible that Leeward was configuring? His roll left at the beginning was controlled with right aileron, and the intitial climb seemed an input/climb. His later roll left (prior impact) mimicked a pylon hug, (there seemed to be some 'pull'); so had he started to regain consciousness?

Depending on the proximity of the high octane to the cooling Water/Methanol mix, the vaporisation rate may have blended the volatile fuel with water, creating a non explosive, non flammable (transient) mixture. High Octane Fuel burns more slowly than lower Octane, but I doubt that had too much to do with it. I guess about 40 gallons of fuel left, the size of an SUV fuel tank, so on its own, one would expect a fire, if only a brief (flash) one. Are we sure there was no 'brief' combustion?

Piper_Driver
26th Sep 2011, 15:08
It probably has no bearing on the accident, but what strikes me is that he lifts off A LOT further down the rwy than anyone else.

Likely because of the shortened wingspan. Less wingspan = less lift = more airspeed required to take off = longer ground roll.

BackPacker
26th Sep 2011, 15:21
I guess about 40 gallons of fuel left

Based on what?

I would assume that these guys run on the absolute minimum of fuel required for the race plus landing plus a very minimal reserve - perhaps just five minutes worth of fuel. Not the standard +10% +alternate +one hour reserve that is taught during PPL VFR training. In that respect, 40 gallons sounds like a lot to me. But I have to admit I don't know the typical fuel flow of such a racer, and I don't know how far into the race this accident happened.

mcgoo
26th Sep 2011, 16:17
The Galloping Ghost specs quote 400 G.P.H at race power.

BackPacker
26th Sep 2011, 16:23
In that case 40 USG on board at the time of the crash indeed doesn't sound all that extreme.

alexhara
26th Sep 2011, 17:22
Very good article from a veteran aviator about what caused the Reno crash.

http://aerobaticteams.net/news/what-caused-reno-aircraft-crash.html

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 19:01
I calculated seven gpm at full chat. Airborne for ten minutes, one third of which is "less than full go". Forty gallons at this stage of the heat is about right, perhaps generous.

He doesn't need more runway, necessarily, he has plenty gitemup to reach rotate v in a hurry. A measured acceleration, wild ass torque, etc. no 'hurry' to get in the air. With that wing loading, below 200 knots, I think caution is indicated. This is NOT an 'aerobatic aircraft'. It is built for velocity, stop.

Jim Howe's article is a good one, but a couple comments. First, the "g" was not horizontal, pushing pilot/seat back, it was vertical, pushing pilot/seat down. There was no wild g on the seat's rails, fore/aft, but on the rails and floor of the cockpit, down. This stopped as he reached the apex of the climb, and the a/c rolled gently, right. I too think he may have suffered a broken neck, but not from interference with the dorsal frame of the cockpit. Unless he had seriously tight straps, his chest went forward, and down, onto his lap. The rotation of the initial climb would force his head to roll forward, to subject it to the full force of the ascent.

The first problem with this flight was not the climb, as Jim has written. The a/c was rolled just right to the left (exiting the turn), when it started to continue to roll left, and the wings were vertical. Jimmy stopped this roll with aileron, and the a/c started to roll out to level as it exited the turn. This then was followed by a sharp rotation to begin the g event.

I was not present at this race, so my call on the gee is subject to inaccuracy. I didn't see 10-12 gee. I saw perhaps 6-7, but less than gloc value for a healthy fit pilot.

Google 'GeeBee'. It makes the Ghost look tame.

BoaterNotFlyer
26th Sep 2011, 22:40
In post 111, we see a photo of the Ghost on her back. Looking closely at the photo, we see a bowling ball sized object much lighter in color towards the front of the cockpit. Almost at the junction between the canopy and skin.
Now take a look at the photo in post 157 where he is sitting in the cockpit. There is open space almost up to the junction between the skin and canopy. Right where this round object appears in the prior photo.

I'm thinking that in the first photo that the object in the first photo is the poor man's head and he is out cold. His head is buried in the dash. People familiar with the configuration and his helmet colors will have better input. But in the first photo his seat back by the top is still clearly visible.

keezy44
27th Sep 2011, 00:35
We were directly below the galloping ghost when it rolled inverted coming down at us. He had to be unconscious from the beginning. Nobody of any age can stay conscious with a 10G+ pull up. Voodoo had it happen a while back and the same thing happened with that trim tab failing.

treadigraph
27th Sep 2011, 07:07
A suggestion on the WIX site is that the aircraft may have encountered wake turbulence from the preceding aircraft, hence the initial increase in left bank to what appears to be 90 degrees or more.

Also from WIX, 9g would have been sufficient to bring the tailwheel out - did that happen when Voodoo's trim tab went?

B2N2
27th Sep 2011, 20:44
Very good article from a veteran aviator about what caused the Reno crash.


I have to call BS on that broken seat article. The pictures in post #157 clearly show no room or open area behind the seat.
Besides that is where the custom designed cooling system was installed according to the EAA article.
For now I'll go with the black-out after pitch up presumeably because of a malfunction of the elevator trim. Something that has happenend twice before with similar aircraft during the same type of race.

Deeday
27th Sep 2011, 22:08
I have to call BS on that broken seat article.Agreed. The author seems to imply that the violent pitch-up caused a massive g-force directed backward along the fuselage, which is clearly nonsense.
In such manoeuvre the g-force would be directed mostly downward, towards the floor of the aircraft, i.e. no sliding back. Instead, head slumping forward, especially if the seat belts were not fully taut.

Zulu Alpha
27th Sep 2011, 22:22
This photo has been posted elsewhere. It seems to show buckling of the fuselage.

http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=17278&d=1316247134

keezy44
28th Sep 2011, 00:01
I think when he did the 10+G pull up when he passed out who knows what his arm and body did to the stick. We saw the whole thing overhead and it appeared no throttle or control movements were made, it just was a projectile not controlled by anybody. Even though it looked like it would hit our seats for a couple of seconds I think time slowed down in our brains and it was less than a second after reviewing the videos.

