P-51 versus Malibu M600
I hate to think what requirements there would be today for someone to sit on the wing of a taxying taildragger.
You'd at least need hi-viz pants as well as top, a 'proper' seat and four-point harness, and be fully qualified in semaphore. If the wing was more than 2ft above ground level you'd also have to use a scissor lift to get up there since ladders are no longer appropriate for anything in the workplace....
However blue up's suggestion of a camera is reasonably achievable, although I agree with ATC Watcher that the spinner would not be the best place for it (safety issues again - could cause a neck injury trying to watch the result
I've no experience in a P51 but I wonder if a small camera mounted inside the cockpit at the top of the screen would have sufficient field of vision? This would avoid any issues with externally mounting something to the fuselage or wing, and it should be possible to utilise wireless in order to stream the video to a tablet or 'phone.
Not wanting to excuse lack of basic skills such as weaving etc, but the ergonomics are terrible and if modern tech can save machines (and possibly lives) it's worth considering how it might best be achieved.
FP.
You'd at least need hi-viz pants as well as top, a 'proper' seat and four-point harness, and be fully qualified in semaphore. If the wing was more than 2ft above ground level you'd also have to use a scissor lift to get up there since ladders are no longer appropriate for anything in the workplace....
However blue up's suggestion of a camera is reasonably achievable, although I agree with ATC Watcher that the spinner would not be the best place for it (safety issues again - could cause a neck injury trying to watch the result
I've no experience in a P51 but I wonder if a small camera mounted inside the cockpit at the top of the screen would have sufficient field of vision? This would avoid any issues with externally mounting something to the fuselage or wing, and it should be possible to utilise wireless in order to stream the video to a tablet or 'phone.Not wanting to excuse lack of basic skills such as weaving etc, but the ergonomics are terrible and if modern tech can save machines (and possibly lives) it's worth considering how it might best be achieved.
FP.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Thread Starter
That was at Bex - a very small strip - in 1978; the Dutch Harvard taxied onto the runway as Pete Thorn started rolling for take off - as I recall he got the tail up, saw the Harvard but it was too late to avoid/stop and they collided head on. Fair bit of damage to both airframes, Spit V was rebuilt, I believe the Harvard is presently being restored after many years in storage.
(Edit: In the past Discorde has very kindly provide links to some of the late Neil Williams' articles from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex! )
(Edit: In the past Discorde has very kindly provide links to some of the late Neil Williams' articles from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex! )
That was at Bex - a very small strip - in 1978; the Dutch Harvard taxied onto the runway as Pete Thorn started rolling for take off - as I recall he got the tail up, saw the Harvard but it was too late to avoid/stop and they collided head on. Fair bit of damage to both airframes, Spit V was rebuilt, I believe the Harvard is presently being restored after many years in storage.
(Edit: In the past Discorde has very kindly provide links to some of the late Neil Williams' articles from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex! )
(Edit: In the past Discorde has very kindly provide links to some of the late Neil Williams' articles from Shell Aviation News - herewith his tale of operating a Spitfire from Bex! )
We expect the lowliest students in a cub to taxi with S turns to clear ahead. It seems very odd that we would not expect a P-51 pilot to keep their eyes outside and do the same.
Alternatively, we could convert them all to nosewheel configuration. That would improve forward visibility and other safety benefits.
Alternatively, we could convert them all to nosewheel configuration. That would improve forward visibility and other safety benefits.
Currently there seems to be a Royal Flying Corps/parachutes mentality to doing anything about this ongoing problem of long nosed aircraft and blind spots.
A parking camera and screen can be bought for £20 these days. There numerous places a camera could be fitted; it doesn't need to be on the centreline; in the landing light fairing, on the undercarriage leg, on the front of the tailwheel leg, in the gun port as Piper Driver suggested is a good one. None of these locations are perfect, but all are worth a try. The cameras are tiny, it could be in its own blister fairing if needs be, that way it would be available throughout the flight.
Maybe Genghis the Engineer could persuade one of his students to do the research and trials for their thesis?
A parking camera and screen can be bought for £20 these days. There numerous places a camera could be fitted; it doesn't need to be on the centreline; in the landing light fairing, on the undercarriage leg, on the front of the tailwheel leg, in the gun port as Piper Driver suggested is a good one. None of these locations are perfect, but all are worth a try. The cameras are tiny, it could be in its own blister fairing if needs be, that way it would be available throughout the flight.
Maybe Genghis the Engineer could persuade one of his students to do the research and trials for their thesis?
One of the outboard gun positions would be better, or in the case of P-51 only, on one of the landing lights for ground use and on top of the radiator inlet when airborne.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameras : Feasible, yes , but not that simple. I do not know what you can or cannot do in the USA with a certified historic aircraft, but in EASA Europe no way you can add a cheap camera where you want. You need an STC and the costs of getting it could be very high for so few airframes.. Even a portable one inside the cockpit is not a good idea if you plan to do some aerobatics with it
An anecdote: Airbus , at the request of their customers has considered adding 2 cameras in the wing tips of their A380s for taxying help. the costs of recertifying this for so few airframes was huge and it was abandoned.
An anecdote: Airbus , at the request of their customers has considered adding 2 cameras in the wing tips of their A380s for taxying help. the costs of recertifying this for so few airframes was huge and it was abandoned.
Moderator
I have STC approved a number of cameras on aircraft, it's not that big a deal. One of them saved us from a one gear up landing in the DC-3T once, as we used the camera for its unintended use of visually checking the right gear, and seeing a ski check cable snagged in the axle. with the camera, we got it unsnagged, and the gear down. That said, the cameras I have approved were intended for use in flight, rather than taxiing. It would concern me the distraction of eyes out/eyes in looking at a camera while taxiing. Eyes out is by far the most important, for obvious reasons!
There are times I decline to approve something, or restrict its use, not because of the system itself, but rather how it may be used, and create a distraction for the pilot at a critical time - a camera for taxiing in a single pilot airplane is in this realm if consideration.
There are times I decline to approve something, or restrict its use, not because of the system itself, but rather how it may be used, and create a distraction for the pilot at a critical time - a camera for taxiing in a single pilot airplane is in this realm if consideration.
During WW2, UK fighters had cameras which operated when the guns fired, to record hits (or otherwise). Where were those cameras sited? Would be a good location for a taxying camera (and historically more accurate). A weight on wheels switch could be used to turn the camera off when in flight, to avoid distraction of the pilot. To be able to see forward when taxying would seem to me to be a very useful ability.
There are plenty of other in-flight instances when the benefit of awareness outweighs the risk of distraction.
There is a massive difference between a commercial aircraft, expected to fly for 30 years in all climates and temperatures, with the commercial risks associated with a Minimum Equipment List item (assuming it was) going unserviceable, and an aircraft flying largely for display purposes in benign conditions.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your other remark on the A380, fully agree. 2 different worlds. I just use this as an example on the costs of certifying what sometime looks very simple and easy.
If it were me, I would want any help I could get to see hidden aircraft. An empty sky only tells the pilot where they are not.