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 00:21
#207

With asymmetric elevators (by aspect), and at 450mph, I am going to say the tail section rotated (twisted) counter/clockwise as seen from aft. This would cause the additive roll left of the airframe. This explains the additive left roll that made vertical the wings as explained elsewhere caused by W/T. The buckles show this torsional aspect in concert with a Yaw and "drop" of the tail, meaning that the more emphatic elevator was the right one, and if it imparted a down force, it meant the tabs were "up", at the time the left tab was lost. this is consistent with carrying a Nose Down bias in the circuit.

That area of the airframe is hardly what one could call "stressed skin" so the damage is not particularly surprising, as it results from a structural failure in a design consideration that needn't have been addressed.

A secondary analysis might include the buckling resulted from a massive Nose Up input. With the elevators trending up, the tail would would endure a great download, a longitudinal collapse downward could have produced the 'extra' skin necessary to produce the wrinkling.

A combination of both mechanical issues is also possible.

fernytickles
28th Sep 2011, 00:51
I came across this on aafo.com. Seems like a kind gesture to help the victims through a very difficult time.

Family Assistance Fund (http://thinkkindness.org/reno_air_race_family_assistance_fund)

http://www.thinkkindness.org/files/AirRace_FAF.pdf

xmh53wrench
28th Sep 2011, 02:55
Just found this, amazing photos, what a work of art
WarbirdAeroPress.com (http://www.warbirdaeropress.com/NewGallery/GG2009-1/index.html)

gileraguy
28th Sep 2011, 06:43
Zulu Alpha

I believe that "wrinkling" image was not captured at the time of the accident but previous to the accident..

And thanks to Tredigraph below, I found the article that quoted Matt Jackson, President of the Unlimited class at Reno:

Jackson said the accident was the result of pilot error, not shoddy aircraft designs or the failure of the race organizers to ensure safe aircraft participate in the races.

“It was the mistake of one individual in making a critical decision — a decision that didn’t work out,” Jackson said. “It wasn’t deliberate. It was an accident — just like the accidents that happen every day out on the highway.”

According to Jackson, Jimmy Leeward, pilot of the ill-fated Galloping Ghost, made the mistake of using his “elevator trim tab” to control his plane during the Unlimited race on Friday, and the trim tab broke off, causing the plane to shoot into the air.

Jackson said the crash was an accident — not the result of sloppy designs or the lack of safety oversight on the aircraft.

Essentially, with the crash being an accident, it means the spectators might have an expectation of injury, as the tickets warn.

Jackson said the plane was safe if it was flown properly. He said Leeward made the mistake of using his trim tab on his tail to control his pitch, and the force of the speed was too much for that small piece of equipment, and it snapped off with catastrophic results.

“I know exactly what happened,” Jackson said, “and when the National Transportation Safety Board comes back with its report on the cause, they will say the same thing I’m saying.”

According to Jackson, Leeward’s elevator trim tab broke off when Leeward rounded turns No. 7 and 8.

“I always tell the pilots that we don’t touch the trim tabs on any of the fast airplanes,” Jackson said. “Apparently he was using the trim tab. It snapped off. That’s the pop we heard.”

When the trim tab broke, the Galloping Ghost shot into the air.

The G-force of about 9 caused Leeward to black out, and his body slumped forward, hitting the control stick and causing the plane to turn to the right and then down.

Photos of the plane support this, Jackson said. The back landing gear is down in photos of the plane just before it crashed. The landing gear is designed to deploy at 9 Gs, Jackson said.

In addition, Jackson said, Leeward was not visible in the cockpit of any of the photographs of the airplane’s final moments.

When racers fly, they set their shoulder harnesses to allow them to move around in the cockpit so that they can look over their shoulders for the other planes in the race. That would explain how Leeward disappeared from the cockpit, he said.

“The pilot blacked out or was dead in the airplane,” Jackson said. “His body came forward and he was pushed against the stick.”

“It’s going to come out that the trim tab failed,” Jackson said. “The plane that crashed was a very precise aircraft. Nothing had been short-cutted.”

It was an accident — not a design flaw, Jackson said."


The G-force from the sharp pitch caused Leeward to black out, and then fall on his control stick, which made the plane turn and then nosedive into the ground, said Jackson, who has been racing these planes for 20 years.

SO, my synopsis is:
Leeward , having gone faster than he ever had before, with an opportunity to pass into second place, disregards the instructions and trims against the nose up forces resulting from his increased speed.
He over-stresses the tab and then it breaks off the aircraft, resulting in a massive nose up force that he cannot hold against.
This force is sufficient to render Leeward unconscious and is testified by the deployment the tail wheel.

We all know what happened after that...

reason for edit, update reference

treadigraph
28th Sep 2011, 07:25
Gilerguy, it was Matt Jackson, president of the Unlimited Class at Reno, who was quoted as having said that about not using the trim. Think the quote I saw was on a legal or insurance website discussing liability, linked from WIX.

Say again s l o w l y
28th Sep 2011, 08:00
Hang on a second. How can using the trim tab at speed, which then breaks off NOT be a design flaw?

My reading of those comments from Matt Jackson come across as "these aeroplanes are safe, it was the pilot wot caused the accident."

Which is invariably the reaction after any accident when the pilot is not around to defend themselves. He sounds as if he's parceling blame over to Leeward to protect the rest of the class.

The old "it's purely pilot error" comments are invariably rubbish. There maybe an element of it, but for it to be the be all and end all is generally not usually correct.

Matt Jackson should probably learn to shut his face and wait for the actual report to come out.

JEM60
28th Sep 2011, 08:04
Sounds like a perfectly logical explanation, if speculative.

fernytickles
28th Sep 2011, 11:15
made the mistake of using his “elevator trim tab” to control his plane

What else would you use it for? To make the tea? Sounds like he has been misquoted or something.

MichaelJP59
28th Sep 2011, 11:15
Just found this, amazing photos, what a work of art
WarbirdAeroPress.com

Thanks for those, amazing indeed, just shows how heavily modified the Unlimited class aircraft are, I wonder how much of the original warbird P-51 metal there was left?

FoundationMetro
28th Sep 2011, 12:29
1. If this fellow truly believes trim tab use caused the accident, then the racers should be required to bring a set of elevators WITHOUT trim tabs and change to them before racing. With the money that is obviously spent on these aircraft, a spare set of elevators should not be excessive. My experience has been that leaving a function operational in the cockpit and telling pilots not to use it does not have a hight probability of success.

2. Trim tabs usually fail because of flutter, not static strength. Flutter usually occurs with a lightly loaded surface (one is is relatively faired with the control surface) not one that is highly loaded.

3. The pictures of the aircraft construction. The trim tab has a single rod actuator. For an aircraft that operates at this speed, a dual rod actuator would be much better. Also the elevator mass balance appears to be entirely in the horn. Again for aircraft operating in this speed range and under these conditions, spread out along the leading edge of the elevator would be better.

4. There appears to be a huge amount of space in the vertical stabilizer near where the leading edge of the horizontal attaches. Just cries out to have an electric actuator installed, the entire stabilizer made trimmable, and the trim tabs done away with altogether.

5. The work that was going on in the shop appears to have been first rate.

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 14:37
gileraguy

gday. You have a 'belief' the photo predates the accident? That is interesting, and I can't respond, I never question a man's Faith. If the photo is from Tim O'Brien, it is Gold Standard. I know him, he is a fixture in the local aviation community, and his work is legend.

Somebody missed that blemish in the walkaround? I seriously doubt that. The a/c was cleared to the line looking like that? Have you reviewed my sketchy post on the mechanicals if it is real? Thoughts?

I think the video that shows the Ghost's hesitant over roll gives up what happened to cause the Pitch UP. It shows a mechanical issue (W/T is not eliminated), that the pilot reacted to: the ('extra') Roll left was not an indicated input for his flight path, so it was uncommanded. The response of the a/c in rolling back to the right shows a 'correction'. What remained of the a/c's flight path seemed gentle, and controlled.

The Pitch Up was almost certainly Pilot induced. It didn't resemble a casual exit of the circuit, it was in response to a Nose drop. An over-control, most definitely. CG is not set for stable, cruise flight, and the response in Pitch is touchy. Adrenaline and emergency are not conducive to ice water in the veins.

Pilot's vasculature is an issue, he seemed healthy and fit. However, there is a reason the rules start to discriminate against the aged in aviation. The wrinkling of the belly skin shows an inordinate amount of undesigned for stress, do you agree?

Regardless the cause, or its timing.

Question for you. Can an a/c like the Ghost Stall with a Pitch up of 60 degrees? In a 90 degree Roll?

gearhorn
28th Sep 2011, 14:56
Anyone notice that the tail wheel is not down in the wrinkle photo?

gh

B2N2
28th Sep 2011, 14:58
What else would you use it for? To make the tea?

Completely unrelated but when being taught for competion finishes in glider flying which is essential a conversion of all altitude into a Vne dive and fly-by; we were taught to leave the trim in "high speed cruise" and never trim away all forces.
Any momentary lapse of concentration and corresponding relaxing of the stick force would cause the glider to climb and not descend into the ground.

I cannot recall the source since I was just google-ing a couple of nights ago but here it goes;
The original P-51 design had a sea level max speed of 375 mph, hence a certain angle of incidence of the tail plane.
If this was not changed on the race aircraft you would need excessive nose down trim deflection which has the trim tab stick out further in the airflow.
This is what apparently caused the flutter and trim tab failure in the accident in the 90-ies.
From the slow motion accident sequence it is clear something failed prior to trim tab seperation. Might be the actuating rod or hinge mechanism.
It is hard to believe that somebody with this much racing experience (120+ races) would make a what would appear to be a "rookie" mistake.
But then again, accident reports are filled with experienced pilots.
I have to admit that despite the obvious tragedy this is fascinating stuff.
Like the death of Ayrton Senna.
Ayrton Senna da Silva (http://www.ayrton-senna.com/s-files/start.html)

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 15:14
gearhorn

Of course. Did you notice how many G the pilot was pulling prior to the "climb"? Just because the a/c is not gaining or losing altitude does not mean it is not experiencing wicked G.

Technically, the "additive" left ROLL is a wing drop, since the a/c wings are nearly vertical. In this attitude, again technically, the a/c is actually in a wicked climb, though you may call it a turn.

Once again, if those wrinkles are real, the cause can be determined, and the most likely cause is stress beyond critical design, in a commanded climb (OR PITCH UP). Or in an uncommanded (trim commanded) climb.

This means that the wrinkles preceded the TailWheel deploy.

Point of fact, the a/c may have experienced its most emphatic G load prior to the ascent. This means Leeward was likely incapacitated before the a/c started the ascent. Once 'established' in a manouver, the G relents, obviously.

If so, then manouver entry (PITCH UP) caused the buckling of the skin, the incapacitation of the pilot, the deploy of the TW, all before the dramatic gain in altitude, which was a result of the failure, not the cause.

Say again s l o w l y
28th Sep 2011, 16:27
Oil canning is not ideal, but nor does it mean the thing is about to rip itself apart either. That pricture might be significant, it might not.

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 16:37
No disagreement from me. My assumption quite obviously is that it is significant, however. Most design considerations transcend the 'normal' in Ulimited, eh? Do we have a spec on the skin in that area? The structure beneath?

I take your point

ps in slomo, do you see the tab depart, near the apex of the climb?

boxer8
28th Sep 2011, 16:44
NTSB Press Briefing Reno Nevada September 18, 2011 - YouTube

alexhara
29th Sep 2011, 06:58
Here are some telemetry data from the P-51 “Galloping Ghost” which crashed at Reno.

Airspeed around pylon 7 - 495 mph.

When the trim tab broke off the aircraft pitched up pulling 21 G's and airspeed reduced to 375 mph. (Tail wheel popped out, pilot slumped below view).

Milt
29th Sep 2011, 07:49
21g - No way.

The Mustang limiting g was/is about 8 or 9 and fitted with a system to support an anti-g suit which was no doubt removed from the Ghost.

If 8 g, then design ultimate would normally be 12 g at which a wing is supposed to depart and at some lesser g if rolling.

Just cannot believe that the shortened wings would not fail at much over 12g.

Comments please from an aircraft designer or structural engineer.

NigelOnDraft
29th Sep 2011, 08:28
Milt...

Yes - 21g seems unlikely. However NB at what the 8g / 12g ultimate was for - empty weight 7000lb, MTOW 12000lb.

Shorten the wings, take out a lot of weight, light fuel load (in fuselage tanks), and suddenly your ultimate 'g' increases by a large amount. Clearly it will take someone familiar with the structure / design to know what should fail at 12g / wing bending relief aspects etc. But I would not be amazed to see something approaching 20g not resulting in major failure.

NoD

rh200
29th Sep 2011, 09:05
Being a data recorder, I wonder what the intergration time was for that "21g" if it was very small then I would imagine a transient spike might be possible.

Though to have a small intergration time it means recording lots of data, hence more weight due to storage.

westhawk
29th Sep 2011, 09:37
I don't know what the unaccelerated stall speed of the Ghost would have been but 21G would require that the airplane be moving at an indicated airspeed of about 4.5 times that speed. The listed speed of 495 mph seems too high to be an indicated speed. Maybe GS or TAS but not IAS or CAS as that would be close to 550 mph in the turn at over 5,000' density altitude. Average lap speeds didn't even approach that, though top speed down the "valley of speed" could. I'd guess the IAS as being closer to 450 mph max. At 450 mph, the unaccelerated stall speed would have to be 100 mph to make the 21G credible. Interesting. I wonder what that stall speed is...

Still some mystery here.

douglas.lindsay
29th Sep 2011, 10:08
Is it not the case that the ratio has to be at least 4.5? So any unaccelerated stall of up to 100mph would do it?

(Subject to the disclaimer that I have considerably more experience in arithmetic than aeroplane design...)

westhawk
29th Sep 2011, 10:16
Is it not the case that the ratio has to be at least 4.5g? The actual indicated airspeed would have to be 4.5 times the unaccelerated stall speed in order to pull 21G before stalling. So the unaccelerated stall speed would have to be 100 mph. At any stall speed less than 100, it could pull more than 21G at 450 mph IAS. (not accounting for energy lost before reaching 21G)

Edited to add that if the unaccelerated stall speed is greater than 100 mph, the 21G is a stretch. And 21G seems like more than the trim change with loss of tab would produce, but that's pure conjecture. Maybe if there is enough good video to measure the angular change of momentum over time, the load factor can be calculated that way.

Lyman
29th Sep 2011, 11:03
#180 @ 9:00 One sees the actual departure of the trim tab from the airframe. So, "broke off" is not an accurate way to describe the tail damage. It broke, but "off" came later, near the apex of the ascent.

The Roll to wings vertical prior to the climb is interesting in that it may involve other than control surface deflection. Look carefully at the sheet metal on the underside of the wing in the slomo. Either the light is changing, or the under surface is "unloading", losing its dynamic "crush" in a ....STALL?

21G? No comment. Leeward was in high G well before the mini roll left, and may have been impaired/incapacitated before the climb itself.

Them's some very short wings. AoA at the "Roll"? Anyone?

addend. Watch the slomo carefully. As the a/c is "rolling" left, notice the NOSE dropping, alot. The a/c then looks to have recovered itself, and the Pitch Up is dramatic, very quick. So this unusual 'snap' left may have been the port wing dropping in STALL. It would be the one to drop out, as Leeward arrested the left roll 'turn' he had just made, its velocity being slightly less than the right wing, due turn radius, and its aileron increasing its net AoA, drag.

It is the Nose Drop that would have violently overloaded the tail feathers, producing the longitudinal collapse of the tail section evident in the still photo (wrinkling). So if the geometry of the image is accurate, the photo will have been exposed in the split second before 'climb'.

Just as the tail collapsed, it also Pitched the a/c UP. I think the pilot was a passenger after that Pitch change.

At Nose Drop, there would be large negative G. At Reversal into climb, large positve. Add Roll, and Yaw, and the human body may have exceeded its physical limits, as well as the tail.

sycamore
29th Sep 2011, 12:04
I would think that from the video ,at Pylon 7,that GG hit wake vortex from Strega and Voodoo,who were approximately 4-5 secs ahead,GG having overtaken `R-Bear at this point.That may have triggered the failure of the left tab,the Mustang has two trim tabs,but there does appear to be a difference in deflection,looking at the `oil-canning` pic.#207 ,and the other left -side shot.#162.
The EAA article mentioned earlier,Jimmy says the ac stalls about 130 mph,but cleanly. I would estimate the wing area at about 175 sq.ft,and at about 8000lbs a wing loading about 46-50 lbs/sq.ft.,so I would guess a peak `g` of about 15.. but what is telemetered depends also on the position relative to the Co G.
Whilst it has been poo-pooed ,the seat may have failed,depending on its mountings; it also looks from the other slideshow link,that the harness mounting is somewhere behind the seat and below the pilot` shoulders,ideally should be above/level,and attached to the main a/c structure...certainly used to be for F1 air-racing,when I were a lot younger..Similarly, it could be that ,being forced down and forward,JL could have been struck by the control column,in the chest/face/neck.
Just another point about the `oil-canning`,in that particular area is where the structure normally houses/supports the radiators; however I would be surprised if the area had not been strengthened to accomodate their removal.
I would suspect that next year there may be aircraft with `trimmable stabilisers`back in vogue.
As an aside ,I think Matt Jackson should keep it zipped until the investigation is over..

Pilot DAR
29th Sep 2011, 12:26
This is a question, not an assertion; Believing that the trim tab failure caused a very unusual and uncontrollable pitch change, would it be possible for the aircraft to sustain a very brief pitch up to record the stated 21G? Could it occur, but not for long enough for the aircraft to actually stall at that G load and relieve itself? Like gust loading, could an event like this occur, cause various loads and effects to the aircraft, but not be sustained long enough for the aircraft to actually stall?

Lyman
29th Sep 2011, 12:52
Pilot DAR

The first evidence of trouble is the anomalous roll left, and I am having trouble matching that up with a fouled or broken TT. There is some evidence of Pitch change prior, and that could be W/T, but again, I Think the snap left and Nose Down shows a high speed STALL. If you look at Pitch just after this slight roll enhancement, you'll see a pronounced drop in the Nose. The Ghost carries this Pitch down only briefly, and starts its ascent right away.

I think Jimmy was tighter to the pylon than Strega, Voodoo, and would have passed their W/T 'above' (actually, "inside"), as it settled outward. This upset looks very much like a too-tight turn, a quick STALL, and autonomous recovery. The fuselage distortion is quite indicative of an overloading downward moment, a result of exposing the tail to extreme aspect at this remarkable speed.

For me, it is easier to see the Trim Tab fracture as a result of, rather than a cause of, the climb. Again, it was in the airstream in the up position to begin with, and its exposure would have been at an even steeper AoA than the HS in the brief STALL aspect. The elevator would have seen some airstream relief in this aspect, and the HS would have been the source of the energy that overloaded the Fuselage in the area of the Buckled skin.

To answer your question, if the NOSE drops, the G would be quite negative, and a starting point for the ensuing positive G associated with the climb. As a reversal, I consider these values to be additive, and the damage resulting quite alarming. Both to the pilot and the airframe.

21G? No comment.

MichaelJP59
29th Sep 2011, 14:57
In an earlier post, I remarked that looking at the crash video, if the speed is about 500mph and the time from horizontal flight to vertical is about 2.5 seconds, a back of the envelope calculation suggests approx 15g initial G.

That's no aerodynamics calculation, purely on the physics of something at a certain speed changing direction in a certain amount of time. 21g may have been a peak figure for a short amount of time.

Lyman
29th Sep 2011, 15:40
The video shows a sudden and extreme G whilst the a/c is wings vertical,
and while horizontal flight path is evident, the G is experienced 90 degrees out of phase, relative to path vector. It is at this time the T/W starts to come out. So I think it important to consider that the G loads were not consistent, they were experienced in rolling, yawing aspect, not just in "Climb". They also differed in Negative/Positive direction. It also would support some uncommonly high G values.

I think the camera is a constant, it shows no vibration, and the lighting, while variable, cannot account for the Torsional fuselage movement v/v the wings, and there is evidence of sudden and out of rig airframe displacement. As a/c is rolling out to Right, Note both elevators in extreme ND. This is either the result of dramatic aspect increase to the airstream via pilot input, or the result of exposure to dramatic airflow over the top of the HS, resulting from sudden NOSE DOWN. It is too rapid for Pilot input, so I think the latter. Bear in mind, that if the control surfaces are being back driven to this extent, continuity with the stick may have been lost. As the STALL is recovered, the elevators go neutral, then deflect up, again from airflow, not PILOT, resulting from the climb. As speed is lost, the controls seek neutral, and the aspect becomes gentle, as if the pilot were in control.

westhawk
30th Sep 2011, 00:32
That's no aerodynamics calculation, purely on the physics of something at a certain speed changing direction in a certain amount of time. 21g may have been a peak figure for a short amount of time. my bold

Good point. It's possible that between the video and the telemetry a reliable model of the events can be reconstructed if common time references can be worked out. The vehicle recorders lab at NTSB has an admirable success rate in this area, so I wouldn't rule it out.

It will interesting to see what investigative documents are posted on the E-docket library when they get to it. (nothing yet as of today)

As an aside ,I think Matt Jackson should keep it zipped until the investigation is over.

Yeah, I would have thought Jackson might want to keep a lower profile these days.

xmh53wrench
30th Sep 2011, 02:51
Web find for you guys from last year I would guess

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/dasher4/reno2010/P9166937.jpg

no idea who to credit though

Machinbird
30th Sep 2011, 04:03
I've been looking over the video posted by Knot4u in post #181 and there seems to be some activity around the elevators during the brief left roll at the beginning of the accident sequence. It is very fast, but to me, the outline of the elevator trailing edges becomes briefly asymmetrical and the port elevator seems to move up sharply coincident with the left roll. The motion is what is catching my eye, but when I stop frame, the contrast is not good enough to be sure of anything.

Other significant items visible are the tail wheel dropping just after the aircraft rolls wings level and begins to pull up.

If you watch the trailing edge of the port elevator during the pull up, you can see the trim tab begin to break loose and then separate, roughly at the time the top of the aircraft is pointed at the camera.

Just a personal opinion here, but the initial wings level at pull up seems to be the result of lateral control input, and the beginning of right roll shortly after commencement of the pull up probably marks the beginning of GLOC. The pull up itself was the result of changed aerodynamic configuration and was not commanded.

If 21 g acceleration were to be generated, it would have to be an impulse. Sustained 21 g would almost certainly fail the engine mount. They just don't build that much safety factor into aircraft.

There are a few "telemetry reports" on the web that are at variance with the telemetry report with 21 g of acceleration.
Here is one from the bearhawkgroups.com website dated 9-23-2011:
Telemetry downloaded from Galloping Ghost revealed an 11g pull up, fuel flow interrupted on the way up, and then the engine restarted when fuel flow
resumed at the top of the arc. The aircraft was making 105 inches of MP(Manifold Pressure) on the way down.It may be that these reports can co-exist and merely report different moment's telemetry data.:confused:

I view the entire flight path from pull up to impact as most nearly representing a high g barrel roll, and there was no significant slacking of g over the top. The curvature in flight path was extreme and continuous to my eye.

Those predicting a broken neck for the pilot as a result of the high g, are probably wrong. One of our F-4's snatched 12.5 g which greyed the crew out but they suffered no lasting effects from the g exposure. The F-4 needed a lot of rivets replaced in the wings and tail though. The human body is very tough.

Lyman
30th Sep 2011, 14:34
Machinbird

Howdy. The 'add' roll left, at the moment one expects a roll right for level, is consistent with a wing drop on the left. With input right aileron the left aileron drops into the airstream, creates drag (lift) whilst the right aileron tucks up and lessens drag on the right wing. As you know, of course.

Is it possible this was a STALL? I pick up a NOSE drop after the wings reach vertical, and quickly followed by regain of lift, and NOSE up.

When the tail comes back into view, there is a marked torsional sequence of the Tail Feathers relative to the Fuselage, likely caused by asym downforce after the TT broke.

I think the TT broke off as a result of drag, past critical stress, aiw. The Trim Tab loss is not on its own sufficient to explain, with these other clues apparent.

This Torsion would explain the buckled skin in the still photo, but so would a Nose Drop post stall.

Keep after the video, I think you will see rapid and extreme Pitch aspect changes, coincident and following the short snap to left. This Pitch is certainly what caused the TW to drop out, since clearly it was dropping out before the climb.

This is suggestive to me of the massive g load at this point in the sequence, prior to 'climb'. Carefully watch the entire airframe as it reacts to the rolling, it is in extreme distortion, the elevators and wing undersides are distorted radically, and the flight path is 'shaken' in the camera lens.

Let me know if you cannot see the Torsional flexion in the tail relative the fuselage, I can find the exact frame, I think.

Ah, the Phantom

So, for the rest of us, shouldn't we be looking for a reason the left wing drops out? Instead of why a Trim Tab let go? The 'Roll' follows the precise timing for a reversal into Right Roll, and if the rest of you can't see the aileron on the left wing dropping down, I think I see it. What does a wing do when it is asked for more lift at critical Lift? It Stalls, drops, and induces a Nose Drop in Roll, with Yaw. All of these quite visible in the video.

The other explanation is that the Tail, having lost a tab, imparts twist into the fuselage, and this causes the unwanted Roll Left. This is evident from the video, but did it cause the roll back to the Right? The twist is clockwise as seen from the back, consistent with a loss of downforce on the left HS. Depends on the position of the broken Tab. Did Leeward have ND cranked in, or NU? And did the tab break as a result, or did it cause, the upset?

Pretty powerful Tab.

Lyman
30th Sep 2011, 14:51
I can't question your opinion re: the pilot's spine, but the environment in the P-51 is not conducive to survival so much as it is to success. I certainly don't criticize your experience in the F-4.

Here, there is a possible transient load of 21g. Almost twice that your buds survived. He was ok before the Roll, we assume. There is no provision for helmet anchoring a la NHRA, and the straps are less than useless in regimes outside their design, which is mostly for straight and level. If you pick up the PITCH changes, the distortion of the airframe, the TW loss of stow, the Rolling moment, and the YAW, then consider he is wearing coveralls, tennis shoes, and sports a brain bucket built for visibility, I don't like the chances for his spine to survive.

But. It is moot. Grey is enough to put this aircraft into the asphalt. Not even grey, for that matter. The stick is long, and wants deliberate and accurate movements. It is alive. Moving it in 3G is not without its challenge.

deSitter
1st Oct 2011, 09:35
Check closely - just before the sudden left roll, it seems to me the plane is trying to roll RIGHT, very slight, almost imperceptible - but definitely there. In particular, just before tucking the left wing under, it seemed the right rolls were about to get out of hand so he overcorrected with left roll INPUT, and then snap - too late.

In other words, he's in a fast steep turn with highly modified aerodynamics for his airplane, and it has basically stopped flying normally and is trying to roll right - probably because the outer (right) wing is stalled. It's in a high-speed stall induced by too much speed through a turn.

-drl

Lyman
1st Oct 2011, 13:45
deSitter

There is that, and it comes at a reasonable point in the turn for the pilot to start rolling out level for the show center pass. A Right Roll involves deflection of ailerons, left down, right up. this changes the lift and load on each wing. If the left wing exceeds its critical Lift, it will STALL, and the a/c will now reverse, and Roll Left. It is not a good thing, because it imparts Yaw to the airframe, and enormous loads on the Tail, and Heavy engine (see Machinbird, above). As the Nose drops, (increases the radius of the "turn"), speed/Lift is regained and the a/c (wing) starts to fly again. This is too quick for it to be under the pilot's control, it is simply what aircraft do. The upside is that the a/c recovers aero flight on its own. The downside is it overreacts, and starts a....phugoid. So the climb after the loss of the TailWheel structure was likely a natural, and the roll, descent at the top was a bottom wave of the phugoid.

If you look carefully at the underside of the a/c, you will see the ambient lighting flaring on the skin. This is not to do with the light, but with the orientation of the skin itself. This a/c, like most others, is basically a balloon when flying through the air. Pressure from the airstream forces the skin inward against its formers, and substructures, and a balance is reached relative to the speed, and attitude of the a/c. When a deviation in flight path or airloads occurs, the skin responds, as does the structure beneath it. A Stalled wing, for instance, will unload the skin and change the way the light reflects upon it. The a/c effectively, "bulges" where the pressure has released, and this is evident, along with a startling re-orientation of the airframe with the airstream, what you see as an emphatic 'wobble', producing large G deviations from "Normal".

This "Snap" roll left is not commanded, and it is definitely not reversed, by the pilot. It is far too quick to have been input by Leeward. I am magnifying the video to see if I can capture the Left aileron bulging in to the airstream at the TE, but so far...

Can this event have been instigated by the Trim Tab failure? Possibly. It would have also caused a Pitch UP, and an adverse and torsional roll also.

The Tail is seen rebounding from this torsion in a dramatic out of rig aspect with the wings, look closely, and see the airframe rock and roll with this out of rig condition. (It is quite brief, if it had continued, the a/c would likely have come apart at this point.) This misaligned and reorienting event may have produced what was heard as a pop. It is not impossible some substructures broke, or fractured. It may have been the TailWheel snapping away from its lock.

Desert185
1st Oct 2011, 14:11
deSitter: Check closely - just before the sudden left roll, it seems to me the plane is trying to roll RIGHT, very slight, almost imperceptible - but definitely there. In particular, just before tucking the left wing under, it seemed the right rolls were about to get out of hand so he overcorrected with left roll INPUT, and then snap - too late.

In other words, he's in a fast steep turn with highly modified aerodynamics for his airplane, and it has basically stopped flying normally and is trying to roll right - probably because the outer (right) wing is stalled. It's in a high-speed stall induced by too much speed through a turn.


...or more logically, the result of wake turbulence from the aircraft ahead of him.

Lyman
1st Oct 2011, 14:32
Wake Turbulence is certainly a possibility. The aircraft in entering its last turn exhibits an instability in roll that could be Wake Turbulence induced, but consider that for the instability to remain uncorrected points instead to the inherent instability of this a/c at speed. WT is a fleeting event, it flies its own path, and it does not conform to the flight path of the following a/c.

Was the Ghost In/Out of W/T? If the procuring cause of the upset, it is unlikely to have remained in the Ghosts path, and the upset/crash was a result of the initial snap Left, whether a broken tab, overcontrol, W/T, or STALL.

On the back straight, Ghost descends and levels, reaching its likely maximum speed in the circuit. The turn imparts high G force and the turn tightens as Leeward rolls to ~80 degrees.

Ghost is in passing mode, flat out, and the psyche is powerful. I think 177 is as tight to this pylon as any in the circuit, and loss of control at its most susceptible.

Roll Rate on this a/c is rapid, far higher than the factory model with ten feet less span. Similarly, the ailerons are half length, and it would be interesting to know if they were clipped Out/In, or In/Out. This is critical, since ailerons are airfoils, and subject to STALL just as any other.

So, maximum velocity, roll rate; minimum wing, aileron. Test Flight.

Aileron Drag
1st Oct 2011, 19:22
Am I alone in being transported back in time to lectures in aerodynamics by Lyman's posts?

All good stuff, but 'Granny', 'sucking', and 'eggs' come to mind.:)

Lyman
1st Oct 2011, 19:28
Sorry, I thought I was focusing on the failures, not the basics.

Won't happen again.

Where do you make the 'Pop', Drag?

Is there a specific audience to address?

Mark1234
1st Oct 2011, 22:03
I don't buy the whole aileron induced stall-flick. It's going to take an almighty pull and a lot of G to get close to the stall flat out, clipped wings or not. Running figures conservatively, a 130mph Vs would give at least 14G to get a stall at 500mph - you don't accidentally pull 14G because you got a bit excited rounding a pylon! Alternatively, at 5G, the stall would be a smidge under 300mph. To put it another way, if the clipped wings were going to put it that close to a stall they wouldn't be clipped. Flying around on the back of the drag curve isn't fast.

The video really isn't that clear, half the artefacts could be down to the camera.

The underside of the wing will see pretty much the same pressure even if you stall - the separation of airflow is from the top surface. No reason for the bottom skin to 'balloon'. I don't see any nose drop either, I see the aircraft react to the lift vector being turned further round towards the ground. No real visible yaw either, and any yaw generated by an asymmetric stall will tend to perpetuate the condition, not recover it. Nor do I see the torsion, but flicks do exert a tremendous load on the tail feathers.

I also think it's a little presumptuous to claim the roll rate is higher than standard, it may or may not be: the clipped wing will aid roll, but the ailerons are tiny compared to the original where they go to the end of the wing - so there's 10 foot less aileron too.

Trim was most likely nose down (the earlier posted photo from another flight supports that), or at least we can say that at high speed the a/c would have required a significant nose down input.

WRT the Oil Canning: Assuming the photo is from the same flight, it is significantly before the incident - because it is on the right side (which is pointed to the sky mid turn), and the tailwheel is stowed. Interesting, but I don't know what it means, if anything.

I don't really want to make guesses, but my money's on a trim failure precipitating the wobble. The pick up of the left wing was probably completely instinctive, whatever caused it, and probably the last deliberate action in the aeroplane.

xmh53wrench
2nd Oct 2011, 02:54
Dont know how else to make folks aware of these pictures, they are pretty incredible

Ghost photo w/out trimtab - Page 12 - Aviation Airshow Air Race Photography Discussion (http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?t=9271&page=12)

post 114


Ok, I realize I'm new here so I hope I'm not overstepping. Nevermind my lack of knowledge regarding all of this. But here it goes. About three days ago I sat down and did my version of a timeline/order of events based on the slow-mo video. Alot of what you folks have said have really proven what I was thinking. But I have a few questions, observations and personal theories on a few things.
a. Regarding the pics of the oil canned fuselage, I remember the original post, but I'll be if I can find it again....I believe it was taken in the VOS, and I personally think that it may be somewhat normal for GG as I have seen another photo with it from 2010 and without the scoop for support, who knows what effect that had on that area.
b. I have noticed on various other videos GG heading into turns and really looking unstable, is this a function of its tiny ailerons?
c. I am also of the opinion that he was really stretching her legs down the VOS that last time, and wonder just what kind of G's were experienced in 7 and 8 vs. what he had experienced before.
d. I also wonder what are the chances that he was reaching a very critical stage of GLOC (probably not the right term at this point) just as the a/c goes wings vert by cutting a tight corner over 8. And his completely natural instincts took over for a split second to right the a/c, but in the process over corrected and inadvertantly over pulled the mayday manuver putting himself completely out.
e. I subscribe to the pushing him down in the cockpit thus displacing the control stick forward and to the right, and thus commanding the a/c to come out of its climb and roll to the right.
f. Now, in the slow-mo I hear a click....is this the mystery pop....maybe the math wizards out there can guesstimate based on distance, time vs. sound when exactly that pop occurred during the sequence.
g. Does anybody else see vapor below the wings during the initial wing vert and what I consider a slight climb (even though the a/c is 90 degree to the ground it still appears as a climb to me based on the a/c taking on what appears to me as more positive G's.......or is it just reflection?
d. Now for my big question....with the exception of the somewhat level flight in the VOS....why would these a/c require so much nose down trim. To my totally untrained way of thinking that some of this nose up tendency would be beneficial during their long banking turns, it would really give the a/c a feeling of digging into the turn. But that said I have seen a pic of GG with that poor little tab really up in the airstream, also what would the purpose be of not using both, I would think that would put a great deal of torsional stress on the entire elevator system.

OK....mods delete away if need be, or feel free to scold me through a pm. As I said before I dreamed, built, babied, and raced my own cars for 20 years (the dreaming part started when I was 6.....a lonnngggg time ago) so I understand a bit of the mechanical part of this and certainly the competitive aspect of this, although I would never have the scrotal fortitude to do what these cowboys do.

Thanks for your patience with this book of a post. That airplane was just plain sexy....maybe too sexy

Lyman
2nd Oct 2011, 14:31
Mark1234

I posted a theory earlier that presumed Tab failure causation. This is all conjectural, and if it reads a little too conclusively, my bad.

Earlier on, prior to the snap left, a slight roll is seen to the right. This could result from the loss of Trim Integrity on the left side, as the Tail twisted rightward. This torsion would oil can the fuse in the manner seen, whether the photo is concurrent the upset or no.

The reaction of the pilot would be to roll left, and without knowing his Roll datum, in the circuit, it is not possible to index pilot input from here on.

With an ineffective Tab (it was still attached) and its drag, it wouldn't cause the LOC on its own, imo. But it would certainly instigate some input from Leeward, and well, no one I know has ever been there.......

regards, Bill

Machinbird
2nd Oct 2011, 19:49
http://home.comcast.net/~shademaker/GLOC-Threshold.jpg
The above chart is taken from this paper http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/voshell/gforce.pdf
The chart shows a typical person's response to sudden g application and what warning might be available of impending loss of consciousness.

Terminology note: I am using the term grayout to describe the loss of the complete visual field without unconsciousness, and the term blackout to describe unconsciousness. They are the terms I remember from my initial training many years ago.

The red line shows a rapid g onset to a high sustained g level resulting in blackout without warning in a few seconds.
The yellow line shows a high pulse g load decreasing to zero g without causing either visual effect or blackout.
The green line shows a slower g application resulting in visual effects after a few seconds(collapse of the visual field to a tunnel) flollowed by grayout and blackout.
And the blue line shows a substantial period of no symptoms followed by visual effects and finally blackout.

In the GG accident, It appears the extremely high g commences in the left bank and within 1.5 seconds, the right roll rate during the pull up commences, probably indicating GLOC.
The pilot of Voodoo Chile is reported to have debriefed his experience as follows:

...coming down for the start he had unlocked the inertia reel to reach for a switch on the instrument panel...and then forgot to lock it again. After the pitch up, he found himself (in his own words) with his hands on the sandpaper (the floorboard) and the stick stuck between his helmet and shoulder, literally doubled-over in the cockpit.

The pictures showing Jimmy Leeward "missing in the cockpit" probably indicate that he too had his shoulder harness reel unlocked.

Lyman
3rd Oct 2011, 01:21
Machinbird

From the graph, and counting real time, Leeward was fully 5 seconds into some raunchy pull. With the g telemetry it should be known when he had the most likelihood of passing out.

It isn't unreasonable to consider he passed out and bitched up the stick, Rudder prior to the wobble, snap.

Machinbird
3rd Oct 2011, 01:41
It isn't unreasonable to consider he passed out and bitched up the stick, Rudder prior to the wobble, snap.

I gather you don't have much experience pulling g.
Your theory has little relevance to someone who has practice in pulling g.
Additionally, your theory is missing a causative factor for the pitch up.

Lyman
3rd Oct 2011, 03:24
You are the one Pitching a theory that the Pitch UP was caused by aerodynamically set controls, and was uncommanded. Have you changed your mind? Because it fits with an incapacitated pilot early on.

I'm watching an a/c at ~5 g for five seconds, look at your own graph and consider my post again?

If you prefer, call it 3.5 for the same five seconds. Jimmy Leeward was 74 yoa. His circulatory system likewise was 74, and no g suit to keep 02 in his noggin, instead of puddling in his legs. Experience in pulling G may not have compensated for the Physics involved here.

Machinbird
3rd Oct 2011, 04:07
Lyman, With experience and if I was flying, I could pull 5 g without a g suit for a minute, or 6+ g for a minute with the 'speed jeans' on.

Jimmy Leeward was experienced and he was flying. Older isn't always disadvantageous. If he had slight hypertension, he could withstand higher g than a 'young puppy'. What matters was how well he used his muscles to keep blood where he needed it.

You still haven't explained how the trim tab failure could occur as a result of pilot incapacitation, whereas, if the trim tab loses integrity it is no longer providing nose down trim and we already have an example event that shows 10+ g can result. That is sufficient for prompt GLOC.

deSitter
3rd Oct 2011, 04:47
I don't know what the great mystery here is. He's got roll instability that the other non-modified Mustang does not. He chopped up this airplane and it didn't fly like it should have. Are we surprised? No.

-drl